«

"lily" <> wrote in message
news:ucE_a.11396$...
> The Flash wrote:
>
> > Yes it does, If you own a car it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it
and
> > protect it, you have to lock the doors, top up the oil and replace worn
> > items. It is NOT the car makers responsibility and never has been.
> >
> > If you own a computer it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and
protect
> > it, update software as needed and keep antivirus software installed and
> > current.
> >
> > This current mindset of abdicating all personal responsibility and
blaming
> > somebody else for any problem that comes along is flawed. If you cannot
> > accept the responsibility of operating a computer in the digital age
with
> > all the legal and social implications and personal responsibilities that
> > ownership encompasses you have no right to use one and absolutely no
right
> > to complain about it.
> >
> > If we extract this current mindset to its end conclusion we end up with
the
> > following... Man electrocuted using toaster in shower.... power company
to
> > be sued. Woman sues car company and insurance company after her car is
> > stolen when keys were left in ignition.
> >
>
> What a load of *******s
> Microsoft is responsible for not checking the software for buffer
> overruns before it was released.
> Like Ford was responsible for releasing explosive Pintos into the market.
> Blamining the end user for faulty design is taking rimming syncophantic
> corporate adoration way too far.
> Microsoft should apologise to their users, they will not do so because
> it is an admission of liability.

You can still get free fixes for new Windows 98 security problems, and
you're complaining about that. Windows is and the software that's adpted to
run on Windows are full of programs that could be attacks in many different
ways.

Don't update your Anti Virus software with patches each week and see where
that gets you.

E. Scrooge

In article <bherpn$igl$>,
says...
>
> "Peter Kenyon" <> wrote in message
> news:ccA_a.11324$...
> >
> > "E. Scrooge" < (remove eye)> wrote in message
> > news:bhecqj$7pc$...
> > >
> > > "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote in
> message
> > > news:Jsy_a.115438$...
> > > >
> > > > "colinco" <> wrote in message
> > > > news:...
> > > > > In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
> > > > > > Going by the average media computer geek cars are recalled if
> > there's
> > > a
> > > > > > chance of the cars being damaged from an attack by some other
> > bastard.
> > > > > > LOL
> > > > > >
> > > > > Aren't they talking about door locks that don't work in this case?
> > > >
> > > > Because they were smashed off by a criminal...
> > >
> > > What's been happening with computer viruses for years is nothing short
> of
> > > straight out vandalism, no different than some idiot rubbing a coin
> along
> > > the side of a car or smashing the outside mirrors off just to be a pain
> in
> > > the arse.
> > > The worse case would be your average car bomber, and it's not likely
> that
> > > any car recall is going to ever try to prevent it. Same with some
> bugger
> > > putting sugar in your fuel tank, the idiots behind the viruses are much
> > the
> > > same in trying to do as much damage as possible.]
> > >
> > > And here we see a damn thick computer geek on the TV Breakfast show this
> > > morning trying to compare car recalls to some bugger that's trying to
> > damage
> > > someone else's software and computer.
> > >
> >
> > When software manufacturers find out about a vulnerability in one of their
> > products, normally (if they are any good) a patch is issued and made
> > available for free.
> >
> > Is that not the equivalent of replacing a faulty door lock or car alarm?
> >
> > Peter
>
> I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Windows XP wasn't just released in
> July 2003 .
>
> XP has been around for a while now, it's also very likely that some clever
> dick will come up with a new virus before Christmas to attack it. Will you
> and your present Anti Virus software be ready for a virus program that
> hasn't even been developed yet?
>
> You might not be, but I'm updating my Anti Virus software every couple of
> days. Ask yourself why the Anti Virus software should need updating so
> often, and why your brand new virus software bought in 2002 without update
> patches is next to useless.

Updating every couple of days is next to useless as well.

A good example is this latest Blaster worm - even daily updates
would be useless for such a worm/virus.

On client networks I configure the server to check for updates
every ten minutes.

(even then, this latest worm *may* not have been caught - my
network clients are firewalled anyway, and all up to date
anyway with MS updates)

--
Duncan

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:50:45 +1200, "Nicholas Sherlock"
<> wrote:

>"Bruce Simpson" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> If the manufacturer of your car sent you a note saying "sorry, the air
>> bag in that model has proven to go off all by itself without warning"
>> would you expect:
>
>If the manufacturer of your car provided, a month before any problems
>started occuring, a free patch that would prevent problems, would you moan
>on and on when you're hit and you didn't apply the patch?

Yes, I'd moan if the manufacturer said "we have a new airbag
controller that fixes the problem. Just drop by and pick it up then
install it yourself or pay an expert to do it for you"

One would expect that parts AND LABOUR would be covered in the case of
a defective product.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

E. Scrooge wrote:

> "lily" <> wrote in message
> news:W1E_a.11392$...
>
>>E. Scrooge wrote:
>>
>>>"lily" <> wrote in message
>>>news:Rlz_a.11314$. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"colinco" <> wrote in message
>>>>>news:. nz...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <bhe8gp$4bj$>, E. Scrooge wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Going by the average media computer geek cars are recalled if there's
>
> a
>
>>>>>>>chance of the cars being damaged from an attack by some other
>
> bastard.
>
>>>>>>>LOL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aren't they talking about door locks that don't work in this case?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they were smashed off by a criminal...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Faulty weak design by Microsoft, fair and square.
>>>>No weaselling out of that Nathan.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do Anti Virus software companies provide so many damn updates
>
> through
>
>>>each week, each month, and each year?
>>>Sure the buggers could get it right - going by you it could be that
>
> their
>
>>>original software was a **** poor design to not be able to handle the
>
> many
>
>>>new future viruses?
>>>
>>>E. Scrooge
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You said it
>>
>>Fairs fair, there wouldn't be so many Anti Virus companies and so many
>>viruses if the original Windows 9x wasn't such a **** poor security
>>model, and NT 2k XP is a great improvement.
>>
>>Installing antivirus software to parse code for exploits would not be
>>necessary if the vulnerabilities were reduced by design and addressed in
>>a timely manner.
>>
>>Anti virus software didn't save ~250,000 and climbing Windows XP and NT
>>users who didn't update their faulty as delivered from Microsoft
>>operating systems.
>
>
> Making Windows almost 99% secure would be that hard. It would mean a
> totally new version where it's files couldn't be accessed, and that only MS
> products would be able to run on it. All the holes of letting the codes
> out to other software companies would be closed up, nothing would run on it
> other than MS products...
> Hardly very realistic and it wouldn't be very popular. Not much chance of
> you blaming the Beta testers of Windows for not writing every possible
> program to attack it a new version of Windows before it's released is there?
> The next Windows would never get released if you waited for the next 10
> years to see if people had run out of new programs to attack it.
>
> If you know so much you'll know what the next 10 viruses will be and how
> each one will be designed to work. Would you like to pass on your wise info
> about those 10 future viruses that have never even been created yet?
>
> E. Scrooge
>
>
No I'd just like them to fix the remote exploitable buffer overruns like
they said they would.
Its not that complex
But if all you users ever do is bend over and take it, and apologise for
the inconvenience, then you really deserve it.

"lily" <> wrote in message
newsEB_a.11341$...
> >>Faulty weak design by Microsoft, fair and square.
> >>No weaselling out of that Nathan.
> >
> > Yes, and the problem was fixed almost a month ago now.
>
> Well its bloody obvious to everyone else that it wasn't.
> Just publishing a repair patch does NOT absolve Microsoft of the
> responsibility for the development process that created the
> vulnerability in the first place.

What would you have Microsoft do different about getting security patches
out there?

E. Scrooge wrote:

> "lily" <> wrote in message
> news:ucE_a.11396$...
>
>>The Flash wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes it does, If you own a car it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it
>
> and
>
>>>protect it, you have to lock the doors, top up the oil and replace worn
>>>items. It is NOT the car makers responsibility and never has been.
>>>
>>>If you own a computer it is YOUR responsibility to maintain it and
>
> protect
>
>>>it, update software as needed and keep antivirus software installed and
>>>current.
>>>
>>>This current mindset of abdicating all personal responsibility and
>
> blaming
>
>>>somebody else for any problem that comes along is flawed. If you cannot
>>>accept the responsibility of operating a computer in the digital age
>
> with
>
>>>all the legal and social implications and personal responsibilities that
>>>ownership encompasses you have no right to use one and absolutely no
>
> right
>
>>>to complain about it.
>>>
>>>If we extract this current mindset to its end conclusion we end up with
>
> the
>
>>>following... Man electrocuted using toaster in shower.... power company
>
> to
>
>>>be sued. Woman sues car company and insurance company after her car is
>>>stolen when keys were left in ignition.
>>>
>>
>>What a load of *******s
>>Microsoft is responsible for not checking the software for buffer
>>overruns before it was released.
>>Like Ford was responsible for releasing explosive Pintos into the market.
>>Blamining the end user for faulty design is taking rimming syncophantic
>>corporate adoration way too far.
>>Microsoft should apologise to their users, they will not do so because
>>it is an admission of liability.
>
>
> You can still get free fixes for new Windows 98 security problems, and
> you're complaining about that. Windows is and the software that's adpted to
> run on Windows are full of programs that could be attacks in many different
> ways.
>
> Don't update your Anti Virus software with patches each week and see where
> that gets you.
>
> E. Scrooge
>
>
There are 250,000 users out there with rooted systems going "But my
Antivirus was up to date".
Unless you fix the underlying vulnerability on port exploits, the first
wave will get everyone before the antivirus companies respond.
Especially with the increasing number of always connected ADSL and cable
clients.
Antivirus is for the email and shareware born viruses that afflict
Windows systems.
They won't save you from port exploits, they are not the right tool.
Firewalls and control over your processes is.
Better update notification is a partial solution.

"Bruce Simpson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:50:45 +1200, "Nicholas Sherlock"
> <> wrote:
>
> >"Bruce Simpson" <> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> If the manufacturer of your car sent you a note saying "sorry, the air
> >> bag in that model has proven to go off all by itself without warning"
> >> would you expect:
> >
> >If the manufacturer of your car provided, a month before any problems
> >started occuring, a free patch that would prevent problems, would you
moan
> >on and on when you're hit and you didn't apply the patch?
>
> Yes, I'd moan if the manufacturer said "we have a new airbag
> controller that fixes the problem. Just drop by and pick it up then
> install it yourself or pay an expert to do it for you"
>
> One would expect that parts AND LABOUR would be covered in the case of
> a defective product.

It would only seem reasonable that all cars should be fitted with radar
sensors to help prevent any contacts when trying to park the car. A rear
view video could be handy as well. There are a number of options that cars
could be fitted with but simply aren't. Automatic maintenance schedules are
fitted to some cars and not others. Brake pad wear warning indicators on
the dash would be another option which is not fitted. Puncture proof tyres
doesn't seem to unreasonable to expect on the modern 2000 and upwards cars.
A self cleaning car would be useful as well - press a button and detergent
is sprayed from the roof down, after 3 mintues the rinse mode kick in.
After all the buggers are expensive enough and lose 10 grand as soon as they
leave the showroom floor. The bad news about car airbags is that they can
only be used once. It would be interesting to know if Insurance companies
can get away with fitting of secondhand car airbags (unused of course, I
just got that in time before some bright prick had the idea that inflated
airbags would somehow be reused complete with blood stains from their
previous use LOL) into repaired cars like they use every other secondhand
part that they can get their hands on.

At least with previous versions of Windows (since XP hardly ever crashes) no
matter how often W98 etc crashes, they can still be used over and over
again, unlike the average car. <grin>

On a side note, Bruce. I was looking at your most impressive Jet cart
videos . Do you have any idea just how hot your Jet engine gets? By
the look of the videos it has quite a hot looking glow to it. With your
foot on the brake it hardly goes quick enough to help keep the engine a bit
cooler. Doing a 100 mph might help drop the temp a couple of degrees -
wouldn't do much for the nerves though.

E. Scrooge

"lily" <> wrote in message
news:Q8J_a.11478$...
> > What would you have Microsoft do different about getting security
patches
> > out there?
> >
> >
> Install critical update notification by default.

Windows 2000 (since SP3), Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 all have this
feature - its called Automatic Update

"Richard Malcolm-Smith" <> wrote in message
news:bhfn76$cje$...
> > Install critical update notification by default.
>
> I would rather not have that as an option.
>
> How about make it so they dont take so damn long to install. and make it
so you
> dont have to restart after installing every single one of them.
>
> The one machine of mine here that got affected by it had all the patches
> installed, but hadnt been restarted since someone had some files on it
open at
> the time.
>
> I have no idea how it happened since its all behind the nat of the router,
and
> that one only has a pinhole for RDP and 2 for DC++ - I think one of the
> flatmates must have got owned somewhere else and bought it back.

Sounds like a likely entry point into your network, around the firewall.
With regard to rebooting, Windows Server 2003 is better in this regard as it
has hotpatching.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:00:05 +1200, Bruce Simpson
<> wrote:

>In short, Microsoft's attitude is the equivalent of responding to the
>design fault in your new car's electronic door locking system by
>sending you a letter saying "you can come over and pick up the new
>parts but you'll have to fit them yourself or pay an expert to do it"
>
>That would never happen in the auto-industry because consumers would
>be outraged. Unfortunately, in the world of Big Bill, we've come to
>accept such tactics as normal.

Last time I had my car serviced, I had to take it to the garage and
pay them to do the work. Are you saying that Ford come out and service
yours at home for free?

David