Sidekick: Microsoft's biggest failure yet?

When Microsoft lost T-Mobile Sidekick users' data, it also lost any credibility it might have for security. But, there's a bigger problem for everyone lying underneath this particular fiasco.

By sjvn  18 comments

You can't make stuff this bad up. Many T-Mobile Sidekick smartphone users lost all their contacts, calendar entries, photographs, you name it, when Sidekick's back-end software provider Microsoft, Danger, went down.

Danger turned out to be an all too apt name. Sidekick users use the Danger servers to synchronize their smartphone's content with a cloud-based storage service. When the servers went down, during it seems, an upgrade of Danger's SAN (storage area network), all the online user information disappeared with it. You see, while neither Microsoft nor T-Mobile is saying exactly what happened, it appears that Danger didn't back-up its servers before launching into a major, and failed, SAN upgrade.

I don't know about you, but any where I've ever worked, not running a backup before any major upgrade is a firing offense. And, not just any firing, this is a "don't let your feet touch the floor as the security cops run you out of the building" crime.

This isn't just a tech problem though. This is an organizational problem. This is a case where firing them all, from the top down, and letting unemployment sort them out is appropriate. There is simply no way on Earth that Microsoft should have tried this 'upgrade' without knowing that a backup was set, checked, and ready-to-go.

Microsoft is holding out some hope that some user information may yet be pulled out of the Sidekick wreckage. I wouldn't hold my breath.

This makes the second time in the last thirteen months that a Microsoft Windows-based server system suffered a catastrophic public failure at a major, public site. Last September, it was the London Stock Exchange that was knocked out of business. They got the clue. The London Stock Exchange decided to move its core trading infrastructure to Linux.

T-Mobile, if it's smart, will do the same. Presuming, of course, that they can find anyone to trust them with their information again.

As bad as this episode is though, there's a bigger problem hiding under it. These days we all trust a great deal of our information to Internet-based services. Whether it's a cloud or a remote server, we're putting more and more of our data into the hands of strangers.

While I think it's particularly foolish to trust remote Windows-based software with such information, isn't it really silly to blindly trust anyone?

It's not just mobile phone users. Don't you have important e-mails in Yahoo Mail? Photos on Flickr? Documents in Google Docs? You get the idea.

There are ways to keep local copies of some of this information. Google Gears, a Web browser extension, for example, lets you store a lot of Web-based information locally. But, it doesn't work with everything. For more on this and similar approaches I recommend you read my recent IEEE Spectrum story, 21st Century Backups.

And, if I were you, I'd start making sure with any service, for phones or PCs, that offers to keep my information for me online that they also provide an easy, automatic way to keep backups of my files and data locally. As the Sidekick fiasco has shown, you really can't trust anyone to safely save your information.

18 comments

    Anonymous 2 years ago
    "This makes the second time in the last thirteen months that a Microsoft Windows-based server system suffered a catastrophic public failure at a major, public site."except that danger is uses a java backend. it's written all over their website. a quick research will showhttp://www.danger.com/developer/
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    You do know that Java is a language, not an OS, right? You also know that the Java language is OS independent, right? Maybe the ignorance isn't with the article's author after all. Your comment does nothing to prove what OS Danger is using, nor does it prove ignorance on SJVN's part.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    I use Dropbox, which is a Windows and Linux-compatible file synchronization and storage service. I don't trust any service that doesn't allow me to store my data in an open source format.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    The real and imaginary megalomaniacal tendenciesof Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer notwithstanding, the is just demonstrates that the "the Cloud" isn't just a dorky name, its a really bad idea too.Cheers,Jacques
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    This article is spot-on in the majority of it's ctitique. But let's be honest here, it's painted heavily with the author's anti-Microsoft bias. I've run servers (Linux and Microsoft) long enough to know that both are very capable, reliable and secure as long as you do it right. This wasn't a server failure or an OS failure, it was human error -OK- stupidity. The OS is not the issue although the fact that it was Microsoft that botched it certainly is - they really ought to know better, eh!! IT people will see it for what it is, a huge project gone wrong. "Sidekick" users may or may not make the connection to Microsoft - T-Mobile is likely to take the heat from the masses. In the end, this can happen on any system and having a system go down is expected from time-to-time. But NO BACKUP??? Sorry, but that's unforgivable.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    Agreed. The big problem here was complete lack of a backup plan. You would think that with this being a telephony service, you would actually have duplicate SANs. Many SAN devices and setups have the ability to do image snapshots, or send data to two separate stacks of disks. This was a problem of very poor planning in terms of disaster recovery. Being on Linux or Windows would have made no difference. The valid questions that come out of this. When choosing a SaaS vendor, how can you be sure that data is recoverable? In terms of security, how can you be sure that your data is protected. I think the truth is that you can't be sure. When it comes to cloud computing, you need your own backups of your data, and in terms of security, the stuff you keep online is preferably encrypted. The second proposition is much harder to do depending the service you use.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Can't help but feeling sorry for sjvn and his musings about bad Microsoft and brilliant Linux (not that I don't agree). Once again a badly researched parroting of others' stories from the hand of sjvn.Followed up by blogspam to reddit, digg and others.In a down economy the streets of unemployment are barking at everyone but seriously?
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    http://www.danger.com/Buffoons, buffoons, everywhere buffoons.....
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    The truly sad thing about this situation is that 99.9% of sidekick customers will simply accept the loss of their data as "the way things are" in the computer world. They've lived with buggy, insecure, failure-prone Microsoft OSs for so long that they just assume the Danger meltdown is a natural extension of this shoddy experience onto their mobile handsets. Will this experience prompt them to look elsewhere and realize that there's a better alternative? We can only hope...
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    I went to read about Danger on Wikipedia and found the article already updated with this incident...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_(company)This is a new kind of encyclopaedia...This is a major FAIL for M$. I doubt few liked them before. Some needed current events like this to wake up to thereality that M$'s innovation is about making money, not sound tech.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Amazing that my Linux-based G1 has hummed happily along, with it's data safe and secure on a local SD card.As I tell my wife, there are three rules in computing: backup, backup and backup.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Danger is a Unix/Oracle/Java shop.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    The issue here is OS independent - it's the enormity of the procedural cock-up which is the problem. There is simply no excuse for this kind of mistake. As Danger is owned by Microsoft, it will inevitably be Microsoft's name which gets dragged through the mud.With regard to cloud computing, this is a perfect example of what can happen if you are prepared to give a monkey the key to the banana plantation.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    I don't see anywhere in the article where it claims Danger is Windows based. It is describing a Microsoft failure, and Danger, Inc. is a subsidiary of Microsoft.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    From the stories that I've read, Microsoft has been busy 'upgrading' Danger's infrastructure and porting as much of Danger's technology to a Windows based system as they can since the takeover. This fiasco was brought on by this 'upgrade' process...well, that and the fact that they didn't have any backups.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    The original article is very clear that Danger is owned by Microsoft and Microsoft is saying to not expect your data to be recovered. The same for T-Mobile.

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      SecurityWhite Papers & Webcasts

      White Paper

      Overcome Top 7 Admin Challenges of Active Directory

      As Active Directory's role in the enterprise has drastically increased, so has the need to secure the data. Gain insight on creating repeatable, enforceable processes that reduces administrative overhead and enables robust, customizable reporting and auditing capabilities. Brought to you by NetIQ.

      White Paper

      Insiders Can Ruin Your Company. Take Action.

      Did you know that 80 percent of threats to an organization come from the inside? The threat from insiders is often overlooked in organizations worldwide. This white paper from NetIQ, discusses key technology solutions that help to prevent and detect insider threats.

      White Paper

      Top Solutions and Tools to Prevent Devastating Malware

      Custom malware frequently goes undetected. According to Forrester Research, the best way to reduce risk of breach is to deploy file integrity monitoring (FIM) tools that provide immediate alerts. This white paper has been brought to you by NetIQ, the leader in solving complex IT challenges.

      White Paper

      Streamline Compliance and Increase ROI

      Streamline, simplify, and automate compliance related activities; especially those that impact multiple business units. This white paper from NetIQ, outlines solutions that will help your business gain the maximum return on investment possible while aligning your compliance programs.

      White Paper

      X-Ray of the PCI Process-4 Proactive Steps

      This white paper from Forrester Research Inc., helps break PCI into understandable components. Security and risk professionals will gain knowledge and insight into creating a compliant and secure IT environment. Follow these four proactive steps now before your next audit. Brought to you by NetIQ.

      See more White Papers | Webcasts

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question