DEV Community

Discussion on: Microsoft is absolutely at fault for WannaCry

Collapse
 
bbirdiman profile image
bowerbird

microsoft has backdoors for the n.s.a.

so do all of the other big corporations.

it is not an "accident" or "poor coding".

you don't need to look for explanations.

it is a considered, intentional decision,
its purpose being to curry official favor.

(do you know how costly and unpleasant
it can be to go against the government?
backdoors are a bribe that must be paid
for a corporation to become a behemoth.)

-bowerbird

Collapse
 
antoinette0x53 profile image
Antoinette Maria

Okay let's not get all tin foil hat here. The NSA employs hackers to track and document zero days, as does Google (they just report them). It is dangerous to even begin to suggest or imply that large corporations intentionally leave their software or systems vulnerable to the government without any substantial proof/evidence. This is especially careless since many large tech organizations have repeatedly stated their positions on this topic and are on record as fighting this type of action.

Collapse
 
bbirdiman profile image
bowerbird

you can believe whatever you want to.

and even cast "tin foil hat" aspersions.

but we have now actually witnessed the
uncovering of many widespread actions
on the part of our government to spy on
a wide array of private citizens; so if you
say backdoors are outlandish, who cares?

tracking has been built deep in the guts
of our computers since the earliest days,
with and without the complicit knowledge
of the hardware and software companies.

the public protestations of those companies
is a charade they are compelled to construct,
for the sake of covering up their butts so that
shareholders won't suffer if the truth gets out.

note that i'm not even saying it's a bad thing.
there are arguments in support of both sides.
(including a risk that bad guys will find them.)

but if you think there are no backdoors being
placed intentionally, i think that you are naive.

-bowerbird

Thread Thread
 
antoinette0x53 profile image
Antoinette Maria

And yet...you have no proof to back up your claims.

Thread Thread
 
bbirdiman profile image
bowerbird

and you're completely correct that
i have absolutely no proof. none!

and if i were to have the slightest bit,
any at all, i would promptly "lose" it.

since that's the kind of stuff
that can and will get you killed
if you're not part of the plot.

whether or not you wear a tin-foil hat.

-bowerbird

Thread Thread
 
maxart2501 profile image
Massimo Artizzu

if you think there are no backdoors being placed intentionally, i think that you are naive.

Look, you either know something, or you don't. If it's the former, it would be great if you could explain; if it's the former, you're the one being naive, believing in things with no proof supporting them.

Windows' code is being constantly combed by security experts all around the world and bugs have been constantly found and eventually patched. It's pretty normal. So normal that I find way easier to believe that the NSA just hogged those bugs for themselves rather than forcing an unwilling Microsoft to create holes for them... and in exchange of what, exactly?

At Microsoft's they well know that there's no such thing as a backdoor for the "good guys" only.

Thread Thread
 
bbirdiman profile image
bowerbird

two months ago, nobody had "proof" of this backdoor.
except the government (for sure), and maybe microsoft.

now we "blame" microsoft because "it should've known",
and further, shouldn't have built its software so shoddily.

even though its code was "being constantly combed by
security experts around the world", who missed this hole.

speaking of swiss cheese, this line of arguments qualifies.

and thus has become too tedious to proceed.

please believe whatever you need to believe.

i know what i think.

-bowerbird

Thread Thread
 
maxart2501 profile image
Massimo Artizzu

I think nobody with a minimal understanding of software development thinks Microsoft "should have known" - bugs happen, unbeknown to their developers, period. And blaming Microsoft for having developed SMB the way it did is also generally disagreed with, because it doesn't take historic reasons into account.

As far as it's not religion, what I believe must be supported by facts. Otherwise I don't believe and even less I speak. Yet you speak while providing no facts. I have no idea why you think it's reasonable.

Thread Thread
 
bbirdiman profile image
bowerbird

so you disagree with this article's point. that's fine.

but the government knew about this vulnerability.

so, what you believe is that the government knows more about microsoft's code than microsoft itself, more than the programmers who wrote that code.

and you believe the government explicitly decided not to inform microsoft about its code's deficiency.

who knows? you might be right. i certainly don't know.

but you don't have any more "proof" for your position than i have for mine, and it's disingenuous to imply so.

i think it's far more likely that both the government and microsoft knew about this hole in the fence, and rather than patch it, they decided to monitor it closely instead, to catch any bad guys who might try to slip through it... (and yes, use it themselves, also to catch the bad guys.)

of course, once the hole was widely known to the public, and thus garden-variety criminals, they had to patch it.

but up until that time, it was more useful as a honeypot.

and once you see a "vulnerability" can be used this way, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to propose that you introduce a few of them, or a few dozen, as tools...

but, of course, you'd have to be very careful to not leave any "proof" that you'd done that. and you would have to publicly disavow such efforts, and have plausible deniability. maybe even have a law that you are not allowed to admit it. you could call it a "national security letter", or some such.

and now i doff my tin-foil hat to all of you, and exit...

but again, please believe whatever you need to believe.

-bowerbird