Beltejuse

;-)

Peace,
Colm.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jarvis, Robert P. (Contingent)" <Jarvisb at timken.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Computering] The Death of TCP/IP


> Postulating Microsoft == Borg, one must ask
> 
> Where do you want to be assimilated today..?
> 
> Bob Jarvis
> Compuware @ Timken
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Szuhay [mailto:jeff at szuhay.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 2:02 PM
> > To: Squeak Public Maliing List
> > Subject: [Computering] The Death of TCP/IP
> > 
> > 
> > Forgive me for posting this here, yet I came across this
> > article which is so plausible yet so monumentally horrifying
> > that it deserves consideration. You may also want to consider
> > Bob's several previous posts on MS and Security.
> > 
> > The internet _will_ have a
> > toll booth, and MS will be the onc collecting <shudder>.
> > 
> >  article URL: <http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802.html>
> > 
> > The Death of TCP/IP
> > Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over
> > By Robert X. Cringely
> > 
> > "As events of the last several weeks have shown, Microsoft Windows, 
> > e-mail and the Internet create the perfect breeding ground for virus 
> > attacks. They don't even have to exploit Windows flaws to be 
> > effective. 
> > Any Visual BASIC programmer with a good understanding of how Windows 
> > works can write a virus. All that is needed is a cleverly titled file 
> > attachment payload, and almost anyone can be induced to open it, 
> > spreading 
> > the contagion. It is too darned easy to create these programs 
> > that can do
> > billions in damage. ..."
> > 
> > some exercpts:
> > 
> > "The wonder of all these Internet security problems is that they are 
> > continually labeled as "e-mail viruses" or "Internet worms," 
> > rather than 
> > the more correct designation of "Windows viruses" or 
> > "Microsoft Outlook 
> > viruses." It is to the credit of the Microsoft public 
> > relations team that 
> > Redmond has somehow escaped blame, because nearly all the 
> > data security 
> > problems of recent years have been Windows-specific, taking 
> > advantage of 
> > the glaring security loopholes that exist in these Microsoft 
> > products. 
> > If it were not for Microsoft's carefully worded user license 
> > agreement, 
> > which holds the company blameless for absolutely anything, they would 
> > probably have been awash in class action lawsuits by now."
> > 
> > and,
> > 
> > "And now, we have the impending release of Windows XP, and 
> > its problem of 
> > raw TCP/IP socket exposure. As I detailed two weeks ago, XP 
> > is the first 
> > home version of Windows to allow complete access to TCP/IP 
> > sockets, which 
> > can be exploited by viruses to do all sorts of damage. 
> > Windows XP uses 
> > essentially the same TCP/IP software as Windows 2000, except that XP 
> > lacks 2000's higher-level security features. In order to be backward 
> > compatible 
> > with applications written for Windows 95, 98, and ME, Windows 
> > XP allows 
> > any application full access to raw sockets.
> > 
> > "This is dangerous."
> > 
> > furthermore,
> > 
> > "According to these programmers, Microsoft wants to replace 
> > TCP/IP with 
> > a proprietary protocol -- a protocol owned by Microsoft -- 
> > that it will 
> > tout as being more secure. Actually, the new protocol would likely be 
> > TCP/IP with some of the reserved fields used as pointers to 
> > proprietary 
> > extensions, quite similar to Vines IP, if you remember that 
> > product from 
> > Banyan Systems. I'll call it TCP/MS.
> > 
> > "How do you push for the acceptance of a new protocol? First, 
> > make the 
> > old one unworkable by placing millions of exploitable TCP/IP 
> > stacks out 
> > on the Net, ready-to-use by any teenage sociopath. When the Net slows 
> > or crashes, the blame would not be assigned to Microsoft. 
> > Then ship the 
> > new protocol with every new copy of Windows, and install it 
> > with every 
> > Windows Update over the Internet. Zero to 100 million copies 
> > could happen 
> > in less than a year, and that year could be prior to the new protocol 
> > even 
> > being announced. It could be shipping right now.
> > 
> > "Suppose you are a typical firm that also has some 
> > non-Microsoft servers. 
> > You will want to use this new protocol between your Microsoft and non-
> > Microsoft servers. Microsoft could charge Sun millions to put 
> > TCP/MS on 
> > their systems. Microsoft can promise open support, but make it 
> > financially 
> > impractical. Then use it in a marketing attack against competitors. 
> > Zero-Footprint network drivers, ODBC, and MAPI are examples 
> > of Microsoft 
> > "open" standards that took years for non-Microsoft firms to 
> > use. Almost 
> > anyone who would have wanted to use these open standards has 
> > been driven 
> > out of business. "
> > 
> > and finally, (here's the horror)
> > 
> > "MS/TCP will ostensibly be a solution to the problems businesses are 
> > having 
> > with the Internet. It will assign priorities to packets. It 
> > will insure 
> > that 
> > all connections and packets can be traced, authenticated, and 
> > monitored. 
> > And since all these connections to the Internet have to be 
> > authenticated 
> > to someone, it will likely be hooked into a credit card or 
> > some sort of 
> > account, from which Microsoft can extract its price as the 
> > gatekeeper for 
> > the authentication via Hailstorm, Passport and .NET.
> > 
> > "But how will this stop the "I just e-mailed you a virus" 
> > problem? How 
> > does 
> > this stop my personal information being sucked out of my PC 
> > via cookies? 
> > It won't. Solving those particular problems is not the 
> > protocol's real 
> > purpose, which is to increase Microsoft's market share. It is 
> > a marketing 
> > concept that will be sold as the solution to a problem. It 
> > won't really 
> > work."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> >    **************************************************
> >    Jeff Szuhay              A randomly-directed 
> >    www.szuhay.org           chaotical wetware pattern 
> >    jeff at szuhay.org          recognizer/generator. 
> > 
> > 
> >    "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like 
> >    a knight in shining armour to lead all customers 
> >    out of a mire of technological chaos neatly 
> >    ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling
> >    second-rate technology, led them into it in the 
> >    first place."
> >                  -Douglas Adams, on Windows '95
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>