Hacker News Reader

Comment by salient | Hacker News Reader

> And finally, the most exciting news: we've signed a first contract with iSEC partners to evaluate large portions of the Windows software and bootloader code. This review will begin in January.

That's huge. I assume you're not referring to having access to the Windows source code, though.

Here's a crazy idea. After the whole NSA stuff, many governments are going to require Microsoft to give them access to the source code, if they want them to continue using it, or buy the new versions of Windows. Any chance you could contact such a government, to allow you to do the audit on their behalf, or to work together with them on it?

That would be a win-win for everyone. They get a team of experts to review the Windows code base, and you get to know everything about Windows. They probably won't be very eager to get Americans to do this for them, though, so make sure you flaunt all of your credentials.

View on HN

> After the whole NSA stuff, many governments are going to require Microsoft to give them access to the source code, if they want them to continue using it, or buy the new versions of Windows.

That's interesting to hear. Got any more information on that?

Well this acknowledges the existence of the source code sharing program... https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/government-secu...

The Chinese government has the Windows source code for a decade. Microsoft's press release: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2003/feb03/02-28gs...

Microsoft has made source code available to governments for quite a long time now. However I don't think Microsoft has ever made buildable source code available, nor does it intend to.

Can you explain what you mean? How is it the source code if it's not buildable?

Think about the largest, most complex codebase you've ever worked on. Then, remove any architecture documentation, wikis, etc. used to document how it's all tied together. Then, remove the build scripts and any lib folders.

Imagine how much fun it'd be trying to get that to build. Multiply the terror that inspires by (at least) 100x.

I think everything you say is likely to be accurate. However, given that we're talking about a nation state in an adversarial context, remember the relevant comparison is "Express the pain of black-box reconstructing the Windows build process in terms of ACEs (aircraft carrier equivalents)."

I very much doubt that building Windows is a 10 ACE problem, or a 1 ACE problem, or a 0.1 ACE problem.

Where can more info be found on the "ACE" metric?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Fighting_Ships

Or if you're lazy you just Google up this Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t...

The USA has ten active Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Wikipedia claims that the most recent, the USS George H.W. Bush, was completed in 2009 at a cost of $6.2 billion. A bargain compared to the projected cost of the USS Gerald R. Ford, now under construction with a budget of $15.5 billion.

These numbers are ridiculously overlarge in this context, of course, which is the point. Access to the Windows build toolchain is not even a $10M project. It's not a technical problem. You start by just offering the money to the company. A few million dollars, plus a history of enforcing your TOP SECRET security clearances, plus credible assurances that you're not going to launch a competing product, is probably enough to convince the company to just give you what you want. Quietly, of course. No need to spook the other customers.

If that doesn't work, there's always espionage.

If Windows has ever been built from sources provided by Microsoft plus reverse-engineering the missing bits in the toolchain, that build has never been deployed by governments as a "certified clean" Windows.

One problem is that you not only have to succeed in building and running, and compatibility-testing Windows from a snapshot of the source code (which, as a snapshot, might not correspond to any release), you have to keep up with patches and new releases. So if that ever had been done, the utility would be limited. Perhaps some modules would match bit-for-bit. What would that tell you?

That's still very unlike being able to audit source code, audit updates, and build from audited code using an identical toolchain, also built from audited code, as an upstream release.

I also think your "ACE" metric turns out to be larger than you think, once you add in an air wing and escort and support ships. Launching a ship that is an aircraft carrier is a bit like booting a kernel with no userland.

You can't just throw the Windows source code into VS and have it compile. If you don't have the build specs and toolchain, which likely has a few purpose-built tools, you ain't building.

Which means that no one can verify that the source code MS gives them is the source code that they are running, which means NSA backdoor etc. blah tinfoil hat blah.

Many governments already have access to microsoft source code. Big corporate clients too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com