What would make you trust Microsoft?

noauth · External Since: Nov 08, 2009 Posts: 2

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=5216&tag=content;col1

Uhmmm...nothing...AT ALL!

The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
pseudorandom number generation which reduces the keyspace. That alone
is one of the reasons I believe this will never come to pass. Ussually
the explanation is that some parts of the code belong to someone else
so they can't release it.

We all know Microsoft will NEVER open-source their products unless it's
a last-ditch attempt to regain some crediblity after they've faded from
relevance. There were quite a few products which died whose source-code
was never released, so the chances of this happening are very slim
indeed.

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2707

In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24.DeleteThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
noauth <anon.DeleteThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and

People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.

--
--Tim Smith

user · External Since: Aug 14, 2005 Posts: 1361

Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Tim Smith
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:

>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>
> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.

People but not you.

I have checked, and just sniffing with wire shark alone tells
you the hidden portions OS and its back doors are up to no good.

At times micoshaft have been caught sending entire signature
of your hard disk AND ITS CONTENTS.

You are certainly a first class liar and apologist for micoshaft
corporation.

--
C.O.L.A Charter:-
"For discussion of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to other
operating systems."

noauth · External Since: Nov 08, 2009 Posts: 2

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group.RemoveThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-48889D.23084307112009@news.supernews.com...
> In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24.RemoveThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
> noauth <anon.RemoveThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>
> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.
>

I simply refuse to believe that since infiltration by means of
computers is a much too powerful weapon not to have. It's not a
coincidence that the U.S. intelligence agencies are fighting (and
warning the government of) the takeup of Linux since they know it will
become nigh impossible for them to break into foreign govermment
systems if these use Linux.

John Fuhrer · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 76

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:43:39 +0100 (CET), noauth wrote:

> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group.TakeThisOut@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:reply_in_group-48889D.23084307112009@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24.TakeThisOut@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
>> noauth <anon.TakeThisOut@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>>
>> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.
>>
>
> I simply refuse to believe that since infiltration by means of
> computers is a much too powerful weapon not to have. It's not a
> coincidence that the U.S. intelligence agencies are fighting (and
> warning the government of) the takeup of Linux since they know it will
> become nigh impossible for them to break into foreign govermment
> systems if these use Linux.

Are you an idiot or something?

Take China's Red Flag Linux....
The official Communist Linux distribution of the state.

You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that the China govt did
not "adapt" the source code to fit their needs....

Real easy under Linux.

Not so easy under Windows.

It works both ways you know....

Joe User · External Since: Nov 10, 2009 Posts: 1

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24 DeleteThis @remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
> noauth <anon DeleteThis @remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>
> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.

Back in the mid-90s when I was using Windows 95, I was also on a modem.
One night I was up particularly late, and I noticed my modem lights
blinking after I had done nothing on the computer for at least a half
hour. It went on for a few minutes and then stopped.

After that, I noticed it a few more times, and I got suspicious enough to
find and use a sniffer. I found that there was something on my computer
linking up to some IP address that resolved to a Microsoft-owned site.
It was sending something that I was never able to identify. I don't know
if it was encrypted.

I didn't give Microsoft permission to phone home or send anything from my
computer to its servers, but they were doing it anyway. It's what led to
my looking for an alternative, which turned out to be Linux (Slackware in
those days).

Microsoft has always been dirty, underhanded, generally despicable and
often criminal. I'd be surprised if they haven't built backdoors into
every version of Windows since '95.

John Fuhrer · External Since: Nov 03, 2009 Posts: 76

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:05:48 GMT, Joe User wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24.RemoveThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
>> noauth <anon.RemoveThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>>
>> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.
>
> Back in the mid-90s when I was using Windows 95, I was also on a modem.
> One night I was up particularly late, and I noticed my modem lights
> blinking after I had done nothing on the computer for at least a half
> hour. It went on for a few minutes and then stopped.
>
> After that, I noticed it a few more times, and I got suspicious enough to
> find and use a sniffer. I found that there was something on my computer
> linking up to some IP address that resolved to a Microsoft-owned site.
> It was sending something that I was never able to identify. I don't know
> if it was encrypted.
>
> I didn't give Microsoft permission to phone home or send anything from my
> computer to its servers, but they were doing it anyway. It's what led to
> my looking for an alternative, which turned out to be Linux (Slackware in
> those days).
>
> Microsoft has always been dirty, underhanded, generally despicable and
> often criminal. I'd be surprised if they haven't built backdoors into
> every version of Windows since '95.

You think you didn't do whatever, but you did....
Somewhere along the line, you authorized it.
Maybe it was convoluted, confusing etc, but the point is you said yes
somewhere.

Point is, nobody has been able to prove these allegations.

Ezekiel · External Since: Jul 03, 2009 Posts: 75

"Joe User" <youknow.DeleteThis@where.com> wrote in message
news:wE5Km.14265$de6.11372@newsfe21.iad...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24.DeleteThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
>> noauth <anon.DeleteThis@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>>
>> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.
>
> Back in the mid-90s when I was using Windows 95, I was also on a modem.
> One night I was up particularly late, and I noticed my modem lights
> blinking after I had done nothing on the computer for at least a half
> hour. It went on for a few minutes and then stopped.
>
> After that, I noticed it a few more times, and I got suspicious enough to
> find and use a sniffer. I found that there was something on my computer
> linking up to some IP address that resolved to a Microsoft-owned site.
> It was sending something that I was never able to identify. I don't know
> if it was encrypted.
>
> I didn't give Microsoft permission to phone home or send anything from my
> computer to its servers, but they were doing it anyway. It's what led to
> my looking for an alternative, which turned out to be Linux (Slackware in
> those days).
>
> Microsoft has always been dirty, underhanded, generally despicable and
> often criminal. I'd be surprised if they haven't built backdoors into
> every version of Windows since '95.

Let's see... security experts, network experts and people who are able to
reverse engineer the OS have yet to find any sort of "back-door" or "phone
home" behavior in Windows. But some usenet nym calling himself "Joe User"
claims that it happened to him in the mid-90's. Hmmmmm... who to believe -
credible people who know what they're doing or some usenet nym? Gee..
that's a tough one.

Hadron · External Since: Dec 05, 2006 Posts: 495

Joe User <youknow RemoveThis @where.com> writes:

> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:08:43 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <8cd495c4a1db7e3575d857b741755e24 RemoveThis @remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>,
>> noauth <anon RemoveThis @remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> The article is purely hypothetical and therefore inconsequential, but
>>> they could start by open-sourcing ALL their code, so people can check
>>> for backdoors of which I'm convinced exist, broken encryption and
>>
>> People have checked for those backdoors, and found they don't exist.
>
> Back in the mid-90s when I was using Windows 95, I was also on a modem.
> One night I was up particularly late, and I noticed my modem lights
> blinking after I had done nothing on the computer for at least a half
> hour. It went on for a few minutes and then stopped.
>
> After that, I noticed it a few more times, and I got suspicious enough to
> find and use a sniffer. I found that there was something on my computer
> linking up to some IP address that resolved to a Microsoft-owned site.
> It was sending something that I was never able to identify. I don't know
> if it was encrypted.
>
> I didn't give Microsoft permission to phone home or send anything from my
> computer to its servers, but they were doing it anyway. It's what led to
> my looking for an alternative, which turned out to be Linux (Slackware in
> those days).
>
> Microsoft has always been dirty, underhanded, generally despicable and
> often criminal. I'd be surprised if they haven't built backdoors into
> every version of Windows since '95.

I dont believe a word of it.

And neither does anyone else. It was probably scheduled updates (did
they even exist back then? I cant remember).