Forwarded from: "Hoodye, Morris" <Morris.Hoodyeat_private> As for the nonstop enterprise division of HP goes I would like to chime in, since the question was asked...Our systems are used to run 90% of the stock exchanges world wide. The stock exchanges have chosen our platform because of it's reliability. One key part of reliability is our enterprise operating system (NonSTOP Kernel) does not allow user processes to escalate their privileges levels. The architecture is a true secure message based operating system that has a 25+ year history. I have implemented the Nonstop Himalaya Platform in some to the most secure and vital parts of our critical infrastructure, where the system has NOT been compromised. When we make changes to the operating system we review each line of code change for reliability and security issues, Our customers expect nothing less, so we go through great efforts to insure the reliable operation of the customers environment...Our customer consider downtime unacceptable, we understand this...It is not uncommon for customers to 5+ years of constant uptime. Our systems can be upgraded while running the customers application, so I think customers would give us a A. Get the complete picture at: http://nonstop.compaq.com/view.asp?PAGE=HimalayaServers -----Original Message----- From: InfoSec News [mailto:isnat_private] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 23:16 To: isnat_private Subject: RE: [ISN] Experts: Microsoft security gets an 'F' Forwarded from: Pete Lindstrom <petelindat_private> This whole "grading Microsoft" discussion is completely ludicrous. If Microsoft gets an 'F,' then who got the A's, B's, C's, and D's? If upwards of 100,000 sites were infected with Slammer, does that mean that everyone who was infected gets an 'F' too? Or does Microsoft get their grade because it was their software? Who gets the 'F' for Slapper? Can we legitimately grade Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing initiative, designed to create more secure software, by assessing their own internal practices? Can we grade it if there is nothing to compare to? How is IBM doing? SAP? Oracle? Siebel? Novell? Computer Associates? Sun? HP? PeopleSoft? How about the custom stuff from Accenture? EDS? CSC? Do we really know the difference between what equals "secure" and what equals "luck" in the security space? Is there anyone out there who has a foolproof method for determining an appropriate level of security that is guaranteed to eliminate risk? You can't blame obesity on McDonald's for serving quarter pounders and you can't blame insecurity on Microsoft for serving buggy software that the whole world decided to buy because of the functionality and backward compatibility - both qualities that create complexity and its sister, insecurity. And let's not forget that a large number of our security problems are due to poor configuration and not buggy software (e.g. SQL Spida attacked null passwords). There is no doubt that from a security perspective, our existing model has been unsuccessful due to its reactive nature and the built-in latencies involved. But I talk to companies every day with better solutions (check out www.spiresecurity.com/IntrusionPrevention.htm for some ideas). It is far too easy to blame Microsoft (give them an 'F') for the world's security woes. But you get a completely different perspective when you take a look around at all the potential alternatives and existing poor security practices in place. There, I said it. Please flame me at bill.gatesat_private (just kidding). Regards, Pete Pete Lindstrom, CISSP Research Director Spire Security, LLC P.O. Box 152 Malvern, PA 19355 phone: 610-644-9064 fax: 610-644-8212 www.spiresecurity.com Briefing Requests: http://www.spiresecurity.com/briefingrequest.asp?p=briefingrequest [...] - ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org To unsubscribe email majordomoat_private with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 03:28:39 PST