Slashdot Mirror


MSIE Uber-patch Of The Month

mkraft writes "Microsoft released another security patch for Internet Explorer to fix 6 'new' vulnerabilities. Info on the patch can be obtained via download or Windows Update. Not sure what 6 things the patch fixed, but I'm assuming they fixed 6 of the 14 known exploits listed at http://jscript.dk/unpatched/" Maybe not even all six -- the maintainer of the above URL claims in a post to Bugtraq that Microsoft got some facts wrong and "patched a symptom" of one of the vulnerabilities, "not its root cause," and that IE5 and IE5.5 remain unpatched with the same "Critical" vulnerability. Also, please compare to previous MSIE Uber-Patches Of The Month: December 2001, 3+? holes in IE; March 2002, 2+? holes in IE; April 2002, 2+? holes in Mac IE.

357 comments

  1. Like clockwork. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft released another security patch for Internet Explorer

    Is it Thursday already?

    --saint

    1. Re:Like clockwork. by 56ker · · Score: 2

      One wonders when Microsoft releasing patches was considered news. Then again this is a pretty major one. It'll be news when they learn that writing software with security in mind to start with is cheaper than not and then constantly patching things. The image of a leaky sieve comes to mind!

    2. Re:Like clockwork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, a lot of windows users might like the fact that "Windows Update" actually does something.


      Hell, it put this patch on my two Windows computers almost 24 hours before Slashdot mentioned it, so it can't be all bad ;)

    3. Re:Like clockwork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some one mod parent up (it's (at least somewhat) insightful and definatly doesn't deserve to be at -1)

    4. Re:Like clockwork. by adamjaskie · · Score: 1
      Is it Thursday already?

      It MUST be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    5. Re:Like clockwork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by your standard, microsoft should just go ahead and release IE999999999 and windows99999999999 Adanvaced super duper we promise it will work psuedo-Server.

    6. Re:Like clockwork. by Fesh · · Score: 2
      Why do they have to worry about one method of doing things being cheaper than another? They're a monopoly, for crying out loud. They're not going to worry about cost-effective behavior until it actually starts hitting them in the wallet. Fat chance of that ever happening, though.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    7. Re:Like clockwork. by Snover · · Score: 1

      It must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays. -Arthur Dent [Douglas Adams, H2G2]

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
  2. No IE.. No holes :) by matth · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yet another reason to use lynx :)
    or even better

    telnet www.webserver.com 80
    GET / http/1.0

    1. Re:No IE.. No holes :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do the same thing with IRC, if you're really hardc0re.

  3. But... But.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Internet Explorer is the most stable and secure web browser ever made. Why do they need a patch for it?

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:But... But.. by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why do they need a patch for it?

      It's all that Microsoft non-compliant human behavior. As soon as they fix that the need for patches will go away.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:But... But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To keep it that way?

    3. Re:But... But.. by neuroticia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the primary purpose of the last patch seemed to be to *add* bugs. My guess is that this patch is to take them away?

      -Sara

    4. Re:But... But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      Oh yeah, this is real news because we all know that Navigator/Mozilla, Konqueror or Opera has *NO* bugs or vulnerabilities and are absolutely the most feature rich browsers in the world.

      This is typical /. anti-Microsoft FUD. I dislike MS because of their business practices, but I find that IE is actually the best browser that is out there.

  4. So basically... by Indras · · Score: 5, Funny

    Saying you're trying to fix all the holes in IE is like saying you mean to turn a sieve into a bowl.

    Seriously, it seems they are finally turning around and trying to make their products more reliable. They've come a long way since Win95 (or WinME... ::shudder::).

    --
    The speed of time is one second per second.
    1. Re:So basically... by tb3 · · Score: 2

      No, you're turning a sieve into a collander. A smaller number of holes, but much larger holes.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    2. Re:So basically... by rsidd · · Score: 2

      Quote from "Yes, Minister":
      Hacker: We have to nail that leak!
      Bernard: Minister, if you nail a leak you make another leak.

    3. Re:So basically... by YourFingerYouFool · · Score: 0

      When I was 5 of 6 years old I saw commercial for Vaselene(sp?) Petroleum Jelly where this woman coated a sieve with Vaselene and it held water.

      Maybe MS could contract with the Vaselene people.... But don't tell my mom. She was *pissed* when I did it.

      --
      "pull my finger" - Uncle Chuckles
    4. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you have to explain it, it's not funny.

  5. God Forbid... by KingAdrock · · Score: 1, Insightful

    God forbid Microsoft release a patch. What would you rather have them do? If this were the newest version of the Linux kernel, the people of Slashdot would be planning a parade. It is a patch to a microsoft product though, so it is time to bring out the bashing. Give me a break!!!

    1. Re:God Forbid... by quantaman · · Score: 2

      The difference is we don't claim Linux to be completely secure and infallable and we just didn't announce several months ago that we would dedicate our selves to security (and fail to fix a significant numbers of bugs, besides are they even the ones who found these bugs?). They are unspeakably arrogant and claim to be the best in every area, are we not allowed to mock them when they fail miserably?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:God Forbid... by akgoel · · Score: 1

      well, you do pretty much claim complete security and infallability. Or how many years after a kernel is released is the "thousand eyes" theory of code review supposed to kick in?

    3. Re:God Forbid... by WGR · · Score: 3, Troll
      Perhaps this is actually a result of MS dedication to security. A bunch of patches after they have audited their code would seem to be quite reasonable.

      Although, there is a NTBugtraq post just now that say the patches break Javascript on MS browsers so maybe you don't want to install it just yet. It states:
      The installation of the 15-May-2002 Cumulative Patch for IE (V6 in this case) breaks the following Javascript code. This code works in IE versions *not* patched with Q321232 but fails to execute on IE6 which has been patched. I don't have IE 5 or below so I don't know if they broke those versions as well.

      Russ Cooper had an article on NTBugtraq recently pointing out how bad MS quality control is. They have separate patch sites for different products with tools that break each others patches. We don't need to break Microsoft up. It is doing so on its own.

    4. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla, an alternative to IE, has fewer security issues, costs nothing, and has source code freely available.

      Windows, an alternative to Linux, has far more security problems, costs a bundle, and source code is generally unavailable.

      Ignoring politics, the Linux folks still win over Microsoft.

    5. Re:God Forbid... by FortKnox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I gotta agree.
      Slashdot opinion:
      • Rail on MS for making faulty software
      • Rail on MS for not doing anything with said software
      • Rail on MS for attempting to patch said software
      • Rail on MS for being swift quickly releasing a 'cure to the symptom', while the 'cure to the solution' is being worked on
      • Rail on MS for a product most of them haven't touched since Win98


      Bah, I'm clicking "ignore posts from MS" on my preferences. I'm starting to think Taco could get his "cult" to commit mass suicide if he could prove that it'd help them rail on MS...
      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    6. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if bank accounts mean anything

    7. Re:God Forbid... by jagripino · · Score: 1

      Er...

      The problem here is not MS releasing or not a patch, it's the FREQUENCY of release.

      I subscribe to the MS Security mailing list, and I got the message about this patch yesterday night. HOWEVER, the day before yesterday I had just reinstalled my Win2k box with all the patches (took me four or five reboots to install SP2, DX 8.1, IE6, IE6 patches, additional Win2k security patches, media player) and now I must update my browser again. This is the 4th security update this month alone (counting Win2k and IE security patches).

      On the other hand, maybe all the pressure done by the security experts who went full disclosure before MS released a patch is working. Don't know. Maybe they are patching FASTER now.

    8. Re:God Forbid... by Pasty69 · · Score: 0

      It's not like these patches are a surprise. When Microsoft said that they were going to work hard to fix up their software everyone scoffed. WHen they do the patches everyone mocks them for having holes in the first place. I use Opera and I don't even bother getting the patches anymore, but I'm glad that they are following through with what they said they would do, even if it's not up to everyone's exacting standards.

      --
      -Pasty
    9. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The diff is that a linux patch will generally fix what it purports to fix. The MS patch does not.

    10. Re:God Forbid... by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Also s/Microsoft/USA/ and the same would be true.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    11. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CmdrTaco is slowly turning dumber and dumber by the day. It's like watching episode 2 and seeing Anakin slowly turn to the dark side.

    12. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... the people of Slashdot would be planning a parade.

      Two things:

      1. Of course we all know how well Slashdotters
        follow up on their plans. Does this sound
        familiar: "Oooooh, that nasty MPAA has it coming
        to them when I boyco..Oh! Spider-Man!!"
      2. I forsee such a parade getting out of the
        meeting place, only to promptly disband when all the geeks run in fear from the sun.

      -jdm

    13. Re:God Forbid... by rark · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except (if you read the bugtraq post) MS left IE6 vunerable (and released no patch for IE5). It gave incorrect information about several vunerabilities, which makes one suspect that they might have not fixed them correctly.

      I can't vouch for the accuracy of the bugtraq post, but if true, this is not 'fixing the symptom until the underlying problem can be fixed', this is 'fixing one popularized symptom while leaving others untouched'.

      A number of people have noticed that a majority of /. users use IE. Some of them may well be opera or other browser users who have their browsers to announce otherwise, but certainly, a number of /. users actually use IE. Some of us still use Win98 too, even if just at work or at home because our families can't use another OS (yet...)

    14. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      frequent? not if you look at the patches of individual products.

      sure micrsoft releases a lot of patches, but they also have a lot of products

    15. Re:God Forbid... by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 2

      Have you confirmed these are the exact same people?

      Slashdot has many readers and posters, sometimes what seems hypocrite just means different opinions from different sources show up.

    16. Re:God Forbid... by zsmooth · · Score: 2

      Hell yes you are 100% correct.

    17. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just got my new tennis shoes, where is the cool-aid?

    18. Re:God Forbid... by erasmus_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to agree. Just earlier today at an online Microsoft seminar, the presenter mentioned that the original version of the IIS Lockdown tool completely broke Exchange Server. To paraphrase him to the best of my abilities, "pretty interface, no email." To be fair, he demonstrated the newest version of the tool, which is supposed to do an outstanding job of locking down IIS, and that problem now has been completely eliminated.

      --
      Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
    19. Re:God Forbid... by dohcvtec · · Score: 1

      When Microsoft releases a patch, it's a reminder that this huge software corporation with billions of dollars sitting around (doing nothing) cannot produce more secure software than that produced for free by software developers in their spare time. With all the resources Microsoft has at its disposal, and the implications of having such a large install base, one might hope that Microsoft would expend a great deal of effort to ensure security right from the start. Again, the realse of a patch simply highlights this inadequacy.

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    20. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people seem to think the all free software is developed by geeks in there spare time. If you look at most of the large projects (mozilla, apache, linux kernel) the people puting the most work in are the ones being paid to do so.

    21. Re:God Forbid... by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      certainly, a number of /. users actually use IE.
      You have to realize that /. is probably the only source for unbiased technical information about Microsoft products. (I know there's bias too, plenty of bias, but have you noticed that useful technical information comes from the bashers not the astoturfers;)

    22. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I think some have mentioned that the fixes (some) were botched, fixing a symptom of the problem and not the root cause, so I think it is newswearthy to mention a patch that doesn't fix the problems intended. Don't you think?

    23. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you don't know the difference between patch and updates?

    24. Re:God Forbid... by festers · · Score: 1

      And Rail on posts railing MS.

      You are painfully unoriginal.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    25. Re:God Forbid... by sir99 · · Score: 1

      An often neglected concept in slashdot (besides spelling or grammar): there are many people here, with many different opinions, making it appear that the "community" is hypocritical. Or else the people he thinks are hypocrits are just trolling.

      --
      The ocean parts and the meteors come down
      Laid out in amber, baby.
    26. Re:God Forbid... by rark · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I'd say *unbiased*, but certainly /. is a heck of a lot more informative than MS themselves.

    27. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing I think slashdotters always seem to forget when these MS vs. Linux arguments come up...

      #1 - How many users are there of MS products vs Linux? I'd say the ratio is somewhere near 1 million to 1, or nearabouts...

      #2 - If you were looking to break something, would you rather go after the million, or the one?

      #3 - No software is EVER bug/problem free. Lets not let the smoke from our collective bowls allow us to forget that...

      #4 - You wanna be secure? Get off the damn net.

      Anonymous Coward

    28. Re:God Forbid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lest we forget:
      • Suck up to Microsoft and defend IE even when they fuck up badly
      • Distort facts to make others look bad when they actually have a point
      • Whine and bitch every time someone dares to question Microsoft's security policy
      • Start with lies and name-calling ("cult") to try to make other people's opinions irrelevant
      Bah, I'm going to continue to suck up to MS because noting of what people say about their sloppy security is true. Their track record proves this.
  6. I have a question? by Peridriga · · Score: 1, Insightful

    News for Nerd. Stuff that matters.

    Does this really matter anymore? It's kinda like my weekly routine of buying milk. It's getting pretty dull...

    1. Re:I have a question? by techstar25 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it matters becuase a ton of slashdotters use IE, whether they admit it or not. And for those folks who do use it, they might not have the auto-update turned on, and therefore might not know about the update any other way. Of course they all should be using Opera. . .

    2. Re:I have a question? by BagOBones · · Score: 1

      True, but I like my browser FREE and without Ads.. IE still formats more webites correctly than any other browser.. Then again when the sites are buit using editors that have IE as thier built in viewer its not hard to see why.. If everyone coded HTML by had and to standards I think more people would use other browsers.. but for the sake of ease of use.. IE auto installs plugins as needed and is just fast to load. Thats all the typical user sees and cares about.. Now WE (slashdotters) know the differences and can download our own plugins.. but untill the WYSIWYG editors start using standards complient code instead of IE compatible code we will continue to see a large number of pages turned out that simply look good in IE and have BIG problems in almost every thing else.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    3. Re:I have a question? by fobbman · · Score: 2

      ...and then the flood of users to Opera would cause "security experts" to find the exploits that undoubtedly exist in that product.

      The reason why exploits are written for IE/Outlook is not necessarily because Microsoft packs their product full of holes, but because more people use the products, more people will be affected by the exploit, and the chance of the "security expert" seeing their name mentioned in the media goes up.

    4. Re:I have a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's kinda like my weekly routine of buying milk.

      Wait-- hold the phone. You bought milk? What happened??? How did it go? Tell me all about it!

      Man, this sounds interesting!
    5. Re:I have a question? by ILikeRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      fobbman gushes:
      The reason why exploits are written for IE/Outlook is not necessarily because Microsoft packs their product full of holes, but because more people use the products, more people will be affected by the exploit, and the chance of the "security expert" seeing their name mentioned in the media goes up.

      Exactly, security is directly tied to popularity, why just look at Apache... oops.

      The diference is that the people who bring you Apache are subject to peer review everyday, and they don't whine that people only exploit their code because it is popular when holes are found, but rather look at their project rationally, and FIX IT. Pretty amazing difference in handling criticism I would say....

      --
      I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
    6. Re:I have a question? by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > Does this really matter anymore?

      Just skip over it. That's what I do when I read an article that doesn't apply to me. I'm sure every article on here doesn't apply to someone.

      NOT Insightful.

    7. Re:I have a question? by einer · · Score: 1

      That was a Great Point(tm).

    8. Re:I have a question? by dagoalieman · · Score: 2

      Actually, it does matter to those people who maintain machines in any sort of environment.

      /. rails Microsoft for not patching their bugs, and rallies behind patching up the Linux bugs. Well, let me say this: If you make a patch that no one uses, what's the good in doing it?

      If we milk up all of the patches that we can, they're more likely to keep popping them out. If we can give them more feedback, let them know what we need, chances are they'll be more willing to give it. At least they're making an effort to patch the bugs, unlike other companies out there.. And certainly, if you're responsibly doing your job in a corporate environment, this matters- don't want no one compromising your system, does ya?

      Just because an article doesn't matter to one doesn't mean that other people won't find it interesting. I don't like Mr. Katz, but I realize that other people find him insightful..

      And if you don't use windows at all, lucky you, but I'm sure you have a friend out there who runs MS products, and THEY may want to know. So it does matter in some way.

      .

      --
      We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
    9. Re:I have a question? by skribble · · Score: 1

      Oops is right!

      Comparing Apache to IE is not a good comparison at all for the following reasons...

      - In terms of complexity, most browsers are much more complex then apache.

      - Apache can be wildly insecure if configured poorly, and most people couldn't even begin to understand how to configure it (and apache is relatively simple compared to something like say... sendmail).

      - While apache itself is quite secure, once you start turning on features and adding modules all bets are off. In IE if you want security you can turn off most of insecure features.

      I would add that most people who use open source software have no idea what to do with the source code. Even those with years of experience of development couldn't just sort through the source code of a relatively large project and begin fixing things. Sendmail is an excellent example of this... while it's claimed that it's relatively secure these days (I use Postfix so I wouldn't know) it took years and years to get to an even relatively secure place.

      I use many different computing environments on a daily basis, this of course includes MS products. In a perfect world (IMHO) everyone would be running OS X on cheap hardware, but that's not going to happen anytime soon... until then I hope MS continues to at least try to do the best they can to give us reliable secure products.

      -S.

      --
      --- Nothing To See Here ---
    10. Re:I have a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, so if more people used mutt, there'd be a slew of new virusus and trojans taking advantage of the way mutt automatically executes scripts received in new messages?

      I think you may have oversimplified things.

    11. Re:I have a question? by ILikeRed · · Score: 2

      Read my post again.

      I was not comparing Apache's complexity to MSIE. I was not comparing Open Source to MSIE. What I did say is that a product's popularity has NO corelation to it's security, and whining that MSIE only has security problems because there are a lot of copies in use is STUPID, and from an engineering perspecitive, DANGEROUS.

      But I will try to use smaller words for you next time....

      --
      I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
    12. Re:I have a question? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

      Actuially it's nothing to do with popularity, It's to do with bloat. IE isn't a web browser, it'a an applications platform. It is these features that erode security.

      think of the difference between lynx and IE.
      99% of web sites hardly scrape at the surface of the capabilities of IE. Sadly the days of quick html rendering have almost gone.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    13. Re:I have a question? by skribble · · Score: 1

      Wow... you know I re-read your post and you clearly *are* comparing Apache to IE. But while we're at it... IE is much more popular then Apache too.

      BTW, if you could read clearly, nobody every said popularity has any corelation to security, only that it's more likely that security flaws would crop up in more popular programs.

      -S.

      --
      --- Nothing To See Here ---
  7. other browsers are teh bomb! by grazzy · · Score: 5, Funny

    luckily several other competing browsers have much less patches that have to be applied.

    netscape - doesnt have any holes - it crashes before anyone have time to exploit them.
    mozilla - its not called holes, its a feature until further notice.
    opera - pages download quick, dont they? then stfu.

  8. It Breaks Javascript by inetd · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to NTBUGTRAQ it breaks certain javascript

    http://www.ntbugtraq.com/default.asp?pid=36&sid= 1& A2=ind0205&L=ntbugtraq&F=P&S=&P=2859

    1. Re:It Breaks Javascript by tomgilder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However this is rubbish, his code is wrong - this has nothing to do with the patch.

      Don't name form elements "submit", folks.

    2. Re:It Breaks Javascript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally MS does something right

  9. Breaks some Javascript by DaDigz · · Score: 5, Informative
    Just posted to the NTBugTraq list is a message noting that it breaks some Javascript.

    The example code that fails with the patch is here.

    --
    Those who will sacrifice Freedom and Security will get Windows...
  10. patches for IE by waldeaux · · Score: 2, Funny

    you know - with this many patches, IE is moving from the realm of science fiction to high fashion!

  11. Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by Anomolous+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is just silly. Does Slashdot post a huge exposé every time someone fixes another crippling security hole in Mozilla? Really, it's this kind of duplicity that bothers me about Slashdot. Surely, Microsoft isn't the only one who writes occasionally buggy software?

    --

    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
  12. The big problem by Peridriga · · Score: 2

    This is the big patch that really should be fixed.
    It is the one that makes it dangerous to push the Back Button

  13. C'mon, guys... by bricriu · · Score: 4, Informative

    the page you link to HAS the vulnerabilities fixed LISTED.

    And if you actually go to download it, you'll see that it DOES apply to versions 5 and 5.5. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/cri tical/Q321232/default.asp)

    --

    AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
    - Reakk, Sluggy Freelance

    1. Re:C'mon, guys... by br0ck · · Score: 1

      IE 5 is not covered by this. From the link you gave: "Versions of IE prior to 5.01 Service Pack 2 are no longer eligible for hotfix support."

    2. Re:C'mon, guys... by gclef · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but the patch doesn't actually *do* what it claims. Therein lies the problem. There has been a steady stream of messages to various security lists today about how this patch does not actually fix many of the issues that it claims to fix, and breaks other stuff in the process. see http://jscript.dk/unpatched/ for the present list of unpatched IE problems, and some commentary on this patch.

    3. Re:C'mon, guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you stop to think that, perhaps, the linked page had not been updated to show the fixes at the time that the story was submitted?

      I didn't think so.

    4. Re:C'mon, guys... by Thurn+und+Taxis · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the patch doesn't actually *do* what it claims.

      This is exactly why I disagree with Microsoft's policy of keeping secret the details of potential security holes. If the details weren't known, we would either have to (a) trust that they fixed it, or (b) not trust them and stop using the software. Microsoft wants to believe that most people fall into the (a) camp, but this kind of response to a security hole argues that (b) is the more sensible option.

      --
      On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
  14. Why is this news? by oever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It worries me that a patch can be news. Microsoft really has people waiting in anxiety for a new patch to fix (and add some new) security holes.

    Brr. I hate monopolies.

    I going to write a letter like the Peruvian one to my government right now!

    --
    DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
  15. The difference is... by Steveftoth · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    When a kernel patch comes out it usually consists of fixes to features (speed, stability, etc.) and yet more new features. Read the changelogs, that's what they are.

    When MS releases an IE patch it's because they need to fix the ability for some random porn site to install software on your computer. Or make it easier to spy on you with their messenger client.

    Not that this affects me at all as I only use mozilla now.

    1. Re:The difference is... by KingAdrock · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Congrats on running Mozilla.. However that doesn't mean you are Bug Free

      Actually, I use both Mozilla and IE, but these stories that are being posted on Slashdot are just silly. You are mad if they do patch. You are mad if they don't patch. Make up your mind Slashdotters!

    2. Re:The difference is... by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      You are mad if they do patch. You are mad if they don't patch. Make up your mind Slashdotters!

      I think everybody would be content if Microsoft made an attempt to make their software reliable and secure before they release it ... You know, kind of like the standards we also hold the rest of the software industry to?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:The difference is... by KingAdrock · · Score: 1

      You know, kind of like the standards we also hold the rest of the software industry to?

      Right, because no software from companies other than Microsoft ever has security or reliability issues? Don't kid yourself!

    4. Re:The difference is... by Peyna · · Score: 2

      I tested the link and supposed vulns with Mozilla 1.0 RC2 and was unable to replicate. If anyone else can do so with the latest build of Mozilla speak up.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:The difference is... by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      I know I'm not bug free, but at least I can shut mozilla off if I don't like it. With IE you are forced to use it even if you are not browsing the web, thanks to the complete integration of the shdocvw.dll into every other program (explorer, word, excel, outlook, etc).
      Basically, nobody can be secure when running 24/7 on the internet, and all the features that make our lives 'easier' just end up causeing us to be less secure.

    6. Re:The difference is... by Sj0 · · Score: 2


      Right, because no software from companies other than Microsoft ever has security or reliability issues? Don't kid yourself!


      Most of those products are lambasted as buggy and insecure as well.

      Besides which, I don't know of many companies which have such a bad track record of having nearly every product they release almost unsuable because of bugs in it's first release.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    7. Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this plain sucks. I do not use explorer (norton commander here), no word, excel or outlook (open office, the bat) but still this damn ie is on my system and I cannot uninstall it (win2k sr2)

    8. Re:The difference is... by spectecjr · · Score: 2

      Not that this affects me at all as I only use mozilla now.

      ... which has been in progress for the last 4 years, with an existing codebase to work from, and still isn't officially at a 1.0 RTM release.

      Simon

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    9. Re:The difference is... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Yep, it was fixed in RC2. I've been stuck working on a windows program since a little before that release, and when I came back to linux and fired up mozilla RC1 the default start page even mentioned that bug and said it was urgent that I install rc2 to fix it.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    10. Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can name another any Redhat x.0 release! They are all unusable!

    11. Re:The difference is... by Mansing · · Score: 2

      And which existing codebase would that be?

    12. Re:The difference is... by spectecjr · · Score: 2

      And which existing codebase would that be?

      Netscape. Whether they started from scratch or not is irrelevant; it means that they had a whole boatload of signposts and maps with which to plot their course - they didn't have to forge ahead on their own.

      Simon

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    13. Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bully for you, jackass

    14. Re:The difference is... by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      Not only was it fixed in M1.0RC2, the item causing the vulnerability (HTTPRequest or something -- hey it's late and i don't wanna look it up) was broken in M1.0RC1.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    15. Re:The difference is... by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      It's a matter of opinion there, really. I ended up using 6.0 and 7.0, and while they didn't have the refinement of later incremental releases, the programs and the underlying OS ran without much of a problem.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  16. Netscape not secure by Peridriga · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    What about this?

    Netscape isn't secure either. A well written web page can read and capture local files.

    Micro$oft, although they write their fair share, isn't the only company that writes bad code.

    1. Re:Netscape not secure by short · · Score: 1

      Fixed from Mozilla 1.0RC2 upwards. Security advisory on www.mozila.org. I ignore Netscape but it is the same codebase - to be fixed already or at least soon.

    2. Re:Netscape not secure by bpfinn · · Score: 1

      Micro$oft, although they write their fair share, isn't the only company that writes bad code.

      Unfortunately, they write their fair share plus my fair share, and your fair share....

    3. Re:Netscape not secure by rmpotter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. We tested the Netscape/Mozilla vulnerability and it work on Linux systems also. I submitted the link to Slashdot and the story was REJECTED.

      If this had been an MS vulnerability with a working exploit, it would have been posted here in a second --and would have generated 800 MS-bashing comments.

      Slashdot has been good entertainment over the years, but I pity anyone who PAYS for a site that is so slanted it can't see beyond it's navel.

      (Guess how this post will be mod'd ;-)

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
    4. Re:Netscape not secure by tomgilder · · Score: 1

      At least Mozilla patch very quickly - that read local files was fixed virtually overnight. It took MS months to fix the same issue.

      Netscape however then released 6.2.3, which is basically an 8Mb (min download) security patch.

    5. Re:Netscape not secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already fixed in Mozilla 1.0rc2 (And earlier nightly builds), as well as the recently released Netscape 6.2.3.

      And it was covered here earlier (at the end).

    6. Re:Netscape not secure by thesolo · · Score: 2

      I agree. We tested the Netscape/Mozilla vulnerability and it work on Linux systems also. I submitted the link to Slashdot and the story was REJECTED.

      (Guess how this post will be mod'd ;-)


      It will most likely be modded down, and probably for good reason. Your submission was rejected because Slashdot covered the hole in NS/Mozilla in this Slashback.

      Just because your submission was rejected does not mean the story didn't make it on the site.

      Please, if you are going to post something negative, at least get your facts straight first. Also, FYI, the Mozilla vulnerability was fixed within 24 hours, and does not affect 1.0RC2+.

    7. Re:Netscape not secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not that I'm a MS lover, and not that I'm a MS hater, just a non-political observer. 2 things I feel the urge to point out: 1) Mozilla isn't release yet, so issuing a patch means that a developer checks in the source and someone builds it for testing. MS has to put the patch through testing (I'll leave it to you to debate the outcome of that testing, I won't argue much there). By the same token, Mozilla has been testing for 5+ years, so *technically* MS released their patch faster.


      Second point is in regards to the number of bugs. The sheer market share of IE vs. any other browser means that the bugs numbers are going to be exponentially higher (add to that the enjoyment of finding MS bugs and bashing them with it...we all enjoy that). I am sure that the commercial motivations of MS cause more bugs to be released undetected/unfixed than Mozilla's Free Software approach would let out the gate, but given the market share, I have seen a fair number of Netscape/Mozilla bugs too.

      Flame bait or not, it is time to grow up. Free Software cannot beat MS by wishing they were gone and having bash-fests...it will take quality and dedication (two features already abundant in popular Free Software), and most of all humbleness.

  17. This is not news! by savaget · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    As the subject states; this is not news for nerds.

    1. Re:This is not news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's do the math... Nerds use Internet Explorer. Nerds like to install patches to make sure things work right. The article alerts nerds to the patch. Why again is this not "News for Nerds"? You failed to mention it in your post.

  18. Slashdot Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hmmm, I see how this works:

    if (newPatch.Source() == Microsoft)
    {
    Post("Evil buggy software");
    }
    else
    {
    Post("Great aftermarket support!");
    }

    Slashdot Posterbot 1.0!! Can I be a slashdot editor now?

    1. Re:Slashdot Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot to #define Microsoft

  19. *NEW* bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Where'd they come from?

    Didn't Intestinal Exploder have enough bugs to begin with?

    1. Re:*NEW* bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LoL you said exploder instead of explorer!!! Funny!

  20. Not too bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    especially when compared to the hundreds of bugs found often in Linux

    1. Re:Not too bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already has: the Lion worm.

    2. Re:Not too bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And that spread world-wide to millions and millions of machines, right? Just like the thousands upon thousands of MS-attacking worms have done.

      And did you hurt your head?

      Now all you need is to find two more Linux worms and you'll have to take your hand out of your pants to count them.

    3. Re:Not too bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Affected linux machines running BIND 8.2,8.2.1,8.2.2-Px
      as a DNS server ONLY BIND 8.2.3-REL not affected
      Lion worm was noticed in early 2001.
      ---so indeed there was a worm found to affect linux.
      Yes, indeed it was serious.
      BUT MOST people using linux were not affected.
      and yes I must repeat the date. Early 2001.
      --yes linux and bsd users can be arrogant.
      Why? Because they are tired of the public getting
      burned by a company that just could not care less about
      the public's welfare.

  21. Microsoft spent the ENTIRE month of FEBRUARY 2002 by dpbsmith · · Score: 2

    ...doing NOTHING BUT addressing security issues as part of their new security focus.

    Do you suppose they need to do more?

  22. Here we go again... by bradasch · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Another MS bashing article: They found another bug in a MS software! Those f*cking bastards! How can they release software with bugs!
    It's the same-old double-standard /. If this was the linux kernel or mozilla or KDE or whatever, the crowd would be delighted at the wonders of open-source, and how fast they can fix the bugs.

    Don't you think it's time for a break and for news that really matter?

    1. Re:Here we go again... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      The problem is that MS are releasing a patch they claim fixes certain security holes, while this is not really the case.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  23. lmao by SurfTheWorld · · Score: 1

    lmao

    --
    Do it for da shorties
  24. Ironically... by clevershark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "Windows Update" icon on my taskbar failed to retrieve the patch last night, I had to manually go to the Windows update site and download it. I only discovered this when I started wondering why my VAIO was getting so damn warm, and why the fan hadn't stopped in several hours...

    And then they "recommend" that you go for automatic updating. Typical.

    --

    My sig is too lon

  25. Good, nice to see, Good Job MS by Raleel · · Score: 2

    I'm glad to see them stepping up to patch this stuff. Really. I'm not being sarcastic. A lot of people use IE, and we shouldn't jsut curse our grandmothers and mothers to using a flawed browser. I really salute them for taking the security stance a little more seriously.

    Of course, I say this even though my mother got Mandrake 8.2 for Mother's Day.

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
  26. I wish things were always so easy... by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Warning! Positive comments about Microsoft ahead...

    I have Windows XP on my desktop and RedHat on my public server.

    I have grown to appreciate the way Windows XP patches itself. Frankly it is a bit of a pain in the butt having to apply patches to my RedHat server each month and I would be much happier if it could just do it itself, automatically, like XP does.

    I hate Microsoft. They're bastards. But the auto-patching that Windows XP does is great. We need it for Linux, both desktop and server.

    1. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by smnolde · · Score: 2

      You should be running FreeBSD for a better *NIX experience... there's nothing like a cvsup to fix all that ails you, even if you haven't changed anything in a month.

      For me, I ran into rpm hell and all kinds of crap with r00that. BSD is where the real experience comes from. Few bugs and better code.

    2. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by np_geek · · Score: 0
      Use up2date and the RedHat network. You run it, it identifies and downlaods the patches and installs them. Also excellent is Ximian's Red Carpet (although you need X for that and I don't run X on my servers).

      Or, simply subscribe to the update e-mails from RedHat and apply the ones that matter. For instance, my servers don't run (or even have installed) about 80% of the stuff upgates get issued for so I can pick and choose what I want to install.

      That's not an option on XP. You get it whether you want it or not and backing it out is virtually impossible since you really don't know what happened.

      That's the difference between being a sysadmin on a server and a desktop user. You gotta know what you're doing, but I'd much rather have the control that a Linux distro gives me.

    3. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by SirThomas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, RedHat comes with an auto-updater 'up2date'.

      You just need to register your machine and it can automatically update your machine for you.

      Some may complain that it is a 'for pay' service but you do get one system for FREE.

      Check rhn.redhat.com for more details.

    4. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the auto-patching that Windows XP does is great. We need it for Linux, both desktop and server.

      I don't run XP (though my bro-in-law does, hates it, is going back to Win2K, a good move IMHO), but some feature like what you describe would be nice if they're properly balanced and thought out.

      I'd like the ability to assess what the patches are needed, what they are supposed to do, and ideally be able to see the source code before I patch my servers.

      The last thing I want my server to do is to "figure out for itself" that it needs to download some worm and then automatically go do it.

      Rather, let me decide and then it's my fault if I download a worm.

      One of the nice things about Linux in general is that it exposes its guts to you and lets you make as many decisions as you want about what to do with it and how to modify it. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot or shoot for the moon in a new way that works for you, then by all means go for it. Linux distributions won't be so arrogant as to presume that "they know better what's good for you".

      You can see where it's difficult to judge the proper tradeoffs between ease and convenience on one hand, and security on the other hand. All those Outlook attachments have been more than sufficient evidence of how easily such judgement can be in error.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    5. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the latest version of RedHat does. It even has a desktop applet under Gnome which takes care of reminding you to run the program.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    6. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Eerr, you can pick and choose the updates that are installed if you configure it that way. Not only on XP but also with Windows Update on W2k.

    7. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's not Windows Update; i own your box and have been busy setting it up the way i like it.

    8. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by green1 · · Score: 1

      As many others respondoing to this post have stated Redhat has the utility up2date, I beleive you are however talking about how XP can be set to do it completely invisibly as opposed to up2date which you actually run yourself, if you really want it to do it automatically simply set it up in your cron.daily and once a day it will check for and inmplement any updates. that way it will work "invisibly" in the background similar to XP's auto-update feature.

    9. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 3, Informative

      Red Hat 7.3 flashes a little update icon when there are updates available. Click the icon and then cycle through the Next buttons and you are patched.

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    10. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by zangdesign · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You get one system - one install. I made the mistake of registering my box after installation and then did a full reload from zero several times because I was trying to learn the process and didn't know better at the time. I couldn't register that machine again.

      Not exactly a newbie-friendly feature. I'm still pissed at RedHat for that one.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    11. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "But the auto-patching that Windows XP does is great. We need it for Linux, both desktop and server. "

      /me hands you an asbestos suit.

      Honestly you have a point.

    12. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Kraegar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Until someone hacks yours (or your ISPs) DNS server, and adds a line to the hosts file that points windows update to their box. Then you're running their code with full trust... automatically.

      While you're at it, I'm offering a service where I'll monitor your checking account and pay your bills automatically each month for you. Please forward me your Credit card number and a copy of your drivers license and social security card at your convenience.

    13. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      Mandrake comes with an automatic updater. It looks at your system, then at available patches (Youj can specify security, bug-fixes and/or regular patches.) it then gives you a list of available upgrades. You can easily select all of them or just the ones you want. It will download the patches and install them for you.

      And Mandrake has been doing this a lot longer than Microsoft.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    14. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by indiigo · · Score: 1

      Until the patch kills your machine. There have been numerous incidents where an IE, exchange, and IM patch have killed machines, only to be re-released hours later with an apology (or not,).

      The auto-update feature is a dangerous thing. I would wait a week before applying it, unless you have a lab environment to test it in...

      --
      fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-86 8650 3-985-fdsg8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-9
    15. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by epukinsk · · Score: 2
      You say:
      • I hate Microsoft. They're bastards.
      • I have Windows XP on my desktop.
      Either you are lying on one of these counts or you are too stupid to recognize that running Windows XP on your desktop is in direct support of Microsoft being bastards whether you paid for it or not.

      -Erik
    16. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by gothamNY · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could always log on to the RedHat Network http://rhn.redhat.com and delete the entry for the "system" that you had initially set up. You'll then be able to register the "new" system (OS load) with rhn_register and use up2date normally.

    17. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by PlaysWithMatches · · Score: 2

      I believe you could do something similar with apt-get and a crontab. :) Put the Debian security server in your sources.list, and have apt-get upgrade your packages from it on a daily/weekly/monthly/whatever basis. There may be a downside to doing this, I honestly have never tried it - but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why it wouldn't work.

      --

      Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
    18. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Stardate · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not exactly automatic when you still have to close all your apps and reboot your PC. :-(

      --
      "... I declare our city to be a free and independent state to be named Tri-Insula!" --Fernando Wood, Mayor of NYC 1861
    19. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Chewie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, while I will agree that it's not terribly newbie-friendly, it's not impossible to circumvent. First of all, the local box should allow you to register the machine without a problem, but you won't be able to update your software. All you do is log into the rhn site rnh.redhat.com, click on "entitlements", change the old registration's entitlement to "none", and the new one to "basic". Then run up2date -u and you should be set.

      --
      49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
    20. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not entirely correct. You can register another computer and then go to RedHat Network and change your FREE entitlement to the newest install. I was using RHN with 7.2 and when I moved to 7.3 that's what I did and everything has been working prefectly since.

      There are things I don't like about RH but up2date is not one of them. I hope this helps.

    21. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by jayed_99 · · Score: 1

      You know what I want? I want the ability to "patch" and not have to reboot. That's the #1 feature that I want from MS.

    22. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by stevey · · Score: 1

      I do something close to this on the servers at work.

      My crontab runs 'apt-get update' every two hours, and I have a perl script which filters out the results of 'apt-get -S upgrade' - which will send me an email when a new package is available.

      I draw the line at actually installing things automatically; but I do know when something is available.

      It's kinda OT, but is it even possible to run a non-interactive 'apt-get upgrade'?? I know you can run with --flag to 'automatically answer yes', but what about interactive configuration for things like exim? Will they hang waiting for console input, etc?

    23. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 1

      updating freebsd:

      cvsup stable-supfile
      cd /usr/src
      make world
      reboot
      mergemaster the one non obvious part... runs diff for you on all your configuration files, so you can choose what do to with them.

    24. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      I have Red Hat which others have mentioned. It is easy to update.

      On another system, I have a Ximian desktop (Ximian Gnome). That updates not only the desttop but also the RH 7.2 system there.

      On yet another system, I have Gentoo, there a short rsynch does it. The RH and Gentoo systems could be completely automated (except for Kernel updates), but frankly I haven't bothered. The Ximian thing isn't quite so automatic but it is about as good as Windows Update, but with more information. I don't even buy the premium service as I'm outside the US and the times I connect, I always get a good response.

      In short, I am very comfortable with the updates methods available on Linux. I don't object to patches from RH, Ximian or even Microsoft (I even welcome them), but what I *do* object to is that IE security remains broken despite MS's much vaunted security initiative and these holes have been around since last year.

    25. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by muleboy · · Score: 1

      So don't just bitch. Switch to Debian. All free, all the time. No dependency problems any more. Fewer crashes than Redhat. More secure out of the box. I have used both, and this is my experience.

    26. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by g4dget · · Score: 1
      I have grown to appreciate the way Windows XP patches itself.

      I have both an XP and a Debian machine, and the way XP updates itself is horrible. Not only has it managed to completely hose my machine once already within a few months, requiring a complete reinstall, it also only updates the operating system and not the application. (Reinstalls still haven't gotten easier either--they wipe out almost everything.)

      The Debian updater has worked like a charm for, oh, probably a year and a half now. It updates not only the OS but all applications. And since each package is identified, documented, separately maintained, and versioned, if you want to revert, it's easy.

      XP auto updating is a gamble. And when something goes wrong you are basically stuck. And with XP, things do go wrong. As usual, Microsoft's copy of other people's ideas is inferior.

    27. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by destiney · · Score: 1


      Why not just use Ximian's RedCarpet? It doesn't require any stupid registration, and you get all of the patches the distro maker releases. Ximian rocks.. RedCarpet rocks.. up2date.. pfffft!

    28. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by seigniory · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely 100% untrue. In short, every patch/driver/add-on that comes down from MS through Windows Update has an MS digital signature. Any application w/o that signature causes Windows Update to fail.

      Congratulations, you figured out a "vulnerability" that MS anticipated and prevented years ago. Try not to spread panic without knowing the full details about a system.

    29. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by portnoy · · Score: 1
      It's kinda OT, but is it even possible to run a non-interactive 'apt-get upgrade'??
      Add a line like "Frontend: noninteractive" to your /etc/debconf.conf. That will cause it to ask no questions, and just use the defaults whenever possible, and sending mail to root if there's a useful message.
    30. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2

      Have you tried Debian Linux? aptget your updates, just one command!

    31. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by hyoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until someone hacks yours (or your ISPs) DNS server, and adds a line to the hosts file that points kernel.org (for example) to their box. Then you're downloading and using their pathes and code with full trust... (not automatically, but hardcores probably download the latest and greatest quite often, and I doubt that they verify each line of code).

      If you claim that you are immune to this because you only use IP addresses or go directly to the root DNS servers, then you deserve to use linux. Please stay in your moms basement updating your software and save the rest of the world from the horrors of encountering freaks like you.

      MS uses certificates to verify that the patches are in fact from them. I'm not sure if there is any mechanism in place for linux kernel updates. You just gotta trust that kernel.org and the mirrors point to where they should be.

    32. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Rabid+Elk · · Score: 1

      "but some feature like what you describe would be nice if they're properly balanced and thought out" It is - people demanded it and got what they wanted. You can always download and apply manually to ensure that it doesn't break existing apps/functionality (most decent admins test before deploying) "Rather, let me decide and then it's my fault if I download a worm" Errrr - ok. Please tell me the last time M$ pushed out a trojan or worm to its users. Please - don't say any bugs or security holes. "Linux distributions won't be so arrogant as to presume that "they know better what's good for you" Its a feature for lazy admins, see the first reply. I guess you can't win with people like yourself though - MS are damned if they do or don't, aren't they? Can i have be scored 4 for being a cynical troll too?

    33. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by jesser · · Score: 2

      Last night's uberpatch did not ask me to reboot. Maybe Windows 98 noticed that I use Mozilla for browsing and decided it wasn't worth the reboot.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    34. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron. If you don't want to run a particular patch just don't add it to the download list in windows update. Gee, that sounds pretty fucking simple. Windows update has yet to infect a client with a worm or virus so perhaps you should just shut the fuck up.

      Though I see your point about source code. I just love spending my weekend sitting and trying to figure out how the source for some fix works. Nothing spells fun like monotonous source code.

    35. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by jonbrewer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Rather, let me decide and then it's my fault if I download a worm
      What's nice about XP is that you do have the choice with auto-update. In fact, you have several choices. I'll list them:

      1. Download the updates automatically and notify me when they are ready to be installed.
      2. Notify me before downloading any updates and notify me again before installing them on my computer.
      3. Turn off automatic updating. I want to update my computer manually.

      I, being a lazy bastard, choose option 1, then hit the snooze button for a few days before installing... it's the only time I ever have to reboot!
    36. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have grown to appreciate the way Windows XP
      > patches itself. Frankly it is a bit of a pain
      > in the butt having to apply patches to my
      > RedHat server each month and I would be much
      > happier if it could just do it itself,
      > automatically, like XP does.

      I used windowsupdate to automatically install IE6, and now Outlook Express will not display any email. This problem, according to MS, does not occur on Windows 2000 workstations, and so there is no fix. I've scoured newsgroups and found multiple possible solutions, none of which work. I've tried two different versions of a system DLL (MLANG), compacting folders, creating new identities, and a bunch of other crap.

      End result: Outlook Express no longer functions. The email is all there, and I can actually view it if I open the email and click, click, click my way to the email source. There is no rollback function for this install, no entry in add/remove programs, and no solution.

      Basically, auto-install has ruined my OE install, AT MY REQUEST. Automatically updating software is wonderful, I agree... but always do some kind of non-microsoft backup before you use their update system.

      I recommend Norton's Ghost... back up your entire hard drive image before any kind of automated install. And archive that image on a CD.

    37. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

      I believe Thom Yorke said it best in Fitter, Happier:

      "an empowered & informed member of society (pragmatism not idealism)"

      Erik, man, it's not stupidity. It's pragmatism. It's what you need to have a nice house in the suburbs and a Ford Explorer (Eddie Bauer Edition).

      It's very possible to hate Microsoft and still run XP on your desktop, and there really doesn't have to be much in the way of cognitive dissonance.

      Look at one of the Palestinian kids on the TV news. The one holding a "kill Americans" poster. What's on his ass? Levi's Jeans. What's on his head? A Yankees cap.

      People don't have to lie or be stupid to both hate Microsoft and run XP.

      (However I run XP and quite like Microsoft. Then again, I always looked up to Andrew Carnige and the DuPonts, and Vanderbilts.)

    38. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by lazy_greenhouse_gas · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it's upnp service for those bandwidth challenged individuals looking to piggyback on clueless dsl/cable guys xp machines was considerate as well. Keep Smiling happy,happy..

    39. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2

      Mandrake once tried to upgrade my kernel. Only it couldn't. There were warnings saying that it could not do this (even though the update appeared just like the others). However, the warnings only showed up on Mandrake 8.1 updater. And even then, a user who didn't carefully read the warnings on each and every update would get nailed. Now, even Microsoft I trust not to do something quite that stupid. Yes, they will release a patch that might break your system. Sure, they'll your security holes unpatched for years at a time. But they will not release a patch guaranteed to break each and every person's system -- at least, not without a compelling marketing reason.

    40. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Fjord · · Score: 1

      I'll have to weight in on the Debian side. Unless you have an application that requires RedHat (can't think of one but I have heard of commercial packages that are only have RedHat support only), Debian is a lot easier to administrate. I used to use RedHat at home, but am glad I made the switch. dselect and apt make installation/update/remove painless.

      Like another poster said, you can do autoupdate by flagging apt to not ask questions and then set a cron job up (you can even use webmin to create the job if you don't want to get your hands dirty) to autoupdate. *I* wouldn't do that, nor would I auto-update windows, but it's doable.

      --
      -no broken link
    41. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      All red hat updates are signed cryptographically. Even kernel updates.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    42. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      What's the problem? A small script run from cron will do just fine. On my Debian box I have a script that runs apt-get and if there's something new, it downloads, but doesn't install it. It just leaves the packages on the disk and sends an email. Then the next day I can decide whether I want those updates or not.

    43. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by newkid · · Score: 1

      ...the auto-patching that Windows XP does is great.

      On the surface maybe, but consider this:

      1. Software Update on 2000/XP is strictly based on registry entries: it will not detect cases where old software or old OS components have been reinstalled (like after you got the "please insert your Windows XP CD").

      2. Software Update will not patch security fixes that have to be applied manually or with an .exe "patcher". And there are lots of them (try to run hfnetchk on your "patched" XP to get a list). See Q143474 for an example.

      3. Most patches on 2000/XP cannot be applied concurrently: you have to reboot after each patch. Meanwhile, the only time you have to reboot on RedHat is for a kernel upgrade.

      We need it for Linux

      It is already available. And you can chron it. But you can't easily schedule Software Update on 2000/XP because of the multiple reboot issue.

      Finally, as you visit the Software Update site, MS shows you all that great middleware you can download for free...

    44. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Veteran · · Score: 2

      Windows is only costly if you're trying to do something serious

    45. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Col.+Panic · · Score: 2

      Autopatching might be ok for a desktop - if it isn't a very important one. But you should only be applying patches if they apply to your system. If you don't use the service/application being patched, why mess with a system that is working?

      Also, not all patches are good. Patches should be tested thoroughly before being applied to production systems - something Microsoft apparently doesn't do properly or they would have discovered that this patch doesn't actually work and it even breaks some javascript.

    46. Re: I wish things were always so easy... by Omniscient+Ferret · · Score: 1

      Detached PGP signatures are provided for kernels and their patches - that's what all those .sign files are. These do not care about IP addresses or DNS servers.

      You're coming off as angry and proudly ignorant, despite correctly noting the certificates.

    47. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Nailer · · Score: 2

      MS uses certificates to verify that the patches are in fact from them. I'm not sure if there is any mechanism in place for linux kernel updates. You just gotta trust that kernel.org and the mirrors point to where they should be.

      RPM does the same. People who know what they are doing use vendor provided kernels if they can't, or download vendor kernel source otherwise and run `make munoconfig, make rpm'.

    48. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by epukinsk · · Score: 2

      People don't have to lie or be stupid to both hate Microsoft and run XP.

      I don't think anyone who runs XP exclusively truly hates Microsoft. If you hate MS, you'll try to find another way when you can. Maybe you will need Windows for some things, but you'll do your damnedest to find alternatives.

      What people who profess to hate MS and run their software really mean is "MS are jerks, I wish they didn't have as much power." But they don't really mean it. They are dependent on MS and therefore part of them really doesn't want them to go away. And that's not hate. It's conflicted dislike.

      Granted, I'm typing this on MSIE right now. I haven't figured out how to burn CDs in Linux yet, so I booted to windows this evening. I just got back and now I'm going to bed so I didn't bother booting to Linux (though I do hate to send that IE header to slashdot. I'd feel much better sending a Mozilla one.)

      But do I hate MS? No, I think they're bad for the industry, they're slowing things down. I've been trying my best to migrate to other platforms over the past year or so, but I have other goals--like school--that take precedence.

      The thing is, I don't claim to hate microsoft. I just want them out.

      -Erik

    49. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you go back to win2k? You know that you can make winxp look and feel exactly like win2k and actually run faster? If it's just a UI thing, you can fix that.

    50. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Kraegar · · Score: 1
      So you're saying I click "windows update" on my start menu. It opens v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com

      If someone has entered a faulty DNS entry that points me to a page that looks just like the Windows Update site, and I click the "scan for updates" and it says I have one new critical update. So I click "install now"... at this point the digital signature will stop it?

      No... what will happen is just like any download from any website, a question box will come up and ask me if I trust that site. That question box could be totally bogues, and read (to a casual user anyway) as if it's from Microsoft. So they click "yes" and bam, hacked.

      Would it be a lot of work to do it and make it look good? Yes. But could it be done? Yes. Maybe not well enough to fool someone who knows what they're doing. But what about the other 85% of the users out there?

      As for someone hacking my box via DNS entry in /etc/hosts, I use FreeBSD, and set my download sites for cvsup by which region the workstation/server in question is in. Using some common tools it's easy enough (to me) to verify the files recieved. Could someone still do it? Probably. Do I know enough to notice if they tried... you bet your ass.

    51. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by seigniory · · Score: 1

      The Windows Update process is run in a ActiveX control that ships with every version of IE. This control is the *only* way to automatically download and install updates from the WU site.

      If your control is out of date when you connect to the WU server, a newer version will be downloaded (which also has a signature attached to it) and installed.

      In short, everything you download from the Windows Update site goes through this ActiveX control --- accepting an unsigned or non-trusted download is **not possible** with this control - you never get the option to accept or deny it. The process just fails and tells you to try again.

      Since MS is the only one that can sign things that the WU process will dish out, well... do the math.

      I'm not saying that your thinking should be discounted (there _are_ products out there that do not rely on a digital signature - NAV 6.0 and below come to mind - you'd be right on using this argument with them) just that in this case, your reasoning does not apply b/c MS already thought of it. They're not all bad, you know.

    52. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Kraegar · · Score: 1

      But the duped site would not run via the activeX control. Just standard download with no digital signature needed. Sure, the process would look different, but with a decent CGI you could fool most people. /shrug Maybe I'm missing something here. But so far as I can tell, v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com is just a standard website with an activeX control. Copy the format, make a CGI that flashes a few boxes that look the same, and con the user into clicking "open" Later you could drop the DNS hack, and they'd never know it happened.

    53. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by Kraegar · · Score: 1

      As a note, I'm typing this on IE, in windows XP. I don't think they're all evil. But I do think that making things *too* automated can lead to the sheep of the world being fleeced quite easily. With the rise of DSL, and PCs becoming as powerful as they are... people now have the power and bandwidth to do damage. And no knowledge of how to protect it.

    54. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by karlm · · Score: 2
      There's also a perl script called autoupdate. Check it out. It runs pretty well. It's a pretty simple script, actually. No need to centrally register your machine. It just polls the RH update sight for new RPMs and checks them against the ones you have installed.

      I had both autoupdate and up2date running on a box o' mine. I now run Debian and have it "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade -y" nightly. I believe you can do similar things with FreeBSD and OpenBSD. The nice thing is, every piece of software on my box (except the loop-AES stuff and the Sun JDK) is within 24 hours of being up to date. FreeAmp, Gaim, KOffice, etc. all update.

      Does windowsupdate cover WinZip. AIM, MS Office, and WinAmp? A buddy of mine got owned a bit over a year ago, just before MS decided to have windowsupdate cover IIS. He assumed IIS was covered b/c it came on the install CD. Within two weeks of installing Win2K Advanced Server, we found DDoS tools on his machine. That was the day his love turned to hate. He no longer defends anything MS or encourages use of MS software. His laptop still dual boots, but all of his servers run alternative OSes exclusively.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    55. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by jo42 · · Score: 1
      And at one point Verisign accidentally handed out legit Microsoft keys to an individual. So, for a short time, they could have released Microsoft signed updates...

      Think about it.

    56. Re:I wish things were always so easy... by seigniory · · Score: 1

      Windows Update uses MS-issued keys (the public key is installed by default with every copy of IE), not Verisign keys. Not to say that someone couldn't have used these "oops" MS keys to fake something, but with this particular process no Verisign keys are used.

  27. Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    So, Microsoft is supposed to support IE5 well after IE6 has been released? Isn't the patch to IE5 just to download IE6 (hint: It's free!)

    Does anybody provide support for beta Mozilla builds now that Mozilla is 1.0? In fact, does anybody provide any support for Mozilla 1.0? (Other than IRC chat rooms...)

    1. Re:Support? by plazman30 · · Score: 0

      Oh, and when it the last time you called Microsoft with an issue you have with IE that you couldn't resolve? The #1 tool for IE is Microsoft's knowledgebase. And guess what, Netscape and Mozilla have one to. it's called bugzilla.

    2. Re:Support? by dalamcd · · Score: 1
      So, Microsoft is supposed to support IE5 well after IE6 has been released? Isn't the patch to IE5 just to download IE6 (hint: It's free!)

      Well, supporting older software/hardware is generally good up to a point. Does Microsoft still release patches for Windows 98? I'm pretty sure they do.

      Also, I would be greatly upset if they stopped releasing patches for IE 5.x as well as 6, because the classic Mac version of IE is only up to 5.5 last I checked, and the OS X version is 5.1.4. Although I somehow doubt the Mac version has all the security holes...

      dalamcd

      --
      moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
  28. Excellent!!! by eyegor · · Score: 2, Funny

    With this patch, IE will finally be perfect and I can sleep in peace knowing that Big Bill® is watching over me.

    --

    Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
  29. This is getting boring... by stain+ain · · Score: 2

    Out of laziness, but lately I am not patching IE or any of the other known vulnerabilities on the software I have installed, unless the vulnerability is really dangerous: It comes to a point, that simply, I don't care anymore.

    You might say that this is against me, not to patch my software, and you are right, but I am tired.

    I think the security model used by MS and others (well, assuming this is a security model) is not valid anymore, I cannot go patching my software every morning after booting the computer!!

    1. Re:This is getting boring... by martissimo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I cannot go patching my software every morning after booting the computer!!


      thats one of the things that Windows does rather seamlessly though. I booted to it this morning to take care of a few things, and a little reminder notice popped up in the toolbar saying "a update is available"... all i did was click "Yes" and it was installed, it told me i had to restart to finish the update, and i ignored that part...once i finally do restart my computer it will be fully installed. This process took me a grand total of about 1 second of my time.

      There are plenty of valid complaints about MS, but this is one of those cases where they are doing something right.

    2. Re:This is getting boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patches are a fact of life with software. Period.
      Some operating systems have to be patched less
      often than others but they still have to be patched.
      --
      -------get used to it.
      -----------

    3. Re:This is getting boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a little reminder notice popped up in the toolbar saying "a update is available"
      yeah, thats called spyware, I'm glad linux isnt this 'seemless'

    4. Re:This is getting boring... by jsse · · Score: 2

      This process took me a grand total of about 1 second of my time.

      But it'd cost companies 'grands' to do that 1 second update. Remember downtime is very undesirable for most production servers.

      You just brought up a good point that Windows is good for desktop users and we shouldn't use Windows for critical system. :)

  30. Re:Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most ppl use MS products. Hence the greater need to inform people. It's called a monopoly.

  31. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me the quote where Microsoft has ever claimed to be the "best in every area". Show me the quote where the claim to be "completely secure and infallable [sic]".

    You can't, because they have never made those claims.

    So the question is, why do you feel you need to flat-out lie and spread bullshit like this?

  32. Microsoft is getting smart by mikosullivan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The increased pace of security patches from MS may indicate that they're finally serious about security. If so, the OSS movement needs to be wary. Windows lack-of-security has always been a major harping point for the OSS movement. Yes, I'm glad for the windows-users of the world that their OS is getting better, but those of us who preach OSS to our colleagues and friends need to be aware that a major talking point may be going away. If MS really has decided that Security Counts, they've got pretty deep pockets to do something about it. Sun and IBM have both proven that the closed-source system can in fact produce pretty secure operating systems.

    Microsoft is a formidable opponent. They're very rich and very good at using those riches to get what they want. We need to avoid being smug.

    --
    Miko O'Sullivan
    1. Re:Microsoft is getting smart by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      In the most optimistic light, Microsoft might be becoming better at fixing bugs. That is good for them and their poor users. But no matter what they do, they are still going to sell word processors that have a macro language powerful enough enough to read/write external files and execute foreign code. They are still going to ship a web browser that downloads binary code from webpages and executes it. Right now, they're just fixing some bugs in how the browser makes the decision about when its ok to do that. They still haven't (and never will) eliminated the glaring stupidity of the "feature" in the first place -- a "feature" that even the dimmest and most inexperienced programmers would instantly know should not be implemented. And they can never address the real security concerns without massive compatability breaks with established legacy -- which would destroy all the reasons for using their products in the first place.

      You're wise to caution against being smug, but look at what they're shovelling: Microsoft products suck intentionally. The bonus suckage due to bugs is just an extra. Take away the bonus suckage and they'll still be mediocre.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Microsoft is getting smart by g4dget · · Score: 1
      The increased pace of security patches from MS may indicate that they're finally serious about security.

      Statistically, a steady-state of a large number of patches means that there are many more problems waiting to be discovered. Only once the problems start drying up do we have some indication that they have made a dent.

    3. Re:Microsoft is getting smart by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • The increased pace of security patches from MS may indicate that they're finally serious about security

      They're certainly serious about the appearance of security. Never mind "security through obscurity", they've reached "security through assertion".

      You don't need to see our source code. These aren't the bugs you're looking for. We can go about our business. Move along.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Microsoft is getting smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft products suck intentionally.

      Of course. They have to - after all, if win3.1 didn't suck so bad, who would have bought win95? If 95 didn't suck so bad, who would have bought 98? If 98 didn't suck so bad, who would have bought Me or NT or 2000? XP, anyone?

      Microsoft isn't competing against linux, or mac, or bsd etc. They compete against themselves, and to convince 200 million computer users that they need to shell out 89 or 199 or 500 dollars for a new OS every other year they have to have a pretty compelling reason. Luckily, they do-the product that 200M computer users aid all that money for 2 years ago SUCKED.

      Really, though, why should they bother fixing bugs or implementing genuine security? They aren't liable for damages, no matter how negligent their programmers were. Everyone will still buy their products regardless of how much they suck. As a corporation the only thing the are ethically bound to do is make money-and they do that quite well.

    5. Re:Microsoft is getting smart by gtaluvit · · Score: 1

      Of course, it'd also be good if the OSS people fixed their own bugs, like Mozilla

      Security Advisory - RHSA-2002:079-13

      Summary:
      Updated Mozilla packages fix a security issue

      Updated packages are available which fix a security issue in Mozilla.

      Description:
      One component of the XML Extras package in Mozilla 0.9.9 and
      earlier allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files and list
      directories on a client system. This exploit is performed by opening a
      URL
      that redirects the browser to the file on the client and reading the
      results using the responseText property.

      --
      - gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
  33. Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by 2Flower · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Windows Update fatally crashes my system each time I go to download all the 'critical updates' my system needs. Which means that I'm unable to actually patch my boxen, unless I maybe reinstall the operating system, which would make me lose all my application settings/components and be forced to reinstall them, etc, etc.

    One central source, one update system. One critical point of failure. One of the many problems that come with having one operating system to rule them all and in the darkness find them...

    Boy, do I hope nobody tries to r00t my 98 box. After plugging in my shiny new cable modem it probably looks real attractive now.

    1. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by SilentBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My laptop came with XP on it - the first time I connected to the internet it downloaded updates (I was on a pretty fast network and didn't notice it happening) - next thing I knew, the thing rebooted and I couldn't search for local files anymore. And it ran slow as ass. So I uninstalled the patches, which is kind of nice that it lets you do (of course it doesn't tell you which patch does what, just gives you the number in the knowledge base). Anyway, the point is that even after uninstalling all those patches, I couldn't search for *local* files unless I was connected to a network of some kind. Go windows update. That's why you don't want some program downloading/installing automagically for you.

    2. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you can download the updates manually if you wish; they're on their website somewhere or other. This is a supported patch technique.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here in this case.

    4. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Or you could just download HFNETCHK to check for new hotfixes occaisionally (it runs in a command window):

      http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=k b; EN-US;q303215

      And define "fatally crashes". It's probably your poor excuse for a box, or some other pile of crap software you've installed that's caused IE to bomb out.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    5. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
      I got this email right before I went to click the link to MS in the article.

      Do not - repeat: DO NOT - install the latest Critical Update from Microsoft for IE 6.

      It just fried Jim's computer!

      talk about timing...

    6. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by ecc0 · · Score: 1

      And define "fatally crashes". It's probably your poor excuse for a box, or some other pile of crap software you've installed that's caused IE to bomb out.

      Whatever program one installs, as long as it's not Internet Explorer Destructomatic, IE should not "bomb out."

    7. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Boy, do I hope nobody tries to r00t my 98 box. After plugging in my shiny new cable modem it probably looks real attractive now.

      I'll take that bet -- what services is your 98 box running? Let's look at the currently-popular remote Winbloze exploits:

      Code Red: Requires unpatched IIS running. Most vulnerabilities are from W2K/NT install CDs that activate IIS upon installation. 98SE doesn't "give" you IIS. No problem.

      That remote device ident bug that was shipped out-of-the-box: Are you running Win2K/XP? No, this is Win9x, which doesn't support the feature out-of-the-box. No problem.

      All the outleak bugs: Are you using Outbreak as your mail client? No? Good! No problem.

      All the IE bugs: Are you using IE as your browser? No? Good! No problem.

      All the Netscape/Mozilla bugs: Are you regularly surfing untrustworthy sites with Javashit enabled? Don't Do That, Then. (Rarely a problem on any Windows config.)

      OK, you might get bit by an obscure bug like downloading a JPG that exploits a buffer overrun in some version of Nutscrape, but that's pushing it.

      Bottom line - a Win9x box with a fresh install doesn't do enough to make it easily-r00table.

      Win98SE is no longer the "new hot thing" in operating systems, so relatively few cr4x0rz are designing new exploits for it.

      If I had to choose a Microsoft operating system for an always-on net.connection for home use, I'd go with 98SE, install Netscape for web browsing, a third-party mail client from the days before HTML mail (gotta avoid the IE rendering engine), spend a day downloading/installing the DiVX codec and Windoze Media Player 6.2, and some basic MP3 utilities, and voila.

      For bonus points, after installation, verify that File/Print sharing is still off, set the OS to display all file extensions and full path names, put some ad-blocking in the HOSTS file, install Junkbuster, and maybe a "personal firewall" to block incoming traffic to port 80, 137, etc... and throw in a copy of AdAware as an early warning system. If the user's clueless, maybe some antivirus software. (Remember, we're not using a remotely-exploitable mail client, so the user has to be pretty clueless to get r00ted.)

      Such a box does everything the home user wants (movies, music, web, email) and has very few remote exploits even without the "defensive" software addon.

      Granted, because it's Win9x, everything runs as root, so it's not protected from internal error (like dumbasses running untrusted executables), but it's pretty secure against external threats.

      Over 1-year timeframe, and given the prototypical "enclued, but lazy, home user" who can't be bothered to suck a 60M "Windows Update" every weekend through his 28.8K dialup, (or risk his system's stability even if he can be bothered to download everything), I'd bet this 98SE box stands up better over a 1-year timeframe in the wild than a Win2K or XP install.

      What I've said isn't revolutionary -- it's just the old rule of "Don't run services you don't need. If you subsequently find you do need them, turn them on later." Is there any valid reason a "home Linux user" should default to turning on an FTP server, BIND, a web server, and Sendmail? Hell, no. There's no reason for a generic home user to have services listening on any of these ports.

      For install-time r00t holes, the difference is that most Linux distros have realized this, and aren't turning this crap on at install-time. Most Windoze distros haven't.

      For run-time r00t holes, the biggest hole is that everyone uses IE's DLL to render HTML, even when the application (email, USENET, MP3 player) doesn't really need to render web content. It's so easy to hook into IE that most apps "just do it", and thus a hole in the engine exposes dozens of apps to exploits, not just the web browser.

    8. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by stevey · · Score: 1
      For run-time r00t holes, the biggest hole is that everyone uses IE's DLL to render HTML, even when the application (email, USENET, MP3 player) doesn't really need to render web content. It's so easy to hook into IE that most apps "just do it", and thus a hole in the engine exposes dozens of apps to exploits, not just the web browser.

      Hello? zlib? Anybody home?

      I know it's not the same but it's a similar thing - lots of Unix apps use shared libraries, and they're all at risk if that library turns out to have a flaw in it.

      I can't honestly think of a widespread common library that allowed roots recently; but the zlib thing was scary to a sysadmin like me - even though it didn't look like it was exploitable if it were we'd have had a whole world of pain...

    9. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      XP will always ask you if you wish to reboot after installing hotfixes or installing Windows Update add-ons. If your machine rebooted by itself, it sounds like there might have been other forces at work, and not XP itself.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    10. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Hello? zlib? Anybody home?

      D'oh! I knew I'd forgotten that.

      > I can't honestly think of a widespread common library that allowed roots recently; but the zlib thing was scary to a sysadmin like me - even though it didn't look like it was exploitable if it were we'd have had a whole world of pain...

      Agreed. On the other hand - at least zlib's a lot simpler to deal with than the HTML-rendering libraries.

      Ultimately, it probably comes down to the UNIX (lots of poorly-integrated small things that do one thing well, and nothing else at all) and the Windows (a few big and tightly-integrated things that do lots of stuff) design philosophies.

    11. Re:Well, golly. If only I COULD patch mine. by SilentBob · · Score: 1

      It brought up the "Your machine will now reboot" message, with only an OK. XP - and possibly 2k as well - introduced new messages that don't have a reboot later option, I've been burned by those a few times.

  34. Bad Idea by matthewg · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Do you still live at home, or ever eat there? Do you know what happens when you don't tip at restaurants? Might want to start checking your food...

  35. bugtraq by NastyGnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    speaking of bugtraq, this just came through my e-mail from Greg Chatten with St. Louis Internet.

    Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:32:17 -0500
    Subject: MS02-023 Patch Breaks JAVASCRIPT
    To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM

    The installation of the 15-May-2002 Cumulative Patch for IE (V6 in this
    case) breaks the following Javascript code. This code works in IE versions
    *not* patched with Q321232 but fails to execute on IE6 which has been
    patched. I don't have IE 5 or below so I don't know if they broke those
    versions as well.

    Then there is lots of javascript. Just like microsoft to break something else while they fix another thing.
    The original message should be in the bugtraq archive by now ;)

    --
    -- this space for rent --
  36. this is trash by zoombat · · Score: 1
    This "news" story is either flamebait or off topic.

    Anyone who cares about this stuff should be subscribed to Microsoft's Security Notification Service or NTBugTraq. Unless Slashdot intends to start posting every single security advisory that gets published (utter nonsense), this sort of news story doesn't belong on Slashdot.

    1. Re:this is trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      by zoombat
      (User #513570 Info)

      I love it when lusers with > 500,000 UIDs complain about what "belongs" on Slashdot.

      Go away.

  37. ATOC vs. DCMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attack The Of Clones versus the Digital Copyright Millenium Act: The battle to decide how many /.ers can get it wrong.

  38. At least there fixing it ... by red5 · · Score: 2

    I think this represents a big change in MS's aproach to security.
    Now if only theyd fix the winnuke bug.
    I remember one guy in the office wanted me try and break his
    über secure win2k box with software firewall.
    I winnuked his ass and he cloudn't even move his mouse.
    There was no way he could filter it out as the bug is in the TCP/IP stack i think.

    Yes I understand this is lame but he asked for it :)

    --
    I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
  39. what needs to be done by OklaKid · · Score: 0

    is M$FT needs to de-integrate IE from Windoze, make it so IE can not be used as a file browser on your compooter, and a file manager (Windoze Explorer) that can not access the internet, that would resolve some vulnerabilitys, most people wont like the inconvience (so what it would be more secure)

    an even better idea woulld be to get Windoze off of your harddrives and get Linux (any flavor)

    got /root

  40. how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that work by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Take the vulnerabilities that have been sitting around for ages and choose one that you want them to get fixed.

    2. Choose a cool marketing name for the hole, like "achilles' hole" or such. Make it fancy.

    3. Call the news agencies. Once there is a fancy marketing name, they will jump on it and create public hysteria. Remember "Code Red" ? It was just like any other worm attack except that it had a cool name for the media blew it way out of proportion.

    4. Watch the patches roll in.

    5. Lather, rinse, repeat. Every six weeks should do it. The public should see a pattern sooner or later.

  41. Re:Neither is Mozilla by jqpublic · · Score: 1

    Mozilla has the same security bug described by greymagic.com

  42. Reminder by halo8 · · Score: 1

    Just a Reminder for all the End Users out there using XP

    one of these days M$ WILL release a critical update that will deactivate any copies of XP with illegal Product Codes #'s

    make sure your copy is legal ppl
    (not that i expect any one on this site would be running XP ;)

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    1. Re:Reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it affects even .01% of legal customers, the bad press will be overwhelming. Odds are they'd introduce such a thing in a Service Pack anyway.

    2. Re:Reminder by ZiZ · · Score: 1
      Don't you know? Every product code number is illegal without a separate, physical license from microsoft. Every single one. It says so right on the box. *grin*

      But seriously...they release critical updates that deactivate copies of XP already. In my case, Microsoft keeps trying to push an 'updated video card driver' on me that (a) crashes my machine and (b) when it doesn't crash my machine, causes graphics to be rendered at about 1/4 speed...

      --
      This flies in the face of science.
    3. Re:Reminder by ub3rl4m3r · · Score: 1

      I'm running XP Professional; legal. OEM.

  43. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows, an alternative to Linux, has far more security problems, costs a bundle, and source code is generally unavailable.

    Linux, an alternative to Windows, has almost no useful applications, is worth what it costs (same as Windows), and source code is available but is totally useless to the vast majority of people.

    Ignoring politics (apt, that), the Microsoft folks win hands-down over Linux.

  44. Debian by nuggz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Come on, they exist.
    upgrading with apt is easy, and not much work.
    *BSD also have their update tools, and some other posters mentioned Redhat tools.

    These things exist, you just have to use them. Or maybe they should be made prominent however XP does it so people will complain about the security pitfalls of doing so.

    1. Re:Debian by Jon+Howard · · Score: 1

      upgrading with apt is easy, and not much work.

      Might I note, this process can be automated with a cron job - though I recommend against it (as much as I recommend against Windows' automatic updating).

    2. Re:Debian by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Red Hat is prominent now. THere is a big button looking thing in 7.3 in the panel that tells you when updates are available, installed by default. Of course you can turn if off easily if you don't want it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  45. Re:Neither is Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was fixed VERY quickly as soon as the Mozilla team learned of it, which was weeks ago, and it's been in all of the builds since.

  46. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

    You must now have ever had a MS sales rep come talk to your company.

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  47. What the patches fixed (for the lazy) by aardwolf64 · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-023.asp

    For those that are SO lazy that you can't click on the link:

    Technical description:

    This is a cumulative patch that includes the functionality of all previously released patches for IE 5.01, 5.5 and 6.0. In addition, it eliminates the following six newly discovered vulnerabilities:

    • A cross-site scripting vulnerability in a Local HTML Resource. IE ships with several files that contain HTML on the local file system to provide functionality. One of these files contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability that could allow a script to execute as if it were run by the user herself, causing it to run in the local computer zone. An attacker could craft a web page with a URL that exploits this vulnerability and then either host that page on a web server or send it as HTML email. When the web page was viewed and the user clicked on the URL link, the attacker's script injected into the local resource, the attacker's script would run in the Local Computer zone, allowing it to run with fewer restrictions than it would otherwise have.
    • An information disclosure vulnerability related to the use of am HTML object provides that support for Cascading Style Sheets that could allow an attacker to read, but not add, delete or change, data on the local system. An attacker could craft a web page that exploits this vulnerability and then either host that page on a web server or send it as HTML email. When the page was viewed, the element would be invoked. Successfully exploiting this vulnerability, however, requires exact knowledge of the location of the intended file to be read on the user's system. Further, it requires that the intended file contain a single, parcicular ASCII character.
    • An information disclosure vulnerability related to the handling of script within cookies that could allow one site to read the cookies of another. An attacker could build a special cookie containing script and then construct a web page with a hyperlink that would deliver that cookie to the user's system and invoke it. He could then send that web page as mail or post it on a server. When the user clicked the hyperlink and the page invoked the script in the cookie, it could potentially read or alter the cookies of another site. Successfully exploiting this, however, would require that the attacker know the exact name of the cookie as stored on the file system to be read successfully.
    • A zone spoofing vulnerability that could allow a web page to be incorrectly reckoned to be in the Intranet zone or, in some very rare cases, in the Trusted Sites zone. An attacker could construct a web page that exploits this vulnerability and attempt to entice the user to visit the web page. If the attack were successful, the page would be run with fewer security restrictions than is appropriate.
    • Two variants of the "Content Disposition" vulnerability discussed in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS01-058 affecting how IE handles downloads when a downloadable file's Content-Disposition and Content-Type headers are intentionally malformed. In such a case, it is possible for IE to believe that a file is a type safe for automatic handling, when in fact it is executable content. An attacker could seek to exploit this vulnerability by constructing a specially malformed web page and posting a malformed executable file. He could then post the web page or mail it to the intended target. These two new variants differ from the original vulnerability in that they for a system to be vulnerable, it must have present an application present that, when it is erroneously passed the malformed content, chooses to hand it back to the operating system rather than immediately raise an error. A successful attack, therefore, would require that the attacker know that the intended victim has one of these applications present on their system.


    Finally, it introduces a behavior change to the Restricted Sites zone. Specifically, it disables frames in the Restricted Sites zone. Since the Outlook Express 6.0, Outlook 98 and Outlook 2000 with the Outlook Email Security Update and Outlook 2002 all read email in the Restricted Sites zone by default, this enhancement means that those products now effectively disable frames in HTML email by default. This new behavior makes it impossible for an HTML email to automatically open a new window or to launch the download of an executable.

    1. Re:What the patches fixed (for the lazy) by tomgilder · · Score: 1
      It disables frames in the Restricted Sites zone. Since the OE/Outlok all read email in the Restricted Sites zone by default, this enhancement means that those products now effectively disable frames in HTML email by default. This new behavior makes it impossible for an HTML email to automatically open a new window or to launch the download of an executable.

      It also breaks HTML4 compliance by not showing the content of the noframe tag if the browser is configured to not display frames.

      I expect someone will find a way round it in a week or two :)

    2. Re:What the patches fixed (for the lazy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For those that are SO lazy that you can't click on the link:


      Hey, you didn't put in the link tag! You expect me to copy and paste something??

      Oh, damn... I pasted that quote...

      *hides back in his hole*
  48. The devil made me do it. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1

    This page shows what can happen when IE is allowed to spread...

    1. Re:The devil made me do it. by switcha · · Score: 1
      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  49. Ray Bucknell! Ray Bucknell! by Punchinello · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ray for the orange and the blue!
    Ray, ray, ray, ray, ray for the orange and the blue!

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  50. for fucks sake.. by DraKKon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least M$ is fixing problems, maybe not as fast as the oss companies/people, but christ.. None of you guys bash redhat, suse and the like when they release an update for an app that can give you root. I know in the /. eyes M$ is the root of all evil, but you know what, best item/app/os for the job.

    I don't care if its a mac/ms/*nix/*BSD or what, but if it gets the job done, relatively well and fast, I will use it.

    For programming, i don't care if its VB/C/Glade/Perl/Python whatever.. whatever suits the job best. And yes, sometimes, if not MOST of the time, it's a MS solution (for me at least, YMMV).

    And for the record, win win98 installation, which I just reinstalled everything ( 2 days worth of installs and hundreds of reboots ) is showing the same symptoms of the problem for the reinstall, which I'm assuming came from windows-update. So no, I'm not living in a perfect world. At the moment, I'm cursing Billy boys name, but I'm still using Win98 for most of development work and 2 linux machines as servers, since, like I said, best solution for the problem.

    So flame away, you /. hypocrites, bring this post to a -1.

    --
    "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
    1. Re:for fucks sake.. by OklaKid · · Score: 0

      i will be the first to bash *some distros if Linux, i think both SuSE and Mandrake totally suck ass, and they are both bloated piece of crap that are not worth the click to download and not worth the CDroms that are distributed with... as a matter of fact the ONLY two Linux distros that i would reccomend to ANYBODY would be Redhat-7.1 thru 7.3 and Slackware-8

    2. Re:for fucks sake.. by VB · · Score: 1


      Most of us bash all OSSes. Red Hat sucks (for now), and Slack is the only thing I'd trust to do any public work .... that said...

      "... best item/app/os for the job ..."

      Put something else on the fucking shelf at CompUSA and let's see what the best OS ios for the job!

      --
      www.dedserius.com
      VB != VisualBasic
    3. Re:for fucks sake.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big difference between RedHat and M$. M$ creates applications, RedHat packages applications. M$ creates bugs, RedHat passes them on. That is why Linux distributors don't take that much heat for bugs, it's normally not their fault, where as M$ owns 100% fault for bugs in their application.

      That's why there is "Microsoft Internet Explorer" and no "RedHat Mozilla".

    4. Re:for fucks sake.. by DraKKon · · Score: 1

      RedHat Up2Date, what about that? I seem to remember a bug in that app.. here's the text from redhat: [RHBA-2000:081-05] Update Agent`s rhnsd daemon leaks file descriptors (can't seem to find it on RedHat after a quick search)

      The new Update Agent provided with Red Hat Linux 7.0 contains a daemon, rhnsd, which periodically polls Red Hat Network for updates. This daemon leaks file descriptors. On a default installation, all available file descriptors will be used by rhnsd in approximately three weeks, making the system unusable.

      I really can't recall something like this for windows... something with the DEFAULT INSTALL that will make a windows system unusable after 3 weeks.. (unless you count the XP activation... heh)

      --
      "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
  51. MS is rich because.... by Steveftoth · · Score: 4, Informative

    they are great salesmen. They basically sold the entire world a product that simply didn't do what they said it would do. Only now are they finally making good on their promise.
    They are finally making the software robust and not crash 20 times a day.
    They are finally making it such that you can actually use the programs without fear of having to reinstall the whole when you try to get a new screensaver.
    They are finally making it a good product.

    What's wrong with this? They've been charging for the full product all along, when only now are they finally delivering. They have suckered the entire world. They take your money every time you buy a computer even if you don't use their software.

  52. Are you sure? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

    but I'm assuming they fixed 6 of the 14 known exploits listed at http://jscript.dk/unpatched/

    What a silly thing to assume! You do realize this is Microsoft we're talking about?

  53. Sorry... by aardwolf64 · · Score: 2

    The URL had an extra space in it (which must have been added by slashdot, as I copied/pasted straight from IE.) I just redid this, and Slashdot broke it again (but using HTML the link part works.) Here it is whole:

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-023.asp

    1. Re:Sorry... by Fjord · · Score: 1

      slashcodeintroducesspacestopreventpeoplefrommaking extrawidewordsthatcausethepagetowidenandthusthrowo ffthebrowsingexperienceforeveryone

      --
      -no broken link
  54. How to autoupdate RedHat by daves · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it is a bit of a pain in the butt having to apply patches to my RedHat server each month

    Try AutoUpdate. It does a good job keeping RedHat up to date.

    --
    People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
  55. No, no, no by r_barchetta · · Score: 1


    The point of all these MS stories is simply to get hits on pages with ads.

    Money money money . . .

    -r

    --
    Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
  56. Re:Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does Slashdot post a huge exposé every time someone fixes another crippling security hole in Mozilla?

    Maybe once Mozilla is actually released, then they might.

    I don't know about you, but I consider beta software and final released software somewhat differently.

  57. All I want from IE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is good PNG support. Fix the damn lack of transparency! Security can wait!

  58. Let's see how Mozilla gets security updates by RayChuang · · Score: 2

    While everyone is harping on Internet Explorer problems, I have to openly (pun intended) ask this question: how will we see bug and/or security fixes for Mozilla 1.0 when that is released very soon? Will it be in the form of patch files? Or do we have to download the whole browser all over again?

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA
    1. Re:Let's see how Mozilla gets security updates by Error27 · · Score: 2

      As far as I can tell Mozilla has only had that one javascript security bug. It was fixed the same day, and released as a nightly build.

      You'll almost certainly have to download the whole browser. It would be too hard to deal with people upgrading from all the nightly builds and the 3 week milestones, etc.

      This is not really a problem because, Mozilla is aimed at developers. Users are supposed to use Netscape or other Mozilla based browsers.

      For Linux users, it would be up to the Linux distro to provide patches like that if they wished. But none of them will either. Too much work for no money.

  59. Re:Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by tjw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The following is taken from http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbel iever/page50.html . I don't know if it's valid or not.

    When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

    Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

    Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

    --

    XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  60. bet IE didnt tell you about it tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fired up Moz the other day and was greeted with a very polite screen telling me that the version i was running had a vunerability and would i please update to the fixed version. Admitedly thats only cos I'd been too lazy to change my hompage but still, can you see that happening in an MS product?

  61. They deserve to be flamed by Vicegrip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody else claims their browser is a key component of the operating system-- that it cannot be removed because its functionality is so interwoven into the operation of the system.

    Of course people are going to flame Microsoft for designing such a product with so many critical security holes which compromise their computer, making it part of the OS and then arrogantly refusing to give people the ability to remove it. At least I can un-install every other browser if I decide it doesn't suit me.

    You complain about people flaming Microsoft. I submit to you that if that corporation wasn't so arrogant, pushing its views and way of doing things onto everyone else then stifling the innovation of others, that people would be a lot more forgiving of mistakes.

    I have no sympathy. Not for this corporation. Microsoft made this bed, it can sleep it in now.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  62. Browser wars by Jungle+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These constant Internet Exploer fixes are a result from the "browser wars", when MS an Netscape competed to release their new browser every six new months or so. The rush prevented good code auditing, and several bugs were not wiped.
    Now that this "war" is over, I hope MS (and Netscape) make a good review of their browser before releasing it, and stabilize the existing code. If we are lucky, IE 7 will be shipped only in 2003 or 2004 - and by "we" I mean every internet user, for the bugs in IE helped the spread of annoying worms like Nimda and Klez.

    1. Re:Browser wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so in the original Browser Wars, The Jedi (Netscape) used the force and was able to almost topple the Empire... but then the Empire (MS) struck back, and crushed almost all the life out of it, and now, after much training in the ways of the standards, the Jedi are making a return. I wonder if we'll ever get to see the prequels about....

  63. I downloaded the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Version 6.01 patch from www.opera.com and it works great

  64. One problem with the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malda would want to get to the BACK of the line, so he could go AFTER Katz.

  65. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by talks_to_birds · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • "...Remember "Code Red" ? It was just like any other worm attack..."

    Bullsh*t.

    How come my firewall is *still* seeing 80+ Code Red/Nimda probes daily?

    Just like any other worm?

    You have no clue.

    The number of infected Micro$oft boxes out there is scarcely any less than it was six months ago, thanks mainly to clueless Micro$oft users...

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  66. WARNING: off topic post follows by talks_to_birds · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    When did the admonition against being a potty-mouth get removed from the "Important Stuff" at the bottom of the post screen?

    No wonder I've backsliding...

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  67. What I found interesting... by gosand · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Was that in the post to Bugtraq, the author mentioned his URL http://jscript.dk/unpatched/. I checked it out, and he also lists bugs in Netscape/Mozilla. So he isn't just a MS basher, as some would have you believe. Of course, he also said that one of them was fixed within 24 hours.

    Just because someone bashed MS, that doesn't mean that they are being unreasonable.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  68. link down, other info kind of funny by H310iSe · · Score: 2

    the MS link to the detailed info about the patch is 'unavail' (ms slashdotted? *grin*) as is the link from the windowsupdate site. What is available follows (I hope you enjoy this as much as I did):

    System Requirements: This update applies to Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2.

    How to use: Restart your computer to complete the installation.

    How to uninstall
    : Uninstall is not available.

    --
    closed minded is as closed minded does
    1. Re:link down, other info kind of funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, the link to jscript.dk never went down, never got slashdotted, and was'nt even busy (45%load max, running tons of other stuff as well.)
      Where the slashdot effect ? *grin*

  69. Re:Here we go again...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look brain-boy if you want you can cruise the linux
    sites to pick up info and then post linux bugs here.
    Also do not equate the average programming error
    with a security threat. Every programmer makes mistakes
    its up to QA to find them before product ships.
    All software has bugs but once you get to the 5.x
    or 6.x versions you would hope that the pace of
    discovery of serious security problems would slow
    down, but that is not the case with the wild-eyed
    boys from Redmond. Plus with $4,000,000 US for R&D
    you would think they would find the security problems.

  70. SA - degree or no degree by BlueQuark · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well if you want to be an SA, expect low pay, little respect, alot of work, and no glory. :-)
    But you get to play with cool toys..

    Now if you still want to be an SA, read on....

    Well, it's a hard one.. I don't have a degree, but I spent 6 years in college, physics+comp sci double major. I dropped out after I ran out of money and needed to work.

    I dropped out before all the .com BS, so I didn't drop out to work in .com.

    Been working for nearly nine years as a professional UNIX system administrator. And fortunately never worked in the .com insanity.

    I would recommend going to college and getting your degree. I've been very lucky and have been able to put together a pretty strong resume. I would not recommend my course of action for everyone. I worked at my Universities computing center as a UNIX operator and learned alot there.
    But not everyone has those opportunities.

    I get alot of calls, even these days from head hunters and queries from old bosses and what not.

    But I would recommend learning how to program, for SAs, most importantly, Perl, *SH, and of course learn C too. Though these days there is not alot of C programming being done by SAs, (.. in the olden days...)

    Also learn lots about networking and database systems, snmp and most importantly to be a successful systems administrator....develop thick skin!

    Check out USENIX's SAGE web page...
    http://www.usenix.org/sage/

    But get a degree in either CS, IS (IT MGMT), EE, Physics, Chemistry or even Biology. And if you take a physical science route, minoring in comp sci will be helpful.

    I'm considering going back to school to get a degree in bio-chemistry or finish the physics degree. more for the hell of it.

    Certification, well at any decent place I have found, certs doesn't mean jack. I found every single certified person, wether it's UNIX or Windows or what have you have been fairly clueless. I think I have met only one cisco certified engineer who knew anything.

    When I hire someone though, I don't look at the degree, it's irrelevant when you need to get work done.

    However, if I needed to hire someone and they have no experience, they should have at least spent some time in school.

    Good luck

    Sorry if the post seems disjointed, I'm doing several things at once....

  71. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Loligo · · Score: 1


    If a clueless MS sales rep giving a presentation to your company is allowed to represent MS to the rest of us, can I use your typically clueless l33t h4x0r IRC Linux zealot to represent Linux?

    -l

  72. What about the crashing? by pimpinmonk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    IE randomly locks up on me all the time in XP when I open new windows (I always open links in new windows, leaving 20 windows open).

    Oh well, guess it's time to give Moz for win32 another try, test out those new "tabs"

  73. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of my 2 favorite sayings:

    "Linux is only free if your time is worthless"

    and

    "Linux is only free if you're a no-life acne-faced loser nerd."

  74. Windows Update hosed my system!! by ayden · · Score: 2

    I ran Windows Update last night and downloaded this patch for my Win2k system. I logged into my regular user account and all I get is my backgrond screen - no icons, no start menu, etc. I was able to do CTRL-ALT-DELETE to start the task manager and therefore Mozilla, which I'm using now to post this message.

    I tried the same method described above to start IE and Windows Explorer. Both failed. I read the TechNet bulletin referred to in other posts. It looks like MS updated the code that support something they're calling a "local resource file". Correct me if I'm worng, but doesn't MS use "local resource files" to handle the desktop in Win2k?

    BTW, the only positive outcome is that my memory usage has dropped form 135 MB to about 80 MB. Besides my desktop, among the missing applications are my AntiVirus program and firewall.

    Finally, I get the same symptom when I try to use the Administrator account. I don't know how I'm going to back out the patch if I can't run the Control Panel Applet without IE/Windows Explorer.

    Any pointers would be appreciated. Good thing I have a Linux box and/or Mozilla to fall back on.

    --
    "I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
    1. Re:Windows Update hosed my system!! by dorix · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't know how I'm going to back out the patch if I can't run the Control Panel Applet without IE/Windows Explorer.

      You should be able to run a control panel applet from cmd.exe by:
      rundll32 shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL appwiz.cpl
      This example, for instance, would run the Add/Remove Programs control panel.

      Good luck!
    2. Re:Windows Update hosed my system!! by g0hare · · Score: 1

      hey - if you actually KNOW something about WIndows you're not supposed to post to Slashdot - only people who WHINE about it are supposed to post. he might try safe mode too........

      --
      Vote Quimby!
    3. Re:Windows Update hosed my system!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      simplified further:

      control appwiz.cpl

  75. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by huckda · · Score: 1

    thanks mainly to clueless Micro$oft users

    This I think says it all...
    it really has NOTHING to do with the worm.
    any other UNCLEANED system with some other worm would cause the same probes with a different name.

    Just like any other worm?
    YES

    Just like ignorant users?
    YES

    --
    "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
  76. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how many of those "clueless l33t h4x0r IRC Linux zealot"s are employed as sales reps by the likes of RedHat or Suse?

  77. Apples & Oranges by terrymr · · Score: 2

    The difference is that the Linux kernel is a work in progress the various patches and changes are released as they are developed - It's a collaborative development effort.

    On the other hand IE is developed behind closed doors at Microsoft which claims to do all it's quality control and testing in house before it's software is released - Indeed microsoft claims this as a reason to use Microsoft Software rather than Linux.

  78. Mmm...Kool*Aid by CleverNickName · · Score: 2

    I'm starting to think Taco could get his "cult" to commit mass suicide if he could prove that it'd help them rail on MS...


    So would we be drinking the Kool*Aid out of a Slackware cup? Or a Debian cup? Or a SuSE cup?

    1. Re:Mmm...Kool*Aid by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      So would we be drinking the Kool*Aid out of a Slackware cup? Or a Debian cup? Or a SuSE cup?
      Hehe, that'll keep the Linux crowd alive and healthy. The BSD crowd aren't about to drink poison from a Linux cup. That leaves the Microsoft crowd and I for one am not about to drink anything strange from a Microsoft cup. Hmmph, well it might take out a few astroturfers;)

  79. Re:Its Not a Bug Its a Feature :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DOJ they are breaking JAVA :) To see Microsofts Coders follow the link to http://www.ihatewindowsxp.com. Has anyone got Linux running on Xbox with some great Linux games :)

  80. The Mozilla Bug was reported by ksuMacGyver · · Score: 0

    What about this? Slashdot reported on the vulnurability in Mozilla(which has since been fixed).

    --

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

    Interested in AI? MACR
  81. A Study in Incorrect Programming CS201 by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 0, Troll

    You know the only way MS will become a part of computing hsitory in the future is

    By making programming mistakes to fix 5 years later..

    Okay for some facts:

    There is stil no company policy to avoid writing code that produces buffer overflows..the toolkits to help avoid this have been out in every major computing language for over 2 years..

    Poor unit testing

    ..and the list goes on and on..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  82. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

    clueless l33t h4x0r IRC Linux zealot to represent Linux? No

    Clueless RedHat sales rep. Yes
    Clueless Mandrake sales rep. Yes
    Clueless IBM sales rep. Yes
    Clueless Debian project leader rep. Yes

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  83. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it's news because despite the increase in the # of bugs the fixed, they did not fix some serious exploits that are still there. This is unlike the others who actully announce and fix their problems with in a reasonable time. Not only that, but they are constantly enriching and improving their features. And how long does microsft take to acknolage and fix their bugs? How many new innovations/new features has Microsft introduced to IE?

  84. With the Right GNU/Linux Distro Fixes Are FAST by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    For Linux users, it would be up to the Linux distro to provide patches like that if they wished. But none of them will either. Too much work for no money

    On my Source Mage system I simply run a 'sorcery update' before going to bed, and any new versions of packages are downloaded, compiled, and upgraded accordingly. All dependent packages are recompiled as needed, such that all are optomized and compiled against the most current rev. Downloading and compiling mozilla may be time consuming, but if I'm asleep while its happening who really cares?

    On my Gentoo system I do an 'emerge rsync' followed by an 'emerge --update system --pretend' (to first see what it is going to do), then if I like what is going to happen, the same command again without the --pretend to actually do the update, followed by an 'emerge --update world --pretend' and, once again if I like what is going to happen, an 'emerge --update world'. If I don't want to upgrade everything (not as safe to do under Gentoo as Source Mage) I simply do an 'emerge --update [package-name]', such as 'emerge --update mozilla' before going to sleep.

    In either case, the next morning I wake up with the most current security patches (if any) and newest stable versions of all the Free Software out there, including Mozilla.

    I had Mozilla rc2 running within 24 hours of its release, fully compiled and optimized for my machine. No waiting on Red Hat, Suse, or, God forbid, Debian to get around to pushing their versions out. (Though in defense of Debian they do push SECURITY fixes out very fast ... its just the snazzy new versions of things that take a lifetime before you see them ... e.g. "Stop asking me when X 4.2 debs will be out, it will be months!" as one of the developers posted, a day or two after 4.2 had been released by the XFree group, and was already up and running on my Source Mage and Gentoo boxes.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  85. MS (in)security and /. MS bashing by theolein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I notice that everytime MS gets a negative posting here, which is often and to be expected, since this is a place where you don't have to fear any recriminations when posting negative MS articles (Rob Malda does not have to report to an editor in chief and explain why he's undermining the MS advertising on the site), A lot of people post a lot of anti-slashot commentaries about anti-MS bias etc.

    This is one of the few *very* public sites that I can go to and read public criticisms of MS, step by step. If I wanted to read what a fantastic job MS is doing with it's security and how it really is such a *fab* company, then I could either go to MS' site and read the marketing departments latest press releases or go to ZDNet and read commentaries by the zombies in their editorial department.

    I *want* to read extremely critical news here on /. Criticism keeps MS on it's toes and stops them from doing what they like with users' (including your) rights. It gives me a good critical counterclaim for every piece of anti-linux FUD that comes from MS.

    /. May often be wrong but they don't try to tell me how wonderful is and how I can just back and let MS handle all my problems.

    1. Re:MS (in)security and /. MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one thing about Slashdot, none of the writers have been bought off by M$. When I see a praising article on a M$ product, the first thing I think is "does this author receive additional income from M$." It's a valid view since M$ has in the past bought good press.

  86. Related problem by r_barchetta · · Score: 1

    My experience is generally that the crappy dial-up connection I have to use dies during the windows update process. Something of an endless cycle:

    start downloading
    connection dies
    start downloading again
    connection dies
    start downloading again
    connection dies

    Yeah, maybe I could go find each update individually. But geez, is a resume feature so hard to implement? I mean really, MS claim they have the best programmers in the world and this is the best they can do? Perhaps that explains a lot.

    Sorry Bill, add this to the list of reasons I'll choose OS X over XP.

    Ok. End rant now.

    And do not get me started on why neither cable modem or DSL is available to me.

    -r

    --
    Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
  87. follow up post by neoThoth · · Score: 1

    from the annals of BugTraq

    > I was unable to run the demonstration code on

    > http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/gm001-ax/.

    > I get the following error:

    > "An error has occurred in this dialog."

    > ...

    > I am running Windows XP Professional 32bit with the latest patches.

    GreyMagic software stated that:

    > As a result of that incomplete "patch" IE5 and IE5.5 are still very much

    > vulnerable to this attack in other resources. For a demonstration see

    > http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/gm001-ax/.

    If you have Windows XP, you will have IE6.

    --

    Tom Gilder

    tom@tom.me.uk

  88. �ber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's über or ueber - but never uber.

  89. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, the Linux guys are way worse. Every time we get a consultant all he can talk about is how great and stable Linux is. Three days after a purchase, Linux is kernel panicking and rebuilding all of the drives in our RAID cage. Another favourite they like to use is the example that our NT boxes must be rebooted once a month. The funny thing is, some of the daemons on our linux boxes segfault at some point every day. Who knows why? Not me, I don't have time to wai for a thousand eyes to read the code and find the overflow...

  90. Cure worst then the disease by disco_stu00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just went to WindowsUpdate to update IE. The installation of the security patch caused my computer to crash. No kidding.

    I go back to the site to try again, but it says I have the patch already. The question is, did it finish installing before it crashed?

    1. Re:Cure worst then the disease by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      That's usually because the website reads a catalog of update files that's kept on your computer... If you click the "Show installed updates" button, you can try reinstalling the patch to be sure...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    2. Re:Cure worst then the disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Installed the patch on my win2k professional box yesterday.
      Rebooted today, got from the automated agent the same warning that critical updates were available.
      Went to windows update. Found out that now IE crashes on windows update itself.

      Sometimes I wonder if I should wait for patches to be patchhed before installing them...

  91. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by dalamcd · · Score: 1
    >... is worth what it costs (same as Windows)

    Hey, I've been saying this for _years_.

    Quickly now, man, run out and buy a Mac.

    dalamcd

    --
    moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
  92. Re: www.std64.com by Filter · · Score: 1

    Why put a link to a non public website in your pref?

    Phil

    --

    "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

  93. report the news, not the opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is it a tradition on slashdot, a site that claims to be neutral, to make negative or smart a$$ comments on everything microsoft related. "Microsoft gives $1,000,000,000 to starving children in Africa" - cmdrtaco or somebody elses side comment "so i guess microsoft is trying to spread their monopoly to another continent". everything microsoft does or doesnt do all i see from slashdot is bitching. this is not "News for Nerds", its "The bitching room for linux losers". If even one "pro-linux" site could be unbiased that might lend some credibility to your cause. And if you're thinking of responding with "slashdot is a news site, not a linux site" then do a search for microsoft in the recent articles, read the slashdot posters comments, then a search for linux and read the comments. the theme you will find is "linux is the way to go and microsoft is devilspawn."

  94. Mozilla by Link-chan · · Score: 1

    This is one reason (of many) I switched to Mozilla. I can't believe a non-beta browser (especially one that's been out for such a long time) can have so many vulnerabilites. But, it's Microsoft we're talking about here.

  95. Best way to update machines at client site?? by fatboy1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting


    So how do I go about updating 20+ Win2k machines at a client site running all different version of IE?

    There has to be an easier way than running around to each machine applying a patch every month.

  96. Not exactly like clocwork, rather three weeks late by Random+Walk · · Score: 2

    Just downloaded the patch. After download, a
    security info gets displayed, and it says that
    the patch was signed 24.04.02 21:04 ... not
    really sure what to think about that, but there
    is nothing really important on the box anyway.

  97. what is the least vulnerable version of IE? by CHUD-Wretch · · Score: 1

    There has to be one that isn't totally swiss cheese....does anyone have any insights on this?

    particularly from the "other side"....

    --
    "Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them."
    1. Re:what is the least vulnerable version of IE? by G00F · · Score: 2

      The latest version ;)

      Well all jokes aside, its the latest version that comes with the a new OS. Next would prob be the "betas".

      You got me thinking now. I will look.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    2. Re:what is the least vulnerable version of IE? by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      The earliest version you can both find and put up with.
      Of course it's unpatched and a lot of holes are widely known.

      Then there's the Russian Roulette with the latest and greatest. And the latest and greatest patches. And the latest and greatest exploits.

  98. Windstorm '97 by BtAFMB · · Score: 1

    The dept. title is most likely referring to this MadTV sketch. Seems appropriate.

    --

    "I have fallen off the wagon, for I am a slave to tea."
  99. Re:Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1

    Let's see, there was one major security hole in Mozilla, and it was fixed in about 2 days. That's worse than MS why? You could have gotten a nightly within a couple of days of Greymagic's posting. And RC2 has it fixed if you want a milestone release.

    At least with moz prior to the real 1.0, I know I'm using software that isn't declared "done" yet.

  100. Re:Sweeper Bill Gates Vision of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OS with browser was code named Sweeper back in 1996. Here are two links back to MIND Journal at Microsoft. Bill Gates on Microsoft and the Internet http://www.microsoft.com/mind/default1.asp?page=/m ind/0396/billg/billg.htm and Sweeper http://www.microsoft.com/mind/default1.asp?page=/m ind/0396/sweeper/sweeper.html. Sweeper was supposed to be "Just like the Brady Bunch but a little more complicated". Why Microsoft will be out of business in less then a year http://www.linuxshow.com/009_view.shtml also http://www.wweek.com/html/business031099.html and http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rule maker000217.htm?ref=yhoolnks also http://www.billparish.com. Why the Judge feels Microsoft is full of shit and does not have right to Windows Trademark http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-05 -16-013-26-NW-LL and http://www.net2.com/lindows. To understand why you code free software read Richard Stallmans Book Free as in Freedom Richard Stallmans Crusade for Free Software http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/freedom and http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom to read it online.

  101. Turn off JavaScript by BCTECH · · Score: 1

    Javascript is a scourge, turn it off. Enough said.

  102. CYA dialogs suck by jesser · · Score: 2

    The last thing I want my server to do is to "figure out for itself" that it needs to download some worm and then automatically go do it.

    Rather, let me decide and then it's my fault if I download a worm.


    You know what I hate? Dialogs that are designed to shift blame to the user if the program makes bad decision. "This code is signed and looks safe. Are you sure you want to run it?" (Use a sandbox!) "It was my fault I lost my mail because I clicked 'yes' when it said my Inbox was corrupted and wanted to know whether it should rebuild the indexes." (Don't ask the user confusing technical questions!)

    Having the user verify each security patch does little to protect against patchworms, and it prevents patches from being distributed while the admin is sleeping. I would not be happy if a Code Red-like worm broke into my computer while the patch system waited for my permission to install a critical security patch.

    Including a verification dialog would make it seem to me that the system was designed insecurely -- insecurely enough that the author decided he needed to be able to blame me for clicking "Yes" when the crypto-based verification breaks.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
    1. Re:CYA dialogs suck by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Yeah. Notice also that these dialogs are also extremely short on *any* useful information. This is when you discover that OpenBSD is really the epitome of User Friendliness (ducks and runs for cover;)

  103. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  104. Re:Microsoft spent the ENTIRE month of FEBRUARY 20 by tzanger · · Score: 2

    I was thinking the exact same thing. I didn't hear a damn thing come of the month-o-fixin'. Nobody noticed.

  105. Re:Until your box is rooted and hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://neworder.box.sk/newsread.php?newsid=4413 has a article Security is A Matter of Trust. Talks about always checking the source code sneaky exploits like cp:/bin/sh /tmp/.bash_4all | chmod 4755 /tmp/.bash_4all which copies the borne shell and suid to tmp giving all users root access this is one exploit done by a simple script. Also md5 check your code. How do you know if someone has not played man in the middle and hijacked your download spoofing and directing you to download from another webserver. Digital Certificates can be forged Microsoft has issued a patch for this issue but what assurance do you have that the certificate on the sofware is real or spoofed. If you have scripting enabled and active x enabled disable it. Why do users hate Microsoft go to http://www.ihatewindowsxp.com and http://www.ihatewindows98.com. Never automatic download binarys also get the source and md5 checksum. I trust JAVA it has security built in to its design but this code signing by Microsoft with Verisign is bogus and a load of crap. Verisign assumes no liability if your box gets hosed same for Microsoft and their verification model is crap. Any script kiddie can spoof a certificate.

  106. Re:Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in other words, never?

  107. Re:I am very insulted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insult all java programmers when you call javascript java. They have nothing to do with one another except for the relationship to a caffine rich drink.

  108. So where does this leave IE 5 point zero? by unitron · · Score: 2

    What about IE 5.0 and Outlook Express 5.0 ? While any of these patches work on them? Do they even have the vulnerabilities found in 5.01 and up?

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    1. Re:So where does this leave IE 5 point zero? by Col.+Panic · · Score: 2

      Thor Larholm (GreyMagic Software) confirms IE 5 is vulnerable.

      For support you might use IEAK to upgrade your sites to 5.5 SP2. Internet Explorer Administration Kit is one thing Microsoft has done right. I used it to distribute 350+ IE installs when Zenworks wouldn't work.

  109. Re:Microsoft spent the ENTIRE month of FEBRUARY 20 by usr122122121 · · Score: 1
    I suppose they expected the majority of people who heard the press about "bug squashing month" immediately decided that Microsoft was going to become more conscientious about security in the future...

    Why doesn't Microsoft:

    • Hire people to spend each and every day trying to break their products, then report back on the vulnerabilities before the product release/update.
    • Read the [many] MSIE exploit pages, then fix those exploits.
    • Follow this important principle from perl's taint mode: Don't define what can't be done, define what can be done. That way you don't miss anything.

    IMHO- It is normal to have vulnerabilities in software, but it is NOT normal to have them stay around as long as MS lets them.

    I see a lot of comments around here of people insulting MS for having vulnerabilities... but I doubt you could cite any [relatively complex] piece of software that didn't have any bugs.

    Attack them for not fixing the bugs, but don't attack them for having them.

    --

    -braxton
  110. Missing Option by Tony-A · · Score: 2

    4. Exactly what does this update do. (What someone want me to believe it does doesn't count;)

  111. Maybe even smarter than that by Col.+Panic · · Score: 2

    This post to bugtraq claims Windows XP Pro is not vulnerable with the patch. If true this would support Microsoft's argument, "Well, if you upgrade ..."

    1. Re:Maybe even smarter than that by mikosullivan · · Score: 1
      The "upgrading is the key" argument is deceptive because it uses truth to sidetrack you from more truth. Yes, you should do your upgrades. However, having made an effective plan to keep up with upgrades, there is still the decision of which software to use.

      It's like choosing an airplane: the most important factor in air safety is the pilot. So be a good pilot. The first thing a good pilot does is make sure the plane is make sure he's flying a well-built plane.

      --
      Miko O'Sullivan
  112. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by Tony-A · · Score: 2

    "...Remember "Code Red" ? It was just like any other worm attack..."
    I sympathize, but he's right. Predictive, not historical. Even if Microsoft does manage to get all the Code Red/Nimda boxes patched, there's plenty more holes to exploit. Melissa was the first. Code Red was the second. I'd worry about the third.

  113. Re:God Forbid... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quickly now, man, run out and buy a Mac.

    Let's not get crazy. I think it's actually impossible by the laws of physics for a Mac to be worth what it costs. :)

  114. Umm.. Konquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KDE3 has an intergrated web browser... hell its worse than IE and you cant remove it either. Stop the MS bashing because the GUI you all love (KDE) has the same problem with an integrated browser you cant remove!

    1. Re:Umm.. Konquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, who said we all love KDE? It's made for windows users. Personally I love windowmaker, and that DOESN'T come bundled with a browser. Thank God.

      Besides, you can install KDE WITHOUT konqueror. Really, you can. It'll miss a lot of functionality, but it'll run. Windows has no such option at the moment.

  115. Windows, Linux and FUD by AdmrlNxn · · Score: 0

    I don't bash MS because I am a fan fo theres. My computers don't crash. They run stable and to date I have only recieved one computer virus that a friend sent me. It was immediately deleted before any damage could result. I am running Windows XP and everything is fine. No problems. No signs of problems. In fact it rocks. Better that having to update my whole system with god knows how many files because the newest release of glib came out or Sawfish and it requires rev13 not rev9 or whatever the fuck it was called. I tried Linux out and reinstalled Windows on the machine after a week because I got sick of it run around.

    I know Slashdot is a pro linux site and not a news site. I can see why. It is run by Linux fans.

    I thought all OSS fans were about innovation and moving forward. It seems that no matter how far Microsoft moves forward all they receive is flak from the OSS front. Then they get all shocked and shaken when Microsoft returns with an anti-linux campaign when in reality they [OSS Fans] started this FUD war. Maybe not in the way Microsoft is acting on it but seriously. Look through this site. It is the eqauivalent to a Nazi Youth Rally directed against Microsoft.

    How can participants of this website bitch about MS FUD when OSS activists started the flinging FUD first. Talk about the ability to dish it out but the inability to take it. "OH MY GOD! Microsoft just said Linux is bad. Those FUD Packing Goons. Lets go to Slashdot and rally together by posting a News Article that says Microsoft sucks because IE has holes" Who cares if it has holes. They fix them. You also have to take in account how hard it must be to find the bad code and fix it. After all Mozilla is small and IE is fucking huge! It is more than a browser, it is a structured part of Windows. No wonder it took so long and the hunt to find the misbehaving code else where must suck. I will bet a hundred bucks of my own money the Mozilla source code isn't even a 1/10 as long as IE Code considering all that it has too do on top of show a user the internet.

    Talk about s ingle track mind for OSS Supporters. It is like A---->B and that is it. I love this site as it is the best to find what interestes me but just once I would like to see someone say somthing positive about Windows and Microsoft. I am going to start because I have two nice things.

    1. Man they sure know how to make an OS from the common man (and woman)

    2. Talk about hardware support! No other OS offers the wide variety and the ability to support as many hardware devices as Microsoft Windows can. No one. That is impressive. Go MS, you are on the right track!

    --
    ~Admrlnxn
    "I got your mom in my trunk"
  116. Re:Microsoft spent the ENTIRE month of FEBRUARY 20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a meeting with our local M$ rep and their tech guy - they were going on and on about this big code review issue and how they stopped everything to deal only with security. I asked them one question, 'So how many security patches has M$ released due to this review?' You should have heard the backpedaling!!!

  117. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
    "How come my firewall is *still* seeing 80+ Code Red/Nimda probes daily? "

    I never said anything about having users apply patches. That is a different animal all together.

    I'm just talking about having MSFT make patches so those windows users who know a thing or two can apply them.

  118. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
    "Just like any other worm? ... You have no clue."

    Apparently I have not been clear enough. Obviously the technology used to propagate the worms was different. Exploiting holes in web servers that people don't (or perhaps do) know they're running is very different from tricking a person to click on loveletter.vbs. This makes it more effective and widespread.

    But "Code Red" was just like any other worm in the sense that it was another thing targetting vulnerabilities that were patched long before the attack occured and any user that had their head on straight would not get infected.

  119. 49 days by Tony-A · · Score: 2

    Not 3 weeks, but 49 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes and 47.296 seconds of continuous operation.
    Microsoft now acknowledges the existence of a bug in tens of millions of copies of Windows 95 and Windows 98 that will cause your computer to "stop responding (hang)" -- you know, what you call crash -- after exactly 49 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes and 47.296 seconds of continuous operation.
    Well not exactly like that for Windows. The RedHat bug was found and fixed in something like five days, fast enough so that it is unlikely that anyone ever got bit by it. The Windows bug took nearly 4 years before discovery, probably as a result of some Y2K testing.

    1. Re:49 days by DraKKon · · Score: 1

      WTF?!? A windows machine up for that long? The most I had EVER was 12 days!! Must have been just a file server or something...

      --
      "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
  120. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'd worry about the third."

    That was minda.

  121. Re:Microsoft spent the ENTIRE month of FEBRUARY 20 by RadioheadKid · · Score: 1

    Kinda funny they picked the shortest month of the year...

    --
    "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
  122. Red Hat by Nailer · · Score: 2

    upgrading with apt is easy, and not much work.
    Apt-get works fien on Red Hat and has for a very long time. Check out www.freshrpms.net and its various mirrors.

  123. Yeah Yeah whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But is it worth patching? Just for a security update? You've got to be kidding. Security is boring. Give me more features. Now. If someone actually spends the time to hack me so be it. It only means they're even a bigger loser than me. I want more features. Give me more features.

  124. no change detected, Captian! by Erris · · Score: 2
    What makes you think these patches are going to fix anything? Do you really need megs and megs of files to correct one or two dinky dll bugs? These patches are just another means of delivering anti-competitive code breaking crap. Going to M$ for security is kinda like asking an extortionist for protection.

    Security conflicts with Microsoft marketing stratgies. Real security demands that the owner of a computer is root and M$ is not. See Slashdot article "read the fine print" here for details.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  125. Nonsense! Try Opera just for 2 days please. by croanon · · Score: 0

    I am really serious. Just for 2 days try Opera. If you don't like it, turn back to IE if you can. Really.

    --
    Dear Bill, do you have a .net tatoo on your ass for marketing?
    1. Re:Nonsense! Try Opera just for 2 days please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera rocks. Mouse gestures are addictive. I expect them everywhere now - in explorer apps, other browsers, and so on, and get really cheesed off when they don't support them (yet).

    2. Re:Nonsense! Try Opera just for 2 days please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do use Opera (and IE, Navigator, etc.) when I'm working on cross-browser formatting for web pages and I'm not thoroughly impressed with it. For one it costs money, secondly it comes nowhere near close in the aspects of page rendering quality or plug-in support. Its a neat little browser, but if I want a small, fast browser I'll use OffByOne or Links.

  126. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of these days someone is going to make a worm that uses entry points that aren't patched, and it will infect ALL systems.

  127. Flaws Factor in AOL dropping MSIE from Mac OS X? by Cy+Guy · · Score: 2

    It looks like software quality was a factor in convincing AOL to drop MSIE from its OS X version beta.

    The change virtually ensures that AOL for Mac OS X will be Gecko based. AOL claims that beta results so far have shown significant improvements in speed and compliance with HTML standards by using Gecko. One can only assume that future Windows versions will at least have the option of a Gecko based browser as well.

  128. Re:how to get them (MSFT) to make patches that wor by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
    "One of these days someone is going to make a worm that uses entry points that aren't patched, and it will infect ALL systems."

    Someone already tried this. It's called Windows XP.

  129. Two Way Street by tommck · · Score: 2
    You're complaining about people complaining about your complaining...

    It's called free speech. Luckily Slashdot (for the most part) allows it here. Just like Microsoft proponents have to deal with Microsoft bashing, Microsoft opponents have to deal with posts supporting Microsoft.

    It's a good system. Why complain about it?

    T

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  130. Why? by Icculus12 · · Score: 1

    ... does anyone bother using MSIE any more? Ugh!

  131. Re:Uh huh. Meanwhile, in Mozilla... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
    How many similar security holes have been found in Mozilla (or Opera for that matter), that haven't been fixed properly?

    MS claim to fix security issues (after a long time), but they don't always hit the target:

    http://jscript.dk/unpatched/

    This is why it is important to make people aware of Microsoft's security policies. If they were actually secure, or at least fixed vulnerabilities properly, it wouldn't be such a major issue.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  132. Re: www.std64.com by Peridriga · · Score: 2

    2 words

    Google Ranking