Open Source Windows is “definitely possible”, but don’t hold your breath

Open windows certainly let the fresh air in.

Microsoft releasing Windows as open source isn't impossible, the audience at the ChefConf conference heard on Wednesday. Mark Russinovich, Microsoft technical fellow and Azure CTO, was part of a panel discussion that asked,"Have your bets on Open paid off?"

For the longest time, Microsoft has been seen as an enemy of all things open, with former CEO Steve Ballmer famously describing Linux as a "cancer" in a 2001 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times. But attitudes and opinions have shifted in the intervening years. As Russinovich told the audience, almost all companies these days depend on at least some open source software,and that includes Microsoft customers. This has forced the company to warm to, and support, open source softwarewitness the proclamation by CEO Satya Nadella last October that "Microsoft loves Linux."

Supporting open source software is valuable, but more profound, and more important, is the adoption of open source ideals. Developers, in particular, have come to expect openness in development. This influence has seen Microsoft do things that once might have been considered unthinkable; after early pioneering efforts, such as the open sourcing of the ASP.NET framework, the company has open sourced large parts of the .NET Framework and participated in open hardware projects.

Russinovich describes the decision to make .NET open as a way of increasing interest in and usage of Microsoft's paid software. Open .NET is "an enabling technology that can get people started on other Microsoft solutions," he told the conference, continuing "It lifts them up and makes them available for our other offerings, where otherwise they might not be."

It's against that backdrop that Russinovich claimed that it was "definitely possible" that Microsoft would, one day, open source Windows, saying that "Every conversation you can imagine about what should we do with our softwareopen versus not-open versus serviceshas happened."

Releasing Windows as open source would be no small achievement. The Windows source isn't neatly packaged for easy downloading and compiling. "If you open source something but it comes with a build system that takes rocket scientists and three months to set up, what's the point?" Russinovich asked rhetorically.

Technical complexities aside, we struggle to see Microsoft releasing Windows as open source any time soon. Even as its influence wanes in the face of mobile-oriented competitors, Windows remains a huge cash cow for Redmondone that it's unlikely to want to give up. But that doesn't mean that the company has no further open source ambitions. We could well believe that a piecemeal opening of certain parts of the Windows platform will occur over the next few years.

For example, we could see a continuation of the open-sourcing of the .NET stack. Currently, Microsoft is only in the process of publishing the server platform. This includes all the core .NET framework components, the runtime engine, and compiler, but it doesn't include desktop/client components such as the WPF library, used for building graphical user interfaces. Adding portions such as this to the open project would likely be warmly welcomed by the communityopening the door to faster development and greater responsiveness to developer feedbackwhile not compromising Windows as a money-maker.

Similarly, we've argued that opening up Internet Exploreror specifically, the new Edge engine that's going into the Project Spartan browseris the right thing to do.

Read the original here:
Open Source Windows is “definitely possible”, but don’t hold your breath

TrueCrypt cryptographic audit turns up little to fear

TrueCrypt cryptographic audit turns up little to fear Share This Home News Apple TrueCrypt cryptographic audit turns up little to fear Most desktop cryptography relies on software created and maintained by corporations, often (not always) based on open standards, but requiring a level of trust in that firm's ability to resist government efforts to weaken it as well as believing they can validate and audit their own code well enough to find and then repair serious flaws.

Most desktop cryptography relies on software created and maintained by corporations, often (not always) based on open standards, but requiring a level of trust in that firm's ability to resist government efforts to weaken it as well as believing they can validate and audit their own code well enough to find and then repair serious flaws.

Open-source projects, whether in the world of free software or other license structures, supposedly had the advantage that anyone could examine the code for flaws or injections.

That's turned out not to be the case, but things are getting better.

Truly cryptic

TrueCrypt is open-source virtual and full-disk encryption software that remains the only viable multiplatform option one could recommend that wasn't tied to a company. The independent project was developed by anonymous programmers for a decade; they still aren't identified. It works in Windows XP and later, many flavors of Linux, and Mac OS X.

In 2013, the nonprofit Open Crypto Audit Project (OCAP) was founded and raised over $70,000 to perform a thorough independent audit of TrueCrypt's codebase. The first phase, related to the "bootloader" software that worked only in Windows for full-disk encryption (FDE), finished in April 2014, and found no back doors or "super critical" bugs. (TrueCrypt can't manage an OS X boot volume. Read more about FDE and OS X's FileVault 2 in a previous Private I column.)

Then, abruptly, the project shut down in May 2014 with the release of a new version (7.2) that could only decrypt virtual disks and real partitions and drives. The developers put a note at the top of a stripped-down webpage, "WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues." They also implied that the end of official Microsoft support for XP was part of the reason. Later versions of Windows can use Microsoft-supplied and third-party full-disk encryption.

Mac users can also create encrypted virtual disk images with Disk Utility and encrypt external volumes with a simple Control-click on a volume in the Finder. But these have two associated issues: first, they're not portable to other platforms; second, we rely on Apple's codebase, which isn't externally and independently audited. TrueCrypt brings portability, and because the code is available for inspection, the opportunity to confirm it's not hiding secrets.

This raised many questions, none of which have been answered. Did the team get tired of the work after a decade? Did they discover a flaw so severe they felt they couldn't fix it? Did a government (one or more) discover their identities and pressure them to install weaker encryption or a backdoor? It's simply unknown, and none of my security sources have any strong inclination as to the reason.

More:
TrueCrypt cryptographic audit turns up little to fear

SoulConfiscator 012 Bitcoin CryptoCurrency Credit Card Andreas Antonopoulos P2P BTC4 Game Simpsons – Video


SoulConfiscator 012 Bitcoin CryptoCurrency Credit Card Andreas Antonopoulos P2P BTC4 Game Simpsons
http://www.twitter.com/VanosEnigmA http://www.facebook.com/VanosEnigma http://www.twitter.com/CryptoEEV Thank you mucho meow for your donation: Bitcoin Address: 1FJ9ZZcnKqhiiYWNhbpBaqy9QQHTBSmsP8 ...

By: VanosEnigmA Enigmaisland

Read more here:
SoulConfiscator 012 Bitcoin CryptoCurrency Credit Card Andreas Antonopoulos P2P BTC4 Game Simpsons - Video