Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Calum on 19 December 2005, 16:55
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4536090.stm
People using Windows computers were unprotected against new viruses for 56 days this year, research shows.
whoop dee doop, big news etc.
will this change anything?
answers on a postcard...
-
Duh.
-
LOL, haven't some bugs in the Linux kernel been fixed faster than this? :D
-
Heh...
How many days have Mac users been unprotected against viruses... hmmm.... Zero.
-
More than zero if you count the classic OS.
-
"People using Windows computers were unprotected against new viruses for 56 days this year, research shows."
I always figured that people using Windows computers were unprotected from viruses for twenty years.
-
I always figured that people using Windows computers were unprotected from viruses for twenty years.
Methinks they're going by median time-to-release, not mean of all users.
Don't ya hate statistics? :D
-
More than zero if you count the classic OS.
Yeah, but we don't talk about that any more. Steve Jobs said so :P
-
Funny we should post in this again now, considering the latest 0-day exploit (http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=992) released against fully patched computers running Windows.
-
Well here's another stunning example of microsoft's lightning quick reactions to a security threat, i am sure this makes windows users feel valued, and i know they will realise that this sort of hasty response from microsoft is well worth paying their licence fees for...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4580852.stm
Windows bug awaits Microsoft fix
The Meta File bug is suffered by several Windows versions
Users may have to wait another week for Microsoft to finish fixing a serious bug in the Windows operating system.
Discovered on 27 December, the bug helps hijack PCs if users visit booby-trapped websites or open e-mail attachments loaded with exploit code.
Microsoft said it hoped to have its fix for the bug available by 10 January.
-
Well here's another stunning example of microsoft's lightning quick reactions to a security threat, i am sure this makes windows users feel valued, and i know they will realise that this sort of hasty response from microsoft is well worth paying their licence fees for...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4580852.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4580852.stm)
The patch was released today.
-
that's hardly an answer, it's still been weeks.
and how long will it be till the next huge security hole is found?
-
and how long will it be till the next huge security hole is found?
Probably aroudn the same time as it takes for the next hige security hole in some other OS is found. The difference is the value in exploiting it.
If Windows weren't used by so many people, there would ,most likely have been no exploits for this particular vulnerability. There have been multiple vulnerabilities that have affected linux/unix/bsd that are pretty much exactly the same as this one (view image == code executes), and they were never exploited. If you think they weren't explited because they couldn't be, you're living in a fastasy world.
One of Windows weaknesses is it's large marketshare. It's a big target and there is high value in exploiting a Windows vulnerability.
-
One of Windows weaknesses is it's large marketshare.
... I hope you are kidding :eek:
-
... I hope you are kidding :eek:
He isn't. In some ways it's a good thing but in the security sense it can be a bad thing (and it definetly is for Windows - ya know, Microsoft's POS OS?).
Windows has many weaknesses and it's market share is one of them (it's also a plus, but it's still a weakness in the security sense).
-
Well ... doesn't it also mean that they have more money to throw around and get thing patched up and secure and working ... no ... Bill pockets it all and leaves his customers to deal with these minor issues ...
-
If money is the answer, why do other companies like Oracle which also have billions of dollars have much worse security records than Microsoft?
-
Interesting turn of events - by using Linux, I am helping my mother's Windows computer become more secure. More of you people need to switch to Linux - eventually, my mother will have a spyware-free environment.
:roll:
-
And then developers of spyware will switch to the linux platform amd then you have the same problems with linux that you had with windows...
-
And then developers of spyware will switch to the linux platform amd then you have the same problems with linux that you had with windows...
So then you switch to another OS again. And the cycle continues... :D
But seriously, everyone always says that if Linux had Windows's marketshare, it would have lots of viruses. But that idea misses something - how about nothing has such a marketshare? I'm really interested in knowing what the threat would be in Windows, Linux, and Mac OS were each given a third.
-
So then you switch to another OS again. And the cycle continues... :D
But seriously, everyone always says that if Linux had Windows's marketshare, it would have lots of viruses. But that idea misses something - how about nothing has such a marketshare? I'm really interested in knowing what the threat would be in Windows, Linux, and Mac OS were each given a third.
This is just the opinion of a "Microsoft shill", but...
I think all three would have malware problems, but they wouldn't all be equal. For example, right now, if WinXP/Linux/MacOSX all had 33.333% marketshare, Windows would have worse problems because they all run as admin users. Linux and Mac users would still get their boxes rooted sometimes - but only the real dumb ones who type in their admin/root password when the malware asks for it would have it happen to them.
The Linux security spokesperson would place blame the users and say they should have been running firefox chrooted/sandboxed (after all it only takes a forty minutes to set up using the fifty-two page HOTO at the linux doc project wensite) while visiting sites like butt.crack.ru.
The Apple security spokesperson would tell the Apple users that the malware problems they were experiencing really didn't exist, but if they were still concerned about security they could upgrade to the upcoming OSX 10.1.3.5.1 "Antelope" for only $199 which includes "thousands of extra security featues".
The Windows security spokesperson would remind it's users of it's "continued focus on the security of is products" and to advise all users that while they are waiting for the scheduled patch in 26 days, they could visit and follow the simple thirty-seven step workaround found in KB article "KB7621375122422" at Microsoft.com.
The only precedent we have as far as a non MS desktop OS being afected by viruses was Apple back when they still had a 15% marketrshare. If 15% markethshare is enough, then I would think 33% would be more than plenty.
-
Interesting turn of events - by using Linux, I am helping my mother's Windows computer become more secure. More of you people need to switch to Linux - eventually, my mother will have a spyware-free environment.
:roll:
No, by switching your mothers computer to linux, it would be a spyware-free enviroment.
-
And then developers of spyware will switch to the linux platform amd then you have the same problems with linux that you had with windows...
Except it wouldn't be so bad because there would be less cracked boxes (less super-GNU/Linux-users browsing the web), and because there is a really really good firewall that some people/distros might make use of and because some people/distros might make use of SELinux to make sure Firefox can't write to/read from fuck all.
-
Except it wouldn't be so bad because there would be less cracked boxes (less super-GNU/Linux-users browsing the web), and because there is a really really good firewall that some people/distros might make use of and because some people/distros might make use of SELinux to make sure Firefox can't write to/read from fuck all.
... good point :thumbup:
... and everyone ... what is Microsoft Winblow$ firewall worth (value wise) ? ... about as much as a bucket of dog shit !
-
No, by switching your mothers computer to linux, it would be a spyware-free enviroment.
Alas, my mother can barely handle Windows. Linux would probably send her to an early grave.
-
Two New Windows Metafile Bugs Found
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124310,tk,dn011006X,00.asp
Can you believe it? etc.
-
Alas, my mother can barely handle Windows. Linux would probably send her to an early grave.
lol!
linux is easier to learn, ask my mum ;)
-
lol!
linux is easier to learn, ask my mum ;)
it certainly is ... ask my grandma :D
-
sorry but I cannot recall a time where windows ever did protect against viruses...
-
^^true - Windows virus protection is provided by 3rd party companies - it has never been provided by Microsoft itself. Which is strange. Norton and McAfee make money off their subscriptions, and get to install all the spyware they want, since they can conveniently ignore themselves in their spyware searches. This sounds like a lucrative business that Microsoft would want to get into. But oddly, they never have. Maybe because offering virus protection to their own insecure OS is bad PR.
-
I think it's that alot of viruses take advantage of operating system flaws, but I don't even know if that's true.
-
^^true - Windows virus protection is provided by 3rd party companies
Windows NT of any flavour does offer some protection against viruses it's called running everything under a limited locked down user account - it's been enough to protect my system so far.
-
Windows NT of any flavour does offer some protection against viruses it's called running everything under a limited locked down user account - it's been enough to protect my system so far.
Pity it's disabled by default. Perhaps you should make your own distribution... OH, nevermind.
-
I don't have to make a distribution, there's an existing Windows distro that does this, it's called Windows 2003. ;)
-
I don't have to make a distribution, there's an existing Windows distro that does this, it's called Windows 2003. ;)
Ah, nice. I can't find where to download it on microsoft.com though :/
Could you post me a copy?
-
You can download it using a Gnutella client of you choice. :)
-
I don't have to make a distribution, there's an existing Windows distro that does this, it's called Windows 2003. ;)
I don't think Windows 2003 creates a limited account by default...I think it just creates Administrator and nothing else (as opposed to XP which creates a second admin account).
-
I can't be bothered but you can always try it, see this thread for details of the free trial:http://www.techzonez.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4822