Monday, January 10, 2005
« 20 Year Usenet Timeline | Main | Will Longhorn mean success for mono on W... »
OSS sabotage of Windows security?

On the PeerCast website there is an FAQ in which they recommend turning off the Windows XP Firewall:

I got everything right with my broadcast, but no matter what I do, my stream can't get through. Should I get lost?
You are probably behind a firewall, if it is a personal firewall installed on your local PC, try turning it off. (Windows XP Pro for example..)

No wonder open-source is “more secure”, when they are actively running around telling people to disable the primary safety mechanism provided on Windows.

(to be fair, their blanket statement would apply to Linux firewalls too, but their example is Windows, which leads one to believe they prefer having lots of unprotected Windows machines on the Internet or something...)

Sabotage or just stupid advice?

If open-source people are as smart as they claim, they should be telling people to open only those ports required for the software, not to turn off all defenses and let anything through!!

Monday, January 10, 2005 11:50:27 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

Monday, January 10, 2005 1:40:20 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
So... one project which gives non-os specific advice is an indication that the entire open source movement advocates insecurity. Am I missing something here?

Try holding Microsoft accountable to the standards of random developers and see how far it gets you.

Besides that it's only bad advice because it doesn't tell you to turn it back on or find an alternative. If the application works when you turn off a personal firewall, you at least know where the problem lies and can deal with it from there.
Michael Cook
Monday, January 10, 2005 3:50:42 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
The OSS community, as noted by your response, does _exactly_ what I'm doing in my original post. I applied the same kind of wild extrapolation that the vocal OSS folks use when talking about Microsoft. Seems only fitting to apply their particular language style when talking about the OSS community doesn't it?

I find serious irony in the fact that using hyperbolic descriptions of the actions of open source isn't acceptable, while using hyperbolic descriptions of the actions of Microsoft is totally wonderful.

A whole lot more effort goes into "holding Microsoft responsible" than ever occurs to "hold OSS developers responsible".

I just find it disturbing when anyone publically gives their user base such poor advice. I'd be equally dismayed if Microsoft told people to turn off their firewalls so they could use WMP 10 or something - that would be ridiculous.

But note that IF Microsoft did such a thing it would instantly ignite the flames of slashdot in a major way. Dozens or even hundreds of people would "hold Microsoft accountable".

On the other hand, I doubt PeerCast's bad advice will be discussed anywhere but here...

If the OSS community leveled their vitriol against their own mistakes as readily as they do against Microsoft's, that would be impressive. It won't happen of course, but it would show some intellectual honesty and integrity.
Rockford Lhotka
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:05:32 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I agree with you on so many points. I particularly like your take on SOA. But I don't think I can follow you on this one.

I think you're right that the PeerCast text implies an anti-MS bias, or else they'd have mentioned the everpresent hardware router/firewall first. But I don't think the lack of discussion of PeerCast's flaws is as relevant.

PeerCast's bad advice will be reviewed by PeerCast's user base. Few.

And Microsoft's bad advice will be reviewed by Microsoft's user base. Many.


And I'd be a hair more careful about discussing the language style of the OSS community. The thing I like most about the OSS community is the lack of a single monolithic style.

The thing I like least are, in fact, the zealots for whom there is only One True Way. But I also recognize that the zealots don't speak *for* OSS. They just speak loudest *within* OSS. Kind of like the right-wing Christian sorts. (Come to think of it, also like the right-wing Christians, they do *think* that they speak for the whole group, so I suppose it's an easy mistake to make...)
Charles Haws
Comments are closed.