Hacker News Reader

Comment by rfrey | Hacker News Reader

"Author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out"(from his bio) suggests a Microsoft solution.

[edit: removed "tldr" tag because this was clearly not a summary but a mere snark.]

View on HN

No.

A fair summary would be: Dropbox has had embarrassing security failures, plus Live Mesh has a few extra technical features and comes with more free space.

To me, going to Microsoft for security is like going to the desert for ice-cream. The article seems quite biased, since "embarassing security failures" tend to happen more often at Microsoft.

There tends to be a lot of myths about Microsoft security particularly in the non-Windows using community. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft tends to be very good about security updates, disclosure of bugs and holes, and remains vigilant about finding and patching up unknown flaws. Additionally, Microsoft hasn't had to answer before Congress on the matter of the securing their user's data. So trying to compare Microsoft's apparently "embarassing security failures" to Dropbox having to testify to Congress is like comparing your post to a PG essay.

I happen to use 7 / archlinux / Os X almost equally. Of course my comment was trollesque, but an affirmation like "Microsoft ... tends to be very good about security updates" is not realistic. Time elapsed between exploit discovery and patch proposal to the user is everything but short. And If every website with a security issue was to answer to the congress, well it would not do much else. Plus, given the money Microsoft spend lobbying, I doubt very much that in a similar situation they would have to answer to the congress. Dropbox just seems to be a marked man.

Yes there is a time between discovery and patching but if you look at their competitors, Windows is much farther ahead in the security realm. Microsoft's whole security cycle is better defined and IT managers have a much easier time managing security updates from Microsoft than anyone else.

Dropbox isn't a marked man because it doesn't have the capital of Microsoft, they've had to testify because they have a serious security and privacy problem.

"if you look at their competitors, Windows is much farther ahead in the security realm" and that of course is not heresay but solid facts. If you exclude linux, bsd distros, and solaris of the "competitors", then you may be right. So far most of the securty / pen tests reports I have read (and my personal experience demonstrate) that it is way more easy to penetrate a Windows system than a unix / linux one. I like this sentence "There tends to be a lot of myths about Microsoft security particularly in the non-Windows using community" because the symetry is interesting: most non-unix/linux fail to see that these systems are usually more secure. I have used both kinds for 10 years and had much more security problems with Microsoft (which does not mean that I have stopped using it). I do not believe I am the exception.

You are of course free to disagree with the author, but I hardly think that makes it biased. Logging in with any password is objectively a pretty embarrassing security lapse. I'm not aware of any problems like that with Live Mesh. Or even, really, with any online Microsoft products.

I do agree on the fact that it is totally embarassing for Dropbox, and I do not either recall a similar issue with Microsoft, which does not make it safe. DEP / ASLR mechanism have been "easily" bypass several times this year, which to me is also embarassing. But the fact that this issue happened with Dropbox does not mean that it will again, and I'm pretty sure that it will make security one of their top priority. I do believe that going to Microsoft for better security is an odd move.

Again, you're making this point based on heresay. Of all the Dropbox competitors and cloud storage solutions, I'd tend to trust Microsoft the most because they will likely have the security experts employed to audit their products. Or simply that because they are Microsoft, 3rd-party security firms will investigate the security of Live Mesh.

And yet there are a lot of active exploits targetting Windows. If your logic was sound, given that Windows is by far the most used system it should also be the most secure: then again I invite you to research the subject, security reports often show that it is more vulnerable than most linux/unixes. I find 7 to be an acceptable OS (and I still use it everyday) but blindly beliving that Microsoft ecosystem is secure because it is Microsoft's is a mistake.

It's not blindly believing Microsoft to be a better ecosystem. This has nothing to do with the OS. This is about the fact that they have a whole network of professionals who are more likely than a startup to audit their systems and keep it safe.

The author's familiarity with Windows doesn't make his argument that Microsoft is likely to provide better security weaker. Indeed if his story is to be believed, the fact that he initially used Dropbox might be seen as indication that he is aware of and in a position to evaluate Microsoft's security or lack thereof and that his decision to switch was based on knowledge rather than self-promotion.

Ad hominem

<blush> It's true, it is.

This is a tangent, but an honest question. The biases and agenda of an argument's author are often essential to evaluating the argument. In the human world, a person would be pretty naive to not "consider the source".

Is it always invalid in written discourse to raise the issue of the author's background, or is there a way to do it that isn't ad hominem?

Of course it's valid to consider the source, but you need to back it up, show that it's influencing his opinion unfairly. You may be right, maybe he is just favouring MS products, but then show why his comparison is wrong, or why he is ignoring better alternatives, something at least.

Ad hominem only describes the logical fallacy of saying "the argument X put forward by person P is wrong because of some property of person P"

You didn't make that sort of claim, therefore it really isn't an ad hominem attack

This might not be fair in dialectic, but I assure you that attacking the ethos of an opponent in rhetoric is fair game. It can be tricky if you only focus on that though because it does not make the audience believe more in your point... But of course, forget about this silly rhetoric thing, Hacker News is all about pure logic :-)

So, if you read an article saying "Hire an SEO consultant today to improve your site visibility x100" and the author happens to be an SEO consultant, it would be an ad hominem to point this fact out ?

It would be ad hominem if you called it a shit or untrue article just because you dislike SEO consultants. It may be a shit or untrue article, but then say why.

ad hominem: his argument is invalid because he is a SEO consultant.

not ad hominem: his argument is invalid because [reason]. he ignores [reason] because he is a SEO consultant.

Ideally, sure.

But suppose I don't know anything about SEO. How would I judge if the article is bullshit or not ?

If, however, I see "x is an SEO consultant" then I would at least suspect that the author is trying to sell me something rather than inform me.

Sure. But it is still ad hominem regardless.

Is this high school debate class? Ad hominem might get you docked points in a competition but purposely blinding yourself to someone's motivations is retarded. The author took the time to type up some scarcely camouflaged ad copy and I think asking Why is legitimate and it should certainly color the interpretation of the information he is presenting.

So? Motivation matters and it shows in his content.

I can trust that someone who profits directly from the Microsoft ecosystem will tell me to use Microsoft products.

This article is really two parts.

1) Why he is switching away from DropBox. Fair points, but none of it is new information that we haven't seen posted here 20 times the week the security vulnerability occurred.

2) Why he is switching to Live Mesh. This is an advertisement. It is not informative, it does not compare other syncing products, it does not add anything beyond the Live Mesh marketing information.

It isn't even a review of Live Mesh

At least you're arguing the points of the article :) I haven't used either product so I don't have an opinion on whether he's talking BS or not...

I guess? It was a waste of my time, but you seem to be defending ad copy because pointing out the guy is a microsoft evangelist is somehow not useful information

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott in fact, if you read his posting history I think who he is severely tarnishes anything he writes.

I'm def not saying people shouldn't point it out, I just think people shouldn't base their entire opinion on the fact that he's an MS evangelist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com