MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and how MScherry picks data.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. thing

    thing Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    Hi there,

    thing wrote:
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/


    A good article IMHO...

    The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Oct 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/


    > A good article IMHO...
    > The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    > the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?


    read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like the
    MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

    >
    >> A good article IMHO...
    >> The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    >> the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?

    >
    >read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    >windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like the
    >MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.


    Quite. Who says sources don't matter ? :)




    Bruce

    ------------------------------
    Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
    dying of nothing.

    -Redd Foxx


    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicks data.

    Hi there,

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

    >
    >
    >> A good article IMHO...
    >> The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    >> the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?

    >
    > read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    > windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like the
    > MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.


    Does it not matter that the information presented in the report can
    be validated quite easily by anyone who approaches it objectively,
    and not just from a subjective POV?

    I'd be more worried about XP/SP2 breaking many 3rd-party apps...the
    apps breaking like that may infact be creating more opportunities for
    new virii/malware etc...to exploit...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Oct 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicks data.

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    > Hi there,
    >
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >> Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>
    >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> A good article IMHO...
    >>> The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    >>> the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?

    >>
    >>
    >> read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    >> windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like
    >> the MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.

    >
    >
    > Does it not matter that the information presented in the report can
    > be validated quite easily by anyone who approaches it objectively,
    > and not just from a subjective POV?


    I've tried to objectively validate the data, but I can't, because its
    based on flat out innacurracies. Nicholas Petreley isn't objective, he
    can't be

    > I'd be more worried about XP/SP2 breaking many 3rd-party apps...the
    > apps breaking like that may infact be creating more opportunities for
    > new virii/malware etc...to exploit...
    >


    Nice theory but sounds illogical to me. XPSP2 is a much more secure
    platform than previous versions of XP. Sure AppCompat is an issue, as
    with any new version of an OS, but the platform fails safe (closed) not
    open. Have you got a real world example to back up the theory?
    Breaking 3rd party apps is a good thing in this case - breaking them
    because they are insecure
     
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2004
    #6
  7. thing

    E. Scrooge Guest

    Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    news:KD3hd.26305$...
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> A good article IMHO...
    >>>> The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    >>>> the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    >>> windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like the
    >>> MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.

    >>
    >>
    >> Does it not matter that the information presented in the report can
    >> be validated quite easily by anyone who approaches it objectively,
    >> and not just from a subjective POV?

    >
    > I've tried to objectively validate the data, but I can't, because its
    > based on flat out innacurracies. Nicholas Petreley isn't objective, he
    > can't be
    >
    >> I'd be more worried about XP/SP2 breaking many 3rd-party apps...the
    >> apps breaking like that may infact be creating more opportunities for
    >> new virii/malware etc...to exploit...
    >>

    >
    > Nice theory but sounds illogical to me. XPSP2 is a much more secure
    > platform than previous versions of XP. Sure AppCompat is an issue, as
    > with any new version of an OS, but the platform fails safe (closed) not
    > open. Have you got a real world example to back up the theory? Breaking
    > 3rd party apps is a good thing in this case - breaking them because they
    > are insecure


    No longer true.
    Microsoft released an updated patch on the 20th October 2004. It's meant to
    fix the latest security hole that allowed people to hack through IE.

    By itself SP2 without the latest patch isn't as secure as a PC that has the
    latest patch is. So far that now makes XP as secure as it can be until the
    next hole is discovered and fixed.

    It's hardly easy to be completely secure when a website data has to get onto
    a PC before that website can be displayed.

    A computer that stays off the net isn't in a network, and doesn't load and
    install data off anything should be as secure as any computer can be under
    such severe user restrictions.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 31, 2004
    #7
  8. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicks data.

    E. Scrooge wrote:
    > "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    > news:KD3hd.26305$...
    >
    >>Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hi there,
    >>>
    >>>Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>A good article IMHO...
    >>>>>The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    >>>>>the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    >>>>windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like the
    >>>>MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Does it not matter that the information presented in the report can
    >>>be validated quite easily by anyone who approaches it objectively,
    >>>and not just from a subjective POV?

    >>
    >>I've tried to objectively validate the data, but I can't, because its
    >>based on flat out innacurracies. Nicholas Petreley isn't objective, he
    >>can't be
    >>
    >>
    >>>I'd be more worried about XP/SP2 breaking many 3rd-party apps...the
    >>>apps breaking like that may infact be creating more opportunities for
    >>>new virii/malware etc...to exploit...
    >>>

    >>
    >>Nice theory but sounds illogical to me. XPSP2 is a much more secure
    >>platform than previous versions of XP. Sure AppCompat is an issue, as
    >>with any new version of an OS, but the platform fails safe (closed) not
    >>open. Have you got a real world example to back up the theory? Breaking
    >>3rd party apps is a good thing in this case - breaking them because they
    >>are insecure

    >
    >
    > No longer true.


    Whats no longer true?

    XPSP2 is still more secure than any other version of XP.

    > Microsoft released an updated patch on the 20th October 2004. It's meant to
    > fix the latest security hole that allowed people to hack through IE.


    I think you're referring to the Drag and Drop vuln. Yes its a bad one,
    but remember that a user must visit a malicious web site, or read a
    malicious email.User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability.

    > By itself SP2 without the latest patch isn't as secure as a PC that has the
    > latest patch is. So far that now makes XP as secure as it can be until the
    > next hole is discovered and fixed.


    Not sure I agree with SP2 not being as secure as a PC that has the
    latest patch (presumably SP1 + the IE patch) I would rather be on SP2.
    Still - I would rather be on SP2 with this patch as well.

    XPSP2 is still more secure as a whole than XP SP0, SP1 with or without
    the latest updates.

    > It's hardly easy to be completely secure when a website data has to get onto
    > a PC before that website can be displayed.
    >
    > A computer that stays off the net isn't in a network, and doesn't load and
    > install data off anything should be as secure as any computer can be under
    > such severe user restrictions.
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >
    >
     
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2004
    #8
  9. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    In article <1099222016.89044@ftpsrv1>, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
    >
    >"Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    >news:KD3hd.26305$...

    *SNIP*
    >A computer that stays off the net isn't in a network, and doesn't load and
    >install data off anything should be as secure as any computer can be under
    >such severe user restrictions.
    >

    How do you think MS managed to achieve Orange Book certification for
    NT3.5 SP3? By keeping it off the network.
    Not much use for an NOS, is it?

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Oct 31, 2004
    #9
  10. thing

    Guest

    Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:02:42 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > XPSP2 is a much more secure
    > platform than previous versions of XP.


    M$WinNT5.1 was marketed as Windows XP, and was hailed as the most secure
    version ever. However, a major security flaw was exploited within a week
    from initial release which permitted near instantaneous infection upon
    connecting to the Internet.

    Since then it has taken *two* "service pack" releases, before Micro$oft
    was able to fix the serious security flaws in Internet Explorer.

    http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/10/29/new_url_spoofing_flaw_found_in_internet_explorer.html

    And most likely there will be more!

    Web Users are recommended to upgrade to Mozilla or it's offshoot,
    Firefox. http://www.mozilla.org


    Divine

    --
    "Outlook is the security equivalent of wearing condoms with the ends cut
    off - for greater comfort and ease of use."
     
    , Oct 31, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicks data.

    wrote:
    >>XPSP2 is a much more secure
    >>platform than previous versions of XP.


    > M$WinNT5.1 was marketed as Windows XP, and was hailed as the most secure
    > version ever. However, a major security flaw was exploited within a week
    > from initial release which permitted near instantaneous infection upon
    > connecting to the Internet.


    replace "M$winNT5.1" with "Insert Linux varient from two years back" and
    "Windows XP" with "Linux marketing name" and it still rings true. well,
    maybe not a week, but major security flaws are still found.

    and "service packs" need to be applied in what ever OS you use, it is
    just that some of them are called upgrades, some updates, some service
    packs, and some release them as a whole new OS.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 31, 2004
    #11
  12. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicksdata.

    Hi there,

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
    >>>
    >>>> A good article IMHO...
    >>>> The truth hurts it is said...is that why no-one in this NG has come to
    >>>> the defence of Uncles Billys fave OS yet, in regards to that report?
    >>>
    >>> read about it elsewhere, but umm, any report written about how bad
    >>> windows is, by a known Linux nut is likely to be ignored, much like
    >>> the MS sponsored reports into how bad linux is.

    >>
    >> Does it not matter that the information presented in the report can
    >> be validated quite easily by anyone who approaches it objectively,
    >> and not just from a subjective POV?

    >
    > I've tried to objectively validate the data, but I can't, because its
    > based on flat out innacurracies. Nicholas Petreley isn't objective, he
    > can't be


    Can you explain and provide references to why the data is inaccurate...

    Petreley! Well he is quite subjective in his writing, but the data he
    references is objective in nature (numbers can't have an opinion now
    can they?) :)

    >> I'd be more worried about XP/SP2 breaking many 3rd-party apps...the
    >> apps breaking like that may infact be creating more opportunities for
    >> new virii/malware etc...to exploit...

    >
    > Nice theory but sounds illogical to me. XPSP2 is a much more secure
    > platform than previous versions of XP. Sure AppCompat is an issue, as
    > with any new version of an OS, but the platform fails safe (closed) not
    > open. Have you got a real world example to back up the theory? Breaking
    > 3rd party apps is a good thing in this case - breaking them because they
    > are insecure


    They are insecure? Is it not the wrapper around them called Windows that
    might be the cause of a noted part of that instability?

    I would be pretty pissed if my expensive site-license to run some power
    app on a hundred workstations suddenly meant nothing because all of the
    workstations were freshly secured with SP2, hence breaking the app...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Nov 1, 2004
    #12
  13. thing

    Guest

    Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:20:46 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >> M$WinNT5.1 was marketed as Windows XP, and was hailed as the most secure
    >> version ever. However, a major security flaw was exploited within a week
    >> from initial release which permitted near instantaneous infection upon
    >> connecting to the Internet.

    >
    > replace "M$winNT5.1" with "Insert Linux varient from two years back" and
    > "Windows XP" with "Linux marketing name" and it still rings true. well,
    > maybe not a week, but major security flaws are still found.


    Flaws may indeed still be found in GNU/Linux distributions. However,
    distros are not hyped as being "the most secure version ever!"

    Of *course* updates to the various packages are essential to keep up with
    the various up-stream maintainers as they improve their software.

    Everything in Open Source Software is above board and in the open.

    Can Micro$oft say the same about it's software?


    Divine

    --
    "Even the most fanatical Microsoft supporter has to see that Longhorn has
    become Shorthorn."
     
    , Nov 3, 2004
    #13
  14. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicks data.

    wrote:
    > Everything in Open Source Software is above board and in the open.
    > Can Micro$oft say the same about it's software?


    Have you always been one eyed?

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 3, 2004
    #14
  15. thing

    Guest

    Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:41:32 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >> Everything in Open Source Software is above board and in the open.
    >> Can Micro$oft say the same about it's software?

    >
    > Have you always been one eyed?


    All changes to OSS are publically available - in the open.

    Can Micro$oft say the same about it's software?


    Divine

    --
    "Even the most fanatical Microsoft supporter has to see that Longhorn has
    become Shorthorn."
     
    , Nov 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherrypicks data.

    wrote:
    >>>Everything in Open Source Software is above board and in the open.
    >>>Can Micro$oft say the same about it's software?


    >>Have you always been one eyed?


    > All changes to OSS are publically available - in the open.


    my comment was more about this "Everything in Open Source Software is
    above board"

    > Can Micro$oft say the same about it's software?


    seeing as you seem intent on talking only in black and white, open and
    closed, then I guess not, as it's source is not available, it is not
    publically available.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 4, 2004
    #16
  17. thing

    Guest

    Re: MS's security campaign, article debunking the MS myth's and howMScherry picks data.

    On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:54:04 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >> All changes to OSS are publically available - in the open.

    >
    > my comment was more about this "Everything in Open Source Software is
    > above board"


    Well a patch to a piece of OSS certainly cannot be done "under the table".
    As soon as it's checked into the tree it will be noticed.


    Divine

    --
    "Even the most fanatical Microsoft supporter has to see that Longhorn has
    become Shorthorn."
     
    , Nov 4, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. hvdveen

    this NG and THE campaign

    hvdveen, Jul 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    335
    Steve Young
    Jul 28, 2004
  2. Smaug69

    Debunking the myth of DVD rot

    Smaug69, Aug 16, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    921
    Stan Brown
    Aug 22, 2004
  3. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "The Myth of Homeland Security", Marcus J. Ranum

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    533
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jan 23, 2004
  4. Pat

    Of dental picks and cameras....

    Pat, Jun 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    377
  5. thing2
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    680
    Chris Wilkinson
    Feb 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page