WINDOWS security has another vulnerability

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Au79, Feb 27, 2006.

  1. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Au79, Feb 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Au79

    john Guest

    there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...

    No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are discovered
    and the more hackers it attacks

    --
    Disclaimer: This info is given "as is".
    If you do not like the content or attitude of my posts,
    please put me on your ignore list or dont read my posts.

    --
    "Au79" <> wrote in message
    news:mBLMf.5639$...
    > Newstarget.com - Taichung,Taiwan
    >
    > <http://www.technologynews.info/017769.html>
    > --
    >
    > --
    >
    > http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
     
    john, Feb 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Au79

    Jeff Evans Guest

    john wrote:

    > No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are discovered
    > and the more hackers it attacks


    What you say is definitely true.

    But that is still not a valid excuse for security flaws in an OS.
     
    Jeff Evans, Feb 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    "john" <-> wrote:

    > there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...
    >
    > No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are
    > discovered and the more hackers it attacks
    >


    That's a myth... In reality, the difference in OS safety is in the
    underlying architecture.

    --

    --

    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
     
    Au79, Feb 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Au79

    Mitch Guest

    In article <-privat.org>, john wrote:

    > there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...
    >
    > No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are discovered
    > and the more hackers it attacks


    Nonsense.
    You can't assume that motivation, especially given OS history. Neither
    can you make such a broad statement about OS weaknesses.
    There are many more parts to the issue, such as how fast a patch is
    issued, how serious the vulnerability is, how easily propagated, how
    fast users apply the patch, and how common is the activity and
    knowledge of protecting the computer.

    But how about this argument:
    there are lots of Windows users
    most malware writers seem to be using Windows
    many malware writers seem to have grudges against other OSes
    there would seem to be a lot of motivation for malware writers to
    produce malware for the OSes they hate
    almost all malware is still written for Windows


    If Mac OS is just as unsecure as Windows XP, there should be dozens of
    viruses appearing for Mac OS.
    If virus writers have the same enmity for other OSes that they have for
    their own (which would seem at least as likely, if not much more!),
    then there should be a lot more activity against non-Windows operating
    systems, no matter how common they are.
     
    Mitch, Feb 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Au79

    Seatoller Guest

    On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:58:33 -0800, Au79 wrote:

    > "john" <-> wrote:
    >
    >> there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...
    >>
    >> No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are
    >> discovered and the more hackers it attacks


    Hackers don't attack computers, it's /crackers/ that do. This guy's been
    reading too much of the so-called "popular press" who have been using the
    /wrong/ terminology since day 1.

    > That's a myth... In reality, the difference in OS safety is in the
    > underlying architecture.


    Quite so. And as there are more internet sites running on linux servers
    than M$ ones, how come they haven't been attacked to the same extent?
    Answer, M$ is easier to crack & spread malware.
     
    Seatoller, Feb 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Au79

    john Guest

    I am sure that hackers and virus writers would find a way.
    If everyone used linux it would be a challenge for them...


    --
    Disclaimer: This info is given "as is".
    If you do not like the content or attitude of my posts,
    please put me on your ignore list or don't read my posts.

    --
    "Au79" <> wrote in message
    news:ePQMf.5538$...
    > "john" <-> wrote:
    >
    >> there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...
    >>
    >> No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are
    >> discovered and the more hackers it attacks
    >>

    >
    > That's a myth... In reality, the difference in OS safety is in the
    > underlying architecture.
    >
    > --
    >
    > --
    >
    > http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
     
    john, Feb 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Au79

    john Guest

    I am very aware of the difference. You can call it what you like.
    The result is the same.

    > Quite so. And as there are more internet sites running on linux servers
    > than M$ ones, how come they haven't been attacked to the same extent?
    > Answer, M$ is easier to crack & spread malware


    The desktop is the area of attack not servers... there are many windows
    servers out there.. but they dont have much problems either.

    Most viruses spread by human error. When you have a machine sitting there
    online with no interaction working as a server, humans cant mix it up.


    --
    Disclaimer: This info is given "as is".
    If you do not like the content or attitude of my posts,
    please put me on your ignore list or dont read my posts.

    --
    "Seatoller" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:58:33 -0800, Au79 wrote:
    >
    >> "john" <-> wrote:
    >>
    >>> there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...
    >>>
    >>> No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are
    >>> discovered and the more hackers it attacks

    >
    > Hackers don't attack computers, it's /crackers/ that do. This guy's been
    > reading too much of the so-called "popular press" who have been using the
    > /wrong/ terminology since day 1.
    >
    >> That's a myth... In reality, the difference in OS safety is in the
    >> underlying architecture.

    >
    > Quite so. And as there are more internet sites running on linux servers
    > than M$ ones, how come they haven't been attacked to the same extent?
    > Answer, M$ is easier to crack & spread malware.
     
    john, Feb 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Au79

    john Guest

    You dont kick a dead dog.

    Windows is much alive.

    --
    Disclaimer: This info is given "as is".
    If you do not like the content or attitude of my posts,
    please put me on your ignore list or dont read my posts.

    --
    "Mitch" <> wrote in message
    news:270220062233589573%...
    > In article <-privat.org>, john wrote:
    >
    >> there are holes in KDE and MAC OS too...
    >>
    >> No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are
    >> discovered
    >> and the more hackers it attacks

    >
    > Nonsense.
    > You can't assume that motivation, especially given OS history. Neither
    > can you make such a broad statement about OS weaknesses.
    > There are many more parts to the issue, such as how fast a patch is
    > issued, how serious the vulnerability is, how easily propagated, how
    > fast users apply the patch, and how common is the activity and
    > knowledge of protecting the computer.
    >
    > But how about this argument:
    > there are lots of Windows users
    > most malware writers seem to be using Windows
    > many malware writers seem to have grudges against other OSes
    > there would seem to be a lot of motivation for malware writers to
    > produce malware for the OSes they hate
    > almost all malware is still written for Windows
    >
    >
    > If Mac OS is just as unsecure as Windows XP, there should be dozens of
    > viruses appearing for Mac OS.
    > If virus writers have the same enmity for other OSes that they have for
    > their own (which would seem at least as likely, if not much more!),
    > then there should be a lot more activity against non-Windows operating
    > systems, no matter how common they are.
     
    john, Feb 28, 2006
    #9
  10. X-No-Archive: YES
    john [-] has entered into testimony
    -privat.org

    > I am very aware of the difference. You can call it what you like.
    > The result is the same.
    >
    >> Quite so. And as there are more internet sites running on linux
    >> servers than M$ ones, how come they haven't been attacked to the
    >> same extent? Answer, M$ is easier to crack & spread malware

    >
    > The desktop is the area of attack not servers... there are many
    > windows servers out there.. but they dont have much problems either.
    >
    > Most viruses spread by human error. When you have a machine sitting
    > there online with no interaction working as a server, humans cant mix
    > it up.


    Microsoft is a big target because of the distribution of OSes being
    used. If you have a good firewall between you and the world you can
    stop unauthorized incoming or outgoing packets. If you practice
    safe-surfing techniques, you minimize the chance of even having to worry
    about malware.

    People who have problems with malware or system break-ins are generally
    idiots who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer regardless of what
    logo pops up when the box boots.

    --

    Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
    ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
    Usenet's most helpful netizen
    Hammer of Thor, March 2005
     
    Chadwick Stone©, Feb 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Au79

    Seatoller Guest

    On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:10:09 +0000, Chadwick Stone© wrote:

    > X-No-Archive: YES
    > john [-] has entered into testimony
    > -privat.org
    >
    >> I am very aware of the difference. You can call it what you like. The
    >> result is the same.
    >>
    >>> Quite so. And as there are more internet sites running on linux servers
    >>> than M$ ones, how come they haven't been attacked to the same extent?
    >>> Answer, M$ is easier to crack & spread malware

    >>
    >> The desktop is the area of attack not servers... there are many windows
    >> servers out there.. but they dont have much problems either.


    Hmm...

    http://www.crime-research.org/news/2002/09/Mess0603.htm
    http://news.com.com/2009-1001-983540.html
    http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2005/Apr/0018.html

    Although linux servers can be attacked, the cracker is often less
    successful than if he attacked a M$ one. Any linux ones that are breached,
    "probably reflects a lack of training and deployment expertise rather than
    inherent security problems within Linux itself" mi2g officials have
    suggested.
    In 2002 Slapper compromised only 3,500 linux servers over one week, &
    compare that to the Slammer worm in 2003 which infected 200,000 Microsoft
    SQL servers that was hit by Slammer, which was about /half/ the number of
    machines hit by Code Red!

    >> Most viruses spread by human error.


    He's right about that, but it's far easier to do that with windows than
    with any linux distribution.
    http://librenix.com/?inode=21
    http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

    >> When you have a machine sitting
    >> there online with no interaction working as a server, humans cant mix it
    >> up.


    Though M$ servers are still attacked, I wonder why....

    > Microsoft is a big target because of the distribution of OSes being used.
    > If you have a good firewall between you and the world you can stop
    > unauthorized incoming or outgoing packets. If you practice safe-surfing
    > techniques, you minimize the chance of even having to worry about malware.
    >
    > People who have problems with malware or system break-ins are generally
    > idiots who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer regardless of what
    > logo pops up when the box boots.
     
    Seatoller, Feb 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Au79

    john Guest

    Ok Linux is more secure, you Win! (no pun intended) ;-)

    I like living on the wild side... doing more, faster and I take my chances.
    I have never had a serious problem with windows...
    sure some annoying spyware from time to time,
    sure some blaster viruses that restarted my computer....
    There is a price to pay for versitality and ease of use.

    A windows user does have to be careful, have antivirus and antispyware,
    backup and use system restore.

    I can teach all that to a person in a few hours...No big deal!

    In fact I am making a site that will guide a person step by step
    to learn how to be careful...

    Dont get me wrong, I like linux too...and use it all the time.

    --
    Disclaimer: This info is given "as is".
    If you do not like the content or attitude of my posts,
    please put me on your ignore list or dont read my posts.

    --
    "Seatoller" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:10:09 +0000, Chadwick Stone© wrote:
    >
    >> X-No-Archive: YES
    >> john [-] has entered into testimony
    >> -privat.org
    >>
    >>> I am very aware of the difference. You can call it what you like. The
    >>> result is the same.
    >>>
    >>>> Quite so. And as there are more internet sites running on linux servers
    >>>> than M$ ones, how come they haven't been attacked to the same extent?
    >>>> Answer, M$ is easier to crack & spread malware
    >>>
    >>> The desktop is the area of attack not servers... there are many windows
    >>> servers out there.. but they dont have much problems either.

    >
    > Hmm...
    >
    > http://www.crime-research.org/news/2002/09/Mess0603.htm
    > http://news.com.com/2009-1001-983540.html
    > http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2005/Apr/0018.html
    >
    > Although linux servers can be attacked, the cracker is often less
    > successful than if he attacked a M$ one. Any linux ones that are breached,
    > "probably reflects a lack of training and deployment expertise rather than
    > inherent security problems within Linux itself" mi2g officials have
    > suggested.
    > In 2002 Slapper compromised only 3,500 linux servers over one week, &
    > compare that to the Slammer worm in 2003 which infected 200,000 Microsoft
    > SQL servers that was hit by Slammer, which was about /half/ the number of
    > machines hit by Code Red!
    >
    >>> Most viruses spread by human error.

    >
    > He's right about that, but it's far easier to do that with windows than
    > with any linux distribution.
    > http://librenix.com/?inode=21
    > http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188
    >
    >>> When you have a machine sitting
    >>> there online with no interaction working as a server, humans cant mix it
    >>> up.

    >
    > Though M$ servers are still attacked, I wonder why....
    >
    >> Microsoft is a big target because of the distribution of OSes being used.
    >> If you have a good firewall between you and the world you can stop
    >> unauthorized incoming or outgoing packets. If you practice safe-surfing
    >> techniques, you minimize the chance of even having to worry about
    >> malware.
    >>
    >> People who have problems with malware or system break-ins are generally
    >> idiots who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer regardless of what
    >> logo pops up when the box boots.

    >
     
    john, Feb 28, 2006
    #12
  13. "Jeff Evans" <> wrote in message
    news:DpQMf.827558$xm3.675538@attbi_s21...
    > john wrote:
    >
    >> No OS is perfect and the more popular it gets the more holes are
    >> discovered
    >> and the more hackers it attacks

    >
    > What you say is definitely true.
    >
    > But that is still not a valid excuse for security flaws in an OS.


    When Human Beings become perfect and that is not going to ever happen, then
    nothing we do is every going to be perfect. When O/S(s) and software are
    written by perfect Beings from Outer Space, then one can expect O/S(s) and
    software to be perfect. It's not ever, ever, ever , ever, ever, ever, ever
    going to happen in your lifetime or anyone's lifetime that Human Beings are
    going to be perfect. Therefore, nothing we do or create is going to be
    perfect and is most likely flawed and fallible as we as Human Beings are
    flawed and fallible.

    Duane :)
     
    K-Man hater Duane, Feb 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Au79

    Mitch Guest

    In article <-privat.org>, john wrote:

    > The desktop is the area of attack not servers... there are many windows
    > servers out there.. but they dont have much problems either.


    Windows servers have had a couple spectacular attacks.

    > Most viruses spread by human error. When you have a machine sitting there
    > online with no interaction working as a server, humans cant mix it up.


    True, and true of OS stability also, but unless you're shopping for a
    server, that doesn't help any.
    For users, the discussion is always about the computer that is going to
    have constant human interaction.
     
    Mitch, Feb 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Au79

    elaich Guest

    "john" <-> wrote in news:-privat.org:

    > I like living on the wild side... doing more, faster and I take my
    > chances. I have never had a serious problem with windows...
    > sure some annoying spyware from time to time,
    > sure some blaster viruses that restarted my computer....
    > There is a price to pay for versitality and ease of use.
    >
    > A windows user does have to be careful, have antivirus and
    > antispyware, backup and use system restore.



    False. You're the typical Windows user who doesn't know how to keep
    clean, and view after the fact workarounds as normal.
    >
    > I can teach all that to a person in a few hours...No big deal!
    >
    > In fact I am making a site that will guide a person step by step
    > to learn how to be careful...


    You openly admit that you get spyware and viruses, yet you are going to
    try and teach others about Windows security? Why not learn how NOT to get
    these problems to begin with, and THEN teach others how not to?
     
    elaich, Feb 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Au79

    Mitch Guest

    In article <lcWMf.294509$>, Chadwick
    Stone© <chad_stone@127.0.0.1> wrote:

    > People who have problems with malware or system break-ins are generally
    > idiots who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer regardless of what
    > logo pops up when the box boots.


    That is often the attitude; it seem to come from either hackers or
    Windows users.

    I suggest only the opposite approach makes any sense today -- that
    since a computer can be hugely more helpful, more stable, and set up
    correctly from the start, that it is the computer industry that is
    responsible for that knowledge and safety, not the users.

    For instance:
    Mail clients should load with defaults not to open attachments, not to
    load HTML, not to run helper applications.
    It should not be easy to accidentally send a newsgroup message when you
    are composing e-mail.
    Firewalls should be on by default and protect both directions. Setting
    up additional services (like printer sharing) should have an additional
    instruction to change firewall settings.
    Users should be persuaded to create a non-admin user account by the OS
    so that they are not running under root all the time.
    Messaging services should be OFF by default; until the user does
    something indicating an interest in them, that simply should not work.
    Browsers should not be able to install software and package local info
    with hidden helpers; this should either be disabled or presented to the
    user. ActiveX had some nice ideas, but it is far too robust and hidden.

    There are MANY more examples.

    Note that these would all make a significant difference. None are about
    any new technologies, all are very simple.
    Yet, Microsoft in particular DECIDED AGAINST setting all of these
    things this way. They knew how, they presumably knew each was important
    -- and they did the opposite.
     
    Mitch, Feb 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Au79

    Mitch Guest

    In article <jFZMf.1599$>, K-Man
    hater Duane <> wrote:

    > When Human Beings become perfect and that is not going to ever happen, then
    > nothing we do is every going to be perfect. When O/S(s) and software are
    > written by perfect Beings


    Whose asking for PERFECT?

    We're talking about hugely dangerous mistakes, misapplications, and
    misguided design -- not perfection!

    In my other post in this thread, I listed a few things that would make
    an enormous difference to users and which require NO new technologies
    or development at all. Nothing. Certainly not 'perfection'.
    Would you disagree?

    (I mentioned Microsoft in particular in that message, not I know of no
    OS that does them all.)
     
    Mitch, Feb 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Au79

    Mitch Guest

    In article <-privat.org>, john wrote:

    > You dont kick a dead dog.
    >
    > Windows is much alive.


    Are you making a joke?

    As opposed to what?

    So is every other OS that has been mentioned, isn't it?
    I mean, we haven't been discussing Linspire or BeOS or Irix, we're
    talking about very very much current offerings like Ubuntu and Mac OS
    and WinXP and (eventually?) Vista, right?
    I might even suggest Windows is the bottleneck in Windows development.
     
    Mitch, Feb 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Au79

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, elaich <> wrote:

    > > There is a price to pay for versitality and ease of use.


    John, that's funny. You've been convinced Windows is the choice for
    those benefits?
    Versatility is a cute claim, considering almost everyone is just
    working within applications, and so their range of use is determined.
    What kind of versatility do you think you have got?
    And 'ease of use' -- well, I suspect most of us are tired of this
    phrase, since it's thrown around without context so much. But in our
    message you described the constant vigilance, add-on software, and
    necessity to learn much about what is going on in Windows -- just to be
    reasonably safe! You haven't evn started on getting anything done!

    > > A windows user does have to be careful, have antivirus and
    > > antispyware, backup and use system restore.

    >
    >
    > False. You're the typical Windows user who doesn't know how to keep
    > clean, and view after the fact workarounds as normal.


    Elaich, I suppose you are talking about the antivirus and antispyware
    tools, and not claiming that being careful and backing up are
    unnecessary?
    I would hope even an experienced user would not claim that caution and
    backups were unnecessary.
     
    Mitch, Feb 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Au79

    eeeewwww Guest

    Au79 wrote:
    > Newstarget.com - Taichung,Taiwan
    >
    > <http://www.technologynews.info/017769.html>




    A patch will be availble in it's next service pack?!? Bwahahaha, M$
    doesn't plan to release that until mid 2007. What a joke!
     
    eeeewwww, Feb 28, 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. William Poaster

    Another vulnerability in M$ IE.

    William Poaster, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    438
    Blinky the Shark
    Jan 1, 2004
  2. Tech.News

    IE: Yet Another Vulnerability!

    Tech.News, Aug 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    399
    Samuel Townsend
    Nov 2, 2004
  3. jayjwa

    Yet Another IE Vulnerability??- Frame Looping

    jayjwa, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    614
    @micro$oft.com
    Nov 13, 2003
  4. Au79

    MICROSOFT OneCare Has Spyware Vulnerability

    Au79, Feb 5, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    336
  5. Au79

    Another IE 6.0 vulnerability emerges

    Au79, Jul 5, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
Loading...

Share This Page