full-disclosure - Microsoft wins Homeland Security Bid ( Reuters)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: BlueBoar at thievco.com (Blue Boar)
Subject: Microsoft wins Homeland Security Bid ( Reuters)

yossarian wrote:
> The point I am missing here - we might not like M$ to have won, but who else
> could? It is a government, so think big companies. Would you rather it was
> Symantec or IBM? Or think about the big systems integrators EDS and CSC
> style <yuk> would that be much better? Smaller players like Veridian or
> Secureinfo - would we be served any better if they could actually make
> themselves credible? Nah, don't think so - it was bound to be a big one. Big
> organisations want big suppliers....

If we're wishing...

I'd rather my government hire the IT personnel themselves and do their own 
<insert favorite OSS OS here> distro, with the help of the smart guys from 
the NSA, etc... for security standards.  Surely it's possible to get your 
return on nearly whatever investment it takes to make it functions as need, 
for 140K desktops.  This would also drive application development for that 
OS, etc, etc...  Basically, I'd get something back for my "investment".  As 
it is, my tax money is going to a close-source developer, and I don't see 
myself benefiting from my tax dollars.  I'm not even getting a discount on 
my next version of Windows or Office.

					BB