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.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Wait…you don’t audit every package and dependency before you compile and install?

      That’s crazy risky my man.

      Me? I know security and take it seriously, unlike some people here. I’m actually almost done with my audit and should be ready to finally boot Fedora 8 within the next 6-8 months.

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

      This is like asking if you do scientific experiments yourself or do you trust others’ results. I distrust private prejudice and trust public, verifiable evidence that’s survived peer review.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Scientists in the room who have to base their experiments off other peoples data and results:

        Tongue in cheek but this is actually giving me particular headache because of some results (not mine) that should have never been published.

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

          That sucks, but the answer to bad results is still more/better tests 😇

        • Daniel Feldman@hachyderm.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble @tabular I’ve never worked at Microsoft, but I worked at a different enterprise company and they did indeed fly in representatives of different governments who got free access to the code on a company laptop in a conference room to look for any back doors. I always thought it was silly because it is impossible to read all the code.

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

          If I’m a government I’m hella criminalising the sharing of proprietary software.