[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[infowar.de] WP 23.05.02 Open-Source Fight Flares At Pentagon]
Infowar.de, http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/liste.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <3CEDF5D4 -
4666A17C -!
- hsfk -
de>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:12:04 +0200
From: Olivier Minkwitz <minkwitz -!
- hsfk -
de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [de] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Infowar.de" <infowar -
de -!
- infopeace -
de>
Subject: WP 23.05.02 Open-Source Fight Flares At Pentagon
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------905283C8BFDBA09F8A658593"
--------------905283C8BFDBA09F8A658593
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> "Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups to protect
> themselves against cyberattacks," said the report, by Mitre Corp.
>
Interessant klingender Report, vielleicht könnten die Listenmitglieder
von MITRE was dazu sagen....
-Olivier Minkwitz
Bestes Zitat aus dem Artikel:
> "Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on
> the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a
> cancer" and un-American."
Washington Post
May 23, 2002
Pg. E1
Open-Source Fight Flares At Pentagon
Microsoft Lobbies Hard Against Free Software
By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writer
Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its
growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to
proprietary systems such as those sold by the software giant, according
to officials familiar with the campaign.
In what one military source called a "barrage" of contacts with
officials at the Defense Information Systems Agency and the office of
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the past few months, the
company said "open source" software threatens security and its
intellectual property.
But the effort may have backfired. A May 10 report prepared for the
Defense Department concluded that open source often results in more
secure, less expensive applications and that, if anything, its use
should be expanded.
"Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative
impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups
to protect themselves against cyberattacks," said the report, by Mitre
Corp.
A Microsoft Corp. spokesman acknowledged discussions between the company
and the Pentagon but denied urging a ban on open-source software. He
also said Microsoft did not focus on potential security flaws.
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to
allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to
resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial
and free software models," he said.
John Stenbit, an assistant secretary of defense and the Defense
Department's chief information officer, said Microsoft has said using
free software with commercial software might violate the
intellectual-property rights of companies such as Microsoft. Stenbit
said the issue is legally "murky."
The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on
making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's
open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the
open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and
un-American.
Software is designated open source when its underlying computer code is
available for anyone to license, enhance or customize, often at no cost.
The theory is that by putting source code in the public domain,
programmers worldwide can improve software by sharing one another's
work.
Vendors of the proprietary systems, such as Microsoft and Oracle Corp.,
keep their source codes secret, control changes to programs and collect
all licensing fees for their use.
Government agencies use a patchwork of systems and software, and
proprietary software is still the most widely used. But open source has
become more popular with businesses and government.
The Mitre Corp. report said open-source software "plays a more critical
role in the DOD than has been generally recognized."
The report identified 249 uses of open-source systems and tools,
including running a Web portal for the Defense Intelligence Agency,
running network security for the Army command in Europe and support for
numerous Air Force Computer Network Defense tools.
Among the most high-profile efforts is research funded by the National
Security Agency to develop a more secure version of the open-source
Linux operating system, which competes with Microsoft's Windows.
The report said banning open-source software would drive up costs,
though it offered no specifics. Some government agencies have saved
significantly by using open source.
At the Census Bureau, programmers used open-source software to launch a
Web site for obtaining federal statistics for $47,000, bureau officials
said. It would have cost $358,000 if proprietary software were used,
they said.
Microsoft has argued that some free-licensing regimes are antithetical
to the government's stated policy that moneymaking applications should
develop from government-funded research, and that intellectual property
should be protected.
Microsoft also said open-source software is inherently less secure
because the code is available for the world to examine for flaws, making
it possible for hackers or criminals to exploit them. Proprietary
software, the company argued, is more secure because of its closed
nature.
"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more
secure," said Dorothy Denning, a professor of computer science at
Georgetown University who specializes in information warfare.
Others argue that the flexibility provided by open-source software is
essential, enabling users to respond quickly to flaws that are found.
"With open source, there is no need to wait for a large software firm to
decide if a set of changes is in its best interests," said Eugene
Spafford, a computer-science professor at Purdue University who
specializes in security.
Jonathan Shapiro, who teaches computer science at Johns Hopkins
University, said: "There is data that when the customer can inspect the
code the vendor is more responsive. . . . Microsoft is in a very weak
position to make this argument. Whose software is the largest, most
consistent source of security flaws? It's Microsoft."
Stenbit said the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure
a given piece of software is. To that end, the Defense Department is now
prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security
testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source
software that has been tested.
--
Olivier Minkwitz___________________________________
Dipl. Pol.
HSFK Hessische Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung
PRIF Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Leimenrode 29 60322 Frankfurt a/M Germany
Tel +49 (0)69 9591 0422 Fax +49 (0)69 5584 81
Mobil 0172 3196 006
http://www.hsfk.de pgpKey:0xAD48A592
minkwitz -!
- hsfk -
de___________________________________
--------------905283C8BFDBA09F8A658593
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>"Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups to protect
themselves against cyberattacks," said the report, by Mitre Corp.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>Interessant klingender Report, vielleicht könnten die Listenmitglieder
von MITRE was dazu sagen....
<br>-Olivier Minkwitz
<br>
<p>Bestes Zitat aus dem Artikel:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running
company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have
called "a cancer" and un-American."</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<p>Washington Post
<br>May 23, 2002
<br>Pg. E1
<p>Open-Source Fight Flares At Pentagon
<p>Microsoft Lobbies Hard Against Free Software
<p>By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writer
<p>Microsoft Corp. is aggressively lobbying the Pentagon to squelch its
growing use of freely distributed computer software and switch to proprietary
systems such as those sold by the software giant, according to officials
familiar with the campaign.
<p>In what one military source called a "barrage" of contacts with officials
at the Defense Information Systems Agency and the office of Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld over the past few months, the company said "open source"
software threatens security and its intellectual property.
<p>But the effort may have backfired. A May 10 report prepared for the
Defense Department concluded that open source often results in more secure,
less expensive applications and that, if anything, its use should be expanded.
<p>"Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative
impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DOD groups
to protect themselves against cyberattacks," said the report, by Mitre
Corp.
<p>A Microsoft Corp. spokesman acknowledged discussions between the company
and the Pentagon but denied urging a ban on open-source software. He also
said Microsoft did not focus on potential security flaws.
<p>Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to
allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to
resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial
and free software models," he said.
<p>John Stenbit, an assistant secretary of defense and the Defense Department's
chief information officer, said Microsoft has said using free software
with commercial software might violate the intellectual-property rights
of companies such as Microsoft. Stenbit said the issue is legally "murky."
<p>The company also complained that the Pentagon is funding research on
making free software more secure, which in effect subsidizes Microsoft's
open-source competitors, Stenbit said.
<p>Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on
the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer"
and un-American.
<p>Software is designated open source when its underlying computer code
is available for anyone to license, enhance or customize, often at no cost.
The theory is that by putting source code in the public domain, programmers
worldwide can improve software by sharing one another's work.
<p>Vendors of the proprietary systems, such as Microsoft and Oracle Corp.,
keep their source codes secret, control changes to programs and collect
all licensing fees for their use.
<p>Government agencies use a patchwork of systems and software, and proprietary
software is still the most widely used. But open source has become more
popular with businesses and government.
<p>The Mitre Corp. report said open-source software "plays a more critical
role in the DOD than has been generally recognized."
<p>The report identified 249 uses of open-source systems and tools, including
running a Web portal for the Defense Intelligence Agency, running network
security for the Army command in Europe and support for numerous Air Force
Computer Network Defense tools.
<p>Among the most high-profile efforts is research funded by the National
Security Agency to develop a more secure version of the open-source Linux
operating system, which competes with Microsoft's Windows.
<p>The report said banning open-source software would drive up costs, though
it offered no specifics. Some government agencies have saved significantly
by using open source.
<p>At the Census Bureau, programmers used open-source software to launch
a Web site for obtaining federal statistics for $47,000, bureau officials
said. It would have cost $358,000 if proprietary software were used, they
said.
<p>Microsoft has argued that some free-licensing regimes are antithetical
to the government's stated policy that moneymaking applications should
develop from government-funded research, and that intellectual property
should be protected.
<p>Microsoft also said open-source software is inherently less secure because
the code is available for the world to examine for flaws, making it possible
for hackers or criminals to exploit them. Proprietary software, the company
argued, is more secure because of its closed nature.
<p>"I've never seen a systematic study that showed open source to be more
secure," said Dorothy Denning, a professor of computer science at Georgetown
University who specializes in information warfare.
<p>Others argue that the flexibility provided by open-source software is
essential, enabling users to respond quickly to flaws that are found.
<p>"With open source, there is no need to wait for a large software firm
to decide if a set of changes is in its best interests," said Eugene Spafford,
a computer-science professor at Purdue University who specializes in security.
<p>Jonathan Shapiro, who teaches computer science at Johns Hopkins University,
said: "There is data that when the customer can inspect the code the vendor
is more responsive. . . . Microsoft is in a very weak position to make
this argument. Whose software is the largest, most consistent source of
security flaws? It's Microsoft."
<p>Stenbit said the debate is academic and that what matters is how secure
a given piece of software is. To that end, the Defense Department is now
prohibited from purchasing any software that has not undergone security
testing by the NSA. Stenbit said he is unaware of any open-source software
that has been tested.
<br>
<p>--
<br>Olivier Minkwitz___________________________________
<br>Dipl. Pol.
<br>HSFK Hessische Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung
<br>PRIF Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
<br>Leimenrode 29 60322 Frankfurt a/M Germany
<br>Tel +49 (0)69 9591 0422 Fax +49 (0)69 5584 81
<br>Mobil 0172 3196 006
<br><A HREF="http://www.hsfk.de";>http://www.hsfk.de</A>
pgpKey:0xAD48A592
<br>minkwitz -!
- hsfk -
de___________________________________
<br> </html>
--------------905283C8BFDBA09F8A658593--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liste verlassen:
Mail an infowar -
de-request -!
- infopeace -
de mit "unsubscribe" im Text.