Microsoft is pivoting its company culture to make security a top priority, President Brad Smith testified to Congress on Thursday, promising that security will be “more important even than the company’s work on artificial intelligence.”

Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s CEO, “has taken on the responsibility personally to serve as the senior executive with overall accountability for Microsoft’s security,” Smith told Congress.

His testimony comes after Microsoft admitted that it could have taken steps to prevent two aggressive nation-state cyberattacks from China and Russia.

According to Microsoft whistleblower Andrew Harris, Microsoft spent years ignoring a vulnerability while he proposed fixes to the “security nightmare.” Instead, Microsoft feared it might lose its government contract by warning about the bug and allegedly downplayed the problem, choosing profits over security, ProPublica reported.

This apparent negligence led to one of the largest cyberattacks in US history, and officials’ sensitive data was compromised due to Microsoft’s security failures. The China-linked hackers stole 60,000 US State Department emails, Reuters reported. And several federal agencies were hit, giving attackers access to sensitive government information, including data from the National Nuclear Security Administration and the National Institutes of Health, ProPublica reported. Even Microsoft itself was breached, with a Russian group accessing senior staff emails this year, including their “correspondence with government officials,” Reuters reported.

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s pretty hilarious when people act like being open source means it’s “more secure”. It can be, but it’s absolutely not guaranteed. The xz debacle comes to mind.

    There are tons of bugs in open source software. Linux has had its fair share.

    • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      The XZ thing is actually a great point to open source’s favor. All it took was some dude to figure it out.

      If you try to inject maligned code, you will be found out. That can’t happen with proprietary software.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It highlighted some pretty glaring weaknesses in OSS as well. Over worked maintainers, unvetted contributers, etc etc.

        The XZ thing seems like we got “lucky” more than anything. But that type of attack may have been successful already or in progress elsewhere. It’s not like people are auditing every line of every open source tool/library. It takes really talented devs and researchers to truly audit code.

        I mean, I certainly couldn’t do it for anything semi advanced, super clever, or obfuscated the way the XZ thing was.

        But I agree, that the fact we could audit it at all is a plus. The flip side is: an unvetted bad actor was able to publish these changes because of the nature of open source. I’m not saying bad actors can’t weasel their way into Microsoft, but that’s a much higher bar in terms of vetting.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Proprietary software has to be caught being insecure to be “guilty of” being insecure. Free software can be publically verified, effectively “proven innocent” - a much higher standard.