A rchive Date
[ 17-10-2003 ]
Category
[ Information Technologies ]
sub-Categoy
[ Microsoft ]
|
[http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,4248,1299054,00.asp
Much Ado About Windows
Everybody's a critic these days, when the topic is Windows security. But Big Blue has some interesting advice for Big Green and its customers.
By Mary Jo Foley
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Although it would be the last to admit it, Microsoft needs help.
The company is reeling from the continuing barrage of viruses and worms targeted at Windows and its other applications. It is rushing to deliver more patches, fixes and security tools and services. But it cannot keep up with growing user discontent.
So, what should Redmond do?
A group of highly respected security experts offered their two cents this week. Under the auspices of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the security gurus issued a white paper analyzing why Microsoft's Windows desktop monopoly is a breeding ground for security problems. The authors offer three, non-mutually-exclusive solutions:
· Require Redmond to port its Windows, Office and Visual Studio products to other operating systems;
· Push Microsoft to publish its Exchange Server programming interfaces - along with the many other interfaces and
protocols which the company still keeps private;
· Slice Office, so that it is available as components and publish all of its inter-application interfaces.
Nice pipe dreams, folks. Suggesting Microsoft voluntarily (or even forcibly) be required to put an end to its "monoculture" is like suggesting SCO simply drop its war against Linux and submit to a public flogging by open-source vendors and their customers.
Next?
At a media day at one of IBM's research labs this week, Steve Mills, IBM's head software honcho, was asked for his ideas, re: fixing Windows' vulnerabilities.
Just because IBM and Microsoft are fierce competitors on a variety of software fronts doesn't mean Mills & Co. are gloating over Redmond's predicament. After all, IBM still sells more database, messaging, portal and development software for Windows platforms than for Unix or Linux ones. A lot of IBM customers are Windows users.
So, is IBM nudging these customers to dump Windows for Linux or AIX? Surprisingly, no. Mills says, instead, IBM is suggesting its customers consider consolidating their Windows desktops and move to a thin client-fat server model. Fewer fat Windows clients would mean fewer virus and worm targets, he says. Security patches and fixes could be centrally maintained and delivered more easily. And customers would get more bang for their ROI buck.
Sure, the mainframe kingpin's suggestion is self-serving, to an extent. And it flies in the face of Microsoft's increasing emphasis on the reemergence of fat clients (now called "smart clients," in Microsoft parlance).
"The rich client is still valued," Mills says. "But maybe users would be better served by some hybrid of thick, thin and somewhere in between."
Is IBM's solution too simplistic? Given that the Microsoft desktop monopoly doesn't look like it's going away any time soon, have you got any quick-fix advice for shoring up security in Windows-centric environments - other than the typical "switch to Linux" suggestion?
Write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and let me know what you think.]
|