this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59692 readers
2123 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Microsoft is pivoting its company culture to make security a top priority, President Brad Smith testified to Congress on Thursday, promising that security will be "more important even than the company’s work on artificial intelligence."

Satya Nadella, Microsoft's CEO, "has taken on the responsibility personally to serve as the senior executive with overall accountability for Microsoft’s security," Smith told Congress.

His testimony comes after Microsoft admitted that it could have taken steps to prevent two aggressive nation-state cyberattacks from China and Russia.

According to Microsoft whistleblower Andrew Harris, Microsoft spent years ignoring a vulnerability while he proposed fixes to the "security nightmare." Instead, Microsoft feared it might lose its government contract by warning about the bug and allegedly downplayed the problem, choosing profits over security, ProPublica reported.

This apparent negligence led to one of the largest cyberattacks in US history, and officials' sensitive data was compromised due to Microsoft's security failures. The China-linked hackers stole 60,000 US State Department emails, Reuters reported. And several federal agencies were hit, giving attackers access to sensitive government information, including data from the National Nuclear Security Administration and the National Institutes of Health, ProPublica reported. Even Microsoft itself was breached, with a Russian group accessing senior staff emails this year, including their "correspondence with government officials," Reuters reported.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean you can provide audit findings and results and it’s a pretty big part of vendor management and due diligence but at some point you have to accept risk in using open source software that can be susceptible to supply chain hacks, might be poorly maintained, etc or accept the risk of taking the closed source company’s documentation at face value (and that can also be poorly maintained and susceptible to supply chain attacks)

There’s got to be some level of risk tolerance to do business and open source doesn’t actually reduce risk. But it can at least reduce enshittification

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's pretty hilarious when people act like being open source means it's "more secure". It can be, but it's absolutely not guaranteed. The xz debacle comes to mind.

There are tons of bugs in open source software. Linux has had its fair share.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The XZ thing is actually a great point to open source's favor. All it took was some dude to figure it out.

If you try to inject maligned code, you will be found out. That can't happen with proprietary software.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It highlighted some pretty glaring weaknesses in OSS as well. Over worked maintainers, unvetted contributers, etc etc.

The XZ thing seems like we got "lucky" more than anything. But that type of attack may have been successful already or in progress elsewhere. It's not like people are auditing every line of every open source tool/library. It takes really talented devs and researchers to truly audit code.

I mean, I certainly couldn't do it for anything semi advanced, super clever, or obfuscated the way the XZ thing was.

But I agree, that the fact we could audit it at all is a plus. The flip side is: an unvetted bad actor was able to publish these changes because of the nature of open source. I'm not saying bad actors can't weasel their way into Microsoft, but that's a much higher bar in terms of vetting.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

The difference is proprietary software has to be caught being insecure to be "guilty of being insecure" while open source software has the potential to be publically verified to a degree that it's effectively "proven innocent".