http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/microsoft_vista_gov_spooks_helped_build.htm

THE USA GOVERNMENT'S cryptologic organisation, the National Security Agency, has admitted that it is behind some of the security changes to Microsoft's operating system Vista.

According to the Washington Post , the agency which was once so secret that it was jokingly referred to as 'No such Agency' has admitted making 'unspecified contributions' to Vista.

Tony Sager, the NSA's chief of vulnerability analysis and operations group, told the Post that it was the agency's intention to help everyone these days.

The NSA used a red and a blue team to pull apart the software. The red team posed as "the determined, technically competent adversary" to disrupt, corrupt or steal information. The Blue team helped Defense Department system administrators with Vista's configuration.

Vole said that it has sought help from the NSA over the last four years. Apparently its skills can be seen in the Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate customers.

The assistance is at the US taxpayers' expense, although the NSA says it all makes perfect sense. Not only is the NSA protecting United States business, its own Defense Department uses VoleWare so it is in the government's interest to make sure it is as secure as possible.

Microsoft is not the only one to tap the spooks. Apple, with its Mac OSX operating system, and Novell with its SUSE Linux also asked the NSA what it thought of their products. The NSA is quite good at finding weapons of mass destruction that are not there.

Apparently, the copy protection system is going to harm the consumers, not the pirates.

Already, the AACS, the ROM Mark, and the BD+ system has been cracked, and looks like the RFID chipped CDs may be vunerable to cracks as well.

So, it comes to no surprise that the Windows Vista protection system has been cracked wide open, in which the software has not even been released to the public as of yet.

Apparently, pirates are becoming so smart, that they have to implement new ways to protect the content, while allowing consumers to copy their legally purchased content for personal use (such as backups, porting the system to notebook computers, etc), for home use. (Only for the home versions of Vista)

But the rule of laws of marketing is: If the consumer is restricted on doing what he can do on his software, consumers are going to turn their backs on content providers.

"Apparently, pirates are becoming so smart, that they have to implement new ways to protect the content..."

JD, did you read a different story? This one doesn't say a thing about copy protection or pirates. It's about security, which is supposed to be your area of expertise.

"Apparently [the NSA's] skills can be seen in the Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate customers."

Is that supposed to be a recommendation? Or is Microsoft trying to shift the blame?

"Apparently, the copy protection system is going to harm the consumers, not the pirates."

All along, I (and many others) have contended that copy protection systems, including DRM, etc., were never genuinely expected to deter "piracy". Instead, their purpose has been all about CONTROL.
Cartels, as well as governments, function BOTH in open, transparent ways AND with an undercurrent of hidden agendas. And, as long the mainstream sheeple do not know or do not protest, then it's business as usual for all sorts of operations that go on, seen and unseen.
That's one way how societies deteriorate.

Cultures decline for lack of knowledge and/or for lack of caring.
(I'm sure that's not an exclusive list, but likely at the forefront of those that are preventable.)

One more reason to avoid Vista....I think the gov (particluarly the NSA) spy on me enough....After all, this added security IS brought to you by the same people who have been successfully tapping your phones, data communications, e-mail, etc. for years (SANS warrants or cause). It makes sense that they would need to be able to cut out the middle man and go straight to monitoring your digital activities at the source....So, we don't really think that their motives are pure at this point, do we...?

I run Linux so i'm all good. Hehehe. Gonna be setting up an XP Box for a "few select apps" but beyond that -- Linux all the way!

For those wishing to learn / use Linux but don't think they have the time / understanding required -- i'd suggest they check out http://freespire.org

The installation and usage of this distro is so easy a caveman, monkey or my father, can do it. hehe

You can use the "live boot" to test drive the software and when you install (if you decide to) make SURE you have backed up all your data first. It wipes the hard drive and puts its own file system on there (ext3 linux file system).

After install you can restore your data from your data dvdr's (or whatever else you mighr elect to use to back things up with).

For my personal needs, I run Mac OS 9.2.2, so I'm all good as well.
I experimented with OS X, but kept the OS 9 on my main hard drive. I see no reason to abandon it.

At my job, I use Windows 2000.

Concerning the topic of this article, it's
"One more reason to avoid Vista..."

And it's not as if we needed another reason, either, of course.

LOL! Yeah, NSA or not -- Vista's crap anyways.

great points grumpygeezer !

I was one of the ones who downloaded (legally) Windows Vista Beta. I had one of my boxes crash hard necessitating an OS reinstall, and since I had a DVD with Vista on it, tried to install it (the hardware, RAM, HD space, etc. was good enough for Vista) and it was a gigantic mess, in fact, it never did install.

Vista's overhead, in terms of RAM, HD space, etc., makes it not a very compelling upgrade to me, and the fact that many of your devices may not have drivers for Vista ready and the OS may not recognize these peripherals.

The BitLocker scheme would be the thing that would elicit a "no thank you" from me with regard to upgrading any of my boxes to Vista at this point.

Here's what the Redmond giant has to say about its bitlocker drive encryption
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf311033.mspx?mfr=true
"BitLocker Drive Encryption is an integral new security feature in the Windows Vista operating system that provides considerable protection for the operating system on your computer and data stored on the operating system volume. BitLocker ensures that data stored on a computer running Windows Vista remains encrypted even if the computer is tampered with when the operating system is not running. This helps protect against "offline attacks," attacks made by disabling or circumventing the installed operating system, or made by physically removing the hard drive to attack the data separately.

BitLocker uses a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to provide enhanced protection for your data and to assure early boot component integrity. This helps protect your data from theft or unauthorized viewing by encrypting the entire Windows volume.

BitLocker is designed to offer a seamless user experience. It is designed for systems that have a compatible TPM microchip and BIOS. A compatible TPM is defined as a version 1.2 TPM. A compatible BIOS must support the TPM and the Static Root of Trust Measurement as defined by the Trusted Computing Group. For more information about TPM specifications, visit the TPM Specifications section of the Trusted Computing Group's Web site (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=72757).

The TPM interacts with BitLocker to help provide seamless protection at system startup. This is transparent to the user, and the user logon experience is unchanged. However, if the TPM is missing or changed, or if the startup information has changed, BitLocker will enter recovery mode, and you will need a recovery password to regain access to the data."

They keep using the word "seamless"...
as in, seamless experience.

To me, seamless means booting your box one day and not being able to access a damn thing on your drive.

If that's the case, gimme seams, gimme seams.

I've used Microsoft Crap since early DOS versions...and know that nature sides with the hidden flaw.

Locking me out of my own box?

No thank you Billy Gates, no thank you.

I think Vista looks great and some of the new GUI features are fun and fantastic.

That said, it's a hog, and no doubt will open a whole new can of worms (pun intended) and vulnerabilities as all Windows OSes have.

As for the NSA's hand in the OS, I'm not worried or paranoid over the antics of the NoSuchAgency... I have nothing they need; do nothing that interests them. And frankly, I think the world is fraught with bigger issues and worries.

Congo
middle east
Somalia
Haiti
AIDS
Mal Nutrition
...

By the way, good to see Alex Jones site , infowars, getting used as a source.

But, back to BitLocker, if you have a dual boot system, here is another concern with BitLocker
http://www.scifichat.net/theforums/showthread.php?p=2675

"watch out for Vista if you enjoy a dual boot system, vista utilises what is known as bitblocker, bitblocker stops dual booting systems from working at all, officially bitblocker is supposed to be turned OFF by default, however i wouldnt be surprised to find that bitblocker will be turned ON by default nor if bitblocker was nerfed into being unable to turn off."

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum40/1719.htm
"Security features introduced in Windows Vista will make setting up PCs to boot in either Linux or Windows far more difficult, according to security guru Bruce Schneier. Vista is due to feature hardware-based encryption, called BitLocker Drive Encryption, which acts as a repository to protect sensitive data in the event of a PC being either lost or stolen. "

http://www.apcstart.com/3895/how_vista_screws_dual_booting_nirvana
"Now, the seriously ill informed amongst us may be wondering why the headline attacks Windows Vista, and I have yet to even mention it. Why, because of this blog post from late last year on MSDN about the Vista boot loader gentle reader, which explains that Vista will continue to wipe your master boot record on install. And so begins "The case against installing Windows Vista (volume 658, 943)".

Nerfing a PCs master boot record (MBR) in order to install your operating system is, to put it mildly, somewhat unfriendly behaviour. And this line from Microsoft about their users finding the OS too complex to install if they are presented with an option to reveal advanced options is frankly the usual despicable buck passing and FUD I expect from the company behind "Get the Facts".

And who the hell runs an OS installer to repair their MBR? I just whip out Knoppix, mate.

Sorry, hasn't anyone mentioned that your Sysadmin tools are a total joke?

That, in order to pull in the bucks from pricey certifications, you've dumbed the tools and procedures down to the extent that even our (Mac-olyte) online editor Dan Warne passed his MCP qualification with no study whatsoever at TechEd last year?

No amount of posturing by some "frank and honest" (cough) blogger from Microsoft is going to hide the fact that it's yet another example of business as usual at Redmond; embrace, extend and extinguish - in this case your entire system configuration.

Every Linux distribution detects the presence of another OS and configures the system accordingly, even being nice enough to add Windows to your boot loader automatically (should you choose to keep it).

Why can't Vista simply include a decent boot loader, thus removing the onus from the user, or the installer, to determine what boot loader is installed and configure it accordingly?

Interestingly, if your boot loader is a Microsoft only one, and the installer detects that it is a newer version than the one it is installing, it leaves it intact. Which pretty much makes all of the arguments in that post complete dross. "

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/27/schneier_infosec/
"BitLocker gives dual-boot systems the elbow
Vista security feature is 'anti-Linux'
By John Leyden ?¨ More by this authorPublished Thursday 27th April 2006 11:36 GMTFree White Paper Download - Data Protection Tips for SMBs Infosec Security features introduced in Windows Vista will make setting up PCs to boot in either Linux or Windows far more difficult, according to security guru Bruce Schneier. Vista is due to feature hardware-based encryption, called BitLocker Drive Encryption, which acts as a repository to protect sensitive data in the event of a PC being either lost or stolen.

This encryption technology also has the effect of frustrating the exchange of data needed in a dual boot system. "You could look at BitLocker as anti-Linux because it frustrates dual boot," Schneier told El Reg. Schneier said Vista will bring forward security improvements, but cautioned that technical advances are less important than improvements in how technology is presented to users."

Vista (with AERO gui) does look cool...but to revive a quote I invented 30 years ago....

"Looking cool and being cool are not always the same"
~Code (older than dirt)

re: "hardware-based encryption", and other crap like that

The more that an operating system or a program has to be tied to hardware, the less I'm interested in using that software.
(Did I phrase that correctly?)

"Looking cool and being cool are not always the same."
~Code (older than dirt)


Appearances can be deceiving.

You can't judge a book by its cover.

"The assistance is at the US taxpayers' expense . . ."

Of course, it's very worthwhile for us taxpayers to help out corporate interests and to sacrifice for benefiting Big Brother, isn't it?

I'm with grumpygeezer. Mac OS 9.2.2
•Started using Macs in 1985.
•Haven't had to buy any software since 2001 (ProTools).
•Number of viruses encountered in 21+ years: zero.
•Patches: We don't need no stinking patches!
•Last time I had to reinstall the operating system was after I tried OSX (when still in beta).

Microsoft has this uncontrollable urge to be able to reach into your computer to control your software. It's their version of DRM. They've been leaving a door open for that purpose since Windows 3.0.

And now the government is helping them.

"I think Vista looks great and some of the new GUI features are fun and fantastic.

That said, it's a hog, and no doubt will open a whole new can of worms (pun intended) and vulnerabilities as all Windows OSes have."

Most people who downloaded the free beta of Vista couldn't even get it to burn properly. I was one of the majority who had this bad luck (although i do know a few people who had successes with it, but it was a "major bitch" for most).

As for the people I knew that got it to burn properly -- it wasn't long before they decided to trash it after running into endless problems. At first it seemed just as you explained. Really cool. Lots of neat features. They were initially impressed with it. But then over time (and it didn't take much of it) the installed crashed and burned.

Thanks, George, for giving the good details about how you (and, by extension, myself and a few others) enjoy the benefits the Mac OS 9.
One thing I left out (and this is just a personal choice) is about how I disable the "Execute JavaScript" option for faster processing speed. I only activate it when things become obvious that it's needed in a particular instance.
Again, it's just me, but I also cancel "Display Images" when I really want fast access to information without needing to gaze at pictures... examples of such include data processing, e-mail activity, and web surfing.

As you wrote, how sweet it is not to have to worry about stuff such as virues, worms, trojans, patches, intrusions, crashes, reinstalling things, new software, or other unpleasant surprises. It's amazing how simple, predictable, and inexpensive my computer life is compared to most of my acquaintances .
(Well, all except the one using Linux; he's happy as a lark even without Mac OS9.)

I guess I could make a resolution to surrender to the learning curve and the changes that would accompany experimenting with Linux.
But what if I were to become a Linus using Linux
(needing a security blanket, heh, heh)?

Really I have to wonder if Bill Gates is trying to get our govenment to buy Vista in an attemt to hack the White House and take over the world.

I've considered Linux. I don't want to have to buy ProTools again. 24 tracks is 16 more than the Beatles had to work with. I can't type faster than my machine runs a basic word processor or html program. My old version of Photoshop still makes jpg and gif images, along with PNG and tiff should the need arise.

My old stuff does everything I want to do. And none of it knows anything about DRM.

I see no reason to downgrade.

Im with George, buying new stuff is downgrading.
WinME, CakeWalk ProAudio9, CoolEdit2000, WinAmp 2.7, AudioCatylist, Soundblaster ISA, Soundblaster PCI, and the newest thingymajig is the Cmedia 5.1 card.... all the best 2001 had to offer

"I've considered Linux. I don't want to have to buy ProTools again."

Ditto to both George and InsaneWayne, (except I use CoolEdit instead of ProTools.)

My box functions for me for what I want it to do. (and I already know how to keep the DRM off of it by simply NOT "upgrading" anything.)

I don't have time to learn how to do linux right now(although, when my box finally dies a mechanical death, I will probably have to MAKE time.)

But for now, as long as I can buy a second hand PC with Win98 or less. That's where I'll stay.

(The DRM boogyman is REAL. It keep's me under the bed as far as any "new fangled" consumerism decisions go. Perhaps someday the computing/electronics/software industry will one day take note and once again decide to offer products that those like me might be willing to buy.)

The trick/key is to NOT buy any of the newfangled/DRM infected toys folks!

Move the MARKET! Don't let it move YOU!

http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#73
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#74

"Digital Rights Management (DRM)

In preparation for next week's look at how and why Windows Vista has incorporated the most pervasive and invasive system for digital rights management ever created, AACS, Leo and I first take a step back to survey the history and evolution of media property rights and the technologies used to enforce them."
----------------------------------------------

"Peter Gutmann on Vista DRM

Peter Gutmann, the author of the highly controversial white paper detailing the significant cost of Windows Vista's deeply-entrenched digital rights management (DRM) technology, joins Leo and me this week to discuss his paper and his findings."

Microsoft -FUCK OFF, die, and burn in hell, and anyone who helped them develop this shit, also, FUCK OFF, die and burn in hell!

But watch; there will plenty of fools (private and corporate) waiting to buy into it. And, as long as blind acceptance of kind of intrusive OS is par for the course here in America, you can't hold out much hope for our nation. That's because the future of a country depends on an informed populace, not a bunch of dodos... which, in many aspects, is mostly what we've got now here in the U.S.A.
Frankly, I'm even mildly surprised the public actually woke up to how misguided Bush's policies are (well, actually, come to think of it, I guess it DID take 'em quite a long time to wise up, though -- from 2003 to last year, probably).

I meant, that kind of intrusive OS

"Most people who downloaded the free beta of Vista couldn't even get it to burn properly. I was one of the majority who had this bad luck (although i do know a few people who had successes with it, but it was a "major bitch" for most)."

This was totally not my experience.
The .iso was perfect - burned itself nearly and the system never crashed, or hung... or... I liked using it way better than XP pro (as soon as I figured out how do disable the User Controls). The reason why I rolled back, was due to the extra umph needed to run Aero (and all the themes for that matter) combined with the fact that my RME Fireface 800 did not have good Vista drivers - made for awful DAWing.

One of the main reasons previous windows OS's have many problems with viruses is due to the fact that over 90% of windows users run the operating system in administrative mode.

What should really be done in previous windows versions is to use administrative accounts only for...administrating. Then use limited access accounts for every day use. Most people use these options because that is the way windows defaults when you install it. In addition it is very annoying to have to keep jumping back between users in order to simple changes. Another problem arises because there is alot of badly written software which is made assumming that you run in administrative mode. With all the problems that arise from this, I don't blaim anyone for always using the administrative mode.

Vista's solution to this (which is long overdue) is similar to how linux works. In an administrater account, the user actually is logged in as a normal user. When anything is done that involves adminstrative rights, the OS asks for a password and temporarilly gives you administrative rights as long as you need them. A system like this would stop many viruses dead in their tracks.

Anyway, in this respect Vista is more secure. I do somehow have doubts. A while back I read that Vista was locking anti-virus software companies out from the very areas that they need to be able to access, because M$ claimed that their OS was so great it didn't need anti-virus software. Luckilly they changed their mind. The anti-virus industry makes alot of money off of microsoft's flaws.

It seems a bit harsh to yelp at windows for it having bugs in a beta. If the OS was perfect, it wouldn't be a beta. Betas aren't meant for everyday use, but to find defects in the software.

I do like the concept of their new start menu. The old start menu is horrible.

Besides that I don't like much about the new Vista. It is a freaking hog. An operating system exists to manage hardware and software and a graphical user interface. I like my GUIs as much as the other guys, but Vista is overboard. 1 Gig of memory minimum? My god...

I currently use linux at school. However, I don't use it for recording. I use it for my school work (I'm a computer science major). I tried setting up recording in linux. I couldn't get a stable set up at all. Perhaps I don't have it set up right. Perhaps my hardware isn't supported. I really didn't invest too much time into it as I had previously been busy with work at school. Linux is a funny beast it works perfectly as long as you set it up correctly. Sometimes setting it up correctly is a pain.

Yes and no Linux DAW software apps are as usable or feature rich as windows audio / MIDI apps, trying to do stuff in Ardour or Rosegarden is like riding to work on an old granny bike with a busted wheel when compared to being chauffeur driven in a comfortable limosine with padded leather and all mod cons running Cubase or Sonar etc.

At least for the moment - although they have improved Linux apps a bit in the last 18 months or so.

"It seems a bit harsh to yelp at windows for it having bugs in a beta. If the OS was perfect, it wouldn't be a beta. Betas aren't meant for everyday use, but to find defects in the software."

Okay, we might have a dialogue here.
I'm a very cynical person: I consider MicroCrap's OS new releases as tantamount to being equivalent to beta versions. (When they say they've still got something in "beta" development mode, to me that's about like it being in an "alpha" state.)
If they took more time to develop and test their stuff PROPERLY, we consumers wouldn't be their beta testers, so to speak.
It's all about money; they can save $$ by not spending so much time to do a decent job. AND, that way, they also can hasten the market release date for their (inferior) stuff.
They realize they've got close to 90% of businesses on their hook, anyway, and they'll just release endless subsequent fix-up "patches" they call updates later when inevitable additional flaws and weaknesses to what they coded becomes evident with users' adverse experiences... just like they've customarily been doing for years and years.

So, to recap, you wrote:
"It seems a bit harsh to yelp at windows for it having bugs in a beta."
I yelp because they've been prone to releasing stuff that has design flaws, inadequacies, and lurking "bugs" almost as bad as what beta versions could be expected to hold.
Then comes endless patches, updates, and packs.
But, what the hell, they're a bit like P.T. Barnum would say (and you know his famous quote, right?)
Billionaire Bill and his entourage of high-level execs likely laugh all the way to the bank at what fools they've got on the ropes!

"Seamless" ...
"Trusted" ...
my ass

A beta is usually conducted around the time when developers announce that there will be no new feature requirements added to the project. At that point there are still features to actually be implimented. Betas aren't going to be stable. One can't expect them to be. Especially in such a large project such as a modern operating system. Betas are often alternately called technical previews. They aren't meant to be near perfect.

In addition to finishing implimenting the remaining features, they also have work to make the software stable, make it perform well, and work on application and driver compatibilty (probably what caused the cd burner problem) I won't disagree that microsoft has released some crap (windows 98 anyone?). I just feel it a bit unfair to judge a product by the beta with a mindset that the product should act like the final release. Vista hasn't been released yet to home users, so...what do we know?

Quote: pessimist:
"If they took more time to develop and test their stuff PROPERLY, we consumers wouldn't be their beta testers, so to speak."

That's unfair. Their testing habits don't necisarily have anything to do with their decision for an open beta.

Quote: pessimist:
"they'll just release endless subsequent fix-up "patches" they call updates later when inevitable additional flaws and weaknesses to what they coded becomes evident with users' adverse experiences... "

Pretty much all OS's have "fix-up" patches. My ubuntu has plenty of "fix-up" patches being issued to me. In large projects, undetected defects are inevitable. Depending on how well development was conducted there may be less or more bugs. But yes, windows is pretty bad with what you say.

I wouldn't call XP a brilliant OS, but it has been a very solid one. There are rarely crashes, and I've not experienced too many problems with it. No I am not a fan of their buisiness practices in the least.

"I just feel it a bit unfair to judge a product by the beta with a mindset that the product should act like the final release." -- JesseSpillane

Judging a product by the final release IS what counts, I agree. But, I'm saying that MicroSoft's track record of software releases (not just OS's) leaves too much to be desired in the way of quality, for reasons I gave in my previous post.


"If they took more time to develop and test their stuff PROPERLY, we consumers wouldn't be their beta testers, so to speak." -- pessimist

"That's unfair. Their testing habits don't necessarily have anything to do with their decision for an open beta." -- JesseSpillane

I probably didn't make it clear that I was referring to MicroSoft's "finished" products (their actual releases).
I meant their releases have often been akin to unfinished "beta" versions in the sense of purchasers/users being the guinea pigs who are going to suffer various bouts of anguish due to incompatibility and inexplicable crashes until Redmond scrambles for a quick fix (one of many to follow into the future).
If I recall, last year, there was even a security patch applicable to Windows 2000, can you believe?
That's the kind of crap I'm talking about.

(And that's not even getting into the veritable debacle of the "Millenium" OS they were responsible for.)

True, XP had comparative stability. Still, what would you guess as the total number of patches that Redmond has had to release regarding it (since 1999)?
There ya go. I rest my case.

I ssid: (since 1999);
make that: (since the end of 2001)

XP has been in vogue for 5 years.

"Great points, grumpygeezer! — CodeWarrior

Thanks, 'Code. Sorry to be so late in acknowledging this.