danvm

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.

There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  

Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.

I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.

That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.

If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.

https://www.cso.com.au/article/594198/us-dod-targets-4m-windows-10-upgrades-by-2017-boost-security/

Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 

Improved security does not mean good security.
Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.

From what I know MS applications and cloud services are one of the most popular in enterprises and business.  Do you really think that they would as popular if they were bad at security?  Are they perfect?  No, neither Apple, Google, IBM or other company.  But I don't think MS is bad as security as you think.

And yes, antivirus started as applications to protect Windows.  But now they expanded to included macOS, which by the way, includes an AV, XProtect.  Does it means that macOS is not good at security as you think of Windows?

The're popular because they're cheap -- which brings us back to my original point:

"Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual."

Every business makes the determination on whether the cost of security is more than the cost of being hacked.

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.

There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  

Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.

I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.

That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.

If you are talking about the 80's and 90's, maybe I would agree.  But MS have improved a lot.  They have one of the large cloud infrastructures in the world, and you cannot build something as big without being good at security.  Even Windows 10 have been a big improvement in security.  Recently the DoD upgrade 4M devices to Windows 10, why?  To improve security.

https://www.cso.com.au/article/594198/us-dod-targets-4m-windows-10-upgrades-by-2017-boost-security/

Maybe the reputation you think MS have related to security is poor, but in realty they are doing very good. 

Improved security does not mean good security.
Microsoft has single handedly created an entirly new industry:  Virus protection.

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.

There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  

Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.

I agree with you.  Making the Internet a safer place to make transaction evolve every day.  And this agreement between MS + MC maybe is the next step to make transaction in the internet safer.  I don't see how this could be a bad thing, considering the billions of transactions made every years in the Internet.  I just hope it works.  If this reduce the incidents of stolen information, it will reduce costs for customer and business.  Everybody wins.

That's all true.   But Microsoft's reputation for security is far from stellar.

radarthekat said:

danvm said:

macxpress said:

Could be worse...could be Google and MasterCard. 

Considering your post, I suppose you think Apple did wrong on accepting $9B from Google to make Google Search the default search engine in iOS and macOS, right?

Try to keep up.  Tim Cook was asked why his company takes those billions and he answered that on Apple devices there are protections in place e to limit the ability of Google searchto track you all over the web.  Not so much, apparently, on Android, or else he wouldn’t have been able to make the distinction. 

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

If its online it can be hacked & stolen -- and identity theft is a growth industry.

Why would I trust Microsoft with my ID?
Actually, that's one of the big reasons why I stick to Apple products -- security and privacy.  They're not invulnerable, but they're better than the rest.   Far better.

There is a large list of enterprises and business that trust MS authentication platform (Azure AD / AD) for their users and customers ID's.  And now they are moving to password less on their services and products, as a method to improve security. 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/passwordless

Like you said, if it's online, it can be hacked and stolen.  But MS have been prove very solid from a security POV, specially with their cloud services.  I think that's the reason MC team with MS for this project.  

Part of the trouble is that when a business is hacked, it's their customer's information that is stolen and it's customers that suffer the consequences.   The business itself gets a bit of bad publicity, spends few dollars on a token effort to placate the affected customers, and then moves on with business as usual.

Having their customer's information stolen is now just a normal cost of doing business -- for the enterprise.  So, their incentive is to put as little time, effort and money into secure systems as they can reasonably get away with and still be able to claim that they keep their customer's private information secure.