Google Dings MSFT: Marketing Motivated by Opportunism

May 21, 2024

dinosaur30a_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

While not as exciting as Jake Paul versus Mike Tyson, but the dust up is interesting. The developments leading up to this report about Google criticizing Microsoft’s security methods have a bit of history:

  1. Microsoft embraced OpenAI, Mistral, and other smart software because regulators are in meetings about regulating
  2. Google learned that after tire kicking, Apple found OpenAI (Microsoft’s pal) more suitable to the now innovation challenged iPhone. Google became a wallflower, a cute one, but a wallflower nevertheless
  3. Google faces trouble on three fronts: [a] Its own management of technology and its human resources; [b] threats to its online advertising and brokering business; and [c] challenges in cost control. (Employees get fired, and CFOs leave for a reason.)

Google is not a marketing outfit nor is it one that automatically evokes images associated with trust, data privacy, and people sensitivity. Google seized an opportunity to improve Web search. When forced to monetize, the company found inspiration in the online advertising “pay to play” ideas of Yahoo (Overture and GoTo). There was a legal dust up and Google paid up for that Eureka! moment. Then Google rode the demand for matching ads to queries. After 25 years, Google remains dependent on its semi-automated ad business. Now that business must be supplemented with enterprise cloud revenue.


Two white collar victims of legal witch hunts discuss “trust”. Good enough, MSFT Copilot.

How does the company market while the Red Alert klaxon blares into the cubicles, Google Meet sessions, and the Foosball game areas.?

The information in “Google Attacks Microsoft Cyber Failures in Effort to Steal Customers.” I wonder if Foundem and the French taxation authority might find the Google bandying about the word “steal”? I don’t know the answer to this question. The title indicates that Microsoft’s security woes, recently publicized by the US government, provide a marketing opportunity.

The article reports Google’s grand idea this way:

Government agencies that switch 500 or more users to Google Workspace Enterprise Plus for three years will get one year free and be eligible for a “significant discount” for the rest of the contract, said Andy Wen, the senior director of product management for Workspace. The Alphabet Inc. division is offering 18 months free to corporate customers that sign a three-year contract, a hefty discount after that and incident response services from Google’s Mandiant security business. All customers will receive free consulting services to help them make the switch.

The idea that Google is marketing is an interesting one. Like Telegram, Google has not been a long-time advocate of Madison Avenue advertising, marketing, and salesmanship. I was once retained by a US government agency to make a phone call to one of my “interaction points” at Google so that the director of the agency could ask a question about the quite pricey row of yellow Google Search Appliances. I made the call and obtained the required information. I also got paid. That’s some marketing in my opinion. An old person from rural Kentucky intermediating between a senior government official and a manager in one of Google’s mind boggling puzzle palace.

I want to point out that Google’s assertions about security may be overstated. One recent example is the Register’s report “Google Cloud Shows It Can Break Things for Lots of Customers – Not Just One at a Time.” Is this a security issue? My hunch is that whenever something breaks, security becomes an issue. Why? Rushed fixes may introduce additional vulnerabilities on top of the “good enough” engineering approach implemented by many high-flying, boastful, high-technology outfits. The Register says:

In the week after its astounding deletion of Australian pension fund UniSuper’s entire account, you might think Google Cloud would be on its very best behavior. Nope.

So what? When one operates at Google scale, the “what” is little more than users of 33 Google Cloud services were needful of some of that YouTube TV Zen moment stuff.

My reaction is that these giant outfits which are making clear that single points of failure are the norm in today’s online environment may not do the “fail over” or “graceful recovery” processes with the elegance of Mikhail Baryshnikov’s tuning point solo move. Google is obviously still struggling with the after effects of Microsoft’s OpenAI announcement and the flops like the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show in Paris and the “smart software” producing images orthogonal to historical fact.

Online advertising expertise may not correlate with marketing finesse.

Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2024

Germany Has Had It with Some Microsoft Products

May 20, 2024

dinosaur30a_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

Can Schleswig-Holstein succeed where Munich and Lower Saxony failed? Those two German states tried switching their official IT systems from Microsoft to open source software but were forced to reverse course. Emboldened by Microsoft’s shove to adopt Windows 11 and Office 365, informed by its neighbors’ defeats, and armed with three years of planning, Germany’s northernmost state is forging ahead. The Register frames the initiative as an epic battle in, “Open Source Versus Microsoft: The New Rebellion Begins.”

With cries of “Digital Sovereignty,” Schleswig-Holstein shakes its fist at its corporate overlord. Beginning with the aptly named LibreOffice suite, these IT warriors plan to replace Microsoft products top to bottom with open source alternatives. Writer Rupert Goodwins notes open source software has improved since Munich and Lower Saxony were forced to retreat, but will that be enough? He considers:

“Microsoft has a lot of cards to play here. Schleswig-Holstein will have to maintain compatibility with Windows within its own borders, with the German federation, with Europe, and the rest of the world. If a change to Windows happens to break that compatibility, guess who picks up the pain and the bills. Microsoft wouldn’t dream of doing that deliberately, no matter how high the stakes, yet these things happen. Freedom to innovate, don’t you know. If in five years the transition is a success, the benefits to the state, the people, and open source will be immeasurable. As well as bringing data protection back to those charged with providing it, it will give European laws new teeth. It will increase expertise, funding, and opportunities for open source. Schleswig-Holstein itself will become a new hub of technical excellence in an area that intensely interests the rest of the world, in public and private organizations. Microsoft cannot afford to let this happen. Schleswig-Holstein cannot back down, now it’s made it a battle for independence.”

See the write-up for more warfare language as well as Goodwins’ likening of user agreements to the classic suzerain-vassal relationship. Will Schleswig-Holstein emerge victorious, or will mighty Microsoft prevail? Governments depend on Microsoft. The US is now putting pressure on the Softies to do something more than making Windows 11 more annoying and creating a Six Flags Over Cyber Crime with their security methods. Will anything change? Nah.

Cynthia Murrell, May 22, 2024

Microsoft and Its Customers: Out of Phase, Orthogonal, and Confused

May 9, 2024

dinosaur30a_thumbThis essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

I am writing this post using something called Open LiveWriter. I switched when Microsoft updated our Windows machines and killed printing, a mouse linked via a KVM, and the 2012 version of its blog word processing software. I use a number of software products, and I keep old programs in order to compare them to modern options available to a user. The operative point is that a Windows update rendered the 2012 version of LiveWriter lost in the wonderland of Windows’ Byzantine code.


A young leader of an important project does not want to hear too much from her followers. In fact, she wishes they would shut up and get with the program. Thank, MSFT Copilot. How’s the Job One of security coming today?

There are reports, which I am not sure I believe, that Windows 11 is a modern version of Windows Vista. The idea is that users are switching to Windows 10. Well, maybe. But the point is that users are not happy with Microsoft’s alleged changes to Windows; for instance:

  1. Notifications (advertising) in the Windows 11 start menu
  2. Alleged telemetry which provides a stream of user action and activity data to Microsoft for analysis (maybe marketing purposes?)
  3. Gratuitous interface changes which range from moving control items from a control panel to a settings panel to fiddling with task manager
  4. Wonky updates like the printer issue, driver wonkiness, and smart help which usually returns nothing of much help.

I read “This Third-Party App Blocks Integrated Windows 11 Advertising.” You can read the original article  to track down this customization tool. My hunch is that its functions will be intentionally blocked by some bonus centric Softie or a change to the basic Windows 11 control panel will cause the software to perform like LiveWriter 2012.

I want to focus on a comment to the cited article written by seeprime:

Microsoft has seriously degraded File Explorer over the years. They should stop prolonging the Gates culture of rewarding software development, of new and shiny things, at the expense of fixing what’s not working optimally.

Now that security, not AI and not Windows 11, are the top priority at Microsoft, will the company remediate the grouses users have about the product? My answer is, “No.” Here’s why:

  1. Fixing, as seeprime, suggests is less important that coming up with some that seems “new.” The approach is dangerous because the “new” thing may be developed by someone uninformed about the hidden dependencies within what is code as convoluted as Google’s search plumbing. “New” just breaks the old or the change is something that seems “new” to an intern or an older Softie who just does not care. Good enough is the high bar to clear.
  2. Details are not Microsoft’s core competency. Indeed, unlike Google, Microsoft has many revenue streams, and the attention goes to cooking up new big-money services like a version of Copilot which is not exposed to the Internet for its government customers. The cloud, not Windows, is the future.
  3. Microsoft whether it knows it or not is on the path to virtualize desktop and mobile software. The idea means that Microsoft does not have to put up with developers who make changes Microsoft does not want to work. Putting Windows in the cloud might give Microsoft the total control it desires.
  4. Windows is a security challenge. The thinking may be: “Let’s put Windows in the cloud and lock down security, updates, domain look ups, etc. I would suggest that creating one giant target might introduce some new challenges to the Softie vision.

Speculation aside, Microsoft may be at a point when users become increasingly unhappy. The mobile model, virtualization, and smart interfaces might create tasty options for users in the near future. Microsoft cannot make up its mind about AI. It has the OpenAI deal; it has the Mistral deal; it has its own internal development; and it has Inflection and probably others I don’t know about.

Microsoft cannot make up its mind. Now Microsoft is doing an about face and saying, “Security is Job One.” But there’s the need to make the Azure Cloud grow. Okay, okay, which is it? The answer, I think, is, “We want to do it all. We want everything.”

This might be difficult. Users might just pile up and remain out of phase, orthogonal, and confused. Perhaps I could add angry? Just like LiveWriter: Tossed into the bit trash can.

Stephen E Arnold, May 9. 2024

Microsoft Security Messaging: Which Is What?

May 6, 2024

dinosaur30a_thumbThis essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

I am a dinobaby. I am easily confused. I read two “real” news items and came away confused. The first story is “Microsoft Overhaul Treats Security As Top Priority after a Series of Failures.” The subtitle is interesting too because it links “security” to monetary compensation. That’s an incentive, but why isn’t security just part of work at an alleged monopoly’s products and services? I surmise the answer is, “Because security costs money, a lot of money.” That article asserts:

After a scathing report from the US Cyber Safety Review Board recently concluded that “Microsoft’s security culture was inadequate and requires an overhaul,” it’s doing just that by outlining a set of security principles and goals that are tied to compensation packages for Microsoft’s senior leadership team.

Okay. But security emerges from basic engineering decisions; for instance, does a developer spend time figuring out and resolving security when dependencies are unknown or documented only by a grousing user in a comment posted on a technical forum? Or, does the developer include a new feature and moves on to the next task, assuming that someone else or an automated process will make sure everything works without opening the door to the curious bad actor? I think that Microsoft assumes it deploys secure systems and that its customers have the responsibility to ensure their systems’ security.


The cyber racoons found the secure picnic basket was easily opened. The well-fed, previously content humans seem dismayed that their goodies were stolen. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Definitely good enough.

The write up adds that Microsoft has three security principles and six security pillars. I won’t list these because the words chosen strike me like those produced by a lawyer, an MBA, and a large language model. Remember. I am a dinobaby. Six plus three is nine things. Some car executive said a long time ago, “Two objectives is no objective.” I would add nine generalizations are not a culture of security. Nine is like Microsoft Word features. No one can keep track of them because most users use Word to produce Words. The other stuff is usually confusing, in the way, or presented in a way that finding a specific feature is an exercise in frustration. Is Word secure? Sure, just download some nifty documents from a frisky Telegram group or the Dark Web.

The write up concludes with a weird statement. Let me quote it:

I reported last month that inside Microsoft there is concern that the recent security attacks could seriously undermine trust in the company. “Ultimately, Microsoft runs on trust and this trust must be earned and maintained,” says Bell. “As a global provider of software, infrastructure and cloud services, we feel a deep responsibility to do our part to keep the world safe and secure. Our promise is to continually improve and adapt to the evolving needs of cybersecurity. This is job #1 for us.”

First, there is the notion of trust. Perhaps Edge’s persistence and advertising in the start menu, SolarWinds, and the legions of Chinese and Russian bad actors undermine whatever trust exists. Most users are clueless about security issues baked into certain systems. They assume; they don’t trust. Cyber security professionals buy third party security solutions like shopping at a grocery store. Big companies’ senior executive don’t understand why the problem exists. Lawyers and accountants understand many things. Digital security is often not a core competency. “Let the cloud handle it,” sounds pretty good when the fourth IT manager or the third security officer quit this year.

Now the second write up. “Microsoft’s Responsible AI Chief Worries about the Open Web.” First, recall that Microsoft owns GitHub, a very convenient source for individuals looking to perform interesting tasks. Some are good tasks like snagging a script to perform a specific function for a church’s database. Other software does interesting things in order to help a user shore up security. Rapid 7 metasploit-framework is an interesting example. Almost anyone can find quite a bit of useful software on GitHub. When I lectured in a central European country’s main technical university, the students were familiar with GitHub. Oh, boy, were they.

In this second write up I learned that Microsoft has released a 39 page “report” which looks a lot like a PowerPoint presentation created by a blue-chip consulting firm. You can download the document at this link, at least you could as of May 6, 2024. “Security” appears 78 times in the document. There are “security reviews.” There is “cybersecurity development” and a reference to something called “Our Aether Security Engineering Guidance.” There is “red teaming” for biosecurity and cybersecurity. There is security in Azure AI. There are security reviews. There is the use of Copilot for security. There is something called PyRIT which “enables security professionals and machine learning engineers to proactively find risks in their generative applications.” There is partnering with MITRE for security guidance. And there are four footnotes to the document about security.

What strikes me is that security is definitely a popular concept in the document. But the principles and pillars apparently require AI context. As I worked through the PowerPoint, I formed the opinion that a committee worked with a small group of wordsmiths and crafted a rather elaborate word salad about going all in with Microsoft AI. Then the group added “security” the way my mother would chop up a red pepper and put it in a salad for color.

I want to offer several observations:

  1. Both documents suggest to me that Microsoft is now pushing “security” as Job One, a slogan used by the Ford Motor Co. (How are those Fords fairing in the reliability ratings?) Saying words and doing are two different things.
  2. The rhetoric of the two documents remind me of Gertrude’s statement, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Hamlet? Remember?)
  3. The US government, most large organizations, and many individuals “assume” that Microsoft has taken security seriously for decades. The jargon-and-blather PowerPoint make clear that Microsoft is trying to find a nice way to say, “We are saying we will do better already. Just listen, people.”

Net net: Bandying about the word trust or the word security puts everyone on notice that Microsoft knows it has a security problem. But the key point is that bad actors know it, exploit the security issues, and believe that Microsoft software and services will be a reliable source of opportunity of mischief. Ransomware? Absolutely. Exposed data? You bet your life. Free hacking tools? Let’s go. Does Microsoft have a security problem? The word form is incorrect. Does Microsoft have security problems? You know the answer. Aether.

Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2024

Microsoft: Security Debt and a Cooked Goose

May 3, 2024

dinosaur30a_thumbThis essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

Microsoft has a deputy security officer. Who is it? For reasons of security, I don’t know. What I do know is that our test VPNs no longer work. That’s a good way to enforce reduced security: Just break Windows 11. (Oh, the pushed messages work just fine.)


Is Microsoft’s security goose cooked? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.

I read “At Microsoft, Years of Security Debt Come Crashing Down.” The idea is that technical debt has little hidden chambers, in this case, security debt. The write up says:

…negligence, misguided investments and hubris have left the enterprise giant on its back foot.

How has Microsoft responded? Great financial report and this type of news:

… in early April, the federal Cyber Safety Review Board released a long-anticipated report which showed the company failed to prevent a massive 2023 hack of its Microsoft Exchange Online environment. The hack by a People’s Republic of China-linked espionage actor led to the theft of 60,000 State Department emails and gained access to other high-profile officials.

Bad? Not as bad as this reminder that there are some concerning issues

What is interesting is that big outfits, government agencies, and start ups just use Windows. It’s ubiquitous, relatively cheap, and good enough. Apple’s software is fine, but it is different. Linux has its fans, but it is work. Therefore, hello Windows and Microsoft.

The article states:

Just weeks ago, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued an emergency directive, which orders federal civilian agencies to mitigate vulnerabilities in their networks, analyze the content of stolen emails, reset credentials and take additional steps to secure Microsoft Azure accounts.

The problem is that Microsoft has been successful in becoming for many government and commercial entities the only game in town. This warrants several observations:

  1. The Microsoft software ecosystem may be impossible to secure due to its size and complexity
  2. Government entities from America to Zimbabwe find the software “good enough”
  3. Security — despite the chit chat — is expensive and often given cursory attention by system architects, programmers, and clients.

The hope is that smart software will identify, mitigate, and choke off the cyber threats. At cyber security conferences, I wonder if the attendees are paying attention to Emily Dickinson (the sporty nun of Amherst), who wrote:

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul
And sings the tune without the words
And never stops at all.

My thought is that more than hope may be necessary. Hope in AI is the cute security trick of the day. Instead of a happy bird, we may end up with a cooked goose.

Stephen E Arnold, May 3, 2024

LinkedIn Content Ripple: Possible Wave Amplification

April 19, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Google continues to make headlines. This morning (April 19, 2024) I flicked through the information in my assorted newsreaders. The coverage of Google’s calling the police and have alleged non-Googley professionals chatted up by law enforcement sparked many comments. One of those comments about this most recent demonstration of management mastery was from Dr. Timnit Gebru. My understanding of the Gebru incident is that she called attention to the bias in Google’s smart software systems and methods. She wrote a paper. Big thinkers at Google did not like the paper. The paper appeared, and Dr. Gebru disappeared from the Google payroll. I am have over simplified this remarkable management maneuver, but like some of Google’s synthetic data, I think I am close enough for horse shoes.


Is change coming to a social media service which has been quite homogeneous? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s the security work coming?

Dr. Gebru posted a short item on LinkedIn, which is Microsoft’s professional social media service. Here’s what Dr. Gebru made available to LinkedIn’s members:

Not even 24 hrs after making history as the first company to mass fire workers for pro-Palestine protests, by summarily firing 28 people, Google announced that the “(ir)responsible AI org,” the one they created in response to firing me, is now reporting up the Israeli office, through an SVP there. Seems like they want us to know how forcefully and clearly they are backing this genocide.

To provide context, Dr. Gebru linked to a Medium (a begging for dollars information service). That article brandished the title “STATEMENT from Google Workers with the No Tech for Apartheid Campaign on Google’s Mass, Retaliatory Firings of Workers: [sic].” This Medium article is at this link. I am not sure if [a] these stories are going to require registration or payment to view and [b] the items will remain online.

What’s interesting about the Dr. Gebru item and her link is the comments made by LinkedIn members. These suggest that [a] most LinkedIn members either did not see Dr. Gebru’s post or were not motivated go click one of the “response” icons or [b] topics like Google’s management mastery are not popular with the LinkedIn audience.

Several observations based on my experience:

  1. Dr. Gebru’s use of LinkedIn may be a one-time shot, but on the other hand, it might provide ideas for others with a specific point of view to use as a platform
  2. With Apple’s willingness to remove Meta apps from the Chinese iPhone app store, will LinkedIn follow with its own filtering of content? I don’t know the answer to the question, but clicking on Dr. Gebru’s link will make it easy to track
  3. Will LinkedIn begin to experience greater pressure to allow content not related to self promotion and look for business contacts? I have noticed an uptick in requests from what appear to be machine-generated images preponderately young females asking, “Will you be my contact?” I routinely click, No, and I often add a comment along the lines of “I am 80 years old. Why do you want to interact with me?”

Net net: Change may be poised to test some of the professional social media service’s policies.

Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2024

Nah, AI Is for Little People Too. Ho Ho Ho

April 5, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I like the idea that smart software is open. Anyone can download software and fire up that old laptop. Magic just happens. The reality is that smart software is going to involve some big outfits and big bucks when serious applications or use cases are deployed. How do I know this? Well, I read “Microsoft and OpenAI Reportedly Building $100 Billion Secret Supercomputer to Train Advanced AI.” The number $100 billion in not $6 trillion bandied about by Sam AI-Man a few weeks ago. It does, however, make Amazon’s paltry $3 billion look like chump change. And where does that leave the AI start ups, the AI open source champions, and the plain vanilla big-smile venture folks? The answer is, “Ponying up some bucks to get that AI to take flight.”


Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Stick to your policies.

The write up states:

… the dynamic duo are working on a $100 billion — that’s "billion" with a "b," meaning a sum exceeding many countries’ gross domestic products — on a hush-hush supercomputer designed to train powerful new AI.

The write up asks a question some folks with AI sparkling in their eyes cannot answer; to wit:

Needless to say, that’s a mammoth investment. As such, it shines an even brighter spotlight on a looming question for the still-nascent AI industry: how’s the whole thing going to pay for itself?

But I know the answer: With other people’s money and possibly costs distributed across many customers.

Observations are warranted:

  1. The cost of smart software is likely to be an issue for everyone. I don’t think “free” is the same as forever
  2. Mistral wants to do smaller language models, but Microsoft has “invested” in that outfit as well. If necessary, some creative end runs around an acquisition may be needed because MSFT may want to take Mistral off the AI chess board
  3. What’s the cost of the electricity to operate what $100 billion can purchase? How about a nifty thorium reactor?

Net net: Okay, Google, what is your move now that MSFT has again captured the headlines?

Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2024

AI Innovation: Do Just Big Dogs Get the Fat, Farmed Salmon?

March 20, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Let’s talk about statements like “AI will be open source” and “AI has spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of companies.” Those are assertions which seem to be slightly different from what’s unfolding at some of the largest technology outfits in the world. The circling and sniffing allegedly underway between the Apple and the Google pack is interesting. Apple and Google have a relationship, probably one that will need marriage counselor, but it is a relationship.


The wizard scientists have created an interesting digital construct. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are you coming along with your Windows 11 updates and Azure security today? Oh, that’s too bad.

The news, however, is that Microsoft is demonstrating that it wants to eat the fattest salmon in the AI stream. Microsoft has a deal of some type with OpenAI, operating under the steady hand of Sam AI-Man. Plus the Softies have cozied up to the French outfit Mistral. Today at 530 am US Eastern I learned that Microsoft has embraced an outstanding thinker, sensitive manager, and pretty much the entire Inflection AI outfit.

The number of stories about this move reflect the interest in smart software and what may be one of world’s purveyor of software which attracts bad actors from around the world. Thinking about breaches in the new Microsoft world is not a topic in the write ups about this deal. Why? I think the management move has captured attention because it is surprising, disruptive, and big in terms of money and implications.

Microsoft Hires DeepMind Co-Founder Suleyman to Run Consumer AI” states:

DeepMind workers complained about his [former Googler Mustafa Suleyman and subsequent senior manager] management style, the Financial Times reported. Addressing the complaints at the time, Suleyman said: “I really screwed up. I was very demanding and pretty relentless.” He added that he set “pretty unreasonable expectations” that led to “a very rough environment for some people. I remain very sorry about the impact that caused people and the hurt that people felt there.” Suleyman was placed on leave in 2019 and months later moved to Google, where he led AI product management until exiting in 2022.

Okay, a sensitive manager learns from his mistakes joins Microsoft.

And Microsoft demonstrates that the AI opportunity is wide open. “Why Microsoft’s Surprise Deal with $4 Billion Startup Inflection Is the Most Important Non-Acquisition in AI” states:

Even since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, the tech world has been experiencing a collective mania for AI chatbots, pouring billions of dollars into all manner of bots with friendly names (there’s Claude, Rufus, Poe, and Grok — there’s event a chatbot name generator). In January, OpenAI launched a GPT store that’s chock full of bots. But how much differentiation and value can these bots really provide? The general concept of chatbots and copilots is probably not going away, but the demise of Pi may signal that reality is crashing into the exuberant enthusiasm that gave birth to a countless chatbots.

Several questions will be answered in the weeks ahead:

  1. What will regulators in the EU and US do about the deal when its moving parts become known?
  2. How will the kumbaya evolve when Microsoft senior managers, its AI partners, and reassigned Microsoft employees have their first all-hands Teams or off-site meeting?
  3. Does Microsoft senior management have the capability of addressing the attack surface of the new technologies and the existing Microsoft software?
  4. What happens to the AI ecosystem which depends on open source software related to AI if Microsoft shifts into “commercial proprietary” to hit revenue targets?
  5. With multiple AI systems, how are Microsoft Certified Professional agents going to [a] figure out what broke and [b] how to fix it?
  6. With AI the apparent “next big thing,” how will adversaries like nations not pals with the US respond?

Net net: How unstable is the AI ecosystem? Let’s ask IBM Watson because its output is going to be as useful as any other in my opinion. My hunch is that the big dogs will eat the fat, farmed salmon. Who will pull that lucious fish from the big dog’s maw? Not me.

Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2024

Microsoft Decides to Work with CISPE on Cloudy Concerns

March 19, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Perhaps a billion and a half dollars in fines can make a difference to a big tech company after all. In what looks like a move to avoid more regulatory scrutiny, Yahoo Finance reports, “Microsoft in Talks to End Trade Body’s Cloud Computing Complaint.” The trade body here is CISPE, a group of firms that provide cloud services in Europe. Amazon is one of those, but 26 smaller companies are also members. The group asserts certain changes Microsoft made to its terms of service in October of 2022 have harmed Europe’s cloud computing ecosystem. How, exactly, is unclear. Writer Foo Yun Chee tells us:

“[CISPE] said it had received several complaints about Microsoft, including in relation to its product Azure, which it was assessing based on its standard procedures, but declined to comment further. Azure is Microsoft’s cloud computing platform. CISPE said the discussions were at an early stage and it was uncertain whether these would result in effective remedies but said ‘substantive progress must be achieved in the first quarter of 2024’. ‘We are supportive of a fast and effective resolution to these harms but reiterate that it is Microsoft which must end its unfair software licensing practices to deliver this outcome,’ said CISPE secretary general Francisco Mingorance. Microsoft, which notched up 1.6 billion euros ($1.7 billion) in EU antitrust fines in the previous decade, has in recent years changed its approach towards regulators to a more accommodative one.”

Just how accommodating with Microsoft will be remains to be seen.

Cynthia Murrell, March 19, 2024

Microsoft and Security: A Rerun with the Same Worn-Out Script

March 12, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

The Marvel cinematic universe has spawned two dozen sequels. Microsoft’s security circus features are moving up fast in the reprise business. Unfortunately there is no super hero who comes to the rescue of the giant American firm. The villains in these big screen stunners are a bit like those in the James Bond films. Microsoft seems to prefer to wrestle with the allegedly Russian cozy bear or at least convert a cartoon animal into the personification of evil.


Thanks, MSFT, you have nailed security theater and reruns of the same tired story.

What’s interesting about these security blockbusters is that each follows a Hollywood style “you’ve seen this before nudge nudge” approach to the entertainment. The sequence is a belated announcement that Microsoft security has been breached. The evil bad actors have stolen data, corrupted software, and by brute force foiled the norm cores in Microsoft World. Then announcements about fixes that the Microsoft custoemr must implement along with admonitions to keep that MSFT software updated and warnings about using “old” computers, etc. etc.

Russian Hackers Accessed Microsoft Source Code” is the equivalent of New York Times film review. The write up reports:

In January, Microsoft disclosed that Russian hackers had breached the company’s systems and managed to read emails belonging to senior executives. Now, the company has revealed that the breach was worse than initially understood and that the Russian hackers accessed Microsoft source code. Friday’s revelation — made in a blog post and a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission — is the latest in a string of breaches affecting the company that have raised major questions in Washington about Microsoft’s security posture.

Well, that’s harsh. No mention of the estimable alleged monopoly’s releasing the information on March 7, 2024. I am capturing my thoughts on March 8, 2024. But with college basketball moving toward tournament time, who cares? I am not really sure any more. And Washington? Does the name evoke a person, a committee, a committee consisting of the heads of security committees, someone in the White House, an “expert” at the suddenly famous National Bureau of Standards, or absolutely no one.

The write asserts:

The company is concerned, however, that “Midnight Blizzard is attempting to use secrets of different types it has found,” including in emails between customers and Microsoft. “As we discover them in our exfiltrated email, we have been and are reaching out to these customers to assist them in taking mitigating measures,” the company said in its blog post. The company describes the incident as an example of “what has become more broadly an unprecedented global threat landscape, especially in terms of sophisticated nation-state attacks.” In response, the company has said it is increasing the resources and attention devoted to securing its systems.

Microsoft is “reaching out.” I can reach for a donut, but I do not grasp it and gobble it down. “Reach” is not the same as fixing the problems Microsoft caused.

Several observations:

  1. Microsoft is an alleged monopoly, and it is allowing its digital trains to set fire to the fields, homes, and businesses which have to use its tracks. Isn’t it time for purposeful action from the US government agencies with direct responsibility for cyber security and appropriate business conduct?
  2. Can Microsoft remediate its problems? My answer is, “No.” Vulnerabilities are engineered in because no one has the time, energy, or interest to chase down problems and fix them. There is an ageing programmer named Steve Gibson. His approach to software is the exact opposite of Microsoft’s. Mr. Gibson will never be a trillion dollar operation, but his software works. Perhaps Microsoft should consider adopting some of Mr. Gibson’s methods.
  3. Customers have to take a close look at the security breaches endlessly reported by cyber security companies. Some outfits’ software is on the list most of the time. Other companies’ software is an infrequent visitor to these breach parties. Is it time for customers to be looking for an alternative to what Microsoft provides?

Net net: A new security release will be coming to the computer near you. Don’t fail to miss it.

Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2024






Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta