Why is the NY Times so Dumb About Linux and Windows?
Their latest failure at making this distinction is China Orders Patches to Planned Web Filter, and they also missed the real story: since this censoring software is required to be installed on all computers sold in China, does that mean that Mac, Linux, and Unix computers are banned? Because it's a Windows program.
The biggest question for me is how the can the New York Times use up so many column inches without asking these questions?
The Professor Doesn't Get It Either
The article cites "Analysis of the Green Dam Censorware System" by University of Michigan profressor, J. Alex Halderman, who discovered that it has numerous flaws and introduces security holes. But he seems to have to failed to discover that it is a Windows program and won't work on other operating systems. He does not address the pitiful ease with which Windows can be compromised.You may recall 53 Pages, 10 Months, 1295 Infected Hosts, 103 Countries, And They Still Can't Say "Windows Malware", in which I asked this same question for a previous New York Times article. I even wrote to the reporter, and received the type of non-reply that would make a politician proud.
Naturally I don't want to make any kind of generalizations based on a couple of articles, tempting though it is. So I used the New York Times search tool to look for "linux" and "botnet" and other related searches, limiting results to the last 12 months in the Technology section.
"botnet" returned some interesting results. The Conficker Worm: April Fool’s Joke or Unthinkable Disaster? actually admitted that "The program does not infect Macintosh or Linux-based computers." So I searched on "conficker+linux" and found...no more articles that said "Conficker does not affect Linux." However, "conficker+windows" did find a few articles that actually admitted that it is a Windows worm, and a number of reader comments that were more informative than the articles.
Then I tried "virus+linux" and got 92 results. Most of them were readers arguing in story comments, and a few articles still beating the "Mac and Linux are not attacked because of lower market share" drum. I expanded this search to "All Results Since 1851" and found the exact same thing as far back as 2002.
A search for plain "linux" returned 10,000+ hits. I scanned the first few pages and saw news, such as Linux and the impact on netbooks and Windows, a whole lot of Linux vs. Windows, Android, interviews with Linux celebrities like Mark Shuttleworth, smartphones and other devices. Nothing about malware or security issues.
"windows+malware" returns 140 hits. For a twelve-month period. What do these hits actually consist of? Many reader's comments, and the occasional article like Attack of the Zombie Computers Is Growing Threat. This article actually admits, in a low-key way, that "So far botnets have predominantly infected Windows-based computers..." Way down in the article. Then it adds "...although there have been scattered reports of botnet-related attacks on computers running the Linux and Macintosh operating systems." Then it relates the huge scope of the problem-- "We are losing this war badly" -- and goes on to lament:
"Computer security experts warn that botnet programs are evolving faster than security firms can respond and have now come to represent a fundamental threat to the viability of the commercial Internet. The problem is being compounded, they say, because many Internet service providers are either ignoring or minimizing the problem."It’s a huge scientific, policy, and ultimately social crisis, and no one is taking any responsibility for addressing it,” said K. C. Claffy, a veteran Internet researcher at the San Diego Supercomputer Center."
It's rather brilliant how Microsoft have successfully positioned themselves as the victim in all this, and how it's everyone else's fault, and everyone else's problem.
Then I tried "microsoft+windows+defective", got 350 hits, and not one single article pointing any fingers at Windows. There were many articles complaining about defects in printers, broadband routers, and other peripherals.
Then "microsoft+windows+insecure". 44 results. I got through half of them, and again nothing in the articles, but only reader's comments.
Beware the digital zombies is a prime piece of Redmond propaganda. It paints a picture of Microsoft's "cybercrime investigators" as toiling heroically in obscurity against the evil predators that victimize poor Microsoft. Fave quote:
"Companies have realized that the only way to combat the menace of botnets and modern computer crime is to build a global alliance that crosses corporate and national boundaries. On Tuesday, Microsoft, the world's largest software company, will convene a gathering of the International Botnet Taskforce in Arlington, Virginia At the conference, which is held twice a year, more than 175 members of government and law enforcement agencies, computer security companies and academics will discuss the latest strategies, including legal efforts."
I'm in a betting mood-- who will bet me that not one person suggested "Don't use Microsoft's software"? Come on, please, I need money.
I spent a good part of the morning doing this and had to stop, so it's possible I missed something. But how deeply should a reader have to dig to get information that should be front and center: Which is "Windows is unsafe at any speed."
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why is the NY Times so Dumb About Linux and Windows?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/8285
An interesting real-world example of Microsoft’s influence on the press ... Read More
Starting to see a pattern?
There is this underdog mentality current and Microsoft is taking advantage of this. Everybody loves a hero bloodied from all the fights. But what happens when the hero brought all this calamity on himself? Is it considered stupidity or courage?
Ms. Schroder, From your lips to the ear of the
Main Stream Media.
I have a pretty simple answer to this. They either lack intelligence, or they lack integrity. Either they are far too stupid to bother looking into alternatives to Windows despite the irate comments on every story which fails to mention them, or they're paid good money to steer clear of any mention of Windows being at fault.
My bet?
People dislike being told they are uninformed and wasted a lot of money on junk. Especially, if it is true.
If they tell their readership they "all" have spent a lot of money on junk because they are ignorant, they will lose readers.
Can you say 'Ad Revenue'? I knew you could. I'm sure if they actually spoke out against MS Windows, someone high up in Redmond would call and say "You know, we have a nice ad budget for NYT - it'd be a shame if anything happened to it"...
The more I read up on the subject, the more I think: "The hell with all of them! I've found linux, and I'm sticking with it!" (and distributing free copies...)
Don't assume that a few journalists are representative of the entire organization.
http://developer.nytimes.com/
http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://code.nytimes.com/
Every one who is worth a grain of salt knows how flawed the Windows monopoly is. Linux does everything Windows can do and lots it cannot, and for much less than you would be led to believe. Microsoft is an old evil empire that will not be forced out of power easily. Vote with your intelligence, your dollar and choose what is the safest, most secure environment since the inception of the Operating System, Unix and it's many friends (Linux, Macintosh OS X).
"But what happens when the hero brought all this calamity on himself? Is it considered stupidity or courage?"
In my English class, we called it Tragedy. I think Oedipus comes to mind.
I'm applying extra moderating to comments on this article. Already I'm seeing a flood of "Windows is attacked more because it has 98% market share---all operating systems are equally vulnerable" and similar nonsense. I'm sick of hearing it, and it is a disservice to readers to perpetuate inaccurate myths about computer security. So I will not publish them.
I'm also bored with claims that it doesn't matter if there is accurate, complete reporting on this issue because most NY Times readers are Windows users anyway. That is so stupid I can't believe anyone would say it except in jest.
thanks,
Carla Schroder
managing editor, Linux Today
I can think of one aspect of Windows malware that would greatly
upset a portion of the population (parents) if it were publicized--
Some (many?) of the bots are used to send out spam, and much
of the spam is porn.
This probably means that your typical Windows school computer (infected)
has porn on it, and is sending it out.
It's not a case of the Times only covering Windows. Pogue does plenty of Mac coverage, and he mentions the Mac's relative immunity to viruses, etc. I think the problem is that the numbers tell them Linux is not mainstream enough to interest what they understand to be their readership, except in a business sense.
The NY Times has plenty of Linux coverage, as I said in the article and which you can easily see for yourself. Even so, that's not the point. What difference does it make if their readership has masses of Linux users or insignificant numbers? Don't you think that complete, accurate reporting is important in itself, and to Windows users? How is this different from any other consumer product? News publications of all kinds routinely publish news of product defects and recalls, and they name names. That's their job.
Journalists are no more immune to the effects of ignorance, bias and strong coercion than politicians. I suppose their is hope for improvement in the future, with writers like yourself willing to shake the ignorance tree hard enough to make some of your peers fall out. But as I see it, this is a game that depends upon time and patience to win.
Keep on scorching the Times, Carla. Eventually, you and others will burn through their thick hides and get their attention.
Um...Did I mention LOTS of patience?
Carla,
Good article! Indeed, the media are pampering Microsoft and carefully avoiding unpleasant truths.
That said (and you probably know it already), it is vain to look for accuracy and honesty in the Times. Their treatment of the Kevin Mitnick affair, for example, is proof enough.
Heh...it's the devil you're familiar with over the one you're not all over again.
People think that virii are a commonplace thing and the only reason Mac and Linux don't have them is lack of popularity- because they're used to Windows and Virii and Trojans are a way of life in that OS' world. Never mind that Windows has very poor security implementation. The design? Fairly robust at the user authentication level. At the application execution level, nowhere near so. Things like ACLs ARE more robust than the Unix/POSIX security levels- but unfortunately, if you've built your fortress upon a foundation of sand... (It's still amazing beyond words that people keep propagating that old saw about being not-so-popular...you'd think people would know better in light of the fact that IIS is very much more exploited than Apache, even on Windows machines- Apache is vastly more popular than IIS is...)
People think that all those "ease of use" things are nifty, never once considering that autoload like Windows does can infect your machine with a particularly nasty piece of malware (Sony Rootkit, anyone?) without you even realizing you've just been screwed by that nifty new music CD or video DVD that you put in your Windows PC. Ease of use, also has to equate to decent security or it's actually rather worthless.
Fortunately, that veil is beginning to be lifted.
In the large, the security professionals that are largely trusted (Like Bruce Schneier...) are beginning to say point-blank, rip Windows out and get a Mac or use Linux. Seriously. It's also out in the minds of at least 1000 CXO's in the Electric Power industry (Heh... Between Joe Weiss and myself, we provided enough ammo on that score for Dr. Larry Ness in his book about securing energy infrastructures- a book that's sold about 1000 copies so far, as much because Larry's name is very, very trusted in that industry...). Some people are beginning to wake up to things as they really are.
did you forget that you can infect your system by running a malicious program through wine?
I've only tested this a few years ago with a key logger, and would you believe it? it worked perfectly...