"That said, we don't really have time for intellectual banter.":rolleyes:
.
Stop blaming Microsoft for cyber security woes (Cnet)
Archived thread 1006722 from Windows. Markdown source: Windows/thread_1006722_Stop_blaming_Microsoft_for_cyber_security_woes_(Cn.md
I don't even respond to such articles anymore.
The author has no idea what he is talking about.
I'd be curious to know his particular "field of expertise". The article lists him as a senior analyst.
his points are not entirely off base, but yes his overall premise was weak. folks that blame MS solely for Cyber-security have no understanding of the topic. yes Linux is more resistant to contagious exploits, but is far from fool proof.
I'd say that he had a deadline and needed a story to crank out. this was the best he could do.
The guy is a stubborn ***, too bad some people are so blind they can't see the thing even as they are staring at it. http://www.ccianet.org/papers/cyberinsecurity.pdf
Grant A. said: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10119489-75.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5 :KS
Hm interesting. From the article :
First of all, this is as much an assumption as the opposite, that market share is completely irrelevant to malware and security problems. It's not a fact, it can't be proven at the moment. However, the fact is that practically 100% of today's malware was based on exploits of the windows platform. That can be an indication of overall security.
It caused the major security redesign on windows vista, regardless of whether that redesign was successful or not. I don't think that's unproductive at all.
That can also be true if there are more things to work on.
- Market share = malware :
- blaming is unproductive :
- Microsoft is working on it more than others :
I can't really talk for anyone besides myself, but since I've used linux I've never had any malware (indicating overall security). Not one incident, ever, in a pc without a firewall, with no antivirus, no spyware tools, nothing. One should think that with almost 1% of linux users, and billions of viruses, spyware, attacks, etc, there should be some here too.
In other words, what if microsoft, or more specifically, some bad ideas in windows are really to blame?
oedipuss. you analysis is spot on.
forgive me, but I feel compelled to ask you in a bad German accent, "How do you feel about your mother"? sorry, bad psychology joke.
if Linux, Macs, or UNIX systems dominated the Internet, they'd be under pervasive attack, too. Would we be better or worse off?
Huh... <scratching head>
Countless persons in countries all over the globe - with full, unmitigated access to the source code who are also able to communicate instantaneously with one another - all pouring over every line OF that source code with an eye toward tightening up the security and implementing fixes who are operating in an environment free of corporate overhead and a stockholder-driven "bottom line".
Now, how could that scenario possibly benefit a typical end user? I mean, gosh... I wonder.
He clearly has no knowledge of the security models on the other operating systems he refrences. He just reused every worn out argument.
While some of his remarks make sense, his tone sounds like he's trying to do this:
[IMG]http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/128733402400374285.jpg[/IMG]
in a calm and collected manner.
Boring!
Anyone thinking about cutting security spending to save money during the recession should read a copy of the new Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report titled "Securing Cyberspace for the 44th President." The report outlines a pattern of persistent attacks which are no match for our vulnerable Internet infrastructure.
His very first line of reasoning is false, people can save a lot of money and have great security by switching to linux.
His overall premise is correct, but all his arguments are pathetic. He really only needs one point:
1) People are incompetent
Giant Speck said: While some of his remarks make sense, his tone sounds like he's trying to do this:
[IMG]http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk122/SpecKtacle/128733402400374285.jpg[/IMG]
in a calm and collected manner.
Boring!
AHAHAHahahahahah:lol:
permission to save that and possibly use it as an avatar please :lol:
I will continue to blame Microsoft as its model has always placed ease of use over security.
Simple things like running for the administrator account, activex being tied to IE and being allowed to take control over areas of the computer it should not be able to. IE being tied to the OS and being allowed to issue commands from IE.
Things they have been warned about for many years but continued with it anyways.
oedipuss said: AHAHAHahahahahah:lol:
permission to save that and possibly use it as an avatar please :lol:
Permission granted. :)
He is a bit right too......Microsoft can be criticized for high prices and stupid products but not this.......The only way they can improve security is to make Windows open to any developer but that will mean we're asking them to transform themselves into a Open Source software provider which they'll of course not do (i don't blame them for that)!:mad:
- Market share = malware :
First of all, this is as much an assumption as the opposite, that market share is completely irrelevant to malware and security problems. It's not a fact, it can't be proven at the moment. However, the fact is that practically 100% of today's malware was based on exploits of the windows platform. That can be an indication of overall security.
Linux is a strong bank with no money in it. Windows is a weaker bank with LOTS of money in it.
Let's see...if I'm a crook, which platform do I develop for...mmmm
When there is enough money in the linux bank to make it worth robbing, I'll do the work it take to get it. Otherwise, it's all a matter of ROI...
This guy is ... to be "Extremely critically" not trusted :)
--- begin quote ---
--- end quote ---
- Microsoft is actively addressing past security shortcomings. Think what you will about the security of Microsoft products, but few other companies have done more to improve their software security development, employee training, and testing processes than Microsoft.
Look here, Mr. Oltsik :
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/
Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Unpatched 14% (32 of 230 Secunia advisories)
Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Extremely critical .
Compare that with for example Ubuntu 8.04 : http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18611/
Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows XP Professional
XP Pro is an obsolete product. I wouldn't expect them to patch it anytime soon.
I'm still waiting on Apple to patch my System 7...
tsali said: XP Pro is an obsolete product. I wouldn't expect them to patch it anytime soon.
I'm still waiting on Apple to patch my System 7...
Obsolete product ? Has it already reached "End of Life" ?
I read somewhere that Windows 2000 will reach "End of Life" in 2010.
Where did you read that the security updates for XP Pro already came to an end ?
Where did you read that the security updates for XP Pro already came to an end ?
They will continue to prop it up, but why would you expect them to do major work to repair it when you could get the fix in an upgrade to the current system under development? Some of those issues were related to fundamental problems with architecture. Would you expect them to GIVE you Windows 7 in the form of a "patch" for XP?
Once a product is no longer the current offering, "supported" takes on a whole new meaning.
Win2000 is in "extended" support until June 2010 meaning that only "hotfixes" are provided. Fundamental vulnerabilities will not be patched. The latest, most secure versions of web browsers are not supported on Win2000.
New products are released to improve on the older ones. Honda does not bring older cars back to the shop to improve their body structure to make them more secure. They WILL repair basic safety issues. There is a difference.
tsali said:
Once a product is no longer the current offering, "supported" takes on a whole new meaning.
Win2000 is in "extended" support until June 2010 meaning that only "hotfixes" are provided. Fundamental vulnerabilities will not be patched. The latest, most secure versions of web browsers are not supported on Win2000.
I have pointed to a link which talks about unpatched security problems, where at least one is "extremely critical" and still not fixed. Is that not good enough for a "hotfix" ?
I've also read that XP is officially not for sale anymore since june 2007. However last night i saw on a website of a local computershop here that they still sell brand new XP software packages.
albinootje said: Obsolete product ? Has it already reached "End of Life" ?
Windows XP has been obsoleted by Vista. The new product replaces the old product. My 68cm CRT TV still works, and I can still download a manual for it, and I can still get spare parts for it; but it is definitely obsolete. Obsolete as in "There is a newer model available" and obsolete as in "It's not being sold anymore". Windows XP is obsolete by the same terms.
Is that not good enough for a "hotfix" ?
Not when it requires fundamental changes.
And yes, you can buy new copies of XP...however, that doesn't make them "supported" in the same way as current offerings.
There is a local car dealer that is selling 2007 new models. Do you think they should go back and update them to 2009 spec?
XP is obsoleted by Vista. Well, I hope the millions of XP users will get this information loud and clear :)
The only point i am trying to make is that the author of the article claims that Microsoft is one of the *few* companies which is working very hard on computer-security.
I don't agree with the author's claim.
Here's MS Vista according to Secunia : http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/
Affected By 51 Secunia advisories 80 Vulnerabilities
Monitor Product Receive alerts for this product
Unpatched 12% (6 of 51 Secunia advisories)
Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows Vista, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical .