The US government looks poised to force tech companies to do more about security:
The US government, worried about the continuing growth of cybercrime, ransomware, and countries including Russia, Iran, and North Korea hacking into government and private networks, is in the middle of drastically changing its cybersecurity strategy. No longer will it rely largely on prodding businesses and tech companies to voluntarily take basic security measures such as patching vulnerable systems to keep them updated.
Instead, it now wants to establish baseline security requirements for businesses and tech companies and to fine those that don't comply.
It's not just companies that use the systems who might eventually need to abide by the regulations. Companies that make and sell them, such as Microsoft, Apple, and others could be held accountable as well. Early indications are that the feds already have Microsoft in their crosshairs — they've warned the company that, at the moment, it doesn't appear to be up to the task.
[...] In theory, if those standards aren't met, fines would eventually be imposed. Glenn S. Gerstell, former general counsel of the National Security Agency, explained it this way to the Times: "In the cyberworld, we're finally saying that Ford is responsible for Pintos that burst into flames, because they didn't spend money on safety." That's a reference to the Ford Pinto frequently bursting into flames when rear-ended in the 1970s. That led to a spate of lawsuits and a ramp-up in federal auto safety regulations.
But cybersecurity requirements backed by fines aren't here yet. Dig into the new document and you'll find that because the new strategy is only a policy document, it doesn't have the bite of law behind it. For it to go fully into effect, two things need to happen. President Biden has to issue an executive order to enforce some of the requirements. And Congress needs to pass laws for the rest.
It's not clear when lawmakers might get around to moving on the issue, if ever, although Biden could issue an executive order for parts of it.
[...] So, what does all this have to do with Microsoft? Plenty. The feds have made clear they believe Microsoft has a long way to go before it meets basic cybersecurity recommendations. At least one top government security official has already publicly called out Microsoft for poor security practices.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly recently criticized the Microsoft during a speech at Carnegie Mellon University. She said that only about one-quarter of Microsoft enterprise customers use multifactor authentication, a number she called "disappointing." That might not sound like much of a condemnation, but remember, this is the federal government we're talking about. It parses its words very carefully. "Disappointing" to them is the equivalent of "terrible job" anywhere else.
[...] Even without laws and executive orders, the company could be in trouble. The US government spends billions of dollars on Microsoft systems and services every year, a revenue stream that could be endangered if Microsoft doesn't adhere to the standards.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 17, @12:26AM (6 children)
This should have happened around - ohhhhh - 1980, give or take five years?
Seriously, every *nix in existence was built from the ground up with security in mind. Microsoft ignored all security, allowing third parties to bolt on after market blowers and turbos and chrome wheels and various other pieces of shit, all of which robbed power from the machine. If MS had been forced to take security seriously all those decades ago, the world would be quite different from what we know today.
At the least, hackers would be better quality!
Don’t confuse the news with the truth.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday March 17, @02:12AM (5 children)
It's not that they allowed it - *NIXes are even more permissive.
It's that they didn't require permission from the user to do so. And more importantly, they made no attempt to make sure their own parts weren't more riddled with security holes than an ant colony in Swiss cheese.
You can bolt all the aftermarket crap you want to onto your car - but the stock components better not be a safety concern. The aftermarket component makers will be liable for any safety issues they introduce. And the mechanic will be liable for any safety issues caused by incompetent installation.
You are only liable if it's your own tweaks or irresponsible driving that caused the problem.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, @02:43AM (4 children)
I think it still holds. They're still mostly about the same in terms of security/insecurity. The attackers target what's popular.
Plenty of those wordpress etc hacks are on Linux systems. There are plenty of hackers finding and looking for Android exploits. Doubt most hackers would continue research exploits for "Windows Mobile" even though there are probably plenty.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by turgid on Friday March 17, @10:24AM (2 children)
From the fine paper, "Presented at the Third Nordic Workshop on Secure IT Systems, NORD-
SEC’98, 5-6 November, 1998, Trondheim, Norway."
A lot has happened since 1998. Also, remember that the Windows (NT) kernel and the entire Windows OS (kernel, userland, browsers, telemetry etc.) need to be considered. The Windows NT kernel, the foundation of modern Windows, was quite a good design at the time. It's what's on top that stinks more.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by Woodherd on Friday March 17, @11:26AM (1 child)
It is never too late to build security into your operating system, or to try to post hoc build some semblance of security in what you are selling as a toy operation system for toy Personal Computers, that will never be networked. I suspect the motivations of the grandparent post.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday March 17, @02:25PM
Absolutely. The people of Microsoft talk a load of rubbish. You have to read very carefully.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, @12:52PM
Uh huh. All the theory and academic bullshit in the world can't match reality.
If you need something to route packets for your network and your choices are...oh....Microsoft Windows Server 2022 and FreeBSD 13.1....which one would you pick to keep things secure?
If you need to accept mail into your network....are you going to run Microsoft Windows Server 2022 with IIS and Microsoft Exchange and Outlook Web Access with PowerShell and...you know...the XBox Live Toolbar that for some reason is installed by default on all their operating systems now? Or are you going to be more secure with...Linux or a BSD running something like Postfix and Dovecot with SSH running?
I can tell you that during the lifecycle of Exchange 2012, our mail server was compromised 8 separate times. With only SMTP, POP3, IMAP, and good AV client and the rest of the brain-damaged Exchange/Outlook bullshit installed.
We finally got the corporate OK to axe Microsoft bullshit and installed Postfix, Dovecot, and Roundcube. We've been running it for almost as long as we ran Exchange 2012....zero breaches.
I mean...I'll admit that Windows could totally be more secure...just not by default....and not in an environment where every goddamned person thinks they're an IT guy because they can do google-and-point-and-click admin with zero knowledge how the technologies work.
Oh, and it also doesn't work in an environment where businesses are concerned about money. "We need to upgrade to a newer version of Exchange. It'll cost fleventy billion dollars because we need to buy new hardware, new copies of Windows Server, new copies of Outlook, new permission slips called CALs to allow them to all talk and we need to train our IT point-and-click-bros how to use it, and we need support agreements....and....". Or you just get one slightly more expensive person to install software that's "free forever" with no licensing costs...