FreeBSD implicated in HotMail security problems

Tim Behrendsen writes "TechWeb is running an article claiming that Hotmail is not filtering all known viruses. Microsoft claims in return that the problem lies with running under FreeBSD. Bad publicity for Free Software? IMO, it's a bit unfair to call it a MS security problem, since normal ISP e-mail servers don't filter viruses, either."

Meta-comment: For what it's worth, this is exactly the sort of story the BSD section is for. It mentions a BSD (in this case, FreeBSD, although it could have been any of them) in passing, and isn't really sufficiently technically detailed or newsworthy for the front page. But it's still of passing interest.

It's so obviously FreeBSD's fault! :) :)

[jd]

Honest! Microsoft was duped by misleading claims by the guy with the pitchfork that FreeBSD would read everyone's mail, and filter out any viruses for all known OS', including viruses not yet discovered. (Being an intelligent Daemon, it can correctly understand all attachments for every system in existance, as well as their affect.)

They adopted FreeBSD on the clear understanding that the BSD kernel (with HAL 9000 patches) would protect them against the evils of mail misuse and abuse, as well as preventing system crackers from exploiting faulty CGI scripts. They were even told that it would refill the coffee pot for them, at regular intervals!

This is a very clear-cut case of the poor, mis-understood Microsoft being misled by false advertising claims by a rival. It can't possibly be to do with their own mis-management or back-covering. Microsoft don't do those sorts of things. It's all that red guy's fault.

Re:so damn funny

[bmetzler]

Of course, what they ought to do, if they're so worked up about it, is write their own dang filter and put it on their FreeBSD servers. I'm not quite ready to hold my breath for that, though.

The article mentioned that Microsoft *may* have contracted Network Associates to write a Melissa-capable McAfee scanner for FreeBSD this summer.

The real issue here isn't FreeBSD. FreeBSD has absolutely no problems in this case at all. The problem is with Windows, and it's lack of security. Microsoft has always said that Viruses weren't a problem because you should be using a virus scanner. But now we have an issue where an OS must scan for viruses that affect a totally different OS.

There is nothing in FreeBSD that prevents it from scanning files. There just needs to be a virus scanner written for it. No big deal.

-Brent
--

How can this possibly..

[Tarnar]

..be FreeBSD's fault? The reason the virus scanners aren't for BSD/*nix is that there are NO viruses. Now, why doesn't MS just write themselves some scanning software for BSD? If you can detect a virus just by scanning file headers and what not, it shouldn't matter what OS you're in, you just have to WRITE it.

Re:so damn funny

[sbeitzel]

Of course, what they ought to do, if they're so worked up about it, is write their own dang filter and put it on their FreeBSD servers. I'm not quite ready to hold my breath for that, though.

so damn funny

[NovaX]

The idea that FreeBSD is to blame for allowing viruses that expoit holes in Microsoft's products, to pass through its mail system (sendmail, I'd assume) is just humerous. Microsoft can't create a system that can replace FreeBSD (and work), though they've tried, and they cannot fix problems fast enough to stop virusses. So, since they don't have a virus scanner for a mail server... its thus the problem of using FreeBSD. No one else seems to offer scanning on free (or non-free) basic consumer packages, so Microsoft shouldn't be blamed for the evils of its users. If just shouldn't blame an OS for not having an application, while its own does.. but can't handle the task.

What else is this... amusing?

Flawed on a fundamental basis...

[moeller]

Let's first ignore the claims that it is FreeBSD's fault (I am sure others will cover this flawed thinking adequately.) The fatal flaw with this argument is that if it's FreeBSD's fault, why the hell is Microsoft using it? If it's FreeBSD's fault, shouldn't they be moving as quickly as possible to move their operations to the obviously superior Windows NT? Or is their goal to blame, but not to improve? Either they don't care, and like to point fingers instead, or they are currently with the superior solution, and it's a comparative policy advantage over Windows NT.
We don't even have to arrive at technical arguments to see why their pandering would fail to fool the logic of a legally braindead squirrel.

Um

[dennisp]

There are virus scanners for linux that could be considered up to date. These scanners are quite capable of running in linux -- They just aren't made by network associates.
----------

How many ISPs filter viruses?

[magician]

Exactly how many ISPs filter viruses from their email? It shouldn't be Microsoft's duty to filter their client's email.

Moreover, FreeBSD can't be blamed. It isn't a FreeBSD problem. If they care that much, they can write filters themselves (afterall, they are a massive software company), or just say "no" to attachments.

-magician