Home

=__ Microsoft Competitive Strategies__ =

**Security and Open Source Competition**
__Group Members:__ Nicholas Tamsma Lindsey Braentner Vianey Hernandez Shannon Manner

=Table of Contents=


 * Overview**


 * Security Issues**
 * Microsoft Background
 * Hacker’s Evolution
 * Hacker's Strategies
 * Hackers Tools
 * Microsoft Shortcomings
 * Microsoft New Strategies


 * Linux and Open Source**
 * History of Unix/How Linux evolved
 * Reasons for Success of Open Source/Linux
 * 1) Security
 * 2) Learning Curve
 * 3) Cost
 * 4) Compatibility and Innovative Learning
 * Impact of Linux on Microsoft Products
 * Microsoft’s Response to Linux


 * Concluding Remarks**



 **__Overview__**

The purpose of this wiki is to inform readers of the changes in Microsoft’s competitive strategies since 2005, specifically regarding security threats, Linux, and open source operating systems. Changing strategies in each of these realms is engaging in their own right.

The world of security threats has always been one of the most fluid environments in which Microsoft operates. Success in the realm of security can often determine the viability of other portions of the company, making it extremely important. In the past, Microsoft has adapted and continues to try to adapt as current security concerns evolve. Just like any company on the competitive landscape, they are constantly facing challenges with enhanced methods and new environments.

The emergence of Linux has threatened several areas of Microsoft’s business model, forcing the company to create additional competitive strategies to remain afloat within the market. From enforcing new programs to working with open-source vendors, the success of Linux puts pressure on Microsoft to embrace the ideas of the emerging market and participate in innovation.

Top of page


 * __Security Issues__**


 * Microsoft Background**

As with most businesses in the technology industry, Microsoft has had a battle with security since it first began. In earlier years, Microsoft dealt primarily with unorganized security breaches by relatively harmless hackers searching for recognition (Yoffee and Mehta and Seseri 9). In 2003 Microsoft saw the first signs of a sort of hacker’s evolution, where these harmless threats turned into malicious, deceptive attacks. This was the most significant security threat Microsoft had encountered, causing security to become a business-wide concern for the company.

According to Microsoft in 2005, their strategy involved investing “significantly in building update and patch infrastructure to disseminate fixes quickly to its customers” (9). Microsoft vowed to provide additional complementary anti-spyware software for its customers to counter these threats, but no such movement to this software was seen until later times. Microsoft has seen themselves playing only as a reactionary force behind security threats, leaving it to the hackers to dictate the playing field and rules. 
 * Hacker’s Evolution**

This section describes the evolutionary trend of hackers and the challenges it has placed on Microsoft. Since 2005 Microsoft has been pressured to respond to hackers as they move away from individual disruptive activities into a growing entrepreneurial hacker industry. Also, the hacker’s days of exploiting technical faults in Microsoft’s software are slipping away (Doyle 40). An explanation of how hackers are gaining leverage against Microsoft through user ignorance and third party software weaknesses is explained in “Hacker Strategies.” An overview of the tools that hackers use to accomplish these things is addressed in “Hacker Tools.”

Just like in any other complex adaptive system, hacker agents are functions of their history. In the past, hackers worked as individuals trying to gain a reputation for having the fastest or the largest impact. However, in the last few years, hackers have worked less to disrupt the system and more so to gain money from their work, making it a full-blown industry. In fact, there is approximately $276 million dollars of goods available on black markets; this includes credit card information, server accounts, and more (GAO Reports 2007). According to the FBI the estimated annual cost to U.S institutions is approximately $67.2 billion dollars (Richmond). These hackers are rarely teenagers but software professionals that have career goals in mind. These hackers do not want to gain attention but would rather sit and listen quietly, gaining information over time before they strike. In this way they are able to adapt to new situations as they freely observe from the inside of systems, always one step ahead. Traditional security measures do not guard against these types of threats and new methods have to be developed to face them off (Doyle 40).

There are two main areas that hackers profit by stealing from others: industry information and financial information.

Sometimes hackers use gained access to a company’s computer networks to steal consumer information or valuable trade secrets. They then sell that information to others in the same industry (Richmond). This can be very costly for the companies involved and extremely hard to detect. This is because the attacks are often customized for exploiting weaknesses in that particular company. Old methods of defense often do not protect against customized attacks, instead they are conditioned to protect against massive (or wide spread) attacks (Reed 20-21, GAO Reports (2007), Giles 36-38).

Financial institutions are targeted significantly also. Already by 2006 financial institutions were the target for the most hackers attacks ("Hackers Target Financial Services"). This trend has continued and hackers are continually trying to steal credit card information, often targeting ecommerce websites. In fact, financial services sector bore 72% of all attacks by 2007 (“Attacks rise as e-tailers lag finance sector on security” ), and have seen consistently high attacks since then (Wolfe 8-9). 
 * Hackers Strategies**

The general evolution of hackers has not only changed their ambitions and targets, but also their methods too. Since 2005 hackers, true to their opportunistic nature, have stopped attacking the heavily protected operating systems of windows but now primarily take two other routes. They attack third-party software and rely on tricking users. Hackers have found that attacking the OS is much harder now than it was during the early days of Windows XP. One of the things they are doing instead is attacking third-party software that Microsoft has little control over. In fact many of these applications aren’t as good at creating timely patches and give hackers great opportunities for stealing information or taking over severs and computers. Hackers also attack some of Microsoft’s application products like Word and Excel (Markoff, Richmond).

Also hackers find that users can be easier to trick than breaking through security systems. They often observe social trends to develop strategies on how to accomplish certain goals. They have even reversed engineered patches into viruses, knowing that people do not always update even the most critical patches (Markoff; Richmond). Getting people to make security mistakes is not that hard considering many people are not that tech savvy and ignore security suggestions from Microsoft and other security software producers. Phishing is a big example of how people have lost money because they were tricked into giving up account information. Although people have become aware of this threat, they are nevertheless facing an inventive and intelligent enemy that often piggybacks off the legitimacy of real companies (Wolfe 8-9). 
 * Hackers Tools**

Hackers use a verity of methods to gain access to servers and PC’s, including worms in attachments, malicious advertising, and infected websites (Reed 20-21; GAO Reports 2007). Although all of these methods have been used before, the ways in which the methods are being employed has changed.

Using malicious email attachments to gain control of computers and information has been popular for a long time. Its effectiveness is now on the decrease though because many hackers are trying not to gain any attention. Large amounts of malicious emails attract a lot of attention, like the conficker worm (Giles 37). Also email service providers like Yahoo and Google are becoming better at scanning emails for harmful attachments. Instead, hackers that are working for financial gains are showing trends of increased discreetness (Doyle 40).

Malicious advertising that downloads a virus or spyware into a computer has been on the rise. This is because hackers are realizing it’s easier to trick a person into clicking on advertising in comparison to breaking through Microsoft’s operating system security (Schofield). Something as simple as clicking on an advertisement in a browser can greatly affect an entire network by making everyone susceptible to whatever malware that is present. This is an example of a big change experienced from a small cause within complex adaptive systems theory. Hackers use this to their benefit significantly. Infecting websites and using that website to distribute Trojan Horses, worms, and viruses is sometimes referred to as pharming. It works because they are using the credibility and trust that individuals have in the website to get people to remove security measures that Microsoft and other security developers put up (GAO Reports 2007). Also infected websites can sit quietly for long periods of time, silently collecting data for the cyber criminal, including consumer data, credit card numbers, or identity information (Wolfe 8-9). 
 * Microsoft Shortcomings**

After a hacker’s evolution and a changing fitness landscape, Microsoft arrived at a new set of shortcomings to tackle. Although, attacks on Window’s operating system are declining and for the most part unsuccessful, encompassing “only about 30 percent of the total volume of attack activity on the Internet” (Richmond 4), Microsoft’s faces a major shortcoming involving inadequate patches. Thus, desktop programs such as Microsoft Office are more susceptible to successful attacks by hackers. Also, a significant amount of corporations are using old versions of Microsoft Office that rarely receive updates. These versions take approximately twice as long to patch problems when compared to current operating systems. By that time, patches are often outdated and hackers have moved on to another area.

Adapting security concerns to the mental models of their consumers has certainly been a challenge for Microsoft. Many of Microsoft’s security measures are to difficult for their non-technical consumers apply or even to understand. Although Microsoft has built many automatic updates into its free anti-virus spyware software, there are still updates and patches that must be applied by the consumer in order to work. Since the majority of consumers are naïve when it comes to securing their computers, many security efforts go unused and unacknowledged.

According to George Stathakopoulos, the General Manager for Microsoft’s Security Engineering and Communications group, a third-party problem exists for Microsoft (Markoff 2). Though Microsoft’s security efforts have significantly improved, the company attributes their problems to organized attacks by hackers, inactive users and competitors (Markoff 7). The problem is that Microsoft can only control the patches and defense of their own software and attacks are coming from other areas of the industry. The characteristic of complex adaptive systems theory that any agent can influence or be influenced is featured in this situation. 
 * Microsoft New Strategies**

The most significant change to Microsoft’s strategy since 2005 is providing free security software for its consumers. Microsoft Security Essentials, nick-named Morro, was launched in September of 2009 as a free product for the use of Microsoft consumers (Schofield 7). According to David Pogue, “80 percent of Windows users believe that they have up-to-date antivirus software—but in fact, only 33 percent do” (10). Considering this misconception, Morro has experienced good reviews from consumers because of its user-friendly methods that protect against various forms of mal-ware. Morro stems from the security portion of Microsoft’s OneCare, a “comprehensive security, tuning and backup service” (Schofield 3) that many consumers were not willing to pay for. Morro established a new fitness peak for Microsoft, a characteristic of robust adaptive strategies. Microsoft is not the first to create security software and directly competes with third parties in this area. As part of the complex adaptive system, Microsoft is changing its relationship with these third party competitors like McAfee and Symantec.

Microsoft has been forced to step up its encryption standards because of increased attacks on Microsoft Office. The difficulty surrounding encryption is that one can never make it physically impossible for hackers to access unwanted information, just extremely difficult. David LeBlanc, an encryption specialist for Microsoft for nearly ten years, says that the point of encryption “is to try to hold off the attacker long enough so that the information is no longer valuable by the time he gets to it” (Gomes 9). In order to be effective programmers, Microsoft employees must be fully knowledgeable of encryption and work closely with other areas of the company to guarantee all loopholes are sealed.

The user is often considered to be the weakest link in security protocol for Microsoft, specifically regarding the Internet. Ben Fathi, vice president of Microsoft’s Security Technology Unit, says that “as long as users can be tricked into clicking a link or going to an unknown website, [Microsoft] is at risk” (Hines 6). Consumers often open emails and fall for false advertisements or other social engineering tactics that make it potentially harmful to their computers.

For this reason, Microsoft has changed its strategy in an attempt to accommodate the mental models of consumers. Microsoft’s User Account Control (UAC), a feature of its Internet Explorer 7 browser, helps users make better security decisions by rating the websites with different colors as consumers try to access them. For example, Websites that are known to support forms of mal-ware or other potential security threats will flash red around the edges of the browser, alerting the user of the security status they may be approaching (Hines 9).

The integrity of both Microsoft’s systems and network of advertising are compromised when malicious activity occurs. Essentially, as part of a complex adaptive system both parties can be affected by both positive and negative feedback loops. Online ads are the primary source of revenue that pays for search engines and free online services. In this light, this problem poses a serious threat if it’s let go too far (Richmond 9).

Microsoft is approaching the mal-advertising problem online from both the consumer standpoint as well as a legal standpoint. The Senior attorney for Microsoft’s Internet Security Program Richard Boscovich says that “Microsoft intends to subpoena companies like Internet service providers that may be able to track down the individuals responsible for the malicious Web sites involved in these schemes” (Richmond 2). The company is hoping that this precedent of legal action will serve as a deterrent for future cyber-criminals with intentions of online abuse.

Top of page 


 * __Linux and Open Source__**


 * History of UNIX/How Linux Evolved**

In 1969, Ken Thompson, Daniel Ritchie and others began working on UNIX at AT&T Bell Labs. In 1975, The University of California at Berkeley was the first premise outside the Bell Labs to have availability of UNIX (Ross 1). During the 1980s, a few programmers from the university hacked and acquired all of the major source code AT&T released (2).

The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) was being allocated to universities and corporations, thus making them another key variant to UNIX (2). More than a decade later, the UNIX business was passed from entity to entity, and UC Berkeley attempted to create a “free source” version of the BSD (4) However, BSD was not the first to think of such an idea (4). In 1984, programmer Richard Stallman established GNU’s Not UNIX system (GNU) (5). The program was almost complete by the early 1990s, but a working kernel was missing.

In 1991, Linus Benedict Torvalds was greatly inspired by Stallman’s ideas and wanted to emulate his path (Hasan 9 ). Torvalds looked at a small UNIX system called Minix and believed that he could create a better version (10). In 1994, Torvalds and his team of hackers published Linux version 1.0 with a free kernel (Ross 6).

Since Stallman and his team still had the remaining source code for GNU, programmers could then combine the two programs to establish one complete free system (6). Once the source codes were licensed and free to distribute, Linux became an instant phenomenon (Hasan 25).


 * Reasons for Success of Open Source/Linux**

The success of Linux and Open Source software came to the public’s attention in 1994, when it was first published in a large scale publication. Since the release of Linux software in 1991, the development of open source software and Linux specifically has expanded tremendously. Open source began as an idea with little clout and within 7 years evolved into a dangerous competitor for Microsoft as stated in the Microsoft Halloween Memorandum.

The success and restrictions of Open Source Software and Linux as it applies to Microsoft can be categorized by issues of security, the learning curve, cost, compatibility, and innovative sharing.


 * 1. Security**

Security, as defined by open source researcher Nick Dedeke, is the “software’s ability to prevent unauthorized access, whether accidental or deliberate, to programs and data” (104). Microsoft programs such as Internet Explorer and Windows software had previously received criticism revolving around security breaches in their information and the measures taken to protect against customer and company information being compromised. Little changed with the evolution of Linux and open source software programs, as consumers and competitors continued to question the issue of security and doubted the ability of an open source program to be shielded from attacks.

There are many circulating assumptions that open source software is more secure than the previously dominant closed source software programs. To aide in the conclusion of this question, Dedeke conducted what he titled a “study of vulnerability,” referring to the degree of the vulnerable state of the programs, companies, and information when studied for 1 year.

Initially in 1999, when Dedeke compared Windows and Linux, his results found that the Microsoft program had 68 breaches to Linux’ 1 breach. However in 2005, after time and improvement, Dedeke’s research showed that when comparing open source Linux to Microsoft’s Windows closed source, Windows came out on top with approximately half the security breaches of Linux, 552 to 1,048 respectively over a 1 year time span (103).

Further, he noticed a rapid increase in the amount of breaches on Linux as opposed to the controlled and only slight increase in breaches on Windows. As a result, Dedeke concluded that his findings do not support the assertion that open source software is more secure than closed source software.

As a result of the criticism of Microsoft software and the increasing competition, in 2008 Microsoft drastically improved its’ security measures (Markoff 1). As previously explained in Hackers and Security sections, “computer viruses, frauds and other online scourges” had grown by 43% in the first half of 2008 (Markoff 3). Security issues in Windows is on-going, but the measures Microsoft has and is currently taking to control the problem, along with open source security issues not proving significantly safer, aides in slowing the rapid transition of the public to open source software.


 * 2. Learning Curve**

Over decades, Microsoft has built itself a monopoly of the hardware industry. The corporation has made itself the main component of computer applications and the sole company that PC’s rely on. Bill Gates did not foresee the evolution of open source software and did not believe that a transition from hardware to software would be a battle he would one day need to face. His plan on monopolizing the industry forever was interrupted with the release and creation of Linux and open source software.

The learning curve is the initial quick and steep increase in learning a program and making progress, which then tends to level off and gradually become a steady or stagnant increase in productivity or growth after a certain amount of time. The learning curve can be attributed as one of the main reasons or restrictions as to why Linux and open source software does not currently dominate the technological realm.

Microsoft was well established many years before Linux was introduced, and Microsoft firmly controlled the industry by eliminating competitors and opposing any new contributions to the industry that did not stem from them. Because Linux was a small, start –up idea and company, they were placed on the learning curve. It takes time to learn the programs and get consumers on board. Linux began in 1991, but that they survived and are currently afloat shows that they have a good product that Microsoft and the world cannot ignore.


 * 3. Cost**

On the forefront and an influential selling point, Linux is free. Users can acquire the software at no cost. It can be copied and passed on without cost or consequences or the source code can be purchased from distributors (Horowitz 6). As of 2005, Linux-based computers were available for $200, as compared to the cheapest Windows based computer for $300 (Horowitz 1). However, there will be costs incurred to keep Linux upgraded and allow it to run with certain programs.

Large companies have adopted Linux software as a method to cut costs. Merrill Lynch and Co. testifies that "the cost of running Linux is typically a tenth of the cost of Unix and Microsoft alternatives" (Horowitz 16). It is widely adaptable, but not yet to the extent of Microsoft Windows.

Time is also a valuable cost and it will take some time to learn how to maneuver the new software, but it is becoming easier as new developments are made (Kendrick 11 ). 
 * 4. Compatibility and Innovative Learning**

A large part of the success of Linux and open source software comes from the ability to share documents, information, and programs freely and publicly. Before open source software, a cost was incurred to legally duplicate programs and software. This innovation cut costs drastically for corporations.

A downfall of Linux is that it is not yet as widely compatible as Microsoft Windows. Microsoft took extreme measures and legal action to bully manufacturers and companies into not transitioning to open source methods, thus restricting the reach of Linux. 
 * Impact of Linux on Microsoft Products**


 * 1. Altered Business Model**

As the first direct threat and major competition to the hardware giant, over time, Linux forced Microsoft to change its narrowly focused products produced at a high volume, for a low profit business model to try to accommodate new products and demands of the consumers. As of 2006, “open source products accounted for a 13 percent share of the $92.7 billion software market” and it is predicted that it will rise to “27 percent in 2011, when revenue is expected to be $169.2 billion” (Galoppini 8 ). Expectations are pointing to the rapid evolution of open source products, and Microsoft is finally realizing that they too must adapt or be left behind.

Microsoft has been a monopoly for decades without needing to change much of their business model at all. Now with new competition and emerging players to the industry, Microsoft has been forced to change their competitive landscape. As of 2007, Linux alone had gained 2-3% of what was formerly Microsoft’s desktop consumers (Silverthorne). Although this does not seem like a large portion, it proved a large enough dent to get Microsoft’s attention and begin to take preventive measures to end the growing competition.
 * 2. Pressure from Competitors**

In reference to Porter’s Five Forces Model, Linux is the emerging player along with the open source software in general. Open source software opened the door to a range of options and opportunities for Microsoft competitors such as Apple and IBM. It allowed for the industry to adapt and take further innovative measures once companies such as Apple partnered with open sourcing because it realized the opportunities available to expand its’ amount of users and compatibility with products. When strong competitors such as Apple changed and adapted, it applied immense pressure to Microsoft to change and create open source software models as well. Changing company ideals and strategy to survive in a rapidly evolving industry can also be called a company’s Robust Adaptive Strategy. The pressure to maintain its’ dominating position in the industry caused Microsoft to broaden their product reach and fund an open source project to learn the new market. In July of 2009, Microsoft contributed to Linux Kernel, a new edition of Linux. Instead of putting its’ effort to oppose Linux, Microsoft decided it was beneficial to join them for the betterment of development, the consumers, and moderating rivalry. Microsoft hired engineers specifically to research and develop open source software and responses, but did so with ulterior motives. The company saw the need to adapt to the emerging product and subside some competition, but only temporarily. Microsoft did so with the intentions of creating products that are once again solely dependable on other Microsoft products (Galoppini).

Since 2005 and the major development of Linux, Microsoft has adapted a new philosophy regarding open source strategy, not necessarily willingly, but out of necessity. Speaking of Microsoft’s open source strategy “could sound [like] an oxymoron” because the company’s “attitude towards open source ranged from scaring open source customers talking of (unveiled) software patents to… going even beyond obligations” set out for them (Galoppini 2). As a result of Linux, Microsoft was forced to look at what the customers are demanding instead of dictating what the customers can and will have. Adhering to yet another aspect of Porter’s Five Forces Model, the consumers having options, Microsoft changed its’ open source strategy to focus on “helping customers and partners be successful in today’s heterogeneous technology world” as opposed to creating products simply most beneficial to Microsoft and its’ profits (Galoppini 5). It is important to note that after nearly 20 years of being on the market, as long as Microsoft continues to follow its Robust Adaptive Strategy it is unlikely that Linux will “displace Windows of its leadership position” (Silverthorne 10). 
 * Microsoft’s Response to Linux**

Companies are now becoming familiar with Linux because of the “zero price” policy and its open source nature (Mehta and Seseri and Yoffie 9).

According to the Microsoft Case in 2005, Microsoft applied the Shared Source Initiative in response to the challenge. The SSI enables users to disclose their source codes to different organizations, yet they are not allowed to change them (9). According to Jason Matusow, Microsoft’s SSI manager, the program is not available for everyone (Semilof 5). He says the people allowed to view the source code are those “whom [Microsoft has] identified as eligible” (5). For instance, governments and enterprise partners use the code for security audits, while universities are the only customers that have the right to modify for research purposes (6, 8). Nonetheless, the SSI promotes communication between individuals and corporations through sharing and transparency today (17).

In February 2009, Microsoft and Red Hat joined forces to offer customer support for each other’s operating systems on their virtualized technologies (Montalbano 2). Elizabeth Montalbano, from the IDG News Service, states that “Microsoft will offer customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2 and 5.3 guests on all editions of Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V and Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008, [and] Red Hat will support customers running Windows Server 2003 SP2, Windows 2000 Server SP4 and Windows Server 2008 guests on Red Hat Enterprise virtualization technologies” (3).

In addition, these companies have agreed to collaborate with technical support on each other’s virtualized environments (4). This method enables companies to cut IT costs because the technology used in virtualization lets customers run applications on both servers on one piece of hardware (6). Because costs are being cut, the links in the participating companies’ value chains are being strengthened and the overall business processes are becoming more efficient.

According to Pankaj Ghemawat and Ramon Casadesus-Masanell from the Harvard Business School, Microsoft’s new business model should consist of some motives in order to remain competitive in the OS market (28).

First, Microsoft should increase its own demand side learning. Microsoft must learn to interact with the user base and the company to get instant feedback and performance on the products. They also must make the effort to improve old features and create new ones to keep customers interested in the system (28a).

Second, Microsoft should feed its direct and indirect network effects. By encouraging more competition between other independent software vendors, Microsoft appears more presentable with lower prices of applications. Also, Microsoft should classify the prices between universities and other organizations so that users can save their file libraries on Microsoft, not Linux (28b).

Third, Microsoft should minimize the number of strategic buyers. Governments should have the permission to release source codes to guarantee that all sensitive data remains confidential. Furthermore, individuals and organizations that refuse to spend money on Windows but will use Linux for free should still have some access to the binary codes (28c).

Fourth, Microsoft should reduce costs to be able to sustain long periods of time with low prices (28d).

Finally, Microsoft should introduce doubt, fear, and uncertainty to the Linux user community. However, in order for this to be accomplished, every statement and/or announcement must be made credible (28g).   Over all, Microsoft’s strategies are not necessarily the same across the board for every service or product it offers over time. This particular attribute adds to the success of the company as a whole. In line with that, many of Microsoft’s strategies have changed since 2005 and served as an insightful outlook into how a company can evolve.
 * Concluding Remarks**

Security issues in particular have forced Microsoft to adapt to various concerns, like evolving cyber criminal activity and user inefficiencies. Thus far, the most significant fitness jump for Microsoft here has been to provide Microsoft Security Essentials, a free anti-virus software. This has significantly changed Microsoft's business model; previously, they charged for this service but now it is free to benefit the community.

Linux, on the other hand, disrupted Microsoft’s equilibrium by emerging as a free and easily accessible operating system. Thus, the rivalry with Linux introduced a new competitive landscape that opposed Microsoft’s previously held peak. Because of the new threats entering their near-monopoly, Microsoft is now forced to adhere to others’ guidelines and acknowledge emerging companies.

Top of page 

  UNIX - __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Unix__  Berkeley Standard Distribution - __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Berkeley_Software_Distribution__  GNU’s Not UNIX (GNU) - __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ GNU's_Not_Unix__  Minix - __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ MINIX__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Kernel - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kernel_(computing)__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Linux - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://www.linux.org/info/ index.html__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Shared Source Initiative - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://www.microsoft.com/ resources/sharedsource/ default.mspx__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Source Code - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Source_code__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Red Hat - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://www.redhat.com/red_hat_ network/__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Information Technology (IT) - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Information_technology__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Operating Systems - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Operating_system__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> MS Halloween Memo - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Microsoft_Halloween_documents_ leak__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> PC - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Personal_computer__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Bill Gates - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bill_Gates__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Porter’s 5 Forces Model – <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">__http://www.quickmba.com/ strategy/porter.shtml__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Robust Adaptive Strategies - <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Adaptive_strategies <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Patch- <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 64%; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 160%;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 160%;"> Patch_(computing) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Malvertising- __http://www.urbandictionary. com/define.php?term= malvertising__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mental models- __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Mental_model__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Complex adaptive systems theory- __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Complex_adaptive_system__ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
 * __Definitions__**




 * Works Cited**

Asay, Matt. "Virtualization tips total-cost scales for Linux." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Business and Politics of Open Source: The Open Road // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. CNET, Aug.-Sept. 2009. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. __http://news.cnet.com/8301- 13505_3-10352923-16.html__

"Attacks rise as e-tailers lag finance sector on security." Computer Weekly (2007): 4. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.


 * Dedeke, Adenekan. "Is Linux Better than Windows Software? ." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">IBEEE Software // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 26.3 (2009): 103-104. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Business Source Complete // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.

Dilger, Daniel Eran. "Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">RoughlyDrafted Magazine // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 15 May 2007: n. pag. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Neoclassical Theme // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Web. 8 Oct. 2009.

Doyle, Eric "Purely business for today's hackers." Computer Weekly 21 Nov. 2006: 40. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.

"Cybercrime: Public and Private Entities Face Challenges in Addressing Cyber Threats: GAO-07-705." GAO Reports (2007): 1. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2009


 * Giles, Jim. "Conficker: The Enemy Within." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">New Scientist // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 202.2712 (2009): 36-39. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">MasterFILE Premier // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Web. 8 Oct. 2009.

Galoppini, Roberto. "Open Source of Microsoft: an analysis of Microsoft Open Source Strategy." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Commercial OSS, Open Business Models and Vertical Markets. // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Commercial Open Source Software, 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.__http://robertogaloppini.net/ 2008/03/20/open-source-at- microsoft-an-analysis-of- microsoft-open-source-strategy__

Gomes, Lee. "Secret Codes, Straight Talk." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Forbes // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 13 July 2009: 43. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Business Source Complete // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.

"Hackers Target Financial Services." Wall Street & Technology 24.1 (2006): 13. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2009

Hasan, Ragib. "History of Linux." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Ragib Hasan, 18 Oct. 2005. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. __https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ rhasan/linux/__


 * Hines, Matt. "Vista Takes Aim at Social Engineering." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">eWeek // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 24.3 (2007): 12. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Business Source Complete // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Web. 9 Oct. 2009.

Horowitz, Michael. "Linux v. Windows." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A comparison of Linux v Windows // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Michael Horowitz, Apr. 2007. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. __http://www.michaelhorowitz. com/Linux.vs.Windows.html__

Kendrick, Bill. "Introduction to Linux." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Introduction to Linux // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Davis Community Network, 15 Nov. 1999. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. __http://www.lugod.org/ presentations/intro2linux/ page11.html__

Markoff, John. "On Security, Microsoft Reports Progress and Alarm." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The New York Times. // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The New York Times Company, 3 Nov. 2008. Web. 8 Oct. 2009 __http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/11/03/technology/ companies/03security.html?emc= eta1__

Matusow, Jason. "MS: Open Source Model 'Definitely Worth Emulating.'" Interview by Margie Semilof. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">SearchWinIT.com // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. TechTarget, 15 Apr. 2003. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. __http://searchwinit.techtarget. com/news/interview/0,289202, sid1_gci893874,00.html__


 * Montalbano, Elizabeth. "Microsoft, Red Hat Virtually Partners." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Network World // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 26.8 (2009): 13. //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Business Source Complete // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Web. 8 Oct. 2009.

Reed, Brad "The year in cybercrime." Network World 25.48 (2008): 20-21. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.

Richmond, Riva. "Microsoft Chases Unknown Scammers Through the Courts." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The New York Times // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. The New York Times Company, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2009. __http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2009/09/18/microsoft-chases- unknown-scammers-through-the- courts/?emc=eta1__

Richmond, Riva."Security Pros Are Focused on the Wrong Threats." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The New York Times // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. The New York Times Company, 15 Sept. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2009.__http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2009/09/15/security-pros-are- focused-on-the-wrong-threats/? emc=eta1__

Ross, Seth T. "A Quick History of UNIX." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Albion // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2006. __http://www.albion.com/ security/intro-2.html__ Rpt. in //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Unix System Security Tools // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">.

Schofield, Jack. "Microsoft explores free option with Security Essentials." //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">guardian.co.uk // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. Guardian Media and News Limited, 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2009.__http://www.guardian.co.uk/ technology/2009/sep/30/ microsoft-security-essentials- internet-explorer-8__

Silverthorne, Sean. "Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win?" //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Harvard Business School Working Knowledge // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 6 June 2005. Web. 8 Oct. 2009. __http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/ 4834.html__

Wolfe, Daniel. "Data Hackers Shift to Phishing For Domain Name Credentials." American Banker 174.1 (2009): 8-9. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.


 * __Pictures Sources__**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">http://www.spyware-techie.com/ conficker-authors-failed-to- deliver-on-april-fools-day/ http://www.hightechdad.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/04/ conficker-worm.png http://wagoneers.com/john/ unix-live-free-lg.jpg http://slibre.files.wordpress. com/2008/09/admon-redes-linux. jpg http://topnews.us/images/Red_ Hat.jpg http://weblog.megelink.nl/ microsoft_logo.jpg