Subject: Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:17:07 +0900

>>>>> "Werner" == Werner Koch <> writes:

    Werner> Although we agreed on some actions, nothing has yet
    Werner> happened - probably due to a lack of time/money.

    Werner> Well this is getting a bit off-topic, so lets better stop
    Werner> here.

Excuse me?  You mention "time and money" on FSB, and say "now we're
drifting off-topic"?

This is precisely where the thread should have kicked off, IMHO.  The
fact that Microsoft spreads FUD is nothing new, nor are the arguments
and evidence that Open Source is at least as secure (although in
different ways and with different emphasis) as "hide the bugs along
with the security holes" software.

Nor is the fact that we could do a lot better -- given time and money
and redirection of emphasis.  Let's go get them!

I'm sorry I don't have any ideas about where the time and money might
come from, and how an FSB can make money off it, but isn't discussing
that what we're here for?

Well, I've got one idea.  At least some of us are professors.  Maybe
assigning audits to our students would be a good idea.  (a) Many
professionals don't do it because they were never trained in it, so
let's train some more.  (b) Free labor.  Everybody happy!

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."