| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Gentoo rsync server compromisedGentoo rsync server compromisedPosted Dec 3, 2003 20:37 UTC (Wed) by einstein (subscriber, #2052)Parent article: Gentoo rsync server compromised Many seem to be poo-pooing the idea that microsoft would ever have anything to do with trying to make linux look bad. To them I say, wake up and smell the homeless - a cursory glance at microsoft's track record shows that they love dirty tricks. Do you really think that an organization like microsoft, with their massive financial resources, their frantic desire to kill linux, and their slimy past record, would never encourage, or fund something like this?
(Log in to post comments)
Gentoo rsync server compromised Posted Dec 3, 2003 20:58 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Microsoft loves dirty, barely legal (or sometimes, depending on the judge, barely illegal) tricks. These are blatently illegal. I don't know of any point in MS's history where they've hired black hats, rather than marketers, to take down competition.
M$ and illegal or unethical behavior Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:08 UTC (Wed) by newren (subscriber, #5160) [Link] >I don't know of any point in MS's history where they've hired black hats, rather than marketers, to take down competition.Yes, but the question remains of whether M$ hasn't done any such thing or whether it simply means that they didn't get caught. While they have been caught for an astoundingly large number of dirty tricks, it makes one wonder what they've also gotten away with.
M$ and illegal or unethical behavior Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:44 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Plausible deniability. Strictly limited to a few high ranking executives. Work hired anonymously. Could be done, with enough money. Might even be a private project of one executive, without corporate knowledge.Or, of course, it might just be one guy doing it for fun, or to give us all a wake-up call. Who knows? I doubt it is Microsoft, actually. They aren't desperate enough, yet. They still think they can win with FUD and marketing and SCO.
M$ and illegal or unethical behavior Posted Dec 3, 2003 22:05 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Hmm, on second thought, I retract that. The person or people doing the work could be caught, and even if they didn't know who hired them, just their assertion that they had been hired would be enough to raise an unholy stink.
M$ and illegal or unethical behavior Posted Dec 4, 2003 7:52 UTC (Thu) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link] Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that these attacks did not do a great deal of harm (besides temporarily wasting some people's time and resources). Even if MS was slimey enough to do this, I doubt whether they would regard the reward vs the risk worthwhile.
No, they wouldn't Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:02 UTC (Wed) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] No, they wouldn't. Maybe 20 years ago when they were just ramping up - small tech organizations tend to do "clever" stuff like that. But the stakes for a $40b company are so high that they would not, ever. Criminal prosecution would result, and lawsuits by the attacked organization would clean out that cash horde in a minute.sPh
Very unlikely Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:09 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I don't think a Fortune 500 company would do anything illegal for PR purposes. The implications of being caught are overwhelming compared to the gain from the FUD campaign, even if multiplied by the probabilities (search Google for "mathematical expectation"). Large companies are very risk averse. If they break the law, they are dealing with billions of dollars. And it's never obvious for competitiors. Think Worldcom.
Very likely Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:40 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] When a corporation has been prosecuted by the U.S. government and gotten away with a slap on the wrist (if that), why should they be worried about something that they know would never be prosecuted by anybody, especially if they have a proxy do it for them?Microsoft is plenty arrogant enough to do something like this. I'm not accusing them of doing it (since I have no direct evidence to that effect), but if it turned out that there were some communications from someone up there in Redmond that had something to do with getting the ball rolling with these attacks, I wouldn't be even a tiny bit surprised. But of course, I doubt we'll ever find out for sure.
Very likely Posted Dec 3, 2003 22:49 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] There is a large difference, both legally and from a business sense, between abusing a monopoly and repeatedly committing server cracks. The former gets you fines or broken up (in both cases, you still make money, often more money); the latter gets you shut down.The traditional way for Microsoft to attack a competitor (and a much safer way) is to pump millions of dollars of marketing into a negative publicity campaign -- and they've had some success doing that via SCO recently. I don't see why they'd turn to something as stupid as server cracks. This is one of the worst conspiracy theories ever.
Very unlikely Posted Dec 3, 2003 22:40 UTC (Wed) by valiant (guest, #17373) [Link] I too believe that and Microsoft involvement is highly unlikely, i know MS has a flare for courtroom theaterics but this is a whole different animal that MS would not dare to do given its current DOJ re-evaluation of the antitrust case. No i am sure MS is far clear of this one and any like it.
|
|
||||||||||||