On the one hand MS has:

Implement proper security!

Implement more customer lockin.

Implement more EULA enforcement.

Implement more anti-competition.

Consider as a test case MS' implementation of Kerberos security.... was there really a security reason to change it? Or was that more just to make the MS implementation less compatible and therefore try and push others to MS' implementation? And when all was said and done, was it less, equal to, or more secure then the industry standard that was in use for a couple decades?

Under such conflicting priorities, we can always expect MS to implement any security method poorly. At least until the Corporate mentality surrounding business practices changes.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]