BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Has Microsoft Tried To Make Windows 8 Too Secure?

This article is more than 10 years old.

We've all spent decades shouting at Microsoft over the security flaws in the various version of Windows. Slightly, but only slightly, unfairly in my view: I'm not entirely convinced that other operating systems are all that much more secure. It's that Windows is what everyone was using and thus it was a juicy target for hackers and script kiddies.

But now we're moving out to Windows 8 and it seems that Microsoft has really tried to lock the system down:

The Redmond giant wanted only cryptographically signed executables, ideally those obtained from the official Windows application store, to run on its hardware.

That's something from the Apple playbook: or perhaps the world of gaming machines. And rather working against the competitive advantage of Windows itself, that there are simply so many darn applications for it. Yes, I know this is the RT, the ARM powered model, but still. The great selling point for a Windows machine is simply the vast numbers of programs out there for it. Why cut off that great competitive advantage?

That someone's managed to breach this barrier already doesn't surprise me either:

But, we're told, by twiddling a byte of memory in the Windows kernel, it is possible to disable the protection system and allow any code to run on the system.

Taking full control of the device, effectively jail-breaking the computer to run any ARM-compatible software, after that point is an exercise left to the user.

But while that doesn't surprise me, it was the original decision that has me confused. Why would they not want the usual army of third party software suppliers on this new hardware? Why would they try to prevent that happening?