Stop Microsoft

All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Calum on 19 December 2005, 16:55

Title: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Calum on 19 December 2005, 16:55
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4536090.stm

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: dmcfarland on 19 December 2005, 22:47
Duh.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 19 December 2005, 22:56
LOL, haven't some bugs in the Linux kernel been fixed faster than this? :D
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: themacuser on 19 December 2005, 23:19
Heh...

How many days have Mac users been unprotected against viruses... hmmm.... Zero.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: WMD on 20 December 2005, 01:14
More than zero if you count the classic OS.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: jtpenrod on 28 December 2005, 23:53
"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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Orethrius on 29 December 2005, 07:14
Quote from: jtpenrod
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
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: themacuser on 31 December 2005, 12:45
Quote from: WMD
More than zero if you count the classic OS.


Yeah, but we don't talk about that any more. Steve Jobs said so :P
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: M51DPS on 1 January 2006, 03:01
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Calum on 5 January 2006, 10:53
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: toadlife on 6 January 2006, 07:13
Quote from: Calum
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Calum on 6 January 2006, 18:45
that's hardly an answer, it's still been weeks.
and how long will it be till the next huge security hole is found?
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: toadlife on 6 January 2006, 19:00
Quote from: Calum
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 6 January 2006, 19:28
Quote from: toadlife
One of Windows weaknesses is it's large marketshare.

... I hope you are kidding :eek:
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: piratePenguin on 6 January 2006, 19:39
Quote from: H_TeXMeX_H
... 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).
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 6 January 2006, 20:42
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 ...
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: toadlife on 6 January 2006, 21:34
If money is the answer, why do other companies like Oracle which also have billions of dollars have much worse security records than Microsoft?
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: worker201 on 7 January 2006, 00:48
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:
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: ReggieMicheals on 7 January 2006, 01:21
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...
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: WMD on 7 January 2006, 01:29
Quote from: ReggieMicheals
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: toadlife on 7 January 2006, 10:17
Quote from: WMD
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: toadlife on 7 January 2006, 10:43
Quote from: worker201
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: piratePenguin on 7 January 2006, 12:11
Quote from: ReggieMicheals
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 10 January 2006, 04:08
Quote from: piratePenguin
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 !
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: worker201 on 10 January 2006, 21:49
Quote from: toadlife
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: piratePenguin on 11 January 2006, 00:30
Two New Windows Metafile Bugs Found
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,124310,tk,dn011006X,00.asp
Can you believe it? etc.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: solemnwarning on 11 January 2006, 08:58
Quote from: worker201
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 ;)
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: H_TeXMeX_H on 13 January 2006, 03:28
Quote from: solemnwarning
lol!

linux is easier to learn, ask my mum ;)

it certainly is ... ask my grandma :D
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Pathos on 13 January 2006, 07:20
sorry but I cannot recall a time where windows ever did protect against viruses...
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: worker201 on 13 January 2006, 21:23
^^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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: piratePenguin on 13 January 2006, 21:34
I think it's that alot of viruses take advantage of operating system flaws, but I don't even know if that's true.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 14 January 2006, 17:21
Quote from: worker201
^^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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: piratePenguin on 14 January 2006, 19:34
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez
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.
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 14 January 2006, 19:37
I don't have to make a distribution, there's an existing Windows distro that does this, it's called Windows 2003. ;)
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: piratePenguin on 14 January 2006, 19:58
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez
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?
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 14 January 2006, 20:40
You can download it using a Gnutella client of you choice. :)
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: WMD on 15 January 2006, 02:38
Quote from: Aloone_Jonez
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).
Title: Re: Windows users unprotected against viruses
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 15 January 2006, 19:06
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