Cuba Uses Linux To Stick It To The US

from the take-that-evil-capitalist-pigs dept

It looks like Fidel Castro's plan to build a Cuban software industry has paid off, somewhat: the country has announced that it's launched its own variant of Linux. The goal is to replace the Microsoft operating systems that runs most of Cuba's computers, because the government sees Windows as a security threat. Insert your own punchline there, but for Cuba, it's because it believes US authorities have access to Microsoft code, and can therefore spy on Cuba through it. That's debatable, but so is the claim from the dean of the School of Free Software at Cuba's University of Information Sciences, who says the "black holes and malicious codes" in proprietary software "doesn't happen with free software." While open-source projects often offer better security than proprietary platforms, open-source or "free" software isn't inherently more secure. But somehow it seems ideology is probably more important than facts here.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    David T, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 3:56am

    Cloak and Dagger

    If I were running homeland security, I would work with US software (Microsoft), hardware (Cisco) and data management (Google) companies that interface extensively with "hostile" governments.

    For a small, "hostile," nation that doesn't have the infrastructure to code it's own proprietary systems, going open source seems to be a smart move in the interest of national security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Osno, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 4:03am

    There is also a more valid reason. Most Microsoft products cannot be solved in "terrorist" nations, such as Cuba. That makes it fairly difficult for Cuba to get legal copies of Windows. With Linux, they have a ready option to alter to they needs. IMHO, it's a great thing for Cuba.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      LarsL, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:38am

      Re:

      "There is also a more valid reason. Most Microsoft products cannot be solved in "terrorist" nations, such as Cuba. That makes it fairly difficult for Cuba to get legal copies of Windows."

      As a 'terrorist' nation, do you think they care? Do you think that US Microsoft representatives in Cuba are going to put Cuban citizens or Cuban government agencies to trial in Cuban courts of law. And win?

      Makes no sense to prosecute for software piracy in a country where the software is not even sold.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:58am

      Re:

      Considering that many people in the rest of the world don't bother with legal copies of Windows, I doubt that's a real motivating factor. It's more to do with the fact that they can make changes and create systems that work for them, without having to operate at the whims of a hostile nation.

      Besides, since when has Cuba been a "terrorist" nation. They have a communist government, a very different thing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 7:04am

        Re: Re:

        "Besides, since when has Cuba been a "terrorist" nation."

        Since 9/11, haven't you been paying attention?
        Americans have since that day been on target to exterminate all enemies of freedom in all places unholy. Since we realize we can't positively ID every terrorist out there we thought we would play it safe and just nuke earth from orbit.

        We coined the term "The War on Terror" for us to be able to commit acts of crime without consequence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 7:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Good for Fidel!

          >>Since 9/11, haven't you been paying attention?
          >>Americans have since that day been on target to
          >>exterminate all enemies of freedom in all places unholy.

          Why is it when I install Office 2007, My firwall wants me to authorize connections to DHS.GOV? No joke.

          Yah, trustworthy computing!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 8:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You sir, are a moron.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Skip C, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 4:26pm

      Re:

      How is Cuba a "terrorist" nation?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    db0, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 4:23am

    If we're talking about current OS'

    Then yes, they are more secure as their whole architecture is built to be secure. If we're talking theoretically, then no, Free software is not necessarily more secure. But practically, in the world we're living now, and the software that exist at this point, it is. However what free software is inherently, is of better quality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:27am

      Re: If we're talking about current OS'

      *nix is not built to be secure. The various security improvements over the years have increased security with the OS, and the fact that Microsoft is such a juicier target helps keep the majority of malicious apps on Windows.

      Essentially, the various *nix distros have just gotten lucky that they haven't been fully targeted. Even in the server arena where they are more prevalent, there is usually a Windows box there that is more readily compromised; easier only because of the years of practice people have in attacking Windows boxes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:47am

        Re: Re: If we're talking about current OS'

        Get a clue.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Feb 13th, 2009 @ 6:11am

        Re: Re: If we're talking about current OS'

        Wow. Bizarro world exists in tech circles, it seems.

        UNIX was designed from the ground up with security in mind. That's why there's always been such things as enforced passwords on user accounts, best practice that includes not running as admin unless you absolutely have to, security groups, etc. You can also disable and remove pretty much anything you want in a *NIX system within reasonable bound (including the option to recompile the kernel to remove insecure components is desired).

        Windows was originally designed as a single user system. After abandoning the 9x core as being ridiculously insecure, Microsoft turned to the more secure NT kernel but also made a number of horrific security errors (including insecure services being enabled by default and encouraging the constant use of admin accounts) that led to various different worms and virii being possible. It's only with Windows 7 that they finally seem to be correctly enforcing security on users. Server systems have been more secure, but to say that Microsoft has a history of coming close to a *NIX level of security until recently is a joke.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jeff (profile), Feb 13th, 2009 @ 8:06am

        Re: Re: If we're talking about current OS'

        I cannot express my utter befuddlement with your statement.

        *nix was indeed designed as a secure system.

        While it is true that the creation of exploits/virii/worms has target windows due to its popularity, that is not the entire picture. Windows exploits exist primarily due to the fact that the preferred operating model of the OS is inherently insecure. In a *nix environment you may need to be root to install an app, but except for certain system apps and for the launching of server processes, you need not be root to run them. However, on windows there are more apps than you can shake a stick at that require you to have admin privileges to run them. So what, you might say. Well, the problem lies in that this makes for a greater likelihood that the end user on a windows box is an admin. If that end user executes code, it runs with admin privileges. Due to these facts, there is a plethora of "workbenches" that can lead nearly anybody through a process to build a virus or trojan.

        And don't even get me started on the issues with ActiveX and implied security.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      eleete, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 6:03am

      Re: If we're talking about current OS'

      It's hard to argue which is more secure without exploring the code. Open Source makes sense because the flaws are there for the whole world to see, and fix. As soon as an exploit becomes known, the community goes straight to work and a patch is released within a couple of days if not hours. Compare that to M$ releasing patches so slowly, and being the only ones with the source code. At least with Linux if there's buzz about the US spying on them through software, they can open up the source code, and see for themselves. Then they can fix the hole and resume. By Far, Open Source is the best alternative yet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    xtraSico, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 4:27am

    A lot of us did that

    A lot of us (us=we, not U.S.) did that: we prefer Linux because of its security. So, most of our opinions are going to be approving their move. I use MS-OS's at work because that's what we use at work, but when I have to really audit a PC or network I use Linux. At home I use MS for extreme gaming (CoD4, Crysis, etc).

    With all due respect, IMHO, I don't see Cuba as a terrorist country. Communist yes, but not terrorist. When have you heard of a Cuban doing a terrorist attack. The White house? Yeah, that was TOO long ago.

    Maybe their president doesn't has a capitalist brain and he "condone" terrorists attacks on US soil, but, come on... Cubans are not like that. Just my opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lorenzo, Feb 14th, 2009 @ 9:10am

      Cuba government=terrorist???

      I guess I understand what you are trying to say.
      But, behind the scene, Cuba's government opened several terrorist training camps in Cuba and developed (is proved) quimical sustances to use it in dirty wars against "capitalism".
      So, Cuba' strategy is not the be "oficially" the bad boys, but in reality, the are!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:18am

    Didn't you know? Anyone America doesn't like is a terrorist. And if it can't be proved, well, they just need a short vacation in Guantanemo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:31am

      Re:

      Fail @ trolling. Gitmo is being closed.

      Really though, the US needs to do something about its politicians before it really gets out of hand. People talk about "evil amerika" and so forth but that's not really accurate.

      Bad enough you can't trust the US anymore, even if it is your home. We don't need the US marching steadily towards a police state anymore. It's a distant future, but one that's incoming if the past decade (and numerous parts of the US' history) keep occuring.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Chunky Vomit, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      Which, if you are Cuban, is just like going to a conference in your own town! All locked up, and you don't really care because you have seen everything else around you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:28am

    Cuba/Linux

    Dang those pesky Cubans! Are they using Linux on *both* of their computers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Droslovinia, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:44am

    They're on to us!

    Dang!

    Cuba finally figured out that Microsoft is an evil plot. I guess we'll have to move on to some other country whose politics we don't like.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 5:55am

    Computers in Cuba

    They have computers in Cuba!?!? Linux runs on TRS-80's?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jack Sparrow, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 6:37am

    Funny !!! Verry verry funny!!!

    "M$ is secure"...
    ""terrorist" nations, such as Cuba"...
    ""hostile," nation"...

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    I can't breath, I can't breath.

    I ever say and repeat it to children... Just use to learn something at school, since you'r been there so many time everyday... Don't became a moron adult!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 8:27am

    c'mon...since when does using linux stick it to any country???? It only sticks it to the other non-free OS that they were using before.

    MS != USA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mojo Bone, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 8:31am

    A little OT, I know, but...

    Am I the only person that noticed Fidel's been dead since July of '07 ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    zenn, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 8:41am

    The real reason behind Cuban Linux

    is a fact, commies may easily monitor their citizens via opensource software.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 3:01pm

      Re: The real reason behind Cuban Linux

      zenn wrote:

      ...commies may easily monitor their citizens via opensource software.

      And where would they hide the monitoring software, such that it cannot be found and removed? The source is open to inspection and freely modifiable, after all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dave, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 9:55am

    Network security, not local admin / root

    I would think the security that Cuba is referring to has more to do with network intrusion than how the OS handles root or admin accounts.

    Open Source software inherently has the security problem that... it's open source! Go trolling through the source code and look for exploits.

    This is also a strength, depending on the distro as you may have several people looking for exploits and fixing them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 12:41pm

    Of course, they're quite correct

    It is, as a practical matter, impossible to properly secure any Microsoft Windows system. Even Microsoft acknowledges this, in its own recommedations for (a) the band-aid of frequent patching (b) the band-aid of a firewall (c) the band-aid of anti-virus (d) the band-aid of anti-spyware, etc.

    Compare and contrast with OpenBSD, for example, which is readily deployed on the open Internet without any of these things, and is vastly more resistant to attack.

    There's a reason why nearly all of the 100M+ zombies out there are running Windows, and it is not -- contrary to the delusions of Microsoft fanboys -- because Windows is popular. It's because it's pitifully weak, which is no doubt also why Windows system are routinely compromised in large numbers via software written by children.

    So yes, open-source software IS more secure, both because it facilitates peer review (any software which does not should be classified as "snake oil", just as any drug which does not should be) and because the results as proven in the field over the past thirty years indicate that it clearly outperforms closed-source software by a wide margin.

    Case in point: last time a significant fraction of the Internet-connected hosts running an open-source operating system were hijacked by malware: November 3, 1988. Last time a significant fraction of the Internet-connected hosts running a closed-source operating system were hijacked by malware: rignt now.

    It really does concern me that it seems necessary to reiterate this point to the inexperienced members of the audience. Surely it can't be asking too much for them to review the brief history of the Internet vis-a-vis security before parroting the primitive and obsolete concepts of the software equivalent of the flat-earthers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nick, Feb 13th, 2009 @ 7:21pm

    First you say "open-source or free software isn't inherently more secure.", which flies in the face of arguments by many people who have much more in depth knowledge than you, and then you say "But somehow it seems ideology is probably more important than facts here.". This is irony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Freedom, Feb 16th, 2009 @ 2:47pm

    Backdoors?

    I use MS stuff almost exclusively, but I don't have anything to hide either... if I did, I wouldn't do it on a MS based machine. There is too much going on in the mahcine and too much of it can't be turned off for any real security.

    Also, does anyone really believe that the government hasn't worked out deals with Microsoft for back doors into the OS? Hell, with "secure computing", they can even go ahead now and leave an "open door" and just give them a key.

    The beauty of Open Source Software is the ability to review all the code. If Microsoft wants Cuba to trust them, they need to release all their source code for review and let them compile it themselves. In that case, you'll at least have a system that they know hasn't been tampered with and can disable any modules that they don't "like".

    Freedom

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RJ, May 17th, 2009 @ 2:33pm

    Same

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tampa dentist, Feb 17th, 2010 @ 7:28pm

    Cuba

    Maybe their president doesn't has a capitalist brain and he "condone" terrorists attacks on US soil, but, come on... Cubans are not like that. Just my opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This