SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] the way of the future
- To: Dave Fitch <davidf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] the way of the future
- From: Rick Welykochy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun Aug 5 22:33:02 2001
- Cc: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Praxis Services Pty Limited
Dave Fitch wrote:
> I was more interested in the talk about TCP/MS - TCP/IP with M$
> proprietry "extensions" - and the future of the internet.
Good point. For those who have not read the article at
the author Cringely (is that his real name?) presents some
interesting hypotheses and conclusions.
Quoting Cringely, in summary:
1. MS dictum: every feature in Windows had to pass the litmus test,
"Does it increase market share?"
2. Lack of security in Microsoft software was a deliberate business decision.
(I don't think was a concious decision at the beginning, but might be now)
3. The real motive for raw socket support is for Microsoft to use Windows XP
to exploit a bad situation, to deliberately make things worse.
(A great business decision as we shall see next)
4. Microsoft wants to replace TCP/IP with a proprietary protocol ... [the] new
protocol would likely be TCP/IP with some of the reserved fields used as
pointers to proprietary extensions, quite similar to Vines IP, if you
remember that product from Banyan Systems. I'll call it TCP/MS
(This is where the real speculation and danger begins)
5. [MS can ship] the new protocol with every new copy of Windows, and install
it with every Windows Update over the Internet. Zero to 100 million copies
could happen in less than a year, and that year could be prior to the new
protocol even being announced. It could be shipping right now.
(The last sentence above is wild speculation)
The motivation in 4. above is to promulgate the false idea that TCP/MS is more
secure than TCP/IP and all those horrid attacks originating from *nix boxes
(when WinXP and even WinK are really the main culprits) can and will be prevented
once the switch to TCP/MS occurs. "You'll be safe from Unix then, oh saintly
By "more secure" is meant that the reserved areas of TCP/IP headers will
be appropriated by MS to provide originator ID info for outgoing packets.
With the above hypotheses, one can easily proceed to a conclusion that shows
MS's 95% market share can be used to force routers, content providers, servers,
practically everthing and everyone that wishes to interconnect with the Windbloze
boxies out there (i.e. a huge potential customer base for any business) to
conform to TCP/MS. Routers would require small changes, TCP stacks a bit of a tweak
and voila! MS increases its market share (their original intent) and eventually
owns the Innernet.
- there would be a great inertia preventing the uptake of TCP/MS in routers and
- if TCP/MS were introduced, it will not be secure, for there is scant "reserved" space
in the IP and TCP for much "identification", and the headers would not provide any
"originator ID" information that could not easily be spoofed, just like IP addresses
are currently spoofed; if TCP/MS used extended length headers, TCP/MS still could easily
be embraced by the open source community if required
- recent history shows that MS's repeated attempts to subvert basic Internet protocols
such HTTP, HTTPS, SMTP, HTTP proxy, etc. into propriety have, in the main, failed.
Why? Because their market share of 95% desktop only translates to maybe 60% of connected
machines (servers, clients, desktops, etc), and interoperability is the basic requirement
of the Innernet; thus any further attempts to proprietise Internet protocols will be
met with great resistance from the majority of routers, servers and software that run
the Internet ... MS controls surprisingly little of this part of the 'Net :)
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Pty Limited
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
- Henry Spencer