how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2003-10-10 18:26:30: Microsoft promises to take security seriously; again. It seems like not that long ago (in fact each year bears witness to several pledges) that Microsoft promised to make security a priority in Redmond. ..
| |
 
kuu
@mindspring.com
| Biggest +Greed = not trustworthy Sure the big guy is easy to pick on, but a big guy should be able to defend himself with all that money.
It also doesn't help that the big guy(yes it's Microsoft) likes to do stuff that'll leave himself extra open for sake of control and ultimately profit.
Why does Microsoft still insist that major components to its system is built on a "All roads lead to Rome" ideal where security is obviously lacking from that model.
Automatic updates would just make it worse because the reverse is true, and 1 compromise instead of infecting 1000 pcs, will do instead 1 million PCs.
Until Microsoft gets its act together, people should choose and control their own PCs in a deregulated system so at least you don't have a domino effect. Example- If everyone one were suddenly forced to install IE9.0, and someone found a hole that will steal all the addresses in your address book(possible with current M$ ideals). That would make spam companies very happy.
Macs, unix, linux, have their own problems, but their own holes are multi layered, and harder to be compromised. | |
| Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
 ·Comcast
 ·Aristotle Internet
| Good point kuu
& I feel I'm really over killing this thread which is never a good thing for anyone, ever! & guess I'll suffer that, later.
Please read the link though Kuu, a lot of people will truly be surprised. It's really NOT a single OS specific issue & that's the point, good to see you participate & express your opinion, we need more of that around here!
Kudo's
Hang around, mate!
Cheers
--
The Rig:OS Win2k Pro. Chenming Case with a 420w PS. 2.66g/533fsb Intel CPU @ 3.34g CoolerMaster IHC-H71 piped air; No less 512meg Twinmos PC3700~466 DDR @ 2.7v ATI 9500 Pro Atlantis (128meg). Seagate 40g 7200rpm @8.5msec | |
| 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| The Dead Horse Subject I can't believe these comments keep coming out.
"If Linux was the #1 desktop OS, then there wouldn't be any exploits or problems with security holes."
I just laugh when I read crap like this. The simple fact is that as long as humans are writing the code, you are going to have exploits and security holes. Especially as the code size increases, which it has every year.
I just don't see why these kinds of threads turn into a Microsoft bashing fest. First off, I the #1 desktop OS is going to have these kinds of problems no matter what the OS is. Second, a huge majority of problems that I see with exploits and security problems are coming from people who don't patch their systems properly. If people don't patch their systems, you think that the exploits will go away if Linux has the desktop market?
Microsoft has done a lot better at making sure that patches are released in a timely fashion. All of the outbreaks I hear about could have been fixed if people would simply patch their system. The MSBlast worm? Patch fixed that problem a month before the outbreak. Nimda virus? Once again, a patch was released over 4 months before the outbreak. How about that SQL Slammer worm? The patch was released over 3 months before the outbreak.
In order to fix this problem, users will need to be held as responsible as Microsoft. Microsoft is responsible for releasing patches and updates quickly. The users are responsible to patch their systems. Even then, the battle wages on.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Don't ask don't tell? Is this the best they can do as far as a 'new' initiative in securing Microsoft? Don't tell anyone there is an exploit? I believe that's the only thing that is keeping these patches coming. Microsoft was been notorious in the past about ignoring faults in their code until it gets some big press. I suppose they would like to sweep it all under the rug and pretend Windows is the most secure operating system around.
Considering the last several notices brought patches for the exploits long before the viruses came about (Blaster for example) I don't see why the public should be told about them. This request sounds more like Microsoft is concerned about their PR than they are about fixing buggy code. Hell, if they just take out all that unnecessary garbage put in Windows maybe this stuff wouldn't happen as much.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| 
Durandal07
Colony Ship For Sale, Cheap
join:2000-09-26
Ypsilanti, MI | well gee... I can't wait for the first 'slammer' clone for microsoft auto-behind-your-back update.  | |
| gnome_nyc
join:2003-04-10
Bronx, NY
|  Time For A Complete Re-Write!!
I'm sure if anybody had a chance to examine the code, we would find stuff in Windows 2003 Server that was originally built into Windows 95...
Starting from scratch is the only way they are ever going to be able to stand up and say that they really tried to make a platform that is somewhat secure.
In today's world, even the best OS is only somewhat secure by itself.. | |
| | | |
|
