Slashdot Mirror
FBI, Pentagon Talk to MS about XP Hole
(eternal_software) writes: "The Associated Press is reporting that the FBI and Defense Department are talking to Microsoft about the serious flaws found in the XP operating system. As we all know, the most recent flaw allowed any XP machine to be hijacked simply by connecting it to the internet. The government is getting involved because of growing U.S. concerns about risks to the 'net as a whole." In fact, the FBI would like you to go a bit beyond the MS patch. davecl points out the updated page put out by the National Infrastructure Protection Center about this vulnerability as well.
now we see the Gov't take a special interest in
the latest XP hole.
Dont know about you, but I am really dont know what to think?
Sigs are dangerous coy things
the fact remains, ms code *can* be secure, obviously just not xp, good to see them getting their act togethor
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
MS XP patch disabled network card on my computer!
I guess the computer is really safe now.
"Microsoft explained that a new feature of Windows XP can automatically download the free fix, which takes several minutes, and prompt consumers to install it. "
thats really messed up that and scary
(Hmmm.. magic latern)
--
What is the sound of this sentence?
How much you want to bet that no one sees this as a problem with Microsoft? One can only hope this emboldens the anti-trust crusaders and their cause.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Microsoft has known for five weeks that XP had a serious security hole. They didn't do anything to warn customers who bought XP during that time. They just kept telling how XP is so secure.
It's unbeliavable what Microsoft can get away with. I don't think the hole and the patch are the important issues here. I'm shocked how Microsoft can lie to the whole world for five weeks and people still trust them.
Microsoft should have withdrawn XP and fixed it. Expecially as they don't even have any serious competitors. What they showed was that they don't care about the safety of their customers. They just want to make money no matter what.
Although I refuse putting a Windows box directly on the internet (and btw neither a linux-box) even for home use, I know a lot of people who do.
Especially all the unaware homeusers like my landlord for example. For systemadmins it already difficult to keep up to date with all the patches even with the various *update programs, at least they are firewalled
And yet they (the homeusers) are the most vulnerable!
And Microsoft proclaimed this was its most secure OS ever.
- In Memoriam: Jeroen de Bruin (1972-2004), bye bro
What the makers of Linux distributions must do is concentrate on usability (and by extension consistency) and further refining their installers so that anyone off of the street can choose and then run Linux as painlessly as they have done with all the different windoze generations.
Ximian are the closest to making easy to use tools that even my Aunt Grace (70) can use. A fully blown distribution from Ximian would be "most welcome" to use parliamentary language.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
~~~
Microsoft explained that a new feature of Windows XP can automatically download the free fix, which takes several minutes, and prompt consumers to install it.
I must be living under a rock because this is the first I've heard of this. XP just starts downloading files without any action from the user? Does anyone beside me feel uncomfortable about that?
I honestly and truly hope that the US government brings them to their knees about this. That's wishful thinking, I know. However, two statements in particular in the Yahoo! article surprised me:
1. Microsoft declined to tell U.S. officials Friday how many consumers downloaded and installed its fix during the first 24 hours it was available.
2. Microsoft also indicated it would not send e-mail reminders to Windows XP customers to remind them of the importance of installing the patch.
The reasons for point 1 are quite clear though. Acting on point 1 would indicate what a fiction the sales figures for XP really are.
Point 2 is more difficult to fathom... perhaps they're hoping people won't notice? Why on earth, other than their disdain for non-corporate users, wouldn't they send out the reminder? Or even a reminder stressing the improtance of installing the auto-updater?
Another risk, that hackers can implant rogue software on vulnerable computers, was conidered more remote because of the technical sophistication needed.
Now IANASK (script kiddie), but isn't implanting "rogue software" a critical step in getting a DDOS up and running? It'd be nice if tech journalists knew a little about what they're reporting, especially the ones who get their paychecks from MS. On the other hand, it'd be nicer if coders knew a little more about what they're doing- especially the ones who get their paychecks from MS.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
After all the blather and FUD from Redmond, they again pushed a product out the door with great media hype which is again unsecure. It would be so ironic if Microsoft were punished for this kind of negligence after getting a slap on the wrist. I don't expect that to happen though.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is the DoJ (FBI) we're talking about, they want to thank Bill personally for keeping them all busy and employed during these uncertain economic times. Also, I'm sure there's a card with a box of chocolates on the way to Redmond from McAfee.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Yeah, but those eEye guys didn't want to be on our Security-Through-Obscurity team! And we had all these great goodies for them!"
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
...that security will suffer when you make an os too easy to use. It's an age-old tradeoff: security vs. ease of use. Moreover, with more features comes more complexity and with more complexity come more security holes.
Don't want to check to see if there's a patch needed for your OS? Don't worry, we'll have the OS check for you. We can't guarantee that your computer will be talking to our servers when it downloads the patches but hey! it'll be automatic! Come to think of it, we can't even secure our own servers so we're not too sure what you'll be downloading even if you are talking to our servers but hey! - it's automatic!
I can't think of a better argument for limiting the services an os provides than this fiasco.
The DOD was instrumental in forming the basis of the internet, DARPA-NET
Man, I remember when it was a secret network.
No. No you evidently don't.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
MagikSlinger is almost certainly right about this. However, if there is a terrorist group out there which was organized and sophisticated enough to carry out another large-scale, imaginative attack (which I doubt), Microsoft might be on their list for these reasons:
- It's American, and a symbol of American characteristics such as innovation, which is in itself hated by reactionaries.
- It's extremely visible.
- Its market dominance could be perceived as "imperialist" or culturally imperialist by people who think like that.
- It's a center of wealth and therefore, in puritanical minds, of evil decadence.
- It could be thought of as a "vital organ" of the American economy by someone who doesn't realize how decentralized the American economy is.
Arguing against an attack on Microsoft is the idea that it's causing enough trouble for the US by itself, but this concept is probably beyond the reach of most fanatics.
with all these blackdoors already 'embedded' in the OS...
would make project Magic Lantern useless and idiotic.
Why care? Well, I found out after installing MSN Messenger that most of the features are useless behind a NATed network unless your router/firewall understands UPNP. Of course, Microsoft ICS and Servers understand it. I was getting frustrated since I couldn't use MSN messenger except for messages behind my home linux firewall. ICQ features like file transfer work fine by port forwarding the necessary ports or using a kernel module for it.
So, here's the interesting bit. UPNP works by telling the other client on the other end what your private IP address is. Microsoft's docs say this is necessary for the other client to be able to find out how to talk back to you. I think this is stupid. The other end of an MSN connection just needs to look at the source IP in the packets it receives and just send there and hope the owner of the IP knows what to do.
However, UPNP apparently knows how to handled multiple chains of NAT networks, kinda like I guess an old fashioned UUCP bang path. Problem is, it seems like one can modify that "bang path" to route return packets to false places. Can you say DDOS?
So I sent a rant to my friends about this on December 10, and about how UPNP is a security hole waiting to happen according to posts I read out of google searches...
Here's my rant...
Microsoft claims UPNP is a universal open standard. It'd be interesting to learn more about its origins and who is really controlling development of it, security of it, etc. Microsoft claims all manner of peripheral vendors will be supporting it.
Is the concept itself as flawed as it seems, or is this just yet another case of Microsoft's implementation of something being flawed?
In epidemiology, one of the mitigating factors of the spread of any disease is simply the diverse genetic makeup of the targeted population.
The opposite to this is what's called a monoculture, where one particular genetic structure is present in the large majority of the population. Such situations will usually not last long, beacuse once something is found that affects that population, it spreads quickly and decisively.
With Windows having such a large share of the market as it is, could this be considered the electronic equivalent of a monoculture? Would one major virus or security flaw cause much more damage to the net than otherwise would have happened, because of the homogenity of the net's computer systems in terms of OS?
Whether the king is Linux or Windows or MacOS, or..., is having a near monopoly market share ofany one OS a good thing in light of this philosophy? Hmm. GFood for thought.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I'm thinking new computers that have been bought this Christmas as presents. I wonder how many of these computers are preinstalled with Windows XP. As we speak, these computers are all wrapped in gift papers; who will patch them? Do people even have time to do anything else except get prepared for the big day? And are people aware of the severe security flaw?
Probably quite many of those computers go to people who are going to have it as their first computer. And what are they going to do first? Turn it on. And probably, go online with it..
And the crackers will be waiting for the easy prey.
__
Zarathustra.fi
Modern man has no goal, no aim, no ideals.
where Burns and Smithers goes through high security steel doors, scanning stations, gates and end up in the control room that has a old screen door to the outdoors in it allowing a stray dog in. Seems to me that sums up Microsoft's entire security structure.
bonus karma points to anyone who correctly identifies the show number.
"Oh for christ sake"- Montgomery Burns after discovering a stray dog in his XP like high security control room.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
This would be a damm good way to get Magic Lantern on a whole lot of systems.
This was mentioned earlier, but now the FBI is pushin it as well, Coincedence??
On the other hand, you have fingers
Why buy a CD? Using this bug, you can install Mandrake remotely to all Windows XP systems connected to the internet.
They failed to protect the country from terrorists and now they're trying to rebuild their reputation among the population by getting involved in the Internet. Th
:)
Looks like MS isn't the only one with good marketers
I set up an XP Home Edition box on 12/14 and after installation, went to Windows Update. Found a dozen (4 critical, 4 non-critical) updates waiting for me.
So what is up with those buffer overflows...do Microsoft developers hate users and not care about quality? Well, no. It only takes one buffer overflow in the whole system that hundreds of developers have worked on, to make it vulnerable.
At Microsoft the ultimate way people are valued is at review time when bonuses, stock options, and raises are awarded. Do developers get hosed for leaving buffer overflows in? Well, not as of when I left (April 2000). But maybe that will change, slowly.
Eventually you have to stop accepting excuses like "Gee code is really complicated and I thought I was being careful" or "we really tried to think through this design" and recognize that essentially every buffer overflow comes from being lazy as a developer, or not accounting for what kind of garbage packets can come in off the net. If Microsoft starts emphasizing that you can be fired for leaving a buffer overflow in, then things might change. Of course it's a little unfair, there is no doubt lots of clunky code in there that just doesn't happen to expose an externally exploitable buffer overflow (and merely crashes the system or something), but you start emphasizing the necessity to go over things with a fine-tooth comb to prevent buffer overflows, it will improve all the code.
Because although there may be a few cases where someone really tried to check boundary conditions and just did it wrong in the code, in most cases developers are just being lazy about writing the code robustly to begin with. Plus if you have some code to prevent this and you write it wrong, you haven't tested your code properly anyway.
More ruminations at this osopinion article.
- adam
I remember when NT 4.0 came out (they were fairly low key with NT 3.x) and Microsoft claiming it was far more secure than UNIX and you wouldn't have buffer overflows because the source was closed and people couldn't find them even if they existed.
I also remember many years ago them claiming NT was more secure and showing the number of submissions of security holes posted to Bugtraq (before NTbugtraq) there were for UNIX vs NT (back when nothing serious ran on NT and no one really cared less about it to look for holes).
Now they want their code running in everything, including acting as firewall devices. I find this so fucking funny I could just split a gut. You're going to protect machines running code "x" by installing a device running much of the same code "x" to protect those machines from the world?
I just find it a bit frightening. The entire world running on code from one manufacturer that is not open to public review. I'm even more surprised that foreign governments are so trusting of it.
You know what's scary? We just bought an EMC disk array and had to give it an IP address for management. Did a port scan on it. WTF? It's listening on netbios ports. Use smbclient to take a gander at it and low and behold....
Domain=[AZBYCXDWEVFU] OS=[Windows NT 4.0] Server=[NT LAN Manager 4.0]
Workgroup Master
AZBYCXDWEVFU CLARIION_SPB
I call EMC and they say "Oh, the new clariions run a stripped down NT kernel in their service processors." :-( Joy... my SAN is now trusted to that super sekure Microsoft code. At least I can block it from the world through my router which, for now, is running non-Microsoft code...
Can you imagine the harm one could do with a hole in THAT? The financial world survived WTC through redundancy and real-time mirrors of data kept in far flung locations. There are disaster recovery data centers where entire warehouses are filled with machines just waiting to kick in during a crisis. So now you have your storage area networks themselves controlled by Microsoft code. Just exploit the hole-of-the-week to get your code inside a corporate or government firewall, seek out these storage networks running NT kernel code, trash them, take out the primary and backup locations. Chaos.
Since the government these days seems to be all about protecting innocent corporations from us evil individuals, you'd think something this would have happened after, say, the second "ILOVEYOU"-style worm brought corporate mailservers around the country to a screeching halt-- during an administration that was actually prosecuting Microsoft for its monopolistic misdeeds.
But now the Republicans are in office, and faced with a real conundrum: what do they do when one mega-corporation is selling dangerous, unsecure products to all the other mega-corporations? Because that's who they're thinking about here. If it warmed the cockles of your heart that the government was concerned for all those consumers who ran out and bought XP, you're delusional-- they're worried about seeing more shit like this once XP gets widely adopted in the corporate world.
~Philly
You're saying that the same people who "need" the auto-updater because they're clue-deficient will know to do this? These people are sitting ducks.
I wouldn't expect that level of imagination from people who name themselves after Star Wars characters. ;-D
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Want to get government backdoors in the OS that runs almost every computer in the world? Threaten the company with trumped up charges which will ruin them for life, then cut deals with them so they can return to business as usual in return for their cooperation.
Except that MSNBC is the most openly critical newssite, when it comes to MS. I suppose they think it gives them journalistic credibility to be so openly critical of their parent company. ;-)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
A big part of the 'ploit seems to revolve around M$ trying to do a "hardware detect" over the LAN to load the proper OS or third party "drivers". They are suprised that network boundries are primarily psycological, so their ease-of-use feature leaks out into the internet and causes security problems.
Linux® on the other hand demands much more standards compliance and relies less on "drivers" to provide translation layers and introduction of security and or performance problems.
And I agree, I just did a WindowME® install a few months ago, on a freshly formated hard-drive SuSE has blown Windows out of the water for a couple years on ease of install, auto-detected hardware not to mention ease of use. I do disagre with modern Linux desktops being hard to learn, for the same functionality as windows its about the same or easier to learn, but you can do alot more on the desktop in *nix than windows. (I like the way jaws drop when I change screen resolutions, and jump back and forth between six different screens and have twenty differnt apps running at the same time, from windows users.)
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Even the FBI is crying "buffer overflow," following in Microsoft's footsteps to divert attention for a designed-in security flaw.
It makes sense, from the perspective of a defensive Microsoft. "Buffer overflow? Who hasn't slipped up once or twice and had a buffer overflow bug? We have our code scanners routing out the last one or two of these bugs, they'll all be gone soon and we'll all be safe."
The bigger gaff is that they designed the OS to say "hack me" (or words to that effect) whenever some other device--any other device--asks to fondle, as it were, the OS's drivers. That this is a huge security exposure is obvious to anyone who is old enough to remember the early days of hacking. Some hotshot designers at Microsoft, (probably with degrees in marketing, not computing) designed this "hack me" feature into the OS intentionally.
Now they have the attention of the NIPC/FBI. Even FBI agents (who, over the last 10 years, gave new meaning to the term "anti-intellegence") know that on Christmas day, millions of un-patched XP OS's are going on line, in the same 24-hour period. The hackers will be waiting to stick their electronic -er-fingers in those exposed UPNP ports and leave behind a little deposit.
Maybe, maybe not, the FBI realizes that some of those systems will have time-delay bugs planted in the pre-patched OS's. Then, downloading the patch will produce the false security that keeps the spirit of the XP season alive throughout the coming year.
The silver lining? Corporate PHB's, the holy grail of Microsoft marketing, will lose confidence in any of Mr.Bill's claims of reliability and security, once and for all. XP was supposed to be the one-size-fits-all OS, from palmtops to corporate web front-ends to data warehouses. (not that it was the first attempt at this unification by Microsoft, or even their competitors.) Even the golf-buddy execs are going to remember the day when the FBI started pushing patches to the monopolist's holey flagship.
Did anybody notice, last year, when Bill Gates started to cut the cord to Microsoft? He did see the big fall coming, you know. Not as stupid as we make him out to be, eh?
Beat me to it. "Monoculture" - I think we should be hearing a lot more about this word. It's not just a marketplace issue.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Microsoft marketing: "Windows XP is the most secure and crash-proof OS ever!"
Microsoft EULA: "...but if it turns out not to be, tough titties on you for trusting us when we said it was. You can't sue us, because you agreed you wouldn't at install-time. And we think we can afford better lawyers than you, anyway. So neener neener neener!"
The no-liability stuff in license agreements, I'm sure, began life with the noble purpose of protecting companies from getting hit with lawsuits by morons who should have known better, or greedy individuals just out to screw a company out of a quick million. Typical of everything it does, though, Microsoft has twisted the purpose of the EULA into its current form-- that of a "lawsuit-proof vest" used to prevent people or companies with, in many cases, very valid beefs about Microsoft products, from taking them to court over it, and allowing Microsoft to push crap on us with impunity and just shrug when we get bitten by bugs or security holes.
Imagine if other companies did this. What if you had to agree to a EULA on a train ticket before boarding the train, then then the train derailed because the operator was high on crack and speeding around a curve, and you wound up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life? You'd probably never take the train again. But what about companies who have to spend large sums of money on antivirus software and on employees who have to stay late to undo the damage done by the Outlook/Windows Virus/Worm of the Week. They just accept it and keep on using the same shitty software.
If it were possible to sue the living fuck out of Microsoft over these bugs and security holes, I think Microsoft QC might get a little budgetary upgrade. But nobody wants to be the first person to test the validity of the shrinkwrap/disk envelope/click-to-be-bound-by-it EULA in a court of law.
~Philly
How about the biggest reasons:
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Federal Criminal Charges need to be brought (and not dropped) against Microsoft in this case.
This way the Government can come to a settlement with MS where those who were harmed by the hole can't sue MS.
Along the lines of the deal struck between the tobbacco industry and government.
Seriously, with all the digital rights issues going, certainly the compromise caused by such a hole but without
criminal legal action against mircrosoft is only going to tell people that lady justice doesn't have her blindfold on.
Thats' a serious problem! Assisting criminal activity knowingly.....
I think the full implications of what MS has allowed to happen is going to felt more and more as real users suddenly understand that MS basically does not care about its users.
Look at
And of course technical sophistication is so rare that the chances of finding but one person in the world both able and willing to exploit it is...about 99.99%
-- SIGFPE
The arrogance of the US government is far bigger than M$'s. When they take over, things usually do not get better.
I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to find the configuration setting that tells Windows not to ask for confirmation, you have no business making any sort of judgement on it's usability or worth.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If it doesn't already exist, someone should create a web page with all the big M$ security problems described chronologically. Just listed in the order they were discovered with 1-2 lines about what they do.
It would be a neat place to refer people to who don't believe that M$ is a security problem.
Does anyone know if XP's built-in firewall protects these ports?
Yes, with minimizing you have to keep moving your mouse down to the bottom of the screen, or transferring between using the mouse and using the keyboard. Plus, it looks cooler. Besides, when was the initial code on the new GNOME/KDE apps/controls that you say look like XP started? Was this before or after Windows XP was first released to testers? Kind of makes you wonder who is copying who, right? Just because Microsoft comes out with a "finished" product before GNOME and/or KDE does not necessarily they started working on said product before GNOME/KDE...
I am sure that someone could human engineer the error messages. and since they would actually never go to MS, but maybe to some Bogus Site, like Microsoft-security.com some folks could be fooled by this. I am thinking of the Pay-Pal Scam that was running around a few days back, using simple email. It wouldn't be that hard for people who were expert to fudge something to send a user to La la land, with appropriate dialogs, disclaimers, etc. etc.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I might not be completely clued in here, but wouldn't such a devistating, overall vulnerability be contributed to WinXP's implimentation of RAW sockets? Or am I not correct in my understanding of the full control extent that RAW sockets allow?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Maryland Residents should be writing our dear Mr. Curran, explaining the problem in simple terms, explaining that making users go into the internet for the patch is not sufficient for dealing with this faulty product, and demanding to see the OS recalled and a fraud investigation initiated.
Might want to copy the DoJ, even if Ashcroft is a sell out to Redmond.
Here's your chance, Maryland! Do us all proud.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
``This is the first network-based, remote compromise that I'm aware of for Windows desktop systems,'' said Scott Culp, manager of Microsoft's security response center. ``Every Windows XP user needs to immediately take action.'' He called it a ``very serious vulnerability.''
r os oft_hackers_7.html
``This is the most secure version of Windows we have ever released,'' said Culp, adding that complex software ``will always fall short of perfection.''
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011220/tc/mic
You can't handle the truth.
Now, of course there will be dozens of MS apologists on this thread, and you can do a lot of apologizing about this bug, after all they got a patch out before there were any known uses of the exploit, and on the other hand this vulnerability leaves your computer more wide open than almost any that have come before, but I'm not interested in taking that debate any further, as that is what the rest of the thread is about.
The reason I think this story has become significant is because this bug is actually getting reported by large news organizations. Slashdot might run an article every time some script kiddie finds a new hole in IIS, but when is the last time you heard about that on your local news?
This bug, however, has actually been featured on all the big news organizations, thanks to the government statement. I saw a two-minute piece on it on CNN and a 30-second piece on Fox News, both feturing the governments warning that the patch would not be enough and everyone should disable UPnP on their machine. Flipping by CNN Headline News, I noticed the headline at the bottom, "Win XP hyper-vulnerable to hackers."
It is getting people to be concerned about security that will get something done about it; security isn't a selling point right now. When was the last time you saw an OS (besides OpenBSD) listing security as its top feature?
So think what you will about the impact of the bug itself, our government should be applauded for once for finally getting the media spotlight on security.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Anyone else got to see the demo version of McAfee ActiveShield installed on new HP systems? One of my friends called me over one day because he said his antivirus had found a virus on his computer. I told him just to hir repair and if that didn't work, hit delete, then he told me there were no repair or delete buttons.
When I went to look at the problem, I saw ActiveShield had popped up a dialog, "McAfee ActuiveShield has detected an infection in this file somefile.mp3.vbs VBS/Love Letter." With a button that took you to the McAfee website where you could remove this virus using McAfee online for "only 39.95." After getting him NAV, we found that it had infected every eligible file on the system (about 23,000), and LoveLetter of course overwrites the original files.
I found his restore disks and went back to my Power Mac.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
IIRC, NT at some point was rated secure when not networked.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Well, Ford might have thought "we can't possibly get ahold of everyone who has this problem, so we won't notify anyone".
MAKE THE EFFORT. If people aren't registered with a valid email (and check it occasionally) that's their problem.
creation science book
This is a really, really, really big one. It should be in the newspapers. Microsoft has claimed some time ago (free karma to the one who posts a link) that closed source, for-profit software and operating systems are more secure because the company can actually *hire* people to do security audits of the source code, whereas open source developers aren't motivated to do it because it's really boring, and there's no glory in it.
Now, we all know that OpenBSD has proved them wrong, by proving not only that open source developers *want* to do hardcore security audits of the source code, but that doing hardcore security audits on source code prevents security holes from being released into the wild. OpenBSD hasn't had a remotely exploitable security hole in the default install in FOUR YEARS! Windows XP has been in release for for all of about two months, and already there's a major security exploit found.
This proves by Microsoft's OWN ADMISSION, either they do not hire people to do the hardcore security audits they say they can, or if they do, they can't do it as well as the volunteers who "obviously" don't do it at all because there's no monetary motivation to do so.
With lies like this, Microsoft couldn't get into a Better Business Beurau if they paid each of its members a billion dollars.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
>THE FBI'S National Infrastructure Protection >Center said that, in addition to installing a >free software fix offered by Microsoft on the >company's Web site, consumers and corporations >using Windows XP should disable the >product's "universal plug and play" features >affected by the glitches.
If the FBI wants universal plug and play off, it sounds to me like there's another security hole there. Why else would they request this? Isn't Microsoft policy to keep these things quiet until they are fixed? They depend on no one knowing about the problem to keep machines safe. But, maybe for the FBI, especially with the terrorism situation, who might have critical data on XP machines, this thin line of defense isn't quite good enough.
http://junglevision.com -- Shamus for Gameboy
http://www.google.com/search?q=xp+hole
Results 1 - 25 of about 63,500. Search took 0.44 seconds.
1) Microsoft issues patch for "serious" XP hole - Tech News
The flaws were discovered by Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based security company eEye Digital Security and reported to Microsoft about six weeks ago, said Marc Maiffret, eEye's chief hacking officer.
It's in the first fucking link on Google. Or was that too difficult?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Basically the story was about a hacker Wizard(not lotr type) who could root your system whenever you went online, and you wouldn't be aware of it. This guy would then use info from your computer to kill you.
Now I here XP can give up System control simply by having you go online!
Isn't that what The Road Ahead is all about?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
I won't make any comment as to your intellegence, but if you can't figure out 'right click on the recycle bin, and unselect 'display delete confirmation dialog' and hit 'ok' or, in other words, right click, left click, left click, left click, then you might just be having a problem of some sort, even if only a complete and utter bias against Microsoft that causes you to make unreasonable assertions.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Perhaps the script kiddies were waiting until people got new PCs for Christmas.
Different design philosophy, and different intended end result. You pick the tool for the job, not the job for the tool.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Yes, but how much does Microsoft ADVERTISE that they are innovative. How many times do you think the word innovate shows up on www.microsoft.com?
:)
Exactly. Microsoft does occasionally innovate. Having to click twice on a menu entry in the menu bar to get all the options is an innovation! It's a lousy one, but still...
The real problem with MS is, as you said, their Real Innovations:Advertised Innovations ratio. It's pretty low. It's not that they're not creative, they're just not as creative as they say they are. If a person acted like that, you'd call them "full of themselves". You probably wonldn't like them very much either
- adam
One OS To Rule Them All,
One phone-home to find them,
One OS To Bring Them All,
And with a security hole bind them...
...PAY ME HEED MY GOOD USERS,
FOR THIS IS A STORY,
OF CRACKERS AND HACKERS, OF CODERS.
A WONDEROUS TALE YOU SHOULD KNOW,
FROM AN AGE NOT TOO LONG AGO,
BEFORE LINUX WAS THE MEASURE OF THINGS.
WHEN THE NET GENTLY MURMURED
HER SONG TO THE USERS,
AND THE FLAWS GENTLY WHISPERED ITS PART;
WHEN THE MICRO STOOD TALL,
AND IS STILL KNOWN TO ALL,
BY HIS WEAKNESS AND UNCARING OF DATA.
More?
Three OS's for the BSD-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Linux Kernel Team in their halls of stone,
Nine for Apple Men doomed to die,
One for the Bill Gates on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Bugs lie.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
"This is the Master-Flaw, the One Bug to rule them all.
This is the One Bug lost many weeks ago,
to the great weakening of its maker's power.
Now, he greatly desires to have it again,
- but he must NOT get it"
Get your Unix fortune now!
My understanding is that NTFS' journaling was rudimentary at best. It hasn't been until its recent incarnation (introduced with Win2k) that its managed anything close to a true journaling file system.
Actually, I too have McAffe auto-updating, but it's running on a Linux server. Every night, a cron script sucks down the latest definitions using wget.
While McAffe runs on Linux, it doesn't do much for Linux users. The reason it's there is to filter mail for Windows viruses. There would be no point in making a similar product for Linux.
piss-poor quality? Yeah, I guess that's why Windows is used on more than 90% of desktops and that MS Office is so popular.
****
You don't see McDonald's winning any product-of-the-year awards, do you? That's because the business behind McDonalds works so well, not the product itself. Just like Microsoft.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Hehe. Worth a try, I guess. Here is one link about that very thing:
:)
You are welcome.
Actually, it's more like a dealer selling you a car that doesn't have any locks then asking you to leave it outside their dealership while they take their time getting 'round to it. Chances are everything will be fine by the time they've installed the locks, but will you ever really be sure?
Exactly what statistical possibility of infiltration are you referring to? And why would foreigners on a work visa be more statistically likely to commit acts of espionage or terror than American citizens? I'm ready and waiting to see the logic behind that claim.
I think that the poster was playing on the recent claim that the Al Qaeda had planted malicious code in Windows XP, and to the average American's fear of Muslims and Arabs, and yes, I think that his post was a manifestation of the latent American racism and xenophobia that bubbled back to the surface following the September 11 attacks. Or perhaps you think that he was alluding to the fifth column of white Canadian programmer-terrorists in the software industry? Seriously, who are you kidding?
Talk of racism, whether overt or not, makes me uncomfortable too (after all, it should), but it's better to discuss the topic openly and candidly rather than blowing smoke and making excuses.
Most of our oil deposits come from vast monocultures of algae called stromatolites, basically cells that photosynthesise and spend no effort on defending themselves. This worked swimmingly until snails arrived on the scene and ate the algae. You still get stromatolites today, but only in really salty places where snails cannot dwell.
Stromatolites were especially susceptible to predators because they made no effort to defend themselves. With network connectivity becoming more pervasive, more previously isolated Windows boxes spew services to any network they can reach.
After millions of years OTOH, Roaches are still everywhere. This is because the suckers are robust and paranoid and therefore hard to kill. Even if you do kill one roach, it is quickly replaced.
Monoculture is only a part of the ecology.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
"It's American, and a symbol of American characteristics such as innovation, which is in itself hated by reactionaries. "
Well I would not use the word innovation but yes it's an american symbol
"It's extremely visible. "
No doubt.
"Its market dominance could be perceived as "imperialist" or culturally imperialist by people who think like that. "
or maybe they are sonvinced there are back doors planted in it by the CIA or NSA or some such organization. Certainly I wouln't put it past them.
"It's a center of wealth and therefore, in puritanical minds, of evil decadence."
i think when most people in the world look around and see the abject poverty they live in and the constant misery they are forced to put up with they might resent obcene wealth and flamboyant lifestyles elsewhere don't you? Certainly somebody can use this as a recruitment tool.
"It could be thought of as a "vital organ" of the American economy by someone who doesn't realize how decentralized the American economy is."
This argument was put out my microsoft during the anti trust trial. MS (and their lapdog politicians) frequently argued that breaking up MS would disrupt the economy and harm the country. I heard a guest on the O'Reilly factor (I forget his name right now be he is a very vocal critic of the democats and clinton) blame the recession on clintons pursuit of MS. The Idea that harming MS would harm the economy of the US was broadcast far and wide by everybody from executives of MS to politicians. I suppose it would not surprise me if some terrorists believed it.
War is necrophilia.
- adam
Oh you're so right. (the rest of his post was massively sarcasm "agreement" with mine.)
I understand where you are coming from in attacking my post, but let me ask you: how many of the 19 hijackers were Canadian or British or ANY ethiicity other than Middle Eastern, most notably Egyptian and Saudi Arabian? While we shouldn't prejudge, that's not the same as saying we should put on blinders and not more carefully investigate members of specific groups. You may deride this a 'racial profiling' - I call it common snese.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody