Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Attackers Target New Zero-day Vulnerability in Word

Reply
Thread Tools

Attackers Target New Zero-day Vulnerability in Word

 
 
Au79
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2007
CSO - Framingham,MA,USA

Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
vulnerability ...

<http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>

--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fuzzy Logic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2007
Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):

> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>
> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
> the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
> vulnerability ...
>
><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>


If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Au79
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2007
Fuzzy Logic wrote:

> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>
>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
>> the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
>> vulnerability ...
>>
>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>

>
> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.


People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground up
with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is required
for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and effectively.

Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
programmers ever.

--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fuzzy Logic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2007
Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):

> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>
>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>
>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again, with
>>> the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
>>> vulnerability ...
>>>
>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>

>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.

>
> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground up
> with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is required
> for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and effectively.


So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and you have nothing to fear? If you believe
that you are even dumber then I thought.

No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and in addition too much security can
CAUSE people to do dumb things because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on "Offset
Hypothesis" for more info.

> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
> programmers ever.


Based on what?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Au79
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2007
Fuzzy Logic wrote:

> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>
>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
>>>> vulnerability ...
>>>>
>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>>
>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you get.

>>
>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground up
>> with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is required
>> for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
>> effectively.

>
> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and you
> have nothing to fear?


Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any maladies. I
don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because my Linux
computer does not need them.

> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
> thought.
>


I believe that because it is a fact.

> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and in
> addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things because they
> believe the system will protect them. Do a search on "Offset Hypothesis"
> for more info.


Here's the dumb thing:

"We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other drivers to
acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these safety devices
do not have a significant effect on collisions or injuries [except that
they only increase your chance of survival in the event of a collision],
suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for speedier trips.”

What nonsense.

>
>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
>> programmers ever.

>
> Based on what?


Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool operating
system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been the most
bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.

Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a pathetically
compromiseable system.

Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X, will
continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
industry, academia, and the consumer.

--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fuzzy Logic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2007
Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$(E-Mail Removed):

> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>
>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
>>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
>>>>> vulnerability ...
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>>>
>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
>>>> get.
>>>
>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground
>>> up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is
>>> required for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
>>> effectively.

>>
>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
>> you have nothing to fear?

>
> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
> my Linux computer does not need them.
>
>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
>> thought.
>>

>
> I believe that because it is a fact.


Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly' attachment that I am sure you should
be able to open without any problems.

>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.

>
> Here's the dumb thing:
>
> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
> speedier trips.”
>
> What nonsense.


It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher proportion of winter accidents
becuase the drives believe their vehicle is safer in these types of conditions (it's not).

>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
>>> programmers ever.

>>
>> Based on what?

>
> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.


I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.

> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
> pathetically compromiseable system.


Even I will concede Vista is a pig.

> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
> industry, academia, and the consumer.


You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting the same for *nix

 
Reply With Quote
 
Au79
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2007
Fuzzy Logic wrote:

> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>
>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>
>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
>>>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
>>>>>> vulnerability ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
>>>>> get.
>>>>
>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground
>>>> up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is
>>>> required for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
>>>> effectively.
>>>
>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
>>> you have nothing to fear?

>>
>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
>> my Linux computer does not need them.
>>
>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
>>> thought.
>>>

>>
>> I believe that because it is a fact.

>
> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any problems.
>


Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you can
just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about and if
it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not be).


>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
>>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
>>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
>>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.

>>
>> Here's the dumb thing:
>>
>> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
>> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
>> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
>> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
>> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
>> speedier trips.”
>>
>> What nonsense.

>
> It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher
> proportion of winter accidents becuase the drives believe their vehicle is
> safer in these types of conditions (it's not).
>


Obviously, SUV's have a higher center of gravity that undermines whatever
safety features they are built with. For a period of time, there seemed to
be a Ford fatality just about every week.

But your logic does not translate well for other vehicles such as sedans,
minivans, etc. Automobile Technology has reduced the number of fatalities
attributed to design issues, to be sure, however I would be hard pressed to
believe that this same technology may be the indirect (influential) cause
of the accidents.

So, even if this dumb theory could be taken at face value, there is
absolutely no correlation to our discussion on operating systems. Linux
provides a safer and sane computer environment for the consumer, which
means that users migrating away from windos will not "suffer" the atrocious
maladies they are accustomed; and certainly it is absurd to infer that a
safer computing environment means a greater risk.

>>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
>>>> programmers ever.
>>>
>>> Based on what?

>>
>> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
>> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
>> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.

>
> I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.
>


Microsoft WANTS a cool OS. That's why they spent millions aping OS X, of
course, over a fragile and vulnerable platform.


>> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
>> pathetically compromiseable system.

>
> Even I will concede Vista is a pig.
>
>> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
>> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
>> industry, academia, and the consumer.

>
> You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting the
> same for *nix


You go right ahead and get a nice cup of coffee and wait.

And wait...

.... and wait.


....and...

--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Poaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2007
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:10:21 -0800, Au79 wrote:

> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>
>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>> news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted
>>>>>>> again, with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting
>>>>>>> a new vulnerability ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
>>>>>> get.
>>>>>
>>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the
>>>>> ground up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security
>>>>> that is required for safe computing- something that Linux does
>>>>> brilliantly and effectively.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
>>>> you have nothing to fear?
>>>
>>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
>>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
>>> my Linux computer does not need them.
>>>
>>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I thought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I believe that because it is a fact.

>>
>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
>> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any
>> problems.
>>
>>

> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you
> can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about
> and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not
> be).


Even *if* it did any damage, it's more than likely it will *only* affect
your user. The rest of the system will carry on regardless, as it wouldn't
have any permissions to change anything. If the attachment required you to
'sudo' it before it opened, then you just delete it.

<snip BS>

AFAIC he's just taking out of his arse, it's been explained to him
before, but he just prefers not to know (so I binned him, I know when you
can't educate a brick). 90% of the internet runs on linux, with no spyware
or anti-virus problems. I've run linux distros for 10 years, & never
bothered about spyware or anti-virus because i don't need to. However I do
run a rootkit checker regularly.


--
Contrary to popular belief, the M$ trolls & shills
*can* tell the difference between their arse
& their elbow.
They can't talk out of their elbow.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fuzzy Logic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2007
Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:iuoDh.181301$(E-Mail Removed):

> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>
>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted again,
>>>>>>> with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting a new
>>>>>>> vulnerability ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
>>>>>> get.
>>>>>
>>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the ground
>>>>> up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security that is
>>>>> required for safe computing- something that Linux does brilliantly and
>>>>> effectively.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
>>>> you have nothing to fear?
>>>
>>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
>>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
>>> my Linux computer does not need them.
>>>
>>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that because it is a fact.

>>
>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
>> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any problems.
>>

>
> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you can
> just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about and if
> it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not be).


It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) and while reply in
kind with a nice attachment. Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.

>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
>>>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
>>>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
>>>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
>>>
>>> Here's the dumb thing:
>>>
>>> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
>>> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
>>> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
>>> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
>>> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
>>> speedier trips.”
>>>
>>> What nonsense.

>>
>> It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher
>> proportion of winter accidents becuase the drives believe their vehicle is
>> safer in these types of conditions (it's not).
>>

>
> Obviously, SUV's have a higher center of gravity that undermines whatever
> safety features they are built with. For a period of time, there seemed to
> be a Ford fatality just about every week.
>
> But your logic does not translate well for other vehicles such as sedans,
> minivans, etc. Automobile Technology has reduced the number of fatalities
> attributed to design issues, to be sure, however I would be hard pressed to
> believe that this same technology may be the indirect (influential) cause
> of the accidents.


Here is another article:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ingOffset.html

This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved safety measure (aka security) are often
thwarted by the user feeling more confident and therefore being less cautious.

> So, even if this dumb theory could be taken at face value, there is
> absolutely no correlation to our discussion on operating systems. Linux
> provides a safer and sane computer environment for the consumer, which
> means that users migrating away from windos will not "suffer" the atrocious
> maladies they are accustomed; and certainly it is absurd to infer that a
> safer computing environment means a greater risk.


The correlation is that if a user has a 'safer' OS or browser they believe they don't have to do the things
that less 'safe' OS's or browsers might require such as applying patches or practicing safe surfing.

>>>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
>>>>> programmers ever.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what?
>>>
>>> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
>>> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
>>> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.

>>
>> I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.
>>

> Microsoft WANTS a cool OS. That's why they spent millions aping OS X, of
> course, over a fragile and vulnerable platform.


How do you know what Microsoft wants?

>>> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
>>> pathetically compromiseable system.

>>
>> Even I will concede Vista is a pig.
>>
>>> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
>>> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
>>> industry, academia, and the consumer.

>>
>> You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting the
>> same for *nix

>
> You go right ahead and get a nice cup of coffee and wait.
>
> And wait...
>
> ... and wait.
>
>
> ...and...


So it's only going to take me the time to finish my coffee before a new *nix bug is found? That's even
quicker than I imagined. You have to admit there are bugs in *nix or you really are beyond hope.

Here is some fun reading for you:

http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.o...7a930/112639a4
9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horren dous&rnum=1#112639a49b61c770

Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838

Especially sections 7 and 8


 
Reply With Quote
 
Au79
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2007
Fuzzy Logic wrote:

> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:iuoDh.181301$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>
>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:ah8Dh.165180$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> news:bkRCh.161442$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Au79 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:V9uBh.48373$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CSO - Framingham,MA,USA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Microsoft Corp.'s Word and Office programs have been targeted
>>>>>>>> again, with the company warning that hackers may already exploiting
>>>>>>>> a new vulnerability ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=28803>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are opening unsolicited attachments you deserve whatever you
>>>>>>> get.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People are not perfect, so systems need to be designed from the
>>>>>> ground up with this in mind and provide all the built-in security
>>>>>> that is required for safe computing- something that Linux does
>>>>>> brilliantly and effectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that you can open any email attachment in *nix and
>>>>> you have nothing to fear?
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. I've open thousands of emails and have yet to catch any
>>>> maladies. I don't have spyware or anti-virus programs installed because
>>>> my Linux computer does not need them.
>>>>
>>>>> If you believe that you are even dumber then I
>>>>> thought.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that because it is a fact.
>>>
>>> Supply your email address and I will gladly send you a nice 'friendly'
>>> attachment that I am sure you should be able to open without any
>>> problems.
>>>

>>
>> Since I am not immune to spam, I will not expose my email; however, you
>> can just say plainly and publicly state what the attachment is all about
>> and if it is a potential threat to my system (which of course it will not
>> be).

>
> It doesn't work that way. Feel free to send me you real address to
> (E-Mail Removed) and while reply in kind with a nice attachment.
> Otherwise you will simply deny that what I sent had any effect.
>


Yes, it does work that way. Your obscurity about some anti-Linux WMD that
you are able to propragate via attachments gives you away as a charlattan
since this has only been known to work for windos. If you had any knowledge
at all about the reality of such thing, you would have obliged and
disclosed your attachment.

>>>>> No amount of 'security' can prevent people from doing dumb things and
>>>>> in addition too much security can CAUSE people to do dumb things
>>>>> because they believe the system will protect them. Do a search on
>>>>> "Offset Hypothesis" for more info.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the dumb thing:
>>>>
>>>> "We find that safety-conscious drivers are more likely than other
>>>> drivers to acquire airbags and antilock brakes [Well, duh!] but these
>>>> safety devices do not have a significant effect on collisions or
>>>> injuries [except that they only increase your chance of survival in the
>>>> event of a collision], suggesting drivers trade off enhanced safety for
>>>> speedier trips.”
>>>>
>>>> What nonsense.
>>>
>>> It's not nonsense. Here in North America SUV's are involved in a higher
>>> proportion of winter accidents becuase the drives believe their vehicle
>>> is safer in these types of conditions (it's not).
>>>

>>
>> Obviously, SUV's have a higher center of gravity that undermines whatever
>> safety features they are built with. For a period of time, there seemed
>> to be a Ford fatality just about every week.
>>
>> But your logic does not translate well for other vehicles such as sedans,
>> minivans, etc. Automobile Technology has reduced the number of fatalities
>> attributed to design issues, to be sure, however I would be hard pressed
>> to believe that this same technology may be the indirect (influential)
>> cause of the accidents.

>
> Here is another article:
>
> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ingOffset.html
>
> This is not my logic. It's been shown in many cases that improved safety
> measure (aka security) are often thwarted by the user feeling more
> confident and therefore being less cautious.
>


Which does not mean that the safest technology is conducive to greater
number of fatalities or accidents.

>> So, even if this dumb theory could be taken at face value, there is
>> absolutely no correlation to our discussion on operating systems. Linux
>> provides a safer and sane computer environment for the consumer, which
>> means that users migrating away from windos will not "suffer" the
>> atrocious maladies they are accustomed; and certainly it is absurd to
>> infer that a safer computing environment means a greater risk.

>
> The correlation is that if a user has a 'safer' OS or browser they believe
> they don't have to do the things that less 'safe' OS's or browsers might
> require such as applying patches or practicing safe surfing.
>


Here's a fact: When Linux distros are called to provide a patch, for
whatever reason, they respond swiftly. When a patch is deployed, it is the
final one, unlike MS which has such latent response time on top of having
to patch and re-patch their legion of patches, which will invariably break
something else in the system.

Alas, even with both camps dispensing patches, Linux remains the safest
choice for consumers since MS cannot seem to attain a decent level of
design integrity.

But I like your stance that MS garbage of OS forces users to be paranoid and
resigned to live in an endless cycle of unremedied vulnerabilities and
'safety' measures.

>>>>>> Microsoft, on the other hand, must have the world's most incompetent
>>>>>> programmers ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on what?
>>>>
>>>> Based on the fact that they cannot code a reliable, safe and cool
>>>> operating system. Windos, from 3.1 to Vista OS X, has historically been
>>>> the most bug-ridden and vulnerable system ever.
>>>
>>> I see you want a COOL OS. This of course is entirely subjective.
>>>

>> Microsoft WANTS a cool OS. That's why they spent millions aping OS X, of
>> course, over a fragile and vulnerable platform.

>
> How do you know what Microsoft wants?
>


They have spent millions cloning Mac OS X and using "WoW" as the selling
point.

>>>> Vista shows that even copying Apple cannot advert producing a
>>>> pathetically compromiseable system.
>>>
>>> Even I will concede Vista is a pig.
>>>
>>>> Conclusion: Unix based operating systems, such as Linux and Mac OS X,
>>>> will continue to be the safest, most reliable (and coolest) systems for
>>>> industry, academia, and the consumer.
>>>
>>> You apparently missed the Month of Apple Bugs campaign. I am awaiting
>>> the same for *nix

>>
>> You go right ahead and get a nice cup of coffee and wait.
>>
>> And wait...
>>
>> ... and wait.
>>
>>
>> ...and...

>
> So it's only going to take me the time to finish my coffee before a new
> *nix bug is found? That's even quicker than I imagined.


And you do seem to imagine a lot, to the point of hallucination.

> You have to admit
> there are bugs in *nix or you really are beyond hope.
>


Bugs and all, Unix and its variants remain the safest and most reliable
platform for consumers. Bar-none.

> Here is some fun reading for you:
>
>

http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.o...7a930/112639a4
>

9b61c770?lnk=st&q=vista+is+bad+but+linux+is+horren dous&rnum=1#112639a49b61c770

All opinionated bullshit from some wintard that has circulated COLA for
ages.

>
> Also you may pick up a few pointers from the Linux Advocacy FAQ:
>
> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=9838
>


More pointless nonsense. Are insults your last recourse?

Honestly, if Linux wasn't the threat that MS believes it to be, none of this
anti-Linux crap would be floating around. Instead, it would be largely
ignored... ala OS/2.

> Especially sections 7 and 8


It does not change the realities that will go down in computing history:
Microsoft really does have incompetent teams that churn out garbage and
feed it to the consumer; Windos really is the worst most insecure and
unreliable OS ever made that does not stack against OSX and Linux; MS
really is one evil business entity that has no ethical backbone.

--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Attackers target two Microsoft security flaws Au79 Computer Support 5 08-23-2007 05:12 AM
Microsoft IE holes can give attackers complete control: McAfee Au79 Computer Support 12 04-19-2006 06:35 PM
ATTACKERS exploit latest Windows flaw Au79 Computer Support 1 02-28-2006 06:06 PM
ATTACKERS to go after 2006's weakest link: People Au79 Computer Support 2 01-26-2006 04:49 PM
Attackers targeting media players Winged Computer Security 6 11-24-2005 09:50 AM



Advertisments