MicroMonopoly aids Terrorism?

"[T]he link is formatted to take advantage of an Internet Explorer flaw
that allows an attacker to hide the true destination of the link; in this
case, the address bar in Internet Explorer displays "www.fdic.gov," while
the actual Web site is at a different address in Pakistan." -
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-514...=zdfd.newsfeed

And I wonder who in Pakistan would want to know about the financial details
about American citizens? Who in Pakistan would want to exploit the fears of
the American populace for their own nefarious purposes? Who, indeed?!

Is MS glacial response to fixing the address bar flaw also helping
terrorists fund future attacks on the innocents?

Stop dragging your feet MS, people are now possibly being terrorized in
their homes because of your Swiss cheese software! Get a temp fix out that
informs people of the misdirection at the very least, if it's really that
effin' hard to fix fully.

PROTECT YOUR CUSTOMERS FROM YOUR MISTAKE, *NOW*!

This should be a lesson to everyone why you can't put all of computer
security eggs in one monopolistic basket!

Demonstrations of the Address bar vulnerability:

http://www.microscum.com/misc/devil/

http://www.microscum.com/misc/intran...ransigence.htm

Download & setup up Mozilla as your default browser, that way when you click
on a link in email, you'll know what website you're really being taken to.

http://mozilla.org/download.html

Protect yourself, because MS's desktop monopoly gives them absolutely no
incentive to fix their own mistakes for their monopoly locked-in customers!

There should be an investigation into how MS's desktop monopoly has weakened
the safety of the general public!

--
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!"

see
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=833786
For advice and guidance on protecting yourself from these sites.

User who are still concerned about this issue may also wish to look at a
third party tool/plug-ins at
(Note :- not Microsoft recommended or supported by us. This is one of a
number of such third party tools)
http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/alerts/id/159

--
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
"[T]he link is formatted to take advantage of an Internet Explorer flaw
that allows an attacker to hide the true destination of the link; in this
case, the address bar in Internet Explorer displays "www.fdic.gov," while
the actual Web site is at a different address in Pakistan." -
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-514...=zdfd.newsfeed

And I wonder who in Pakistan would want to know about the financial
details
about American citizens? Who in Pakistan would want to exploit the fears
of
the American populace for their own nefarious purposes? Who, indeed?!

Is MS glacial response to fixing the address bar flaw also helping
terrorists fund future attacks on the innocents?

Stop dragging your feet MS, people are now possibly being terrorized in
their homes because of your Swiss cheese software! Get a temp fix out
that
informs people of the misdirection at the very least, if it's really that
effin' hard to fix fully.

PROTECT YOUR CUSTOMERS FROM YOUR MISTAKE, *NOW*!

This should be a lesson to everyone why you can't put all of computer
security eggs in one monopolistic basket!

Demonstrations of the Address bar vulnerability:

http://www.microscum.com/misc/devil/

http://www.microscum.com/misc/intran...ransigence.htm

Download & setup up Mozilla as your default browser, that way when you
click
on a link in email, you'll know what website you're really being taken to.

http://mozilla.org/download.html

Protect yourself, because MS's desktop monopoly gives them absolutely no
incentive to fix their own mistakes for their monopoly locked-in
customers!

There should be an investigation into how MS's desktop monopoly has
weakened
the safety of the general public!

--
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!"

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

see
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=833786
For advice and guidance on protecting yourself from these sites.

Oh yeah! The average computer illiterate is lucky if he find his way to
Windows Update, let alone some obscure support document hidden among tens of
thousands of other ones.

Fix the problem! Stop the brush off! People are getting screwed even as we
speak.


User who are still concerned about this issue may also wish to look
at a third party tool/plug-ins at
(Note :- not Microsoft recommended or supported by us. This is one
of a number of such third party tools)
http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/alerts/id/159

It's just plain safer to use another browser, till you guys get your asses
in gear, and even then it's just a matter of time, before your next security
vulnerability is found and exploited en masse. Smaller targets are just a
hell of a lot easier to miss, than the monopoly-bundled browser in MS's OSs.

--
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!"

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

see
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=833786
For advice and guidance on protecting yourself from these sites.

Oh yeah! The average computer illiterate is lucky if he find his way to
Windows Update, let alone some obscure support document hidden among tens
of
thousands of other ones.

That's exactly why this IE URL spoofing issue is a whole lot of nothing.
The average computer illiterate is going to fall for phishing whether or not
the URL is spoofed using this issue or another issue or isn't spoofed at
all. I can think of a lot of ways to spoof a URL for which there is no
patch and for which multiple browsers are vulnerable. The average person
would trust a popup window that doesn't even have a URL field in the window,
or that uses the http://user@domain URL spoof, and then there's ARP
spoofing, man in the middle attacks, DNS spoofing and cache poisoning,
sniffing, Dsniff, and all sorts of vulnerabilities in web browsing and
TCP/IP that aren't Microsoft's fault and for which there are no patches.

It's true that Microsoft has been waiting to deploy their fix for an
unusually long time [I would guess they've already coded the fix a while
ago], but I have to imagine there's a reason for their decision to do this,
given the flack they've already received over this.

If the average user can't find his way to Windows Update, despite having the
windows update agent installed and an icon right on his start menu, then
that average user is going to be vulnerable to all sorts of things no matter
what OS and browser he's running and what patches the vendor does or doesn't
release. [It also sounds like you're demanding that Microsoft release a
patch to protect its customers, but then state that most customers probably
wouldn't be able to install the patch if one was available.]

Anyways, security isn't just patches. A user that can't read articles on
how to be secure is going to fall for phishing. It's not really the best
idea to verify the identity of web sites by using the Address: field in the
browser, period.

Karl Levinson [x y] mvp wrote:

"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

see
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=833786
For advice and guidance on protecting yourself from these sites.

Oh yeah! The average computer illiterate is lucky if he find his
way to Windows Update, let alone some obscure support document
hidden among tens of thousands of other ones.

That's exactly why this IE URL spoofing issue is a whole lot of
nothing. The average computer illiterate is going to fall for
phishing whether or not the URL is spoofed using this issue or
another issue or isn't spoofed at all. I can think of a lot of ways
to spoof a URL for which there is no patch and for which multiple
browsers are vulnerable. The average person would trust a popup
window that doesn't even have a URL field in the window, or that uses
the http://user@domain URL spoof, and then there's ARP spoofing, man
in the middle attacks, DNS spoofing and cache poisoning, sniffing,
Dsniff, and all sorts of vulnerabilities in web browsing and TCP/IP
that aren't Microsoft's fault and for which there are no patches.

It's true that Microsoft has been waiting to deploy their fix for an
unusually long time [I would guess they've already coded the fix a
while ago], but I have to imagine there's a reason for their decision
to do this, given the flack they've already received over this.

If the average user can't find his way to Windows Update, despite
having the windows update agent installed and an icon right on his
start menu, then that average user is going to be vulnerable to all
sorts of things no matter what OS and browser he's running and what
patches the vendor does or doesn't release. [It also sounds like
you're demanding that Microsoft release a patch to protect its
customers, but then state that most customers probably wouldn't be
able to install the patch if one was available.]

Anyways, security isn't just patches. A user that can't read
articles on how to be secure is going to fall for phishing. It's not
really the best idea to verify the identity of web sites by using the
Address: field in the browser, period.

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. Hell, I bet there are a lot of people that have only heard of
the term "phishing" in passing and think it's some reference to the band
Phish, and aren't aware that it's talking about scamming them.

It's MS's flaw that's being used to help validate a scam, or potentially
much worse considering the source of the scam.

This needs to addressed immediately, and not wait to be part of some IE
rollup patch. MS needs to stop dragging it's heels. And there should be an
official investigation in MS glacial pace of supplying a fix, and into how
their Monopoly OS is actually a menace to the general public's computer
security.

--
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!"

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.

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.

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.

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? I can't help think
you are over-reacting a little Kurt. Of course, I am not going to tell you
that you are not entitled to your opinion, I'm just advancing the reasons
why I don't feel the same.

and into how their Monopoly OS is actually a menace to the
general public's computer security.

How about an investigation into how the general public is a menace to their
own computer security?

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".


--
--
Rob Moir, Microsoft MVP for servers & security
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html

Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.

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. And if it really is true, is that a good enough reason for
accepting MS's slacking?

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? I overheard these two people talking once, and you
know what, they were saying that GW Bush is really Gay!

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?

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. 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?!

I can't help
think you are over-reacting a little Kurt. Of course, I am not going
to tell you that you are not entitled to your opinion, I'm just
advancing the reasons why I don't feel the same.

Had this been the first or second time, you might be right. The
over-reaction is now is hiding your head in the sand and hoping that it will
all blow over, after time and again MS's Holey Software gets exploited at
the expense of the general public.

and into how their Monopoly OS is actually a menace to the
general public's computer security.

How about an investigation into how the general public is a menace to
their own computer security?

I ain't there fault that MS OS is the target of every computer literate
loonie on the effin' planet.

Are you telling me no one has ever pulled the wool over your eyes?
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.
And that's the biggest security hole in this nation's computer security.
Yes, there are some pests made for some other server OSs, but they've had a
totally negligible impact on the overall general public computer security,
and only helps to prove that having multiple OSs in the server market, helps
to diminish the effect of viruses and the like, on the public. A desktop OS
market with 5 or 10 players would be intrinsically much more secure for the
country, and the world as a whole, than having one big, fat target that
can't help from getting hit over & over & over & over & over again.

Wake up and smell the coffee, coppertops, because soon it will be just some
burned black crud at the bottom of the pot.

--
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!"

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.

It largely comes back to the users.
If the user will not properly protect their computer especially when
given a few weeks notice, their is little that can be done.
In your narrow minded way, you choose to focus all the blame on
Microsoft.
Your infantile website is a testament to you and your misguided ideas.

--
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
Garbage snipped

Melissa, Code Red, Slammer, Blaster, Sobig, Swen, Bagle. It's MS's
fat-assed monopoly target that's putting the general public at risk.
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?!
More of your garbage snipped
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
****************
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

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.

It largely comes back to the users.

No, it comes down to having only one Desktop OS target.

If the user will not properly protect their computer especially when
given a few weeks notice, their is little that can be done.

If there were multiple Desktop OS in the PC market, less people at any given
time would be affected by any one computer nasty.

In your narrow minded way, you choose to focus all the blame on
Microsoft.

They are the one's who have been proven to use predatory monopolistc tactics
to maintain their Desktop OS monopoly. And it's their big fat target that
keeps getting hit.

Multiple targets are just plain safer than one big target.

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 my previous sentence.

Your infantile website is a testament to you and your misguided ideas.

Thanks you! You just don't know how much it pleases me to know, that my web
site upsets you so, that you have to express your opinion of it with no
prompting on my part whatsoever.

Melissa, Code Red, Slammer, Blaster, Sobig, Swen, Bagle. It's MS's
fat-assed monopoly target that's putting the general public at risk.
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?!
More of your garbage snipped

Have a nice day!

--
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!"

"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.

Right, Linux has fewer vulnerabilities than Windows.

Right, users that can't configure and patch Windows would magically be able
to keep Linux secure.

Right, Linux web servers are hacked less frequently than Windows web servers
according to www.zone-h.org

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.

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.

In the past 12 months, Microsoft, Linux, Cisco and others all had highly
critical remote vulnerabilities discovered that required patches. 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? 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?

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 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!

--
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 news:%23L$%
Your gasrbage snipped
Thanks you! You just don't know how much it pleases me to know,
that my web
site upsets you so, that you have to express your opinion of it with
no
prompting on my part whatsoever.
More garbage snipped
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
**************
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

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!"

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!"

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!"

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!"