If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Karl Levinson [x y] mvp wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Take a closer look at your list. Many of those such as Blaster would have been a non issue if users had simply used the patch that was available for weeks before Blaster came on the scene. They are total non-issues for Linux or UNIX users. Riiiight, Linux, Unix and OpenBSD have zero vulnerabilities. Did I say that? Right, Linux has fewer vulnerabilities than Windows. Did I say that? Right, users that can't configure and patch Windows would magically be able to keep Linux secure. Did I say that? Right, Linux web servers are hacked less frequently than Windows web servers according to www.zone-h.org Did I say that? Nope to all four! I said in reply to Jupiter that those Windows based viruses were a non-issue for *nix based OSs. No, it comes down to having only one Desktop OS target. Right, switching to Linux or more than one desktop OS makes companies more secure / easier to secure. Did I say that? Can't you address what I actually write? Would it have been as easy as it was for the Japanese to destroy & damage as many ships on Dec. 7, 1941, if those ships were spread out across the Pacific, instead of being all bottle up in Pearl Harbor? Is having only one target to hit easier than hitting multiple target with one shot? It's a matter of common sense. Not whether one OS platform is better than another, rather that having multiple OS platforms are intinsically more secure than only having one. If there were multiple Desktop OS in the PC market, less people at any given time would be affected by any one computer nasty. Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target. Riiiiiight. Maybe if www.debian.org was running some Windows servers, they wouldn't have been hacked a few months ago. It affected one server, not potentially 95% of the Desktop computers on the planet or anybody else system other than Debian's. In the past 12 months, Microsoft, Linux, Cisco and others all had highly critical remote vulnerabilities discovered that required patches. Yep, and because there are multiple choices in server networking platforms, an attack on one platform doesn't take out the others. This is just my point, but your too much of a "MS uber alles" advocate to see it. And *nix already owns the lions share of web servers. So how would switching to heterogeneous OS environments do anything to increase security or reduce support costs? It's common sense dude. During the cold war, did the USA & the USSR build one central location each for all their missiles, or did they spread the missiles out over vast areas? They spread them out to multiple locations. Now it would have been easier to control all those missiles if the were centrally located, but the threat of having them all taken out in one massive first strike was so untenable, that both countries spread their missiles to the four winds. MS's Desktop monopoly OS, is like having all your missiles in one central location, you risk losing them all with just one shot. Or would it actually increase support costs, double or triple the amount of work and patches required, and increase the likelihood that a company would make critical security mistakes that lead to a compromise? Nope, you answer my question, which you conveniently cut out, first, and that was, "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target." But you won't, and that's why you cut it out in the first place, because you know it's a totally indefensible position! And that's why you were trying to put other words in my mouth and paint me as pro-*nix, to try to bury my actual point in a blizzard of your Bull Sh*t! Didn't think I'd notice, huh? Well, don't you ever think you can play games with my opinions, and get away with it. Better people than you have tried, and failed just as miserably you have. Now to answer your question in two parts, "Or would it actually increase support costs, double or triple the amount of work and patches required," Who knows? Does having multiple Server OSs now, increase support costs, double or triple the amount of work and patches required, as compared to the support costs, amount of work & patches for the monolitic Desktop environment that the general public is forced to accept at present? "and increase the likelihood that a company would make critical security mistakes that lead to a compromise?" It would affect only that one companies products, hence lessoning the effect that any one companies critical security mistakes would have on the general public as a whole. As this is exactly my point. Sure, like you, I find it puzzling that Microsoft hasn't released a patch for the IE URL issue yet. But that doesn't make your pro-*nix statements above true. I'm not pro-*nix, and I didn't make any pro-nix statements, that was your fantasy. I am advocating a diverse desktop PC OS market that would by it's very nature lessen the effects of any one given computer nasty from affecting potentially 95% of the PCs on the planet. "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target." -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
I never said I was upset. Why do you continually feel the need to project your own feelings on others? I simply consider the source Kurt! "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target." Stay on topic, answer the question, and stop playing your WinTroll games, Juppy. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Kurt;
Stay with your facts. I never even suggested "one big target of an OS" is the way to go. Those are your words and ideas. You seem to need to falsely put statements to others in order to support your ideas. To bad you can not support your point on its own merit. Furthermore you start to name calling. Name calling is strong evidence that you lack the ability to support your own point of view. Good bye Kurt. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target." Stay on topic, answer the question, and stop playing your WinTroll games, Juppy. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea **************** "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
Kurt; Stay with your facts. I did, notice that I was quoting myself. I never even suggested "one big target of an OS" is the way to go. You were disputing my arguement that MS's monopoy OS is what is the biggest security hole for the general public by blaming the general public. Those are your words and ideas. Which you were trying to dispute by blaming the victims, rather than the delivery system of being locked into one big fat target of a Desktop OS. You seem to need to falsely put statements to others in order to support your ideas. No, I trying to actually get you to confront my ideas, instead of doing the side-step shuffle to protect your Masters. To bad you can not support your point on its own merit. I already have, it's you that have not support any contrary point the dimishes my opinion in the slightest bit. Furthermore you start to name calling. What else could you be called when you only answer that most inconsequential part of my post, and leave the meat of it untouched? That's exactly the tactics of a troll. Name calling is strong evidence that you lack the ability to support your own point of view. My point has been proved, and only the MicroDeafDumb&Blind can't see it. MS's desktop OS monopoly is the biggest security risk for the general public today, because that one giant-assed target can't help from getting hit. It's a hell of a lot easier to hit one bird with one stone, than two birds with one stone. I have common sense on my side, you have only your unwavering devotion to MS to back you up. Thank you! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Blaster came on the scene. They are total non-issues for Linux or UNIX users. Riiiight, Linux, Unix and OpenBSD have zero vulnerabilities. Did I say that? If you weren't implying that users switching to *nix would make them more secure, then I don't see the point in making that statement at all. Of course Blaster isn't an issue for *nix users. So what? [unless the implication was that switching to *nix is better.] Switching half the desktop computers to *nix would not have made Blaster, Welchia, SQL Slammer any better. Five computers can potentially DoS a network, and one infected computer can allow an attacker to bypass the firewall to compromise the data on the entire network. Riiiiiight. Maybe if www.debian.org was running some Windows servers, they wouldn't have been hacked a few months ago. It affected one server, not potentially 95% of the Desktop computers on the planet or anybody else system other than Debian's. Yeah, but that was one he11uva server. It was several servers at several *nix distribution and development sites that potentially could have compromised files that are downloaded by *nix users worldwide. AFAIK Microsoft's FTP and Windows Update servers have never been compromised, and if they had been, it would be major news, not just "oh, it's just one server." Yep, and because there are multiple choices in server networking platforms, an attack on one platform doesn't take out the others. This is just my point, but your too much of a "MS uber alles" advocate to see it. Wha? I don't care if you choose Microsoft or *nix. If you check my site at http://securityadmin.info/faq.asp#firewall, you'll see that I point people to non-Microsoft open source solutions like Knoppix and OpenBSD, even though my role here and there is not vendor advocacy but in trying to help people that are already beyond the point of choosing what to purchase. With the exception of firewalls, I generally don't see people recommending buying half Cisco and half Nortel switches and routers... because as with choice of OS, the added cost and complexity of supporting more than one solution trumps any benefit of changing from homogeneous environment to a "50% vulnerable to this, 50% vulnerable to that" environment. Even with all the vulnerabilities in IE, for example, it can make a lot of sense to standardize just on Windows and IE and no other browser or OS, because if you use OWA to check your email with Windows integrated authentication, everyone you switch to *nix or Netscape won't be able to do that. Frequently, functionality trumps security, and sometimes Microsoft builds solutions that other vendors choose not to support. Or would it actually increase support costs, double or triple the amount of work and patches required, and increase the likelihood that a company would make critical security mistakes that lead to a compromise? Nope, you answer my question, which you conveniently cut out, first, and that was, "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target." I don't control society. I only control my organization. I have no way of encouraging other organizations to switch to another OS. The European community is switching to desktop *nix, and we'll see if the world is any more secure after that. Somehow I doubt it. And I disagree that switching half my organization to another OS would help my security, in fact I believe it would hurt it. Any company or support staff that can't keep a homogeneous Windows network patched and secure is going to fail even more miserably at keeping a mixed environment secure, and having Blaster infect 20 machines or half the machines is just as bad as having Blaster infect the whole network. Also, security is not about achieving maximum security, it's about saving money and effort. You choose to implement a certain safeguard not because it makes you more secure, but because the cost of implementing the safeguard compares favorably with the cost of other safeguards and the cost of not implementing the safeguard and becoming compromised. Given that, my arguments about a heterogeneous environment increasing support complexity is a direct response to your question. But you won't, and that's why you cut it out in the first place, because you know it's a totally indefensible position! It is defensible. I just defended it. And that's why you were trying to put other words in my mouth and paint me as pro-*nix, to try to bury my actual point in a blizzard of your Bull Sh*t! Didn't think I'd notice, huh? Well, don't you ever think you can play games with my opinions, and get away with it. Better people than you have tried, and failed just as miserably you have. Whoa! Calm down there killer! Fair enough. You mistook me for a pro-Microsoft person too. In my defense, your anti-Microsoft signature below plus your statements mentioning *nix are what made me think you're pro-*nix. If you're anti-Microsoft and you don't appear to be a Mac or BeOS or Amiga or Novell enthusiast... Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
"Karl Levinson [x y] mvp" wrote:
If you check my site at http://securityadmin.info/faq.asp#firewall, Hi Karl, note that your site is not available anymore (it has been like that at least 24 hours now): "The page cannot be found" -- torgeir Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of the 1328 page Scripting Guide: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Karl Levinson [x y] mvp wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Blaster came on the scene. They are total non-issues for Linux or UNIX users. Riiiight, Linux, Unix and OpenBSD have zero vulnerabilities. Did I say that? If you weren't implying that users switching to *nix would make them more secure, then I don't see the point in making that statement at all. The point is having one monopoly Desktop OS is a National Security risk that is as obviously untenable as putting all your eggs in one basket. It's quite obvious that the Anti-Trust settlement did little to protect the general public as a whole for the predatory abuses of Microsoft, and now that monopoly is a major National Security threat. I'm not advocating any other option than the breakup of Microsoft in order to protect the general pubic. Of course Blaster isn't an issue for *nix users. So what? [unless the implication was that switching to *nix is better.] It was my reply to what Jupiter had said, that's what. Switching half the desktop computers to *nix would not have made Blaster, Welchia, SQL Slammer any better. Five computers can potentially DoS a network, and one infected computer can allow an attacker to bypass the firewall to compromise the data on the entire network. Again, with this MS vs. *nix phobia. Oy Vey! Can't you get it through your thick skull, I AM NOT ADVOCATING *NIX. PERIOD! MS needs to be broken up for the general public good, not to promote the *nis desktop, but for the safety of our society of individual human beings as a whole in the digital world. Riiiiiight. Maybe if www.debian.org was running some Windows servers, they wouldn't have been hacked a few months ago. It affected one server, not potentially 95% of the Desktop computers on the planet or anybody else system other than Debian's. Yeah, but that was one he11uva server. It was several servers at several *nix distribution and development sites that potentially could have compromised files that are downloaded by *nix users worldwide. AFAIK Microsoft's FTP and Windows Update servers have never been compromised, and if they had been, it would be major news, not just "oh, it's just one server." It's been overwhelmed plenty of times. And who needs to hack it? MS does a good enough job screwing it up all on their own. Yep, and because there are multiple choices in server networking platforms, an attack on one platform doesn't take out the others. This is just my point, but your too much of a "MS uber alles" advocate to see it. Wha? I don't care if you choose Microsoft or *nix. If you check my site at http://securityadmin.info/faq.asp#firewall, you'll see that I point people to non-Microsoft open source solutions like Knoppix and OpenBSD, even though my role here and there is not vendor advocacy but in trying to help people that are already beyond the point of choosing what to purchase. You're the one arguing this as MS vs. *nix, I am not. Maybe you need to step back, and reread this thread to gain some perspective on how you words belie your protestations of not being an MS advocate. With the exception of firewalls, I generally don't see people recommending buying half Cisco and half Nortel switches and routers... because as with choice of OS, the added cost and complexity of supporting more than one solution trumps any benefit of changing from homogeneous environment to a "50% vulnerable to this, 50% vulnerable to that" environment. In the corporate world where the bean counter overrule common sense, that probably is the case. But the individual consumer in the privacy of his home is locked into not having any choice. You want to run the last PC hardware, with the latest popular titled software, you have to run an MS Desktop OS. I want for the average individual to have the same ability to be able to choose between OS's, not only to have competition bring down the prices of software down to reasonable levels, but as matter of their computer security. Even with all the vulnerabilities in IE, for example, it can make a lot of sense to standardize just on Windows and IE and no other browser or OS, because if you use OWA to check your email with Windows integrated authentication, everyone you switch to *nix or Netscape won't be able to do that. Frequently, functionality trumps security, and sometimes Microsoft builds solutions that other vendors choose not to support. Or can't use, because MS use of proprietary standards, and others are unwilling to pay and play by MS's monopoly-protected extortion of licensing terms. Or would it actually increase support costs, double or triple the amount of work and patches required, and increase the likelihood that a company would make critical security mistakes that lead to a compromise? Nope, you answer my question, which you conveniently cut out, first, and that was, "Please try to explain to everyone how having only one big target of an OS is safer for society as a whole, if you disagree with . . . . Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target." I don't control society. I only control my organization. I have no way of encouraging other organizations to switch to another OS. The European community is switching to desktop *nix, and we'll see if the world is any more secure after that. Somehow I doubt it. And I disagree that switching half my organization to another OS would help my security, in fact I believe it would hurt it. Any company or support staff that can't keep a homogeneous Windows network patched and secure is going to fail even more miserably at keeping a mixed environment secure, and having Blaster infect 20 machines or half the machines is just as bad as having Blaster infect the whole network. Also, security is not about achieving maximum security, it's about saving money and effort. You choose to implement a certain safeguard not because it makes you more secure, but because the cost of implementing the safeguard compares favorably with the cost of other safeguards and the cost of not implementing the safeguard and becoming compromised. Given that, my arguments about a heterogeneous environment increasing support complexity is a direct response to your question. No, it's total subterfuge. You talking on the micro level of one companies network where as I'm concerned with the macro level of the general public that is made up of private individual human beings, our human society. If every corporation had no real choice of platforms, that would put the entire corporate community's computers at greater risk, just as MS Desktop monopoly puts their locked-in individual consumers at a higher risk today. Your homogenous argument may be the practical bean-counter thing to do on a micro-level of one corporation, but extend it out to every corporation, and the risk of the entire corporate computing world being taken out with one shot increases a hundred-fold or more. But you won't, and that's why you cut it out in the first place, because you know it's a totally indefensible position! It is defensible. I just defended it. No, you did a corporate tap dance that had little to do with protecting the general public in the privacy of their own homes from the National Security risk of having on big fat OS target. Corporations can afford the best and brightest minds to help protect their companies, despite the inadequacies of any one given platform. The general public is forced to depend on MS, and has no viable choice in the matter. And that's why you were trying to put other words in my mouth and paint me as pro-*nix, to try to bury my actual point in a blizzard of your Bull Sh*t! Didn't think I'd notice, huh? Well, don't you ever think you can play games with my opinions, and get away with it. Better people than you have tried, and failed just as miserably you have. Whoa! Calm down there killer! Fair enough. You mistook me for a pro-Microsoft person too. In my defense, your anti-Microsoft signature below plus your statements mentioning *nix are what made me think you're pro-*nix. If you're anti-Microsoft and you don't appear to be a Mac or BeOS or Amiga or Novell enthusiast... ....then logically you stereotype me as pro-*nix. My assumptions about your MS advocacy was based on you making this into MS vs. *nix, when I only mention Linux & Unix in passing in answer to Jupiter, not part of my main argument. You're going off on that wild tangent, off of one passing reference shows where your heart is really at. Even your other wild foray off-topic about using diverse platforms with in a particular company, was bogus, because at least that company has a choice when it come to their networking platforms. If every corporation on the planet were forced to use nothing but MS, like individual consumers having no real choice but MS, then would you say that was a more secure situation, than having choices as they do today in the corporate world? And I'm not really anti-MS, I'm pro-consumer-choice, and MS just happens to be the biggest obstacle in the way of Consumer Choice. And even Linux's creator says that the Linux desktop is still 5 to 10 years away. So maybe corporations & gov'ts can afford to use a Linux Desktop for pure office purposes because they can afford to support themselves, but as a consumer multimedia OS, it is still years away at best. For the average PC consumer, not your corporate big wigs, MS's monopoly hurts the individual consumer, and by extension the entire general public, not only with monopoly-protected non-competitive pricing, but also by risking their computer security of everybody by having everybodies' *Personal* *Computer* in one big fat monopolistic target of a basket. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
kurttrail wrote:
Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: You have every right to your opinion, unfortunately not everybody is as computer literate as you, and just wouldn't expect that the address bar would display anything other than the site of the web page that they navigated to. I think the point is that too many people don't look at URLs anyway. Says you. Yes. Says me. Based on my observations. I thought we were being adult in this thread and respecting others rights to hold an opinion? And if it really is true, is that a good enough reason for accepting MS's slacking? Not at all, if "slacking" is what it is. It's MS's flaw that's being used to help validate a scam, or potentially much worse considering the source of the scam. IIRC there was some talk at the time that mozilla also had a (much less severe) problem with these kinds of URLs. Pray tell, like what? http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4078 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228176 Yes. I'm well aware its fixed in mozilla, before you ask. I overheard these two people talking once, and you know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay! You know, what, if I was actually an American, I might understand what that reference to Mr Bush meant. This needs to addressed immediately, and not wait to be part of some IE rollup patch. MS needs to stop dragging it's heels. If I thought they were waiting to include it in a roll-up fix then I would/will agree with you. I've not seen anything pointing to that myself, I'm assuming that fixing this is more trouble than it appeared at first and they've had to go back to it a couple of times. http://www.iss.net/support/product_utilities/ Didn't seem so hard for these guys! MS could license it from them. What's more important MS's customers security, or MS releasing their own in-house developed patch? Obviously, not being a Microsoft employee, I can't comment on their internal decision making process. None of us have any way of knowing, for example, if MS looked at the ISS fix and rejected using it for some reason do we? ISS may have something released and that _is_ great, but that doesn't mean that MS haven't had problems. And there should be an official investigation in MS glacial pace of supplying a fix, Official on the part of whom? Who has jurisdiction here? US Gov't. MS is still an American company. The Justice Dept. or even Homeland Security, since it's MS's OS that has been the one that has been exploited, time & again, at the expense of the security of the general public. Melissa, Code Red, Slammer, Blaster, Sobig, Swen, Bagle. It's MS's fat-assed monopoly target that's putting the general public at risk. Hmmm or people not keeping their systems patched and up to date; as that would have prevented most of the problems you note above. That list right there only needs, oooh, every other virus on the planet adding to it, and it would be a list of viruses I've _never_ caught. Actually, lets look at Melissa - that is a complete human problem, that does not rely on any "exploitable" code at all. The others except bagle, I know the exploits used were all patched prior to the virus hitting. Some of the exploits, e.g. the RPC one blaster uses, are very disappointing, thats for sure; IMO Microsoft have some questions to answer on that one at least. Bagle, I know nothing about and can't be bothered to go and look up right now, so I'll let you have that one. And now MS is dragging of their feet on this address bar exploit! How many times does a target have to get hit before ya'll wake up and smell the coffee?! [snip] Are you telling me no one has ever pulled the wool over your eyes? No. Where did I claim that? I can however say I've never been fooled by an email borne virus or worm. Anyone who still clicks on attatchments named "Naughty pictures of Anna Kornikova hot stuff.jpg.exe.com.not.a.virus.this.time.no.really. honest.exe.jpg.bmp.vbs" deserves everything they get. Everybody is a potential sucker, even the members of MENSA, but so many people wouldn't be suckered with any one computer nasty, if MS wasn't the only real OS choice for the Desktop. There are plenty of scams and worms out there which do _not_ rely on an OS exploit to spread and they are among the most "popular". That's total BS, almost all of them rely on running on one company's OS. You call BS on something so easily provable? Here is a free example: Go take a look at the origins of the "419" scam. I'll be here waiting for your apology when you've researched a little and found out exactly how OS dependant it is. And actually Kurt, this may shock you, but I was talking in a wider frame than just computing. Guess what, there were scams and exploits around before we even had computers in people's homes. You'll find that out while you do some research on the origins of the 419 scam. If you want to know more about it all, visit www.snopes.com sometime and see for yourself. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Robert Moir wrote:
kurttrail wrote: And I'm not really anti-MS, I'm pro-consumer-choice, and MS just happens to be the biggest obstacle in the way of Consumer Choice. You know. You can go buy an Apple computer tomorrow running OS X. I've got an iBook right here on the desk besides the computer I'm using now and its very nice. Will the Apple OS run of my PC? Does the Apple OS run all the programs I've purchased over the years? Will I have to give up my computer education up to this point to start from scratch with another OS? Can I afford to give up the computer system I've built up over the years? One thing though. It has these problems with buggy code that require you to download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one with an exploit in how it handles DHCP. And your point is? -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Robert Moir wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: You have every right to your opinion, unfortunately not everybody is as computer literate as you, and just wouldn't expect that the address bar would display anything other than the site of the web page that they navigated to. I think the point is that too many people don't look at URLs anyway. Says you. Yes. Says me. Based on my observations. Your anecdotal evidence? I thought we were being adult in this thread and respecting others rights to hold an opinion? What about "Says you," isn't respectful? And if it really is true, is that a good enough reason for accepting MS's slacking? Not at all, if "slacking" is what it is. It's MS's flaw that's being used to help validate a scam, or potentially much worse considering the source of the scam. IIRC there was some talk at the time that mozilla also had a (much less severe) problem with these kinds of URLs. Pray tell, like what? http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4078 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228176 Yes. I'm well aware its fixed in mozilla, before you ask. I overheard these two people talking once, and you know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay! You know, what, if I was actually an American, I might understand what that reference to Mr Bush meant. It means you can overhear many things, doesn't make them true. This needs to addressed immediately, and not wait to be part of some IE rollup patch. MS needs to stop dragging it's heels. If I thought they were waiting to include it in a roll-up fix then I would/will agree with you. I've not seen anything pointing to that myself, I'm assuming that fixing this is more trouble than it appeared at first and they've had to go back to it a couple of times. http://www.iss.net/support/product_utilities/ Didn't seem so hard for these guys! MS could license it from them. What's more important MS's customers security, or MS releasing their own in-house developed patch? Obviously, not being a Microsoft employee, I can't comment on their internal decision making process. None of us have any way of knowing, for example, if MS looked at the ISS fix and rejected using it for some reason do we? It's seems to do good enough, until such time MS finishes their own. It would be the first time MS would have to reissue a patch. ISS may have something released and that _is_ great, but that doesn't mean that MS haven't had problems. Again, if MS is actually having problems [total supposition] the patch is good enough for the short term. And there should be an official investigation in MS glacial pace of supplying a fix, Official on the part of whom? Who has jurisdiction here? US Gov't. MS is still an American company. The Justice Dept. or even Homeland Security, since it's MS's OS that has been the one that has been exploited, time & again, at the expense of the security of the general public. Melissa, Code Red, Slammer, Blaster, Sobig, Swen, Bagle. It's MS's fat-assed monopoly target that's putting the general public at risk. Hmmm or people not keeping their systems patched and up to date; as that would have prevented most of the problems you note above. That list right there only needs, oooh, every other virus on the planet adding to it, and it would be a list of viruses I've _never_ caught. Actually, lets look at Melissa - that is a complete human problem, that does not rely on any "exploitable" code at all. The others except bagle, I know the exploits used were all patched prior to the virus hitting. Some of the exploits, e.g. the RPC one blaster uses, are very disappointing, thats for sure; IMO Microsoft have some questions to answer on that one at least. Bagle, I know nothing about and can't be bothered to go and look up right now, so I'll let you have that one. And now MS is dragging of their feet on this address bar exploit! How many times does a target have to get hit before ya'll wake up and smell the coffee?! [snip] Are you telling me no one has ever pulled the wool over your eyes? No. Where did I claim that? I asked a question. You asked about investigating the general public for being their own menace. Just want to make sure you aren't being Holier-than-thou about it. I can however say I've never been fooled by an email borne virus or worm. Anyone who still clicks on attatchments named "Naughty pictures of Anna Kornikova hot stuff.jpg.exe.com.not.a.virus.this.time.no.really. honest.exe.jpg.bmp.vbs " deserves everything they get. Goody for you, but is that because you smarter than the people that did fall for it? Everybody is a potential sucker, even the members of MENSA, but so many people wouldn't be suckered with any one computer nasty, if MS wasn't the only real OS choice for the Desktop. There are plenty of scams and worms out there which do _not_ rely on an OS exploit to spread and they are among the most "popular". That's total BS, almost all of them rely on running on one company's OS. You call BS on something so easily provable? Here is a free example: Go take a look at the origins of the "419" scam. I'll be here waiting for your apology when you've researched a little and found out exactly how OS dependant it is. For what, I did qualify my statement, and one example, doesn't invalidate my statement. Yes a scam can be perpetrated on anyone on any OS, but as for worms viruses & exploits those are generally platform specific. And actually Kurt, this may shock you, but I was talking in a wider frame than just computing. Guess what, there were scams and exploits around before we even had computers in people's homes. You'll find that out while you do some research on the origins of the 419 scam. If you want to know more about it all, visit www.snopes.com sometime and see for yourself. None of those scams are being validated by a flaw in MS monopoly OS. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
kurttrail wrote:
Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: And I'm not really anti-MS, I'm pro-consumer-choice, and MS just happens to be the biggest obstacle in the way of Consumer Choice. You know. You can go buy an Apple computer tomorrow running OS X. I've got an iBook right here on the desk besides the computer I'm using now and its very nice. Will the Apple OS run of my PC? Does the Apple OS run all the programs I've purchased over the years? Will I have to give up my computer education up to this point to start from scratch with another OS? Can I afford to give up the computer system I've built up over the years? Obviously not. There is a price to be paid for "switching". There is a price to pay to run XP in a more secure mode, and many people are unwilling to pay that much. One thing though. It has these problems with buggy code that require you to download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one with an exploit in how it handles DHCP. And your point is? That there isn't a panacea out there. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Robert Moir wrote:
kurttrail wrote: And I'm not really anti-MS, I'm pro-consumer-choice, and MS just happens to be the biggest obstacle in the way of Consumer Choice. You know. You can go buy an Apple computer tomorrow running OS X. I've got an iBook right here on the desk besides the computer I'm using now and its very nice. One thing though. It has these problems with buggy code that require you to download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one with an exploit in how it handles DHCP. Thank you for proving my point! What percentage of computer users were under threat of this AppleOS DHCP exploit? 2 to 4%! Not 95%! Now say there were 5 PCOS companies out there, and for the sake of argument let's say that they share the PCOS market equally, what percentage of users are potentially at risk by an exploit of any one given companies OS? That's right! 20%. Not 95%. So which PCOS market would be a safer for the general public, a market with one big fat-assed OS, or one with multiple OS where the risks are spread out over multiple targets? -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
kurttrail wrote:
Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: You have every right to your opinion, unfortunately not everybody is as computer literate as you, and just wouldn't expect that the address bar would display anything other than the site of the web page that they navigated to. I think the point is that too many people don't look at URLs anyway. Says you. Yes. Says me. Based on my observations. Your anecdotal evidence? My opinion. Based on observation. I thought we were being adult in this thread and respecting others rights to hold an opinion? What about "Says you," isn't respectful? Its tone for a start. [...] Pray tell, like what? http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4078 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228176 Yes. I'm well aware its fixed in mozilla, before you ask. I overheard these two people talking once, and you know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay! You know, what, if I was actually an American, I might understand what that reference to Mr Bush meant. It means you can overhear many things, doesn't make them true. Did you look at the links I provided. I think the mozilla dev crew producing a fix for the issue makes it a little more than "Overheard", Kurt. Or do you think they are admitting to a bug they don't have to make things look better for a browser they are competing with? [...] Obviously, not being a Microsoft employee, I can't comment on their internal decision making process. None of us have any way of knowing, for example, if MS looked at the ISS fix and rejected using it for some reason do we? It's seems to do good enough, until such time MS finishes their own. It would be the first time MS would have to reissue a patch. ISS may have something released and that _is_ great, but that doesn't mean that MS haven't had problems. Again, if MS is actually having problems [total supposition] the patch is good enough for the short term. kurt Says You. /kurt [...] Are you telling me no one has ever pulled the wool over your eyes? No. Where did I claim that? I asked a question. You asked about investigating the general public for being their own menace. Just want to make sure you aren't being Holier-than-thou about it. Oh boy. I might be computer smart but I've made my mistakes. I have to look at myself in the mirror every day to shave and I'm not going to tell that face that I'm perfect, let alone anyone else. I can however say I've never been fooled by an email borne virus or worm. Anyone who still clicks on attatchments named "Naughty pictures of Anna Kornikova hot stuff.jpg.exe.com.not.a.virus.this.time.no.really. honest.exe.jpg.bmp.vbs " deserves everything they get. Goody for you, but is that because you smarter than the people that did fall for it? Better trained perhaps at the start. I do know of some people who have had ample exposure to the problem but have not learnt from it. I wouldn't know about me being more or less "smarter than" them, but I think its reasonable to expect people to learn from a mistake after a while instead of repeatedly making it. Everybody is a potential sucker, even the members of MENSA, but so many people wouldn't be suckered with any one computer nasty, if MS wasn't the only real OS choice for the Desktop. There are plenty of scams and worms out there which do _not_ rely on an OS exploit to spread and they are among the most "popular". That's total BS, almost all of them rely on running on one company's OS. You call BS on something so easily provable? Here is a free example: Go take a look at the origins of the "419" scam. I'll be here waiting for your apology when you've researched a little and found out exactly how OS dependant it is. For what, I did qualify my statement, and one example, doesn't invalidate my statement. Yes a scam can be perpetrated on anyone on any OS, but as for worms viruses & exploits those are generally platform specific. Quite. I was trying to point out that the most exploited OS is "Brainware", the one in all our heads. That of course doesn't make the times MS fell down on the job ok. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Robert Moir wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: You have every right to your opinion, unfortunately not everybody is as computer literate as you, and just wouldn't expect that the address bar would display anything other than the site of the web page that they navigated to. I think the point is that too many people don't look at URLs anyway. Says you. Yes. Says me. Based on my observations. Your anecdotal evidence? My opinion. Based on observation. That would be anecdotal from my point of view. I thought we were being adult in this thread and respecting others rights to hold an opinion? What about "Says you," isn't respectful? Its tone for a start. "Tone" would be in you head, not mine. [...] Pray tell, like what? http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4078 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228176 Yes. I'm well aware its fixed in mozilla, before you ask. I overheard these two people talking once, and you know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay! You know, what, if I was actually an American, I might understand what that reference to Mr Bush meant. It means you can overhear many things, doesn't make them true. Did you look at the links I provided. I think the mozilla dev crew producing a fix for the issue makes it a little more than "Overheard", Kurt. Can't you read a thread? RM - "IIRC there was some talk at the time that mozilla also had a (much less severe) problem with these kinds of URLs." KK - "Pray tell, like what? I overheard these two people talking once, and you know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay!" RM - "You know, what, if I was actually an American, I might understand what that reference to Mr Bush meant." Yes you gave the links in this post. KK - "It means you can overhear many things, doesn't make them true." Which I said to explain to you what I meant, by "Pray tell, like what? I overheard these two people talking once, and you know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay!" before you gave any links. Nice troll tactic, Robert. Or do you think they are admitting to a bug they don't have to make things look better for a browser they are competing with? Obviously now I understand what you were originally made vague reference to, but that doesn't change what I meant at the time BEFORE you explained yourself. Obviously, not being a Microsoft employee, I can't comment on their internal decision making process. None of us have any way of knowing, for example, if MS looked at the ISS fix and rejected using it for some reason do we? It's seems to do good enough, until such time MS finishes their own. It would be the first time MS would have to reissue a patch. ISS may have something released and that _is_ great, but that doesn't mean that MS haven't had problems. Again, if MS is actually having problems [total supposition] the patch is good enough for the short term. kurt Says You. /kurt Yes. Have you tried it yourself? If you have, what about it isn't good enough for you? Or are you content to just say "Says You." At least I went on to say, " Says you. And if it really is true, is that a good enough reason for accepting MS's slacking?" I didn't just say "Says You," I also acknowledge the possibility that it just might be true. snip Quite. I was trying to point out that the most exploited OS is "Brainware", the one in all our heads. That of course doesn't make the times MS fell down on the job ok. Had this been one isolated time that MS has "fell down on the job," I'd agree. But it's not, and this camels back has been broken. MS is incapable of taking responsibility for their monopoly Swiss Cheese, and our gov'ts need to step to protect the general public from MS's negligence. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?
Robert Moir wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Robert Moir wrote: kurttrail wrote: And I'm not really anti-MS, I'm pro-consumer-choice, and MS just happens to be the biggest obstacle in the way of Consumer Choice. You know. You can go buy an Apple computer tomorrow running OS X. I've got an iBook right here on the desk besides the computer I'm using now and its very nice. Will the Apple OS run of my PC? Does the Apple OS run all the programs I've purchased over the years? Will I have to give up my computer education up to this point to start from scratch with another OS? Can I afford to give up the computer system I've built up over the years? Obviously not. There is a price to be paid for "switching". There is a price to pay to run XP in a more secure mode, and many people are unwilling to pay that much. More like unknowing than unwilling. One thing though. It has these problems with buggy code that require you to download periodic updates. There is this especially nasty one with an exploit in how it handles DHCP. And your point is? That there isn't a panacea out there. Ah, there may not be, but there are ways to lesson the effects on the general public as a whole. See my other answer to this post. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|