07.31.08
With Microsoft, ‘Security’ Is Code for ‘Monopoly’
Bruce Schneier: With iPhone, ‘Security’ Is Code for ‘Control’
A couple of readers have asked us to cover what initially seemed like old news. Slashdot picked it up some hours ago, the the story appears to have been reborn. It’s about Microsoft treating GNU/Linux on a dual-boot system like it’s garbage, throwing it away under the guise and excuse which is “security”.
One reader writes: “I just spotted this piece of news. The war Redmond is waging against GNU/Linux intensifies. […] I’m sure they will ridiculously attempt to justify this step for security reasons (but what best security measure than running a virus-resilient OS instead of windows in order to perform a sensitive task with safety than having a dual boot system - for example for online banking or to recover data from a windows partition after suffering a winOS crash-).”
Two similar examples where Microsoft used “security” to battle competition include:
- Blocking of access to old file types due to so-called “security issues”. Why fix some undisclosed flaws when you can force an upgrade (more revenue)? Is OOXML really more secure or is it somewhat of a back door?
- Then there’s the story about Microsoft trying to block virtualisation (of GNU/Linux of course) using a EULA, thus putting limitations also on the BIOS. Microsoft’s excuse was “security”, but antitrust interference had them give up the charade. It remains to be seen how it ends up.
At the moment, almost 1 in 2 Windows PCs is a zombie PC. When Microsoft speaks of dual-boot, i.e. GNU/Linux, as a security hazard (as opposed to ActiveX, back doors, and other cracker- or government-friendly ‘facilities’), one can hardly keep a straight face.
Politicians typically use words like “paedophiles” and “terrorists” to justify radical action or modification of the law. Microsoft too uses the same tactics, but it uses the word “security”. While there may be an element of truth sometimes, don’t believe it for a second. It’s a case of cutting off an entire limb because of a bad fingertip or toe tip. It’s opportunistic. █
“Really, I’m not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.”
–Linus Torvalds
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.
Needs Sunlight said,
July 31, 2008 at 7:48 am
Also, “security” is being used to ban IMAP and other open protocols from LANs where quislings/moles have gained influence or outright control. “Security” is being used as an excuse to remove non-MS competition like Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird, Mulberry, and others.
Also in LANs where quislings/moles have gained influence or outright control, so-called Firewalls are used to promote VPNs incapable of either providing a secure environment or running on modern operating systems. The ensuing chaos wastes valuable resources, stresses non-IT staff to breaking, and effectively locks out all modern (read: non MS) systems from any infrastructure that might be left.