Hasn't Azure been root level compromised twice in the last 12 months?

Once involving signing keys so critical that (from rough memory) they had to restore them silently after initially deleting them?

Yes, but people forget faster than they blink. And all the ransomware putting down utilities is attributed to user error, not to the OS happily running every URL from the internet.

Here are few big ones from the past 12 months.

https://www.wiz.io/blog/bingbang

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/12/23792371/security-breach-...

https://www.wiz.io/blog/midnight-blizzard-microsoft-breach-a...

I would agree, the Windows OS has really matured since XP, from a security perspective at least.

I would definitely expect better than this from a tech giant like MS. When was the last time Google, Meta, or Apple got breached like this?

Edited to add, I think them open sourcing some security training is good, it benefits everyone whether or not MS themselves are a great example of a secure company.

Another perspective is if you haven't failed and analyzed the failure, you don't really know why your current processes might be succeeding.

Or if your processes are good at all, and it's not just luck, or being less of a target, that means the holes haven't been exploited yet.

The slingshot penetrating your tank armor is not a helpful failure. Except for telling you that your processes are so wildly off base that you need to start over.

People who claim this kind of failure is useful are clueless. Failures are interesting in exploratory processes and useful when occurring within a predicted failure regime (i.e testing to failure). Unexpected failures in predicted success regimes just indicate process weaknesses. Repeated and continuous failures in similar fashions do not indicate strength, they indicate structural process deficiencies despite what cybersecurity bozos would like you to believe.

If only we were back to 2004...

Look at the number of vulnerabilities introduced by Windows version. It's good that they're fixing them frequently, but the fact that they need to do so in the first place (and there's more and more of them with each new version) is itself a problem.

Can you even link to a single technically competent offensive specialist that states a Microsoft system would be difficult to break into? Just to make it concrete, let’s go with a really low bar like one skilled person over one year.

For that matter, can you link to anybody technically competent at Microsoft who would dare to make a claim like that and then actually back it up with experimental evidence? No point listening to the blather of the Microsoft PR team when the silence of the technical team tells you all you need to know.