Why does every one hate Microsoft

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Dana, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. Dana

    Dana Guest

    Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
    Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we find
    it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with their
    crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
    cannot make.
    Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
    thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
    europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
    Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
    STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
    there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
    the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
     
    Dana, Oct 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dana

    Bit Twister Guest

    On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, Dana wrote:
    > Well to those people I say STFU, it is about time microsoft take
    > control of the security of the OS, there should be no reason I have
    > to buy a third product solution to secure the OS I purchase from
    > Microsoft.


    Hehehe, where is the incentive to fix security problems.

    Delivery slipped years and final release fixed 400 bugs found in beta 2.

    Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
    $50 a year tax to secure your system.

    http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35312
     
    Bit Twister, Oct 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Bit Twister" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, Dana wrote:
    > > Well to those people I say STFU, it is about time microsoft take
    > > control of the security of the OS, there should be no reason I have
    > > to buy a third product solution to secure the OS I purchase from
    > > Microsoft.

    >
    > Hehehe, where is the incentive to fix security problems.


    Future sales
    >
    > Delivery slipped years and final release fixed 400 bugs found in beta 2.


    I never said it was going to be perfect, and this only shows that 3rd party
    companies will not be so out of business as they are crying about now.
    >
    > Micro$not now has a new /feature/ which allows them to charge you a
    > $50 a year tax to secure your system.


    I agree, I dislike the direction that Microsoft is taking with licensing,
    which is why I still use win 2000 and not XP.
    Of course I also use Linux (Fedora 5), Solaris 8 and 10, and HP Unix
    So I am not stuck with one OS.
    >
    > http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35312
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #3
  4. "Dana" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
    > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
    > find


    A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
    internet is plain stupid

    > it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
    > their
    > crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
    > cannot make.


    Never told people what they can or cannot make, they decided what was legal
    in their jurasdictions. If yo don't like the laws, either elect new law
    makers or don't do business there. But, if you do business, obey the laws.
    Problem is MS makes more money breaking the laws and paying fines. And you
    trust them to secure your computer?

    > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in


    10 years afer the problem was discovered

    > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
    > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
    > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say


    Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
    competition

    > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
    > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
    > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
    >

    If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.

    Stuart
     
    Stuart Miller, Oct 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Dana wrote:

    > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we find
    > it easier.


    No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable for
    surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well, why
    didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?

    > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
    > thier OS, by building security into the OS,


    They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.

    > now once again the crazy europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic
    > are complaining


    They always do. They're morons.

    > that Microsoft is going to add security to the OS.


    Nah, at least one part of the complaint is true: Microsoft is the authority
    to decide what gets loaded to the kernel, not the user. Now how TF should I
    be able to load my very own driver for inspecting system memory, which
    requires access to \Device\PhysicalMemory, which requires being loaded to
    the kernel due to Microsoft having it locked down? Or what about loadable
    filesystem driver like TrueCrypt? What about WinPCap? I admit, some other
    things can be done via the kernel hooking API, but some important things
    will get lost, because they can't afford a certificate.

    On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not that
    VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...

    > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
    > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.


    There has never been any such reason.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Dana

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <> wrote:

    > especially in Europe, with their
    >crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can and
    >cannot make.


    Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
    gambling.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Stuart Miller" <> wrote in message
    news:DbS%g.190984$1T2.159797@pd7urf2no...
    >
    > "Dana" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
    > > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we
    > > find

    >
    > A browser built into the OS is fine, but using a desktop browser on the
    > internet is plain stupid


    I believe that the issue was Internet Explorer being integrated with the OS.
    I like quite a few people see no issue with that.

    >
    > > it easier. Well look at the mess that made, especially in Europe, with
    > > their
    > > crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can

    and
    > > cannot make.

    >
    > Never told people what they can or cannot make,


    That is what they did. As it is European courts and really Europe in general
    with their socialist viewpoing really is not keen on liberty and freedom in
    general.

    > they decided what was legal
    > in their jurasdictions. If yo don't like the laws, either elect new law
    > makers or don't do business there.


    Notice how there is no European counterpart to Microsoft.
    I mean electronics and Wireless has the likes of Nokia and Alcatel, and
    Siemens, all of which make an excellent product.

    > But, if you do business, obey the laws.
    > Problem is MS makes more money breaking the laws and paying fines.


    That is not true.

    > And you
    > trust them to secure your computer?


    Now, I never said that either. What I said is that with Vista they are
    making a better effort than before, yet people are claiming this will stifle
    competition.
    Well I with a lot of others would rather see Microsoft secure their OS, as
    we do not see why we need a 3rd party solution to secure the OS.
    So those 3rd party companies will lose future business if microsoft secures
    their OS, well they better start looking at what else than may be able to
    produce to make up for that projected loss.
    >
    > > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in

    >
    > 10 years afer the problem was discovered


    No one said they were quick
    >
    > > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
    > > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
    > > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say

    >
    > Not complaining about adding security, complaining about locking out
    > competition


    It is Microsoft's OS, they are not locking out competition. Those other
    companies can come out with their own OS.
    >
    > > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
    > > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to

    secure
    > > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
    > >

    > If you trust that MS will ever make a secure system , that is fine.


    I don't need symmatic saying that Microsoft is locking out the competition
    either, especially when microsoft is not locking out the competition.
    Symmantic can try and develope their own OS.
    >
    > Stuart
    >
    >
    >
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dana wrote:
    >
    > > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS, as we

    find
    > > it easier.

    >
    > No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable for
    > surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well, why
    > didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?


    Because Microsoft had their own, and there is no problem with them tying it
    to their OS. In fact it makes sense for all. If customers wanted a different
    web browser, there are quite a few available for them.
    >
    > > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
    > > thier OS, by building security into the OS,

    >
    > They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.


    That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have been
    demanding.
    >
    > > now once again the crazy europeans and companies like Mcafee and

    Symmatic
    > > are complaining

    >
    > They always do. They're morons.
    >
    > > that Microsoft is going to add security to the OS.

    >
    > Nah, at least one part of the complaint is true: Microsoft is the

    authority
    > to decide what gets loaded to the kernel, not the user. Now how TF should

    I
    > be able to load my very own driver for inspecting system memory, which
    > requires access to \Device\PhysicalMemory, which requires being loaded to
    > the kernel due to Microsoft having it locked down? Or what about loadable
    > filesystem driver like TrueCrypt? What about WinPCap? I admit, some other
    > things can be done via the kernel hooking API, but some important things
    > will get lost, because they can't afford a certificate.


    And this boils down to what you want the OS for. If you want to play and
    load drivers, well you will have to get an OS like Lynx which will let you
    do that.
    But windows is made for the masses who have no desire to mess with the
    drivers, they just want an OS that works out of the box with minimal
    configuration from the user to make it work
    >
    > On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not that
    > VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...


    On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
    still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.
    Microsoft is under no obligation to disclose anything about the kernel to
    make it easier for them.
    >
    > > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to

    secure
    > > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.

    >
    > There has never been any such reason.

    As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Jim Watt" <_way> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:22:46 -0800, "Dana" <> wrote:
    >
    > > especially in Europe, with their
    > >crazy courts that act like petty tyrannts telling people what they can

    and
    > >cannot make.

    >
    > Or America where the law does not want you to spend your money
    > gambling.


    Gambling is legal in quite a few places in America.

    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Dana

    Todd H. Guest

    "Dana" <> writes:

    > Seems Microsoft cannot win for losing.
    > Awhile back us customers wanted the browser built in with the OS


    We did? Who the hell decided that was a good idea?


    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/
     
    Todd H., Oct 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Dana

    Todd H. Guest

    "Dana" <> writes:

    > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
    > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
    > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
    > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
    > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
    > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to secure
    > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.


    That I agree with. You shouldn't need $40/year of 3rd party crap just
    to make an OS not be a pain. This is among the reasons Mac is such a
    compelling choice as a desktop.

    I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
    changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
    Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
    defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
    They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
    long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.

    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/
     
    Todd H., Oct 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Todd H." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Dana" <> writes:
    >
    > > Now it is security concerns. Microsoft is finally addressing security in
    > > thier OS, by building security into the OS, now once again the crazy
    > > europeans and companies like Mcafee and Symmatic are complaining that
    > > Microsoft is going to add security to the OS. Well to those people I say
    > > STFU, it is about time microsoft take control of the security of the OS,
    > > there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to

    secure
    > > the OS I purchase from Microsoft.

    >
    > That I agree with. You shouldn't need $40/year of 3rd party crap just
    > to make an OS not be a pain. This is among the reasons Mac is such a
    > compelling choice as a desktop.


    And as Mac shows, there is competition in the OS world.
    And as Linux becomes more popular with more applications coming on line,
    Microsoft will have to adapt to keep its share.
    >
    > I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
    > changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
    > Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
    > defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
    > They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
    > long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.


    I agree
    >
    > --
    > Todd H.
    > http://www.toddh.net/
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Dana

    Beachcomber Guest


    >I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
    >changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
    >Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete and disk
    >defrag functionality, then they don't know their business very well.
    >They should be thankful windows was so horrible reliant on them for so
    >long rather than bemoaning the (possible) end of the line.
    >


    I like Microsoft products. Yes, they are a near monopoly in some
    ways. That can be a good thing. For all their push to hire great
    minds, they have always been pretty much a copycat company. I like
    Apple products too. Sometimes I wish that Microsoft products would
    work as well as Apple products. (I've just downloaded the new IE7 for
    Windows. It works ok and has some new, up-to-date feature, but it
    looks like too many decisions were made by committee and it lacks that
    cutting-edge elegance).

    The GUI interface, which is the basis for Windows is a copy from the
    Macintosh and before that, from the Xerox Parc technology. In my
    mind, bad versions of DOS went on for far too long. The mouse,
    Internet Explorer,and another Microsoft cash cow... MS office... all
    are copies of great ideas from other individuals and organizations.
    Microsoft was even late in recognizing the importance of the Internet
    when it went mainstream in the mid 90's.

    Still, they give out free updates and patches and they generally work,
    hassle free. Microsoft products provide value. The Europeans all
    get together in haughty meetings and say "Harrrumph... we can't have
    this American company dominant in a product that is so vital to our
    economies... so lets try to throw a wrench in the works and
    over-regulate them with our laws..."

    Americans are jealous of success too. Many attack Bill Gates for his
    wealth, his geekiness, his dominance of his company, and even his
    generosity and his charitable foundations.

    If Microsoft was that awful, they wouldn't have 80-90% market
    dominance. If you want a better operating system, you could choose
    Apple, or if you don't like paying high royalties, there is always
    Linux.

    If all you want to do is complain.... you could write your own :}

    Beachcomber
     
    Beachcomber, Oct 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Dana wrote:

    >> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable for
    >> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well, why
    >> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?

    >
    > Because Microsoft had their own,


    No, they didn't. They had a file browser which was particularly enhanced to
    roughly render some little subset of HTML. It has some policies stuck on
    the top, but one can trivial show that it is unsuitable for reliably
    processing untrustworthy content.

    Declaring it a webbrowser doesn't make it become one.

    > and there is no problem with them tying it to their OS.


    Wrong again. The problem is that the explorer shell and all programs that
    use the TridentEngine Control or just the ShellDoc-API inherit all its
    vulnerabilities, making even administrative tasks become dangerous.

    > If customers wanted a different web browser, there are quite a few available
    > for them.


    If customers were able to make a choice or just recognize that there's a
    difference between a webbrowser and the WWW, then they would have chosen
    Netscape on a large base and not even considered misusing IE as a
    webbrowser.

    >> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.

    >
    > That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have been
    > demanding.


    You forgot to specify which customers. Media companies trying to sell their
    content by using DRM against the users, these aren't customers in the usual
    meaning.

    > But windows is made for the masses who have no desire to mess with the
    > drivers, they just want an OS that works out of the box with minimal
    > configuration from the user to make it work


    I guess even normal users want a reliable workstation for doing serious
    work. With IE, DRM, and the lack of fundamental OS enhancements like a
    well-proven crypto filesystem a la TrueCrypt or extensive network
    monitoring capabilities (for WireShark you need WinPCap), you can't do
    anything serious on such machines. Normally you should be in constant fear
    of your data getting fucked up with you being unable to anything against
    it.

    >> On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not that
    >> VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...

    >
    > On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
    > still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.


    No. Symantec an McAfee could easily afford such a certificate and simply
    shut up. They never complained about the lack of validation in the
    certification process.

    The real reason is that their software products are so fucked up and can
    hardly be ported to Windows Vista, having ignored it for so long time.

    >>> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
    >>> secure
    >>> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.

    >>
    >> There has never been any such reason.

    > As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.


    No. Microsoft has done many mistakes, ranging from a crappy default
    configuration over to user applications bundled to Windows and some legacy
    issues, but the core system of Windows itself has always been a very clever
    and well-designed highly secure system. Hey, why do you think they got
    EAL4+ certification for Windows 2000? Or C2 for Windows XP? You can't
    achieve such a thing without at least a solid base.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Todd H. wrote:

    > You shouldn't need $40/year of 3rd party crap just to make an OS not be a pain.


    You don't need to, and never did. Actually all this security software
    bullshit makes a secured Windows box become vulnerable in first place.
    The real problem is that users are too stupid to actually use the built-in
    security features, Microsoft intentionally hides them (XP Suck^W"Home"
    Edition), and are useless by default because everyone has full root
    privileges.

    > I don't weep for the Symantecs and McAfee's. They know security is a
    > changing landscape, and if they didn't learn the lessons of Norton
    > Utilities when Windows finally started including undelete


    That the biggest fun: users got their "Recycle Bin", and they're still
    deleting their own data and ask for recovery. Now the Norton stuff has even
    added a "Norton Protected Recycle Bin" inside the normal "Recycle Bin", and
    there's still their Norton Undelete. I mean, how ignorant can someone be
    delete important data even with two or three layers of confirmation, and
    how stupid must someone be to add even more confirmations?

    > and disk defrag functionality,


    Well, yeah, hardly spectacular. NTFS always did a good job in avoiding
    fragmentation, the NTFS Fragmentation API always provided the functionality
    to consistently make single files continuos, and shifting around continuos
    files to keep large chunks of free space in between isn't that big either.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dana wrote:
    >
    > >> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable

    for
    > >> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well,

    why
    > >> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?

    > >
    > > Because Microsoft had their own,

    >
    > No, they didn't.


    Internet explorer. Which when those two first came out, I would say IE was
    better than Netscape.
    >
    > > and there is no problem with them tying it to their OS.

    >
    > Wrong again.


    No, I am quite right. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying internet
    explorer to the OS.


    >
    > > If customers wanted a different web browser, there are quite a few

    available
    > > for them.

    >
    > If customers were able to make a choice or just recognize that there's a
    > difference between a webbrowser and the WWW, then they would have chosen
    > Netscape on a large base and not even considered misusing IE as a
    > webbrowser.


    That is not what happened, Internet Explorer became the popular choice over
    NetScape.
    >
    > >> They're integrating DRM into the kernel. That's far away from security.

    > >
    > > That is how they are implementing security. Which the customers have

    been
    > > demanding.

    >
    > You forgot to specify which customers. Media companies trying to sell

    their
    > content by using DRM against the users, these aren't customers in the

    usual
    > meaning.
    >
    > > But windows is made for the masses who have no desire to mess with the
    > > drivers, they just want an OS that works out of the box with minimal
    > > configuration from the user to make it work

    >
    > I guess even normal users want a reliable workstation for doing serious
    > work. With IE, DRM, and the lack of fundamental OS enhancements like a
    > well-proven crypto filesystem a la TrueCrypt or extensive network
    > monitoring capabilities (for WireShark you need WinPCap), you can't do
    > anything serious on such machines. Normally you should be in constant fear
    > of your data getting fucked up with you being unable to anything against
    > it.


    No one is forcing you to buy windows. Just do not turn around and try to
    demand via theo courst and governments what Microsoft can and cannot do.

    >
    > >> On the other hand, malicious guys will simply buy a certificate. Not

    that
    > >> VeriSign would be trustworthy in any way...

    > >
    > > On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
    > > still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.

    >
    > No.


    Sure they can if they want.
    >
    > >>> there should be no reason I have to buy a third product solution to
    > >>> secure
    > >>> the OS I purchase from Microsoft.
    > >>
    > >> There has never been any such reason.

    > > As you pointed out, microsoft has always been weak on security.

    >
    > No.


    Yes, it is well known that Microsoft has put out some very vulnerable
    software products.

    > Microsoft has done many mistakes, ranging from a crappy default
    > configuration over to user applications bundled to Windows and some legacy
    > issues, but the core system of Windows itself has always been a very

    clever
    > and well-designed highly secure system. Hey, why do you think they got
    > EAL4+ certification for Windows 2000? Or C2 for Windows XP? You can't
    > achieve such a thing without at least a solid base.


    That still does not help how vulnerable Win 2k is to attack.
    Of course being the most widely used OS also plays a factor in this, in that
    more people to to crack it.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #16
  17. Dana wrote:

    > "Sebastian Gottschalk" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Dana wrote:
    >>
    >>>> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable

    > for
    >>>> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well,

    > why
    >>>> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?
    >>>
    >>> Because Microsoft had their own,

    >>
    >> No, they didn't.

    >
    > Internet explorer.


    Didn't you read the rest of the statement, where I explained why MSIE
    should not be considered a webbrowser?

    > Which when those two first came out, I would say IE was better than Netscape.


    IE -> trivially compromised by malware, generally unavoidable
    Netscape -> maybe a bit fuddly, but works well

    Na, that's not a choice, that's a collary.

    >>> and there is no problem with them tying it to their OS.

    >>
    >> Wrong again.

    >
    > No, I am quite right. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying internet
    > explorer to the OS.


    You really didn't read a word, did you? The integration of an unfixable
    security problem into the OS is of course a big problem.

    > That is not what happened, Internet Explorer became the popular choice over
    > NetScape.


    Right, and there's still no relationship to the product quality. People
    used IE because it was there and they didn't know anything else.

    > No one is forcing you to buy windows.


    You may consider this statement again.

    >>> On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types will
    >>> still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.

    >>
    >> No.

    >
    > Sure they can if they want.


    For sure they stopped doing so more than 10 years ago.

    > Yes, it is well known that Microsoft has put out some very vulnerable
    > software products.


    It is also well known that Microsoft has put out some very secure software
    products. Now, you should not generalize everything.

    > That still does not help how vulnerable Win 2k is to attack.


    Huh? Is it? That would be real news. Any references to a major security
    problem in Win2K?

    > Of course being the most widely used OS also plays a factor in this, in that
    > more people to to crack it.


    What did we learn from Apache vs. IIS? The most easily attackable system is
    the target, which is not necessarily the most widely used one.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #17
  18. Dana

    Dana Guest

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dana wrote:
    >
    > > "Sebastian Gottschalk" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Dana wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>> No, customers wanted a *web*browser (hint: something that's suitable

    > > for
    > >>>> surfing the web in terms of security) *delivered* with the OS. Well,

    > > why
    > >>>> didn't they ship Netscape 4.x?
    > >>>
    > >>> Because Microsoft had their own,
    > >>
    > >> No, they didn't.

    > >
    > > Internet explorer.

    >
    > Didn't you read the rest of the statement, where I explained why MSIE
    > should not be considered a webbrowser?


    Being that Internet Explorer is recognized as a web browser, your opinion is
    just that, an opinion.

    >
    > > Which when those two first came out, I would say IE was better than

    Netscape.
    >
    > IE -> trivially compromised by malware, generally unavoidable
    > Netscape -> maybe a bit fuddly, but works well


    Still the point is when the browser wars between IE and Netscape happened,
    netscape lost even with all the problems in IE.
    >
    > >>> and there is no problem with them tying it to their OS.
    > >>
    > >> Wrong again.

    > >
    > > No, I am quite right. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying

    internet
    > > explorer to the OS.

    >
    > You really didn't read a word, did you? The integration of an unfixable
    > security problem into the OS is of course a big problem.


    And again, there is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying IE into the OS.
    You may dissagree with the MS decision to do that, but that is their choice
    to make, not yours. If you do not like that, well use a different OS.

    >
    > > That is not what happened, Internet Explorer became the popular choice

    over
    > > NetScape.

    >
    > Right, and there's still no relationship to the product quality. People
    > used IE because it was there and they didn't know anything else.


    Netscape was advertising. Heck I had both browsers at one time. Just like I
    have Mozilla and opera today.
    I myself never liked Netscape Browser, and it seems quite a few people also
    felt that way about Netscape browser.
    >
    > > No one is forcing you to buy windows.

    >
    > You may consider this statement again.


    I did, if you despise MS so much, do not buy their products.
    Yes if you work for a company, and they buy Windows, that you have no
    control over.

    >
    > >>> On that we agree, which is why Symmatic and Mcafee and those types

    will
    > >>> still be in demand to come up with software to help protect windows.
    > >>
    > >> No.

    > >
    > > Sure they can if they want.

    >
    > For sure they stopped doing so more than 10 years ago.
    >
    > > Yes, it is well known that Microsoft has put out some very vulnerable
    > > software products.

    >
    > It is also well known that Microsoft has put out some very secure software
    > products. Now, you should not generalize everything.


    Windows is not anywhere being as secure as a Unix distro from say Sun or HP.
    This is not a knock against windows, it is just a known fact.
    Heck server 2003 is their best server yet, almost as good as a Unix box in
    regards to reliablity, and ability to handle intensive processing. I still
    would not trust Windows as my database server platform, for that I will
    stick with HP or Sun Unix and Oracle.
    >
    > > That still does not help how vulnerable Win 2k is to attack.

    >
    > Huh? Is it? That would be real news. Any references to a major security
    > problem in Win2K?
    >
    > > Of course being the most widely used OS also plays a factor in this, in

    that
    > > more people to to crack it.

    >
    > What did we learn from Apache vs. IIS? The most easily attackable system

    is
    > the target, which is not necessarily the most widely used one.
     
    Dana, Oct 26, 2006
    #18
  19. Dana wrote:

    > Being that Internet Explorer is recognized as a web browser, your opinion is
    > just that, an opinion.


    What about talking about facts? The detail that it's commonly recognized as
    a webbrowser doesn't make it one. From a technical point of view it simply
    isn't.

    > Still the point is when the browser wars between IE and Netscape happened,
    > netscape lost even with all the problems in IE.


    Are you trying to permanently switch subjects? The fact that IE has "won"
    the "browser war" is absolutely no argument for its quality. As you already
    wrote: Nothing more than an opinion.

    >> You really didn't read a word, did you? The integration of an unfixable
    >> security problem into the OS is of course a big problem.

    >
    > And again, there is nothing wrong with Microsoft tying IE into the OS.
    > You may dissagree with the MS decision to do that, but that is their choice
    > to make, not yours. If you do not like that, well use a different OS.


    Could it be that you logic is a bit flawed?
    So, once again: Microsoft, being fully aware of the consequences, put a big
    security problem into the system, knowing that it would hurt the customers
    on the long run. I'd call that a bad thing. Whether it was their free
    choice of not.

    >>> No one is forcing you to buy windows.

    >>
    >> You may consider this statement again.

    >
    > I did, if you despise MS so much, do not buy their products.


    Seems like you didn't. Hint: What's the difference between "buy" and "use"?


    > Windows is not anywhere being as secure as a Unix distro from say Sun or HP.
    > This is not a knock against windows, it is just a known fact.


    Hmm... says who? AFAICS they had to pull a lot of stuff to integrate
    various security modules to just get the EAL3 evaluation, whereas for Win2K
    you had to pull a lot of configuration measures.

    > Heck server 2003 is their best server yet, almost as good as a Unix box in
    > regards to reliablity, and ability to handle intensive processing.


    Actually the part about "intensive processing" is quite counterintuitive,
    because of the memory management with the Working Set mechanisms: usually
    the most efficient way, but when confronted with a huge memory load, leads
    to hardly controllable page flattering.


    BTW, when will you ever fix your broken quoting? Maybe you should stop
    misusing Outlook Express as a newsreader. Which is, well, just another good
    reason why I don't consider you being able to give any valuable opinions
    about computer security.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Oct 26, 2006
    #19
  20. Dana

    JAB Guest

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > No. Microsoft has done many mistakes, ranging from a crappy default
    > configuration over to user applications bundled to Windows and some legacy
    > issues, but the core system of Windows itself has always been a very clever
    > and well-designed highly secure system. Hey, why do you think they got
    > EAL4+ certification for Windows 2000? Or C2 for Windows XP? You can't
    > achieve such a thing without at least a solid base.


    EAL4+ makes a "highly secure system" are you sure?
     
    JAB, Oct 26, 2006
    #20
    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. =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IEx1bmRncmVu?=

    Does no one else think microsoft does a poor job?

    =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IEx1bmRncmVu?=, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    652
  2. Sujith
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    609
    Joseph Bittman MVP MCSD
    Dec 20, 2005
  3. 7

    Re: Why I hate Windopes

    7, Oct 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    435
    chrisv
    Oct 20, 2005
  4. Tony Spadaro

    Who is Art Bell and why does everyone hate him so much?

    Tony Spadaro, Jun 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,230
    Greg Campbell
    Jun 22, 2004
  5. Simon Harding
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,048
    Mike Easter
    Jan 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page