Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (44951)	5/18/2000 7:04:00 PM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Hey, Slashdot,.... STAND IN LINE!!! --- And the line gets longer, daily. I guess it's good that you as a MSFT shareholder can have such good humor about it. Of course, you're an attorney and smell the single largest concentration of billable hours in history, yes? -JCJ

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (44951)	5/18/2000 7:29:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Respond to of 74651

Duke, Yeah, M$FT thinks every piece of code ever written is "open" for them to make proprietary, even copyrighted code they have already licensed, like Java for instance. Unfortunately for the cowboys from Redmond, McNealy & Co. kicked their butts in court. Now Sun is kicking their butts in the marketplace as well. M$FT can make all the open standards proprietary if they want. Doing so just paints them further and further into the corner. They are their own WORST enemies. cheers, cherylw

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (44951)	5/19/2000 12:50:00 AM
From: Russ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Duke, do you know anything at all, or do you just like to read your own posts? The "answers" you gave are the goofiest things I've read in a long time. In case you're serious, and the post isn't a joke, I'll respond to a few points. 3. How can Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed over the Internet? ---a trade secret is a trade secret, no matter who shouldn't know it. 4. What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement? ---who says they need to do more that try to keep others from stealing secrets. 5. What measures has Microsoft taken to ensure that its Kerberos specification is only distributed to persons who are capable of entering into a binding contract in jurisdictions where such an agreement would be enforceable? ---this is sort of like the Rapist claiming that the victim deserved it because no one would be so stupid as to go out walking alone on a dark night. There have been several court rulings on trade secrets and the amount of protection the holders must put on them for them to be considered a trade secret. Posting a document on the Web for anonymous download means they have not taken adequate precautions, and the "trade secrets" are not legally trade secrets. If your argument is that the MS Kerberos spec is a trade secret because MS says it is, and the laws be damned, well, that works in the Republic of Microsoft, and maybe on these boards, but the law is quite clear on the subject. 7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions? ---Because, stupid, its a Code! You don't pass out the Key to others to see if they like it. (although, I will give you that that's what Linux does :))) Do you know anything at all about security? The only encryption algorithm I know of where the algorithm is not publicly available is the Skipjack cipher (invented by the NSA, and implemented in the Clipper chip), and it's not used. Any cipher that is used is well documented and well analyzed, and that includes DES, Triple-DES, Blowfish, RC-5, Twofish, Mars, etc as well as all authentication standards. Proprietary security protocols are inherently untrustworthy and are not used by anyone with any knowledge of security. Kerberos is well known, works well, and is believed secure, but any unpublished extensions could introduce security holes. It's just not done by anyone who cares about security. -Russ