Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Discloses Security Flaws in XP and WMPlayer

An anonymous reader writes: "Salon is running a story on Microsoft's disclosure of a number of security flaws in WinXP and Windows Media Player, versions 6.4 and 7.1. The story also states that there are 2 critical vulnerabilities in Commerce Server 2000. Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?"

292 comments

  1. Get them from... by Mwongozi · · Score: 5, Informative
    The article doesn't make clear that you should pop along to Windows Update to get you dose of patchy goodness.

    After seeing holes in OpenBSD and Apache recently, I guess it's Microsoft's turn again. ;)

    1. Re:Get them from... by cyborch · · Score: 3, Flamebait

      After seeing holes in OpenBSD and Apache recently,

      oh come on, the apache vulnerabilities were embarrasing, but that does not make all the vulnerabilities of IIS alright. And according to the new strategy of MS you are going to pay a subscription fee to MS to get updates. Apache updates are going to remain free.

      I guess it's Microsoft's turn again.

      Microsofts turn at what? They still don't have the most widely used web server. They still do not patch as fast as the free alternatives are patched. We still cannot see the source since that would pressent a threat to national security.

    2. Re:Get them from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. Software has bugs. Doesn't matter who wrote it or how pure their motives or how much money they made from it.

      Learn to deal with that, please.

    3. Re:Get them from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm dealing.

      I'm just waiting for Microsoft to release updates on a TIMELY basis, instead of complaining when people make security exploits public, even when they delay the release for weeks so MS can get their act together.

      MS has a monopoly. That is a judicial fact.

      As a monopoly, one that can avoid getting punished for wielding that power inappropriately (again, a matter of judicial fact), and as such they are now extending their abuses.

      In the future Windows Update will not be free - it will only be available by subscription, and, most importantly, only available for currently-shipping products. Once people stop paying them for their current products, MS wants nothing to do with the code.

      Couldn't happen, you say? Paranoid conspiracy theories, certainly? Uh huh... so why is Microsoft dropping all support for W2K Server in 2003, despite .NET Server being delayed until... what's that? 2003?

      You're already being led to the slaughter. You can either continue along the path like a nice little meek cow or break out of your cage and at least make an attempt at freedom.

    4. Re:Get them from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm just waiting for Microsoft to release updates on a TIMELY basis"
      ...so you tools can bitch that there's another bug...super...toll off troll..

      "MS has a monopoly. That is a judicial fact."
      BWAHAHAHAHAA...oh a 'judical' fact is it...gawwdd spare me...

      "You're already being led to the slaughter. You can either continue along the path like a nice little meek cow or break out of your cage and at least make an attempt at freedom. "

      ahh yes...the freedom of Open Sores(no-tm)...yeah...let me know when your software actually 'WORKS' and i 'might' think about it...
      freakn cultists...

    5. Re:Get them from... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2

      MS has a monopoly. That is a judicial fact.

      Our courts are flawless. And Microsoft has a Monopoly.

      That's why nobody can use Apache or Linux.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    6. Re:Get them from... by xiphiasoft · · Score: 1

      My software works, it worked yesterday, and it worked 2 years ago. (I use Debian GNU/Linux)

      --
      War is not the answer. War is the question. NO is the answer.
    7. Re:Get them from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're already being led to the slaughter. You can either continue along the path like a nice little meek cow or break out of your cage and at least make an attempt at freedom.

      When I grow up, I want to go to Bovine University!

    8. Re:Get them from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache doesn't work? Damn, better tell the majority of web sites to switch over to IIS.

      (Psst - IIS doesn't power the majority of sites on the internet, just the majority of commercial sites. Which is why credit cards get stolen every day!)

  2. Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by ringbarer · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article implies that these vunerabilities haven't been patched. Funnily enough, I downloaded the patches from Windows Update last night, thanks to XP's auto-update feature.

    Every Operating System and application has bugs. If there were security bugs in Linux or Freeamp, would it warrant front page news?

    Not wishing to be Flamebaity at all. MS have a lot of things severely wrong with them. For once they've dealt with an issue in timely fashion. This is not the Anti-MS rhetoric you're looking for.

    --
    "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    1. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by e_n_d_o · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there were security bugs in Linux or Freeamp, would it warrant front page news?

      Yes. If there were a security bug in Linux, Mozilla, XMMS, FreeAmp, etc, that allowed your computer to be compromised, it would warrant front page news on Slashdot.

      Or was that supposed to be one of those rhetorical questions?

    2. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It wouldn't warrant front page news, save for these facts:

      (1) MS Windows comes with virtually all PCs.
      (2) The ammount of security holes alone found in Windows in a given week FAR, FAR outweighs those found in any other OS that I can think of.

      Given that we've all had to have Windows shoved down our throats at some point in our lives, don't you think that knowing exactly how it's fucked up this week might just be a plus?
      Same reason I wanna know about a security flaw in Linux. So it can be fixed.. for every 1 hole in Linux though, there are like 50 in Windows, so it's a bit more important to fix the Windows ones, that is if you don't say fuck it and delete the POS first.

    3. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Dilbert_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not wishing to be Flamebaity at all. MS have a lot of things severely wrong with them. For once they've dealt with an issue in timely fashion. This is not the Anti-MS rhetoric you're looking for.

      Perhaps that is why this is news? eg. Man bites Dog, MS Fixes Security Flaw in Time?

      --
      superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
    4. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by sheriff_p · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you expect to see them? Well, I mean, I guess everyone has been *REAL* quiet about the Apache and SSH ones on /., right?

      Stop being paranoid about alleged M$ bashing.

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
    5. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by bludstone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      one of my XP-running friends went through this upgrade.. It compleatly trashed all his funky video codecs.. He currently cant watch about 2/3rds of the stuff hes downloaded. Most of them being independant music videos.

      has anyone else experienced this?

      --

      no .sig
    6. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by phoenix123 · · Score: 0

      you remember the saying "four eyes see more than two"?

      windows is pre-installed on virtually all PCs right? so virtually everyone is "field-testing" their code, right? virtually every single script-kiddie is poking through the system to find an exploit, virtually every single it-security firm is stress-testing ms-products...

      as long as you do not believe that such a thing as "error/bug/security hole free code" can ever exist, the amount of bugs found often corresponds to number of test cases probed.

      ms is less secure than open-source because in OSS everyone can look at the code and try dozens of test cases in his mind, while with closed source they have to be tried out manually.

      every book on statistics can tell you: don't mix correlation with causality - don't misinterpret "many bugs on ms, few bugs on OSS" to "ms causes many bugs", as there may be other causes of those bugs. (so i.e. an incredibly enormous number of test cases out there)

      just my 0.02

    7. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by GnomeKing · · Score: 1

      Every Operating System and application has bugs. If there were security bugs in Linux or Freeamp, would it warrant front page news?

      Yes?

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/26/1547 24 2&mode=nested&tid=172

      http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/ 17 / 948249&mode=nested&tid=172

      to name 2
    8. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's more the tone of the post. Just a few days ago a venurability in OpenSSH poped up (and was fixed). The post about that is very neutral and newslike, simply reporting the bug, it's nature and the fix. This one is whiny and sounds immature. It would be like if the OpenSSH post read:

      "Security focus has a post on a huge venurability in all versions of OpenSSH from 2.9.9 to 3.3. Just another example of you getting crap for paying nothing."

      I think the poster's intent was to remind everyone that MS is not the only company that has security problems and that they did deal with the issues already.

    9. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by lightcycler · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps that is why this is news? eg. Man bites Dog, MS Fixes Security Flaw in Time?"

      Right. And the kind of people to buy Tiny/PcWorld PCs know all about the Media Player vulnerabilities, and they all visit microsoft daily for patches, right? And what about all your friends. Did they patch windows again last night? Or are they still vulnerable to the gopher bugs of a month ago?

      People who run apache generally know a fair bit about security. People who run MediaPlayer and Internet Explorer don't (by definition) so what excuse is it to say that microsoft "released a patch"???

    10. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by ishark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Security focus has a post on a huge venurability in all versions of OpenSSH from 2.9.9 to 3.3. Just another example of you getting crap for paying nothing."

      If the openSSH people were running at 1 critical bug/two weeks this is exactly what you would read.

    11. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      Yes. If there were a security bug in Linux, Mozilla, XMMS, FreeAmp, etc, that allowed your computer to be compromised, it would warrant front page news on Slashdot.

      You're right. There WOULD be a news article on Slashdot about a bug if it were in a piece open source software. However, Slashdot's news articles about bugs in open source software usually include a link to the patch for the program if it has already been released. But in this case, like all the others, Slashdot refuses to even acknowledge the patch for Microsoft product, let alone provide a link to it, so that they can infer that it hasn't been patched.

    12. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For once they've dealt with an issue in timely fashion.


      Have they? Why do you think that, because the report came out after the patch was released?


      We don't know how long MS knew of the problem, and we don't know how long it took them to develop the patch.

    13. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      bludstone wrote:

      > one of my XP-running friends went through this
      > upgrade.. It compleatly trashed all his funky
      > video codecs.. He currently cant watch about
      > 2/3rds of the stuff hes downloaded. Most of them
      > being independant music videos.

      Well, if the patch is the same one mentioned on ZDNet (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-940063.html), then one of the "bugs" has to do with Digital Rights Management. It may be that your friend wasn't "supposed" to be able to watch those videos before, and Microsoft "fixed" it.

      If your friend would check their EULAs (end user license agreements) for MSN (if they have it) and XP, they would find that Microsoft can also download stuff that might affect their ability to use their downloads automatically whenever they are on MSN, or whenever they download secured content whose manufacturer has notified Microsoft that their DRM needs an update to handle some new problem or hack. If these updates keep people from viewing their content, Microsoft basically says "tough".

      Me thinks your friend might want to consider a new player, if not a new OS.

      "They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
      Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
      From the song "Infant Girl" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).

    14. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by essdodson · · Score: 1

      Hah, each any every one of MS's flaws are exposed here for the hecklers to go on and on about how much MS sucks. I'd venture that 1 out of 10 OSS security issues make it to slashdot to be seen by anyone. When IRSSI was backdoored, did anyone hear about that on Slashdot? I could go on for hours with examples of major issues that Slashdot has refused to publish because they want to keep on good terms with the simple minded MS bashers.

      --
      scott
    15. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by JordoCrouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (2) The ammount of security holes alone found in Windows in a given week FAR, FAR outweighs those found in any other OS that I can think of.

      Don't ever, ever think that any operating system has less bugs than the other. That is a dangerous belief that is going to reach up and grab you. All of these operating systems are written by human beings.

      Microsoft wrote XP to a certain point (like Linux did with 2.4.0), and then released it. After that point, they would have to continiously send out updates to fix bugs and do updates. And everyone on /. bitchs that Microsoft was so insecure because there are so many patches.

      However, in that same time frame, The 2.4 tree in linux has gone through 19 revisions, with many critical bug fixes! This proves that Linux has just as many bugs as Microsoft.

      The difference is that Linux is open about their problems - and they make an effort to keep the public informed. If a critical problem is found, the code is changed (almost immediately).
      Microsoft hides their bugs. So for them to come out and announce bugs (and patches) before the bugs become newsworthy issues is a step in the right direction.

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    16. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by ichimunki · · Score: 1
      IRSSI was backdoored. Great. Now what the heck is IRSSI? The reason you didn't hear about it is because hardly anyone is knowingly using IRSSI. Lots of people are knowingly using WinXP and WMPlayer. We would have heard about a similar bug in Linux, KDE, Gnome, XMMS, or FreeAmp.

      Slashdot has never really made any claims to objectivity, so why are you bashing them for this. Heck, no actual employee of Slashdot wrote this article, wrote this writeup, or had any other involvement other than front-paging a submission.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    17. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think all of IE is still vulnerable to the Gopher bugs of a month ago - they never did patch that one.

      Which, frankly, is my gripe with MS - their behavior is atrocious. Worse than the IBM of old, grown heady with their monopoly power, and loathe to take any action that doesn't result in a immediate profit.

      Direct manifestation is their behavior regarding half the bugs that are made public - finder remains quiet so MS can fix the bug, waits, waits, then gives up and goes public, to which MS cries foul and moans and bitches.

      If they were REALLY serious about security they'd have a permanent security division setup to deal with the issues on a timely basis, instead of waiting for affected team members to get free time away from their primary project to look at the flaw.

      Don't fool yourself, that's the real cause of the delay, not that MS has every involved serf pouring over the code and looking at the fix after they were notified. Future big-ticket projects (XBox, .Net, etc) take complete, utter priority over any project that has already shipped.

    18. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by MadMoonie · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:
      The article implies that these vunerabilities haven't been patched.
      Blockquoth the article:
      The company has posted on its Web site a software "patch" for users to download.
      Hrmph.
    19. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Most of them being independant music videos.

      Is that what they're calling Pr0n these days?

      Damn, I should get myself some music videos.

    20. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by zachdms · · Score: 1

      "Funky" video codecs? If it's DivX-related, it's got a good chance of being one of the endless bad hacks of the Microsoft MPEG4 codec. If it is, then getting it working in the first place was a miracle. Regardless, this FAQ tip should get your friend going again.

    21. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for not staying "very neutral and newslike" in this case might be that Microsoft is a known felon, monopoly, is out to extend its monopoly (at this very minute, even that the somewhat slow US judicial system is still grinding to try to find a suitable punishment for them) and is after blood (well, at least your money).

      Now let me hear anyone saying the same thing about Free Software: They are after your money, and plan on world domination for their own benefit and monetary gain.

      Chances are you won't say it. Basically, since the Free Software movement is the complete opposite of what M$ is. GNU want stuff to be free, in every possible sense, for the benefit of mankind. If there was a choice Microsoft would destroy mankind for another three weeks of rising stocks. Microsoft only wants everything to be both secret and proprietary and basically rule as a world goverment, all for their own short-sighted benefit that could potentially destroy what was once known as freedom (not to mention human rights, sharing and basically "a life") for most humans on this planet.

      Now if this isn't something to be scared about and react to, basically implementing "1984" or Ira Levin's "One of these days", I honestly must say there really isn't much to be scared of and react to. One might as well accept ones destiny as a sheep, go get a haircut, and return to the stables right away.

    22. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Actually, see that first word up there on the banner? It's "News", which implies objectivity. Just a nit.

    23. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      each any every one of MS's flaws are exposed here for the hecklers to go on and on about how much MS sucks
      I wish. Then I could just patch them and be done with it.

      I could go on for hours with examples of major issues that Slashdot has refused to publish
      You "could" but you don't.

    24. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

      "If a Linux computer falls in a valley, does Slashdot make a sound?"

      Heh. :)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    25. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The difference is that Linux is open about their problems - and they make an effort to keep the public informed. If a critical problem is found, the code is changed (almost immediately).
      Microsoft hides their bugs. So for them to come out and announce bugs (and patches) before the bugs become newsworthy issues is a step in the right direction. "


      I see the problem a little differently. A lot of the vulnerabilities that have been mentioned in Windows are really features that MS implemented that people have found a way to exploit. The Melissa virus comes to mind.

      So what'll happen is MS will add new features, and then somebody'll find a way to be a nuisance with them. Unfortunately, what'll happen is that the resolution to the problem isn't so clear. "Do we take out the feature, or do we put a rule in it and wait for somebody to find a loophole?"

      Anybody used Office XP? (heh yah right, sorry) One of my coworkers is using Outlook XP. One of his coworkers tried to send him an .EXE (no, not one of those web games, it was a test build of some code he was writing) but Outlook refused to admit that it had it. What happened was Outlook XP had disabled the ability to recieve .EXE files. I don't mind this by default, but there wasn't a menu option to re-enable it. Result? A Google search and a clumsy registry hack.

      I can't help but think that MS just got tired of people being hit with it and just removed it all together.

      Just to be clear: I'm not arguing with you, just presenting another angle to the story. It's a big tangled mess. Windows has bugs, vulnerabilities, and features that can be used against you. I hope the Linux community is paying attention to this. I have a feeling they could develop a solution that allows the interesting features without allowing kiddie scripters to exploit them.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    26. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      "News" may carry in your mind a connotation of objectivity, but "news" denotes simply "reports of recents events" -- nothing more, nothing less. Objectivity may be desirable, but is not requisite for something to be "news". Now, a bias might so warp a report such that it is no longer truthful, but that's much easier said than done.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    27. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This problem is NOT a bug, it is clearly a DESIGN FLAW.

      The original design flaw is the use of "active content" in data files.

      WMA (*.wma, windows native compressed audio files) have active content for DRM. DL a limited time or limited use wma file from any riaa label site, "lose" the key, and try to run it in WiMP, Winamp, or Real. Your default browser will open and connect to the internet.

      In short, this is not a bug, it's a back door.

      More insidious, rename that wma trojan to MP3. Now try to open it in Winamp or any other ethical or semiethical player (Real). It won't run, you'll get an error.

      Now try it in WiMP. Your browser will open and connect to the internet.

      Anybody with an IQ over 30 could write a trojan or virus to exploit wma and WiMP. It's built that way BY DESIGN.

      Like MS always says, "it's not a bug, it's a feature"

      -steve
      Springfield Fragfest

    28. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Serv-U FTP has bugs that allow DoS attacks and "root"-level access from outside. Is this MS's fault?

      Then when is IRSSI the fault of Linux developers?

      Look at how fast major server products (OpenSSH, Apache, etc) get patched after exploits are discovered. Then look at how long it takes MS. And how MS delays (UPnP) around critical sales times like christmas.

      There's no way you can say with a straight face that MS has a decent security record compared to open source projects like Linux, Apache, etc. (Hell, they barely have a decent security record compared to Sun, etc.)

      Install the latest Mandrake with enough aps to replicate the functionality of Win2k Server. Now tell me how often you have to patch it to avoid remote exploits. How often during the same time does Win2k Server have to get patched?

      Of course, IRSSI doesn't count here, any more than you can count mIRC against Win2k.

    29. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by homer_ca · · Score: 2

      There's a big difference there. The 2.4.0 Linux kernel by itself is not a complete OS in the sense of Windows XP, and it wasn't packaged and sold as a finished product. A Linux distribution is packaged and sold in that way. They do their own testing and software integration in addition to the kernel developers, and they all waited a long time to release distros based on the 2.4 kernel.

    30. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by pdqlamb · · Score: 2

      Funnily enough, when I used XP's auto-update feature this morning (6/28), it didn't give me an option for either update.

    31. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      don't mix correlation with causality - don't misinterpret "many bugs on ms, few bugs on OSS" to "ms causes many bugs", as there may be other causes of those bugs.

      Intriguing.
      Bugs cause Microsoft?
      Somebody other than Microsoft is putting the bugs in?

      Correlation does not imply lack of causality.

    32. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "friend" simply needs to download the Nimo Codec Pack . This pack includes just about every video/audio codec you'd ever need, and could never be supplied "legitimately" because of the legal jungle that stop such a useful package in its tracks.

    33. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot news == Star weekly news

      Nuff said.

    34. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bow-chicka-bow-bow

    35. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      "For once they've dealt with an issue in timely fashion"

      I wonder about that. Just how long has MS known about these
      bugs? Who originally reported them?

      With MS's secretiveness about vulnerabilities nowadays it could
      have been months. Anyone have better info? I can't even find anything
      on these bugs on MS's site....

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    36. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell there is no link to the patch, the only place you
      can get it is thru Windows Update. I haven't been able to find anything
      official about this on MS's site (just the articles on The Reg and Salon)

      Anyone know where MS has written these up?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    37. Re:Yet more unwarranted MS bashing by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Ok, NOW I found it. Wasn't there when I looked yesterday.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  3. Cue Microsofties, stage left by Anarchofascist · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Yeah, we may have four new security holes (two critical) in our flagship secure commerce server, and three new holes in WMP, but YOU guys had a possible exploit (with a simple workaround) in OpenSSH! HA! Nyer nyer. Thhhhhpt."

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    1. Re:Cue Microsofties, stage left by DocSnyder · · Score: 1
      [...] but YOU guys had a possible exploit (with a simple workaround) in OpenSSH! HA!


      Wait a few weeks until Microsoft confirms to use OpenSSH code within WMP...

    2. Re:Cue Microsofties, stage left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Score 1, interesting?"

      How about score 5, LOL!!!!

      It's way too true to be "interesting".

  4. OpenXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nearly 6 Months and only #ERROR# root exploits in the default install...

    1. Re:OpenXP by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      And still twenty years to go until the next code review.

  5. Be persistent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?"

    If they don't treat you right the first time, buy buy again.

    1. Re:Be persistent by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

      "Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?"

      Only if you like being banged while holding your ankles...

    2. Re:Be persistent by stromthurman · · Score: 1

      And how does microsoft plan to establish any serious trust with Palladium? Given their past endevours, there's probably a better than even chance that the first version (or perhaps first several versions) of the Palladium schema will be vulnerable to buffer overflows, improper processing of malformed data, etc. The end result being that systems that are supposedly "tight" may very well be compromised, which is twice as dangerous as a normal machine being compromised. If you are dealing with a regular system that's been compromised and you are unaware of the compromise, you're level of trust in the system isn't necessarily high. However, if you're dealing with a system that's assuring you it's secure, you're probably more apt to trust it when in fact it too is compromised. It's analogous to being sheisted by someone you've never met before versus being sheisted by your grandmother, I suppose...

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
    3. Re:Be persistent by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      And how does microsoft plan to establish any serious trust with Palladium?
      You can fool some of the people all of the time.

    4. Re:Be persistent by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has always relied on the hardware to fix their problems with Bloatware (every version of Windows requires a PC twice as fast as the last version), now they are depending on hardware to fix their lack of security. That's a pretty novel way of attacking the problem, you have to admit.

  6. Something troubles me... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why on earth would there be a bug in Media player that allows uncontrolled access to the system. What we have here folks is a very good example of what a horribly designed OS Windows is...

    Especially XP! M$ says "Windows XP makes everything run together smoothly and makes things easier." It actually makes this sort of thing more plausible. Can anyone imagine a bug in XMMS that can make GNU/Linux unusable? Hah...

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:Something troubles me... by Yarn · · Score: 2

      You may laugh, but xmms is often installed suid so it can up it's priority. :)

      Additionally it's GL spectrum analyser has frozen my system on occasions.

      I don't think XMMS has had any remotely activatable flaws though.

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    2. Re:Something troubles me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Additionally it's GL spectrum analyser has frozen my system on occasions.

      More likely it just froze X windows. If you can log in remotely when this happens, you can just kill -9 X, and everything should work again.

    3. Re:Something troubles me... by psavo · · Score: 2

      You may laugh, but xmms is often installed suid so it can up it's priority. :)

      Additionally it's GL spectrum analyser has frozen my system on occasions.



      GL SA frozed yer system only because your OGL implementation is written out of someones ass. GL SA doesn't run as root, OGL implementation (parts) are. So go and blame someone else.
      And yes, I know what I'm talking about, I wrote an XMMS visual plugin myself, it has never been able to freeze my system, It uses SDL, which is sane.

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    4. Re:Something troubles me... by joost · · Score: 1

      Actually there is/was a bug in Mozilla that would allow XFree86 to crash entirely. All it took was a rediculously large font size in a normal web page and presto!

    5. Re:Something troubles me... by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why on earth would there be a bug in Media player that allows uncontrolled access to the system. What we have here folks is a very good example of what a horribly designed OS Windows is..."

      Why on earth would there be a bug in OpenSSH/Sendmail/Apache/BitchX that allows uncontrolled access to the system. What we have here folks is a very good example of a troll posting before it thinks, going with the crowd in its 'M$ sucks! Linux rules! Muahahha' mindset.

      Software has bugs. Sometimes exploitation of those bugs, if they're severe enough, can allow an attacker to run code on the target system. This is not a flaw unique to Windows.

      Please, think before you post.

      --
      Janie took my gun...
    6. Re:Something troubles me... by epsalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it's the other way around. There is/was a bug in XFree86 that makes it crash when requested a redicoulously large font size by Mozilla (or anything else).

    7. Re:Something troubles me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then, why on earth would there be a bug that could expose your entire system in something as simple as a lookup in some text-files (bind)? Or something as simple as a mail-server.
      I mean, it's not that they actually need root/admin or something. At least, not that I can think of... right?

    8. Re:Something troubles me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, crappy. I'm still trying to figure out why patching PHP broke Evolution and AbiWord. Goddamn Gates, oh wait.

    9. Re:Something troubles me... by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since no one else has answered:

      The bug is really only a technical one. In practice, it's really like that "Perrun" hoax virus, in that it requires a huge amount of setup and complete access to the system in order to gain... well, to gain complete access to the system, which an attack would already need in order to use this bug maliciously. Basically, Windows Media Player can remotely open up the system if the attacker has found a way to get a malicious executable file into IE's cache and then convinces their victim to go to a maliciously constructed website that they've setup. When the victim goes to the maliciously constructed website, Windows Media Player could then give out information that could be used to get into the system through the IE cache.

      The problem lies in the specific executable file that has to be placed into the cache. In order to get the executable file into the cache, the attacker would have to have full access to the machine or trick the user into accepting it and running it. But if they could get the user to do that, they would have full control of the system anyway, just like they would if the victim was running any OS other than Windows.

      So really, it's just a small, stupid bug that's being blown out of proportion. It can't do anything other than redundantly take over a computer after it has already been taken over in a different way.

    10. Re:Something troubles me... by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 4, Informative

      GreyWolf3000 wrote:

      > Why on earth would there be a bug in Media player
      > that allows uncontrolled access to the system.
      > What we have here folks is a very good example of
      > what a horribly designed OS Windows is...

      XP isn't Palladium (yet), but it is a/the DRM OS. Microsoft's Media player is like a trap door that leads down to the core of the system. In the center of the OS, behind that trapdoor, sits a huge spider called DRM. Every file loaded, whether a document or media file, an application, or a driver, has to pass DRM's inspection. DRM checks to see that those documents and media files are legally licensed, and those drivers and applications are approved by Microsoft (don't want any of that cancerous GNU goop around). Anything that smells even slightly fishy to DRM gets pounced on and eaten. Anything that passes muster, gets passed on to the OS and applications for use.

      In unix-speak, that DRM spider would be the god of root, able to tell even root what they can and cannot do. If you try to work around DRM and do what you want with the idiot box you paid for, DRM calls on his old bud DMCA, and DMCA sends the nice folks from the FBI to cart you and your PC off to separate jail cells.

      Since everything the media player plays goes through DRM, it is easy to see how a media player bug could affect the whole system. And since DRM is relatively new, it will have bugs itself. And since DRM is potentially updated everytime you download a song (check your XP EULA), the potential for disaster is high. Yes it is horrible design. Then again, DRM is a horrible concept.

      That's the price one pays for doing business with a company that treats their customers like potential criminals. The ironic thing is that Microsoft is the one convicted of breaking the law.

      What happens when you embrace and extend Godzilla? Nuclear heartburn!
      See "Godzilla 2000" (released in Japan as "Godzilla 2000 Millenium") for details.

    11. Re:Something troubles me... by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2


      A bug always seems small and stupid until someone finds a way to easily exploit it. The recent Apache bug is a great example. At first announced as unexploitable on non-Windows 32 bit systems, some freak had a ready-to-run root exploit for it in less than 3 days. The process of locating a security issue and the subsequent process of developing an exploit for it are two different processes and two different disciplines.

      maru

    12. Re:Something troubles me... by Yarn · · Score: 2

      This is true, NVidia drivers, but a lot of people use them.

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    13. Re:Something troubles me... by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Software has bugs. Sometimes exploitation of those bugs, if they're severe enough, can allow an attacker to run code on the target system. This is not a flaw unique to Windows.

      OpenBSD has bugs.
      Microsoft Windows has bugs.

      One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years.
      Exploit of the week, with things like gopher holes never closed.

    14. Re:Something troubles me... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem lies in the specific executable file that has to be placed into the cache.

      Not a problem. The system will dump ANYTHING it is given into the cache. Take a virus.exe file and rename it to banner.jpg or something. The browser drops it in the cache with a randomized the name and sub-folder. Since it's not actually a jpg or whatever it may be silently ignored. If an attacker can discover the randomized name and location in the cache he can tell the OS to run it as an EXE. It isn't simple, but all the required steps HAVE been worked out and are available on the net.

      So no, this is not "a small, stupid bug that's being blown out of proportion".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:Something troubles me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenSSH/sendmail/Apache are server programs, AFAIK WMP is only a client. This is a major difference, because an exploit in a server daemon can a lot more damage than a an exploit in a client task.

      Oh, this is Windows? Oops, forget what I wrote. Should have thought before I posted ...

    16. Re:Something troubles me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is untrue; I've poked around in DRM's internals, I know whereof I speak. (You'll have to trust me on this, of course.)

      Drivers and applications are checked by Authenticode, not DRM. Totally different subsystem, totally different purpose. Apps and drivers are signed, not encrypted; and they don't have to be. Old Authenticode is easily broken if you know the trick; the newest (2000 and up) versions are fairly difficult to break (as in, I haven't managed to do it yet) - you can strip the signature, but drivers and system binaries will balk at this. This is actually a relatively good idea, at least as long as there's an off switch (and there is, even if it's not exactly easy to find).

      DRM cannot be used on documents and it isn't active on media files which don't have a DRM tag (so not MP3s).

      That said, the old shell detection garbage comes into effect, so regardless of the extension, the shell will try magics to identify the file. This is a Very Bad Idea - a patch exists to turn it off, but because the patch is to signed code, installing it is... traumatic to a normal installation. Best done from fresh install, IMHO.

      As for DRM itself, it has two modules - the client and the store. Additionally, the media player has a hook, and the audio (but strangly, not video) drivers have a hook. Each of these hooks communicates using a weak elliptic curve algorithm. High geek factor, low brain mass - the client and store have a (bad) polymorphic engine and make a copy with an individual key embedded. (In one of the great design decisions, all the master keys' factors are included - go forth and multiply. :))

      Playing DRM media has a high CPU load that isn't reported correctly (due to the audio driver decryption part). This is a shame, because it's hopeless as the keys are easy to extract - and ultimately doomed simply because the keys are there.

      The DRM v1 and v2 techniques themselves have been totally broken, not just circumvented. (Not all cryptanalysis results aren't public yet, but let's just say that you don't get something for nothing - the interested can check out cryptanalysis of several of the critical components, including the really bad pseudo-swap MAC that derives the key.)

      The apparently dangerous part is the audio driver part, but ... I dunno. I don't really think there's much you can do with that - the code's relatively simple in there. It doesn't really matter, because the bit you're _really_ aiming for is the bit they just made _easier_ to root - the update signature check. Embed one of those suckers into a Windows Media file (with any extension - remember the magics) and you can, as long as you play it clean, silently install any system file you want, without file protection or locking kicking in. Circumventing the Authenticode, if you should aim for a signed module, is your problem (the interested may note that you can overwrite the cryptographic services, though).

      DRM doesn't take over your whole machine, most of the time. There's that bit in the audio driver, but frankly it isn't a big bit. The big bits hang around in memory a lot (stupid of them, really) but don't do anything unless you actually play a DRM-protected file.

      DRM may be removed altogether if you do it with particular care. Even the secure audio path part of the sound drivers can be removed cleanly, but you will invalidate the hardware testing signatures in doing so. A single, click-on-this-and-remove-it uninstall is not available.

      Oh, one last thing; the update, as it seems many future updates will, contains a logic bomb for the Devils0wn Dell key (FCKGW-etc). Even more proof, as if any were needed, that MS really doesn't have a Clue about security (what kind of fuckwit puts logic bombs in security patches?). Not that this is really a security patch for users' benefit - it is a patch for Microsoft's benefit.

      No matter - I'm working on the stuff they deployed with this new patch, and I have a virtual machine debugger with me, a full bottle of vodka, and about a quarter LD-50 of caffeine, so it WILL fall.

      On the up side, MS is still, last I heard, in the legal-threats-exchanged phase of a lawsuit with a patent holder on the general concept of DRM systems. Maybe software patents do have a purpose after all, hee. :)

      Still... less talk, more code...

    17. Re:Something troubles me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least GreyWolf3000 made a direct comparison. Why on earth would an App like MediaPlayer (XMMS on Linux) have a root vulnerability? It is for playing back media files. Wy does it need access to that level of the OS? A direct result of a flawed OS design.

      Lets try to make some direct comparisons here..

      Sendmail: Exchange and Outlook. Lets count the exploits, virii, worms, trojans...

      OpenSSH: Oh wait, M$ doesn't support a secure shell implementation.

      Apache: IIS. First major compromise that I know of for Apache. You should check out BugTraq sometime and count the exploits for IIS.

      etc. etc.

      No one said that security flaws were unique to Windoze, but the sheer number of severe compromises and the frequency of bug reports is completely unacceptable.

    18. Re:Something troubles me... by Mike+Markley · · Score: 1

      > I mean, it's not that they actually need root/admin or something. At least, not that I can think of... right?

      Right. As for bind, it's got port 53, it needs no such priveleges. Hence the -u and -g options.

      Same goes for sendmail (I can't speak to other MTAs as I don't use any others) -- probably why modern (more recent than 8.9) versions support running as a nonprivileged users when such privileges are not needed, and in most installs these versions do precisely that. At least, all the installs I've done of anything since 8.11 have done it.

      So, uh, what's your point? :)

  7. Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-032.asp

    Would it have killed ya to post this as well Timmy? =P

    1. Re:Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably wouldn't, but the other reply to the person's post kind of demonstrates a good reason not to...

  8. Bang! by hockeygeek · · Score: 1, Funny

    Banged for your MS buck? Sure, just bend over for Bill...

    --
    Why, we'll make Rock Ridge think it was a chicken that got caught in a tractor's nuts!
    1. Re:Bang! by ForceOfWill · · Score: 5, Funny
      Oh you'll get your bang out of a MS product alright. No boom? No boom _today_, boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow.
      Yeah, when it XPlodes :)
      --

      --
      Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
    2. Re:Bang! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      score 1 funny...yeah...
      gawd you slashcommies are scraping the bottom...
      why dont you go work on your openSores and move out of your mom's basement

  9. Bang! by mheckaman · · Score: 1

    Oh you'll get your bang out of a MS product
    alright. No boom? No boom _today_, boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow.

    --Matt :)

    PS: I suppose one could also be banged by their lawyers.

    --

    Don't take life so seriously; it isn't permanent.

  10. Poor Salon by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is most certainly not the way to get microsoft to donate $750 million to them.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  11. Bill de Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honk if you love Bill...

  12. Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Send Bill to jail, I say.

    Then he can *really* worry about security holes.

    :)

  13. Bang for the buck by Aceticon · · Score: 1

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    You're getting plenty of bangs and you still complain???

    Were is journalistic integrity nowadays ...

  14. If only.... by rattler14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If only real player didn't tank out a few years back (my window stills says it's buffering) and if quicktime was widely supported, this wouldn't even be an issue. Everyone seems to get forced into supporting the windows option for lack of a better option (and i'm talking about the masses here). i know all the linux buffs here can point out a million other options on a non-windows OS, but that's not gonna help my friends mother, who needs to read the instructions written on the sticky pad about how to check her yahoo mail.

    --
    my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    1. Re:If only.... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On a side note, I've had a similar problem--I installed OpenOffice for my mother as sort of a trial for open source software and it was going well until like a week later...She didn't reboot, and as we all know that in Windows, memory leaks accumulate and the shit hits the fan and OpenOffice crashed and she lost data--she likes to keep apps open when she is not using it. She then forced me to uninstall it so she could go back to M$.

      The truth here is that problems with Microsoft software are treated differently than problems with open source software...M$ glitches are somewhat more official--M$ products will crash because computers crash--that's just something they do. A modern day computer user that just wants to use Quicken, Office, and e-mail has come to expect problems--they save often.

      When open source alternatives crash, or anything else for that matter, even if it's Windows' fault, it reaffirms their natural inclination to mistrust free (beer) software. They don't know much about computers, but they believe that you can't get something for nothing, and that pervasive idea prevents the proliferation of decent alternatives--so yes, I agree...normal everyday users are in essence forced into the windows option.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    2. Re:If only.... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If only Realplayer didnt install several other unasked for apps (realdownload? puh-leeze) and if only Quicktime didn't nag you to purchase the Pro version each and every time you used it, perhaps they would be more widely supported.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:If only.... by mpe · · Score: 2

      The truth here is that problems with Microsoft software are treated differently than problems with open source software...M$ glitches are somewhat more official--M$ products will crash because computers crash--that's just something they do. A modern day computer user that just wants to use Quicken, Office, and e-mail has come to expect problems--they save often.

      You also see similar double standards with Windows freeware (e.g. MSIE) being considered good, because they don't cost anything. But open source is "bad", because it's free...

    4. Re:If only.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I always found that argument ironic.

      The same people who say "OS SUcks, it's FREE, HOw caN It bE g00D" are the same ones who say "IE > Mozilla, and IE is free so whats your problem!"

    5. Re:If only.... by WNight · · Score: 1

      That's easy to fix.

      Go to Astalavista.box.sk and search for Quicktime, it'll come up with a list of keygens, take the one for 5.x (not preview release) and generate a key.

      I don't use any of the Quicktime Pro features but I hate the stupid nag screens.

      www.gamecopyworld.com has NoCD patches for games which are pretty handy.

      (Especially Diablo 2, the last Blizzard game I'll ever buy, which wouldn't do a CD-check properly in my burner. Blizzard's response was "buy a new CD drive." Fuck em.)

      Keygens, NoCD cracks, AdAware and Proximitron (with Mozilla) make a wonderful nag-free, CD-check free computing experience.

    6. Re:If only.... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Well yeah but I meant *legally* ;-)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    7. Re:If only.... by WNight · · Score: 2

      I don't think cracks or keygens are illegal actually.

      Especially if you own the software, like I did with Diablo 2, before I sold it.

      With something you didn't pay for, Quicktime for instance, you're on shaky ground perhaps.

  15. Is it safe? by Vidmaster_Steve · · Score: 5, Funny

    INT, STORE, NIGHT. CUSTOMER walks into a near empty store, he steps through the doors cautiously, peering around curious as to where the hell the clerks are.

    Customer: Hello..? uh... hello...? I want ta get a copy of Windows XP. Is anybody here?

    CLERK, unseen: Is it safe?

    Customer: Is what safe?

    Clerk: Is it safe?

    Customer, preturbed: Yes... It's safe. It's very safe...

    Clerk: Is it safe?

    Customer: Lissen! Are you going to come out, or what?

    Clerk: Is it safe?

    Customer: THIS ISN'T FUNNY!

    Clerk 2: It puts the lotion on its skin and puts it in the basket.

    Clerk: Shut up man. Is it safe? Is it safe? IS IT SAFE?

    Customer: STOP IT! I JUST WANT A COPY OF WINDOWS XP! (Customer breaks down to the floor, sobbing) I just want a copy of XP...

    Clerk: Is it safe?

    Customer screams and runs out of the store, climbs into his car, which immediatley spins out and slams into a fire hydrant. The car bursts into flame. The customer bails from the car and runs down the darkened, abandoned street. He gets a half dozen steps from the car, and then he, illogically and without reason, bursts into flame himself.

    Clerk 1: Thirty seconds, You owe me five bucks.

    Clerk 2: I don't have five bucks.

    Clerk 1: Take it from the register.

    On-topic discussion part.

    THEY TOLD ME IT WAS SAFE! I TRUSTED YOU MICROSOFT! I TRUSTED YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU! YOU BLEW IT UP, YOU MANIACS YOU BLEW IT UP!
    "PokeySteve, are you drunk?"
    "Yes, but on love.
    And whisky.
    But mainly whisky."

    --
    Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
    1. Re:Is it safe? by arielb · · Score: 0, Troll

      Damn Microsoft all to HELL!!!

      --
      ---
    2. Re:Is it safe? by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Unattributed parody is perfectly acceptable. If you don't recognize what's being parodied, it probably won't mean that much to you anyway, and if you do, you don't need to be told where it came from.

    3. Re:Is it safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Pokey the Penguin reference Batman!

    4. Re:Is it safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst joke I ever heard. Die fucka

  16. At last an end to these senseless free patches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft has also anounced that this is to be the last free patch. All subsequent security patches will be available only to registered users at $14.95 per user licence. Very fair price, after all you can't have programmers working for nothing, that would be unamerican.

  17. win2k boot times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah i use win2k on my desktop.. and ive patched the wmplayer-bug. Is it just on my system, or does the patch screw with the boot-process? Well the thing boots really really slow now anyways..

    1. Re:win2k boot times? by vortexau · · Score: 1

      I thought Long Boot Times were standard for Wintel.
      .

      --
      (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  18. Better update options? by Saggi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most software is expected to have bugs. But when it comes to OS great care should be taken into removing these, especially those involving security. But bug tracking is an art form. You can never remove bugs 100% as the difficulty in finding the bug increases dramatically as you approach 100%.

    When it comes to software like the media player, this is much more serious. This goes into much more than just one single OS. I run Win95, Win98 and Win2000, and all these may be affected. On top of that the media player keep posting me to update the software. Wouldn't it be nice if the system gave me the option to update to the most stable and secure version or the latest version? You might think I have that option, as I may choose not to download the latest, but make my way through the download jungle to find an earlier version. But this jungle is impossible to move through for ordinary people.

    I understand that Microsoft wait with disclosure of the bug until they have a patch. This is often criticized, but in some cases it make sense.

    --
    -:) Oh no - not again.
    www.rednebula.com
    1. Re:Better update options? by GigsVT · · Score: 0

      The whole idea of a remote security compromise in a MEDIA PLAYER, is insane. I don't know how media player works, but it either must be opening ports up in listen mode, or it is somehow executing code inside the media files. Either one of which is really really stupid.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Better update options? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      but it either must be opening ports up in listen mode, or it is somehow executing code inside the media files. Either one of which is really really stupid.

      It isn't opening any ports. Or at least I don't think it does. Err, ummm, I mean I sure hope it doesn't open any ports.

      As for executing code inside the media files, that isn't any stupider than running a macro the instant you open a text file or running a script the instant you open an E-mail. They all add features and enhance the user experience. Microsoft is just being innovative by enabling data to become as active and flexible as code. One of my favorite features is how some video files will conviently pop open one or more browser windows to a related website.

      P.S.
      Hint for anyone sarcasm impaired: consider the possibility that "enhance the user experience" might just mean that I agree with you.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  19. Security is MS's big weakness so why... by 00_NOP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...don't the Linux vendors (especially IBM) flog this issue for all it's worth? I really think this is where the fight for market share should be.

    However, the fact that it isn't makes me think that the vendors aren't entirely confident with the Linux security offer.

    Perhaps it's too technical - there are plenty of security patches for GNU/GPL/Linux - I use that title advisedly, as they are rarely in the kernel (at least one a week AFAICS) - but they are generally on a faster turnaround than MS. But it's still not brilliant....hmmmm. Must think about this some more.

    1. Re:Security is MS's big weakness so why... by Wudbaer · · Score: 1

      Well, IMO it's almost always a very bad idea to flog competitor's products because of security issues. Because the day will inevitably come when your product (and be it the most security-aware product in the world) will have a real widely published brown-paper-bag security issue that will make you look like an idiot after all that advertising. Oracle didn't get ridiculed that much for nothing for their "unbreakable" database.

    2. Re:Security is MS's big weakness so why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should email that little post to Theo The Rat.

    3. Re:Security is MS's big weakness so why... by eMilkshake · · Score: 1

      b/c you can only flog the security horse when you're *sure* you won't fall down yourself! All it takes is one vulnerability, and you get everything crammed down your mouth double -- check out negative political campaigns. B/sides, you like the Linux vendors b/c they aren't like that, right?

    4. Re:Security is MS's big weakness so why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be wrong, but I don't remember seeing a security bug in the NT kernel for quite some time. Is usually in the supporting apps and DLLs.

    5. Re:Security is MS's big weakness so why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really want choosing an operating system to be more like voting for a president?: They can both do essentially the same things and you have to listen to tons of mud slinging before they'll let you actually decide.

    6. Re:Security is MS's big weakness so why... by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      IBM's cheddar.com commercial is pretty good.

  20. How embarassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I run Win95, Win98 and Win2000"

    Yesterday I was browsing in my local department store and found myself shouting "I've soiled myself, I've soiled myself". I know how you feel.

  21. microsoft bugs and linux bugs by Indy1 · · Score: 2

    Funny, a few days ago, i was having to do the ole ./configure , make , make install with openssh 3.4. Tonight i had to hit windowsupdate and grab the various fixes (flame away, i run win xp pro on my desktop, but at least i redeem myself by running my backup, dns, and dhcp on redhat 7.3). Any OS can have bugs and issues. But i still much prefer linux/open source for stuff that needs security. I patch my linux box a LOT less often then i have to run windows update. And i dont have to reboot my damn linux box every time i update samba or openssh or bind.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  22. MSN Article by cybermint · · Score: 0

    You should read this MSN Article

  23. bang for MS buck? by aarondsouza · · Score: 2, Funny
    > Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    Umm...I think you've just been banged for your MS buck. :)

    --
    "In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words -- you have to hear the music"
  24. Bang for Buck by mqduck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    I don't know about you, but I've paid $0 in my lifetime for MS software, so you could say I've gotten at least my share of bang. But I wouldn't say that. I'd say that MS owes me for forcing their way into an OS monopoly, therefore forcing me to use their Piece of Crap in order to use lots of apps I want to use (ie, games).

    Love and kisses,
    Jeff

    --
    Property is theft.
  25. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowulf cluser of these XP boxes....

    What an unpleasant thought!

  26. Anyone read Cringley's Pulpit this week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
  27. If you can't join them, beat them? by tacocat · · Score: 1

    It's so obvious now.

    Palladium isn't for you. It's for them. They have never been able to get the SOFTWARE to be secure. So now they have resorted to the only possible solution that still gives everyone root. They have decided to get a HARDWARE based solution instead.

    The best thing about this Palladium for MSFT is that they don't have to worry about anymore security problems. It will all become a problem of Intel and AMD, the keepers of the hardware key.

    1. Re:If you can't join them, beat them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod this Insightful, +5. Thanks.

  28. You get what you pay for? by Slashamatic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If this was a major compromise in another system, of course it would be reported here. However, commercial systems such as Windows cost money. I have no means of fixing the bug myself so I rely on the vendor.

    Given the revenue stream of say Win-XP compared to that of commercial Linux distributions, I am very surprised that MS still makes code with so many holes. If XP ius too big for MS to manage the development and support, then they should simplify it.

    1. Re:You get what you pay for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...I have no means of fixing the bug myself so I rely on the vendor..."

      Don't be so self aggrandizing. YOU probably have no way of fixing a problem in ANY of the code you got from OSS. Be honest.

    2. Re:You get what you pay for? by You'reAFuckingMoron · · Score: 1
      You have four different statements there, none of which are really related to each other:
      1. Windows is Commercial,
      2. Windows costs money,
      3. Windows bugs can not be fixed by my Organization, and
      4. Windows bugs can only be fixed by the Vendor
      You've strung them together as if they were related, or perhaps as if one follows logically from the other. But they're really not related. It's just (sort of) the business model pretty much invented about the time when MicroSoft started making PC software.
      --
      What a fabulous troll your post was.... or how fabulously stupid you are. It's impossible to tell.
    3. Re:You get what you pay for? by cball2k · · Score: 0

      ...commercial systems such as Windows cost money.I have no means of fixing the bug myself so I rely on the vendor.

      ok, so you write your own fixes for the kernel, the applications, and anything else in linux??? I doubt it, you wait for the developer to do so, JUST LIKE A MS PRODUCT. The problem isn't that MS has bugs, or that it cost money, it's the bash-MS bandwagon has too many misinformed ppl on it....

      --
      karma, hah...
    4. Re:You get what you pay for? by xiphiasoft · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of something called Computer Programming? I've fixed holes in many things and if I couldn't, I filed a bug report and it was fixed within 24-hours.

      --
      War is not the answer. War is the question. NO is the answer.
    5. Re:You get what you pay for? by pr0t3uS · · Score: 1

      I doubt that you can fix a bug also but the diference is that even if you knew how to write a patch to a M$ product you couldn't but you can for Linux. So with M$ product all your knowledge is useless and that could be a start of frustration.

    6. Re:You get what you pay for? by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
      That is my whole problem with Windows, I pay big bucks for something that I have no chance of maintaining it and no other company can. When I buy any other item, I can either repair it or find somebody else who can. I have a reasonable chance of spotting the defects and correcting them myself.

      You are right that Windows is a typical commercial package. However unlike almost any other purchase, you are bound to the vendor for corrections. This happened before MS existed (IBM were as bad over mainframe operating systems).

      With open source, it doesn't mean that it has any fewer bugs, but at least I, and a number like me can go kick the tires and look under the hood.

      You haven't been able to couple my statements with the question that I pose. Yes, I have no expectation of quality from a commercial vendor like Microsoft, no matter what I have paid. I can't even fix it either. There are plenty of bugs in open source software as well, but at least I or more likely, others, have a chance to fix them.

    7. Re:You get what you pay for? by Slashamatic · · Score: 2

      Even if I couldn't, someone else can. I could even pay them to do so. I do not have to rely on the vendor.

    8. Re:You get what you pay for? by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
      Um sorry, I do. I even sometimes send the fixes in. I have contributed 'fixes' to about half a dozen operating systems, their libraries and utilities. In a few cases, I even created patches for commercial s/w distributed in binary only. However, I generally have to be paid a lot to fix binaries, source code is a lot easier.

      I don't have anything personal against Mr Gates or Microsoft. However unlike Mr Ford who created and sold the affordable Model-T, Gates's crew has a philosphy that only they should be permitted to fix anything.

  29. Oh please... by red5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    Oh please, when was the last time you actually bought a microsoft product?

    --
    I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    1. Re:Oh please... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Oh please, when was the last time you actually bought a microsoft product?

      Last time for me was when I found (in 2000) that I simply couldn't buy a laptop in the UK without a Microsoft OS (and other preloaded software). Funnily enough, even though I replaced it with a Linux distro, I'm still waiting for my refund.

      Tell you what, when I receive the money, I'll buy a legit license key for the copy of XP on my (gaming) desktop. Fair enough?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Oh please... by pmz · · Score: 2

      Oh please, when was the last time you actually bought a microsoft product?

      Oh, about five years ago.

    3. Re:Oh please... by DemiKnute · · Score: 1

      Oh please, when was the last time you actually bought a microsoft product?

      Oh, come on, that bandwidth wasn't free!

      --
      .
    4. Re:Oh please... by red5 · · Score: 2

      True I guess. It would have been better written. "When was he last time you paid microsoft for a microsoft product."

      Of course then people would point out that since they in fact bought it at fries they did not pay microsoft directly. :)

      --
      I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    5. Re:Oh please... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 2
      I bought a copy of Code Complete last week.

      What, you mean software? Why would I want to use a Microsoft software product?

    6. Re:Oh please... by AME · · Score: 1
      ...Funnily enough...

      That's it. Nobody from the UK is allowed to criticize how Americans butcher the English language ever again!

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
  30. Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?"
    I'm as pro-free software as the next slashdot reader, but this is just stupid hypocrisy.

  31. But its not thursday today... by ethelred · · Score: 2

    now if they only allowed us poor windoze users to remove wmp in the first place, but no, it's a part of the os now

    --

    Remember: If you buy anything from spammers, you have a small penis.
  32. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone imagine a bug in XMMS that can make GNU/Linux unusable? Hah...

    My computer crashes all the time while changing tracks in XMMS. I don't think its that funny.

  33. Make the switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we just stop using MS products? It used to be in the 80s that MS was trying to bring computers to every desk but now they just want to bring newer versions to your wallet (or is it the other way around?)

    If you're using Windows consider another OS. If you can't live without Windows at least try out 3rd party software. If you can't live without Microsoft software say "bah bah"!

    This comment was brought to you by a loud-and-proud Mozilla user!

  34. Apache & OpenSSH by Ratbert42 · · Score: 2

    After a week in which I spent hours remotely updating apache and openssh on my colocated boxes, it's hard to get worked up about another Microsoft patch.

  35. Trojan End User License Agreement by eswan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Has any body else actually read the EULA that comes with the media player 6.4 patch?

    Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.

    Security update? Who's security are they protecting? There is no option to uninstall media player. Your choices (if you wish to continue using Windows) are

    A: Leave your system open to bugs that give system level access to the next worm (imagine nimda with a malicious /default.htm)

    B: Bite the bullet and install the patches. But if Microsoft releases an update that silently and without notification installs itself and 'disable(s) your ability to ... use other software', you're SOL. But hey, it's ok. Don't you know Microsoft is supporting 'Trustworthy Computing'?

    1. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by vinay · · Score: 1

      actually: yeah there is.

      start->settings->control panel->add/remove programs

      WiMP is indeed in there.

    2. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by eswan · · Score: 1

      actually: no there isn't.

      On Windows 2000, SP2, SRP1, +assorted hotfixes,
      WiMP is indeed _not_ there, neither under windows components, nor under currently installed programs.
      Media Player 6.4 very much is still under start->programs->accessories->entertainme nt.

    3. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by tshak · · Score: 2

      Since when did WM's DRM remove the ability to use WinAmp? Just don't buy "secure crap" music and you're fine.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    4. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Check this site out on removing windows components.

    5. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Your choices (if you wish to continue using Windows) are

      C: Jump ship.

    6. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by eswan · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Basicaly just remove 'HIDE' from the appropriate entries in \winnt\inf\sysoc.inf. Unfortunately I just tried it and it doesn't seem to do anything but give a check box to uncheck. After unchecking, I did a reboot, and lo and behold start-> programs-> accessories-> entertainment-> media player still exists, runs, and shows the same version (6.4.09.1117). Checked under add/remove windows components, and media player is unchecked. Next trick is to delete \program files\windows media player\ by hand and hope file protection doesn't kick in.

      Still doesn't change the annoyance that Microsoft is changeing the EULA for Windows 2000 2 years after the fact, by inserting the changes in a critical security update.
      <quote>
      To the extent that any terms in this Supplemental EULA conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA, the terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect to the OS Components.
      </quote>

    7. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by eswan · · Score: 1

      Just tried deleting \program files\windows media player. File protection kicked in.

      'Files that are required for Windows to run properly have been replace by unrecognized versions. To maintain system stability, Windows must restore the original versions of these files.'

    8. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by azpenguin · · Score: 1

      I always make a point of reading EULA's (and yes, I do have way too much time on my hands) just to make sure I'm not going to be required to download anything or give anyone access to my system, or that I may have to sacrifice my beloved cat on the Altar Of Bill Gates. I did see that part about downloading updates. I just made sure I took the liberty of instructing my software firewall to not allow the setup program to access the internet. (It has a separate component it uses to attempt upgrades.) But it was also the first thing I thought about when I saw that M$ was telling people that they have absolutely got to update...

    9. Re:Trojan End User License Agreement by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Oh, that's _really_ cute. Operative word being 'other software'. I am so glad I'm not a Windows developer right about now....

      Legally, this means "I agree to allow Microsoft to make updates, that will be automatically downloaded, and that may break any non-Microsoft software for any reason, or for no reason". There's absolutely no limitation on the 'disable your ability to ... use other software' clause. 'And' applies the 'disable' part to the 'other software' part, nowhere is 'other software' defined. Also note it's up to Microsoft what they consider 'reasonable efforts'!

      They're getting to be sneakier than the music industry contract lawyers. That is rather disturbing...

  36. Simple Answer by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    "Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?"

    No

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  37. I did! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 0

    OpenSSH is designed for remote logins--in essence, a bug that allows uncontrolled access is relevant to the software's purpose. Unauthorized access into an OS vis-a-vis an audio program shows an inherent problem with XP. My argument is not that MS sucks look how shitty the bug is, it's that one small component can be used to dominate an entire system. Think before YOU post--you clearly demonstrate the common mindset of finding someone with an exposed problem and attacking it like a shark in order for a much needed ego-boost.

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:I did! by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "Unauthorized access into an OS vis-a-vis an audio program shows an inherent problem with XP."

      Yes, but it's no different from similar cases in other operating systems. Buffer overflows happen in both Windows and Linux, and in both cases they can allow the mallicious data to execute arbitrary machine code as the current user. In both systems, this is usually sufficient to cause severe damage.

      "Think before YOU post--you clearly demonstrate the common mindset of finding someone with an exposed problem and attacking it like a shark in order for a much needed ego-boost."

      Yes, except that you don't appear to have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Anyone who's done more than a cursory look at computer security and exploits would be aware as to how prevalent buffer overflows are. It's not a problem specific to any type of program.

      So I just don't see where XP even comes into the picture. You made an absurd, hand-waving claim, someone called bullshit on you, and now you're going on a tirade about how it's this vicious shark attack.

      Oh, and you threaded your post incorrectly, as your reply seems to be targetted specifically at Zeddicus_Z, but you replied to your own post.

  38. Trying to force DRM? by epsalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    M$ announces bug. Everybody required to download a critical update...

    What's the bug?

    DRM doesn't work... turns out you can hear copyrighted MP3s. This is a big security vulnerability and you mush download this patch, otherwise the finanical security of the RIAA will be at stake, and that's unamerican.

    [Note: This is intended as a joke and as food for thought. This is not fact.]

    1. Re:Trying to force DRM? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • turns out you can hear copyrighted MP3s. This is a big security vulnerability and you mush download this patch [This is intended as a joke]

      If it's a joke, I'm not laughing

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Trying to force DRM? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      M$ announces bug. Everybody required to download a critical update... What's the bug? DRM doesn't work

      No, DRM patches are more important than critical updates. Microsoft demands the right fo ram them down your throat weather you want them or not...

      "You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer."

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  39. Is it just me ? by skrface · · Score: 1

    "The company has posted on its Web site a software "patch" for users to download."

    Now, where did i hear that kind of thing before? (...using this "La-ser"...)

    So the trojan horse part of the M$ media squeaker was a bug all along?

    Riiighhht...

  40. Windows update: patched and go. by Otis_INF · · Score: 3, Informative

    This morning windows updater had already downloaded the patches, all I had to do was confirm the installation.

    People can whine all they want about that there are security flaws and ofcourse it's sad these still pop up, but the patches are there, the system to install them is VERY easy (just click one single button) so in the end, the end-user is not that much hurt by them, simply because the patches are installed so easily.

    The discussions about 'security flaw free' software are endless and allthough they should be held, are nowhere near consensus: as long as there are humans involved in hammering out code and as long as the computer/software based checkinglogic is not up to par as where it should be, these flaws WILL be there, possibly in every tool written by man. Until computer science reaches the point where a compiler can proof that software is security flaw free, we should be grateful that the FIXES for security flaws are installed using the most easiest way: by simply clicking one single button.

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
    1. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by Zapdos · · Score: 2

      "we should be grateful that the FIXES for security flaws are installed using the most easiest way: by simply clicking one single button."

      No. That is their responsibility.

      On my redhat servers I do not have to click anything or reboot for updates. I just read my email to see what was done. I believe that you need to go reboot your servers now?

    2. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Windows Update allows you to set it to download and install automatically if you desire. The default is to download the patch and install with a click iin order to be able to analyze the fix before installation.

      --
      "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by Zapdos · · Score: 2

      Yes, we all know that. I was following a thread.

      I was making two other points.

      1.) Don't be thankful, for what is owed you. Most patches are trying to make what you actually purchased look something like what you thought you purchased.

      2.) You still have to go to your data center at the hours of the undead to reboot your servers and hope that all comes back online.

      I really dislike having to pay overtime, or giving "Flex time" to my employees every weekend. in order that we can apply our corporate approved patches and reboot. I really dread Monday morning.

    4. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am all for automatic updates of bug fixes utill they sneek in things like this into the EULA for the bug fixes:


      Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.


      You should really try to keep track of what gets installed on you computer.
    5. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by Popocatepetl · · Score: 1

      Until computer science reaches the point where a compiler can proof that software is security flaw free...

      Two words: halting problem

    6. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually we should be thankful because virtually no one else is providing this service that "they owe you". Apple just started. Red Hat just started. MS has been doing this for years and years now. Nice to see that for the 5,000th time, the rest of the world follows microsoft's innovative lead.

    7. Re:Windows update: patched and go. by _Knots · · Score: 1

      We're not really searching for the solution to the halting problem. We're searching for a way to guarantee that code that is supposed to do A cannot do X, Y, and Z (of course, if it does B, but B doesn't compromise security or pose any annoyance, then it doesn't really matter).

      While this certainly is not compile-time possible (because we're trying to see if the code gets into one of a number of given states, which IIRC is analogous to the halting problem, so you're right), it is possible (in theory) with a VM, ala the JVM. If you can't do it ahead of time, do it AS the program is running. Unfortunately, since OSes and hardware can't do this natively, we have overhead introduced (again ala JVM).

      It's possible that CS will progress allowing hardware or implementing kernel controls over permissions. Of course, hardware could *NOT* be something like Microsoft's latest-and-greatest Palladium, it would have to allow the user ultimate control. Time will tell if we can do this in an exploit-free way, eh?

      --Knots

      --
      Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
  41. I Have A Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Five score years ago, a great Slashdot Editor, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Anonymous Cowards who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.

    But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Anonymous Coward is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Anonymous Coward is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Anonymous Coward lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of karma prosperity. One hundred years later, the Anonymous Coward is still languishing in the corners of Slashdot society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.

    In a sense we have come to our website's comments pages to cash a check. When the architects of our website wrote the magnificent words of the slash code, they were signing a promissory note to which every poster was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of karma.

    It is obvious today that Slashdot has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her Anonymous citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, Slashdot has given the Anonymous Cowards a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient karma." But we refuse to believe that the bank of karma is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of karma of this site. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind Slashdot of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of kuro5hin. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our site from the quicksands of karma injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

    It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Anonymous Coward. This sweltering summer of the Anonymous Coward's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Two thousamd and two is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Anonymous Coward needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in Slashdot until the Anonymous Coward is granted his posting rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our site until the bright day of karma emerges.

    But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of page-widening and moderation abuse.

    We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into crapflooding. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting moderation force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Anonymous Coward community must not lead us to distrust of all logged-in people, for many of our logged-in brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot post alone.

    And as we post, we must make the pledge that we shall post insightfully and on topic. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of karma rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of posting, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Anonymous Coward's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Anonymous Coward in Mississippi cannot post at +1 and a Anonymous Coward in New York believes he has nothing for which to post. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

    I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from IP bans. Some of you have come from connections where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of editor's brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

    Go back to Mozilla, go back to Internet Explorer, go back to Opera, go back to Galeon, go back to your browsers, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

    I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Slashdot dream.

    I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all posters are created equal."

    I have a dream that one day on the pages of Slashdot the sons of former ACs and the sons of former logged-in posters will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

    I have a dream that one day even the site of Slashdot, a news site, sweltering with the heat of trolling and crapflooding, will be transformed into an oasis of on-topic posts and +1, Insightful.

    I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their user name but by the content of their posts.

    I have a dream today.

    I have a dream that one day the site of Slashdot, whose editor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little Anonymous boys and Anonymous girls will be able to join hands with little logged-in boys and logged-in girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

    I have a dream today.

    I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of Natalie shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

    This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to Slashdot. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our site into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to post together, to moderate together, to meta-moderate together, to karma whore together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

    This will be the day when all of Natalie's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My Slashdot, 'tis of thee, sweet site of liberty, of thee I post. Site where my fathers died, site of the pilgrim's pride, from every basement, let freedom ring."

    And if Slashdot is to be a great website this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

    Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

    Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

    But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

    Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

    Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

    When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, ACs and logged-in posters, Slashbots and Crapflooders, trolls and editors, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Anonymous Coward spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank Natalie Portman, we are free at last!"

  42. SPYWARE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The patches install spywre and serial number tattlers!!! plus they doom you if you have the famous chines-hack version of XP release version that everyone I know runs, when they run XP for testing.

    These facts have been mentioned before... I suspect you are trolling with such a provocative standard.

    BTW Macs have never had a security exploit, so a bug is not a bug, its the security bugs that are the ones people care about the most.

    1. Re:SPYWARE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Apple releasing three bug updates today then? All security exploit BTW. But of course we all knew that you were a raving idiot merely by the tone of your post.

  43. Just got this in my inbox? by oliverthered · · Score: 4, Interesting

    i'm waiting for someone to do a dns hijack of update.microsost.com and load a
    nice new trojan on everyone's box that their av software doesn't detect. if
    these morons were serious about security, they'd use ssh, not http, for
    updates (and let you turn off html rendering in your email client).

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Just got this in my inbox? by eswan · · Score: 1
      They don't need to go to the extreme of hijacking the dns.

      Code Red bug hits Microsoft security update site
      I actually visited the site (from a non-vulnerable system) while the 'Hacked by chinese' message was still up.

    2. Re:Just got this in my inbox? by lightcycler · · Score: 1

      "i'm waiting for someone to do a dns hijack of update.microsost.com"

      Damn right. Ideally one which remotely installs linux whenever someone connects for an update.

      But seriously, there must be better ways of pushing such updates. Even appreciating that hijacking the domain-name is more difficult still (and will have limited effect), then anyone who owns an ISP, cache, or internet backbone can force their own upgrades on microsoft customers, simply by repsonding to packets intended for microsoft.

      Perhaps the great firewall of China could at last be used to effect ;-) (think about the effects of that one, for anyone running windows in china)

    3. Re:Just got this in my inbox? by stretch_jc · · Score: 1

      yes hijack microsofts dns, and get their signed as valid Microsoft code. Hmmm doesn't quite seem as simple.

    4. Re:Just got this in my inbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This won't ever be read, but, what the hell, I have to say it. The updates you download from Windows Update are digitally signed, and the installer checks the signature. That's why a secure channel isn't strictly needed.

      If you install the updates manually, you have to check the signature by yourself: just open the properties for the file, and verify that the file has been signed by Microsoft. Verify, in turn, that the certificate has been issued by the Microsoft Root Authority or VeriSign.

      If you're really paranoid, keep a clean Windows installation on a separate machine to double-check the fingerprints of the certificates against those of an unaltered database.

  44. Re:I am %100 pro Microsoft by IXI · · Score: 1, Informative

    You should have read the installation instructions. I'm not sure about Redhat but my Debian asks if it may overwrite the MBR while Windos does it unconditionally.

    And

    > Before this, I was a neutral in the Linux vs. Microsoft debate.

    I don't buy that. If you weren't biased towards Windos in the first place you wouldn't have given up on the first minor problem and blame Linux for something which is your own fault.

    If I had given up on installing Windos because of commensurable issues (I actually did this several times, though I never seriously used it) I would never have gotten any Windos to run -- except on my laptop, where it came preinstalled (I'd rather have it without, but they don't sell it, and you know why).

    --
    He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
  45. Bang for the buck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft will *always* take your buck,

    and

    Microsoft will *always* give you a bang, just bend over...

    Or is that not what was meant?

  46. Microsoft just don't deliver value for money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you give me a billion dollars I will write you an operating system that has no ownd bugz in it at all.

  47. Yellow Sticky Script by ONOIML8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounds like your friend needs to take that sticky pad and write a script. Then create a big icon for the script and call it "Get Yahoo Mail, Click Here".

    I have no idea if that can be done in windows. I know that it can be done with most, if not all, Linux desktop enviroments.

    Linux on the desktop does not need to be "difficult". Linux remains the better option over Windows, you just have to get over being lazy. The bad news is you have to learn something new. The good news is you're gonna learn something new, and it's going to work.

    So what if your friends mom can't/won't write scritps to automate her computing tasks. You do it for her for a fee (even if it's just chocolate chip cookies). You set up a Linux desktop for her once. Give her one button access to the things she wants to do and she'll be out of your hair. She damn sure won't be calling you to come fix her computer because of the daily BSOD.

    --
    . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    1. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by lightcycler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Linux ... you just have to get over being lazy"

      You also need to find out how to deal with 300 broken dependancies for each bit of software you try to install, and how to edit XFree86-config before you can even install the damn thing.

      Oh, and if linux breaks after you install it for someone, it's all your fault, and they'll bitch forever about how crap linux is. When windows breaks they just reboot and carry on.

    2. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by rattler14 · · Score: 1

      The problem with that solution, though i completely agree with you, is that a person (me) would end up having to make this person a script for every god damn thing this person would want to do. Sure, if it's something like check you're e-mail and look up the weather, fine. that's only two things. But, why should i get over being lazy and make all these things (unless the money was really worth it). Why can't other people stop being lazy and learn a few of the basics?

      --
      my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    3. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by Nameles · · Score: 1

      The learning curve is high for many complex things in linux, which many people don't have time to learn, including myself. That is why I stick with doze, I can set up and tweak XP to how I want it in less than an hour, whereas it'd take me days in *nix.

    4. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the first point, Just use FreeBSD.

      For the second, thats actually true. Not that it broke, but the particular IM program I installed for my brother when windows registry borked the last time had a inverse cursor in some spots. He didn't like the cursor, and so "FreeBSD is Crap, Gimmie Windows back"..

      He is still trying to figure out how to install windows.

    5. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      I can setup a BSD box and tweak it to what I want in under a minuite, as I have a magical CD that holds a shell script that makes all the changes for me. It took me 3 hours to develop.

      How does it feel to be royally owned?

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    6. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by the_machine · · Score: 1
      So what if your friends mom can't/won't write scritps to automate her computing tasks. You do it for her for a fee (even if it's just chocolate chip cookies). You set up a Linux desktop for her once. Give her one button access to the things she wants to do and she'll be out of your hair. She damn sure won't be calling you to come fix her computer because of the daily BSOD.


      I agree with you. I really do. And I want so bad for it to be this easy to set someone up with Linux. But just because she doesn't get a BSOD doesn't mean that the support calls stop. Instead the calls will be, "How do I do X" and "How do I view this file I downloaded?" and "How do I install my recipe software? It says it requires Windows."

    7. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by pr0t3uS · · Score: 1

      300 broken dependencies? I gues that's what you get trying to install MSOffice.rpm. I mean windoze users use dependencies as a reason to spit on Linux but when they need to install vbrunXX.dll and fawk_knows_what.dll its just normal.

      ...edit XFree86-config... yes that's a tough one. It's real hard to open your text editor and change what you dont like. Oops sorry i forgot you actually have to use a keybord it's not point and click.

      ...linux breaks after you install it for someone... Well i wouldn't want YOU to install Linux for me 'cos i doubt that you are able to solve those 300 dependencies.

      ...it's all your fault, and they'll bitch forever about how crap linux is. When windows breaks they just reboot and carry on.
      That just proves that Linux crashes are anusual and they are right to blame YOU. Everybody knows windows crash nothing new there.

    8. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by ONOIML8 · · Score: 2

      All I can say is that it's working pretty well for me. I'm not a programmer, and I'm dumb as a box of rocks, but I am able to cobble together some script. So some folks have me write them simple scripts for simple things and that keeps me in beer money. Other folks aren't so lazy and really do want to learn to do it for themselves. So I show them how to get started poking around in KDE and a bit of command line stuff and answer any questions that come up for them. That keeps me in chips and burgers which I wash down with the beer.

      I'm not getting rich, but I am gaining some weight.

      It's not so bad really. You would be suprised at how many people have computers just to do email or surf the web and dont do anything else with them.

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    9. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by ONOIML8 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you've had a NASTY installation experience. I can honestly say I've never had anything that bad before and I've setup (guessing here) maybe 50 Linux desktop machines for non-geeks.

      Seriously I would suggest you try again with another distro (Mandrake is amazingly easy and consistant to install).

      I've got some friends who support Windows users and they will agree that they are 4 or 5 times more busy than I with calls for help after they've setup a machine. No, Windows users don't just reboot and carry on. They reboot and swear in frustration, especially when they lose important data because of some silly failure.

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    10. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by ONOIML8 · · Score: 2

      You're right, the calls don't stop. But they are less frequent and, when the calls come, you can be pretty confident that you can correct the problem. My (limited) experience with Windows is that when the calls come you often can't get to the source of the problem and the user just has to live with it because "that's the way Windows is".

      I love calls like "How do I do X" and "How do I view this file I downloaded" because those are the kinds of questions asked by interested people who want to learn. They pay, I teach, they learn, we're all happy.

      --
      . Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
    11. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by lightcycler · · Score: 1

      "Sounds like you've had a NASTY installation experience... Seriously I would suggest you try again with another distro (Mandrake)"

      Okay, I'll put in a reply to this thread (despite flaming from the zealot who suggests that I'm not qualified to use linux because Debian doesn't work out-of-the-box, and I don't know enough about XFree86-config options to get X working... try explaining explaining to your grandparents how to edit XConfig, pr0t3uS, before you suggest that gnu/linux is 'ready for the desktop')

      Bluntly as possible, I am using mandrake, and X didn't work on that either... after lots of emails with mandrake support, they told me how to fix it, and it worked. But I'm going to have to give this CD-set to the PC shop building my sister's PC in a month or so, and do we want their first experience of the legendary stable operating system to be "X is respawning too fast and has been killed"?

      As to the dependancies: try installing evolution 1 on a standard Mandrake-8.1 install. about 7 dependancies, each of which has average 8 dependancies of its own, recursively. After filling /home/downloads with tens of packages (at considerable connection time on a modem), I was still no closer to getting the latest version of everything.

      A week ago, I decided that I wanted (a) completely free software, (b) the latest versions of everything, (c) apt-get, so solve dependancy hell. So I got Debian-woody for £13 and tried that.

      Right. So with the latest version of the most stable operating system which is ready for desktop users, windows refugees, and grandparents, how did Debian fare?

      How about
      X didn't start,
      X didn't configure (none of the screens were suitable, apparently),
      the X-configure program (a) didn't work, and (b) crashed the computer,
      my mouse was never detected, so I had to use a keyboard on the graphical X-config,
      Debian could't read the windows partition where I store all my files,
      Debian deleted, or did not install, Lilo, so I had to start it from a boot floppy-disk, and
      my system crashed whenever I tried to boot from the hard-disk.

      Remember, this was a default install of a very stable operating system.

      By comparaison, I've just reinstalled the Windows98 partition: I put the CD in, selected my locale, had a bath, and when I got back it was working perfectly, complete with all my old files, device-drivers, and settings.

      As the head-up-ass pr0t3uS says, it's all my fault, being a "windoze user", everyone is "... right to blame YOU" when things like this happen. After all, linux is ready for the desktop

      Yeah right. Debian isn't.

    12. Re:Yellow Sticky Script by Nameles · · Score: 1

      How does it feel to be a royal geek?

  48. microsoft bagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i know im asking for a flaming here....but as a microsoft windows xp user and a user of freebsd on another machine...i find that windows xp is just more easier to do things....windows in general is just easy to do things...for the majority of servers running ms windows software that are behind a private network all these exploits are not a major issue, just service packs etc are needed. its just damn more easier to do things.....set up a network in windows? easy...in linux/unix...it takes 5 times longer. for the 95% of ppl out there that use computers that is just way to long. to install software....windows just run setup...linux...tarball or rpm...its just a whole lot more difficult...thats y linux will never ever take off except for niche markets.

    1. Re:microsoft bagging by Junta · · Score: 2

      Well, the entire point that windows servers are expected to be protected entirely by a non-Windows system to be secure says something right there. They ship with bugs that result in security issues, which is ok since they offer patches, but the issue is the same one that most linux distros had until recently, leaving things too wide open by default, in the name of making it easier to use them, whether you want to or not. Windows Media Player does not necessarily belong on a Server or a restricted professional workstation, but there it is, happily ready to be exploited to allow a normal user to escalate privs.

      Anyway, what you say about ease of use has a grain of truth in it, but the situation is not nearly so drastic. Connecting to a network is trivial under either OS, and takes about the same time, either through command line or gui utilities offered by Mandrake and RedHat. Installing binary software typically takes less time under package managed systems than it does under Windows, same for uninstall. I don't see how rpm -i is harder than setup, you can even click on an icon and install it, unlike downloading most zips from the internet where you unpack, then hunt down setup to run.

      Now stuff like sharing files currently does take a bit longer typically (of course providing that the user installed File and Print Sharing, otherwise they get stumped under Windows too), since the file managers typically do not offer shortcuts to samba/nfs sharing configuration, but RedHat and Mandrake again provide 'wizards' to set this stuff up if you can't deal with /etc/exports, smb.conf, and/or swat. Admittedly not as easy as Windows, but still....

      The bottom line is that thanks to projects like KDE and Gnome (though 2.0 seems to be a step backward in usability to me, it's like Sun's usability input screwed things up) and companies like Mandrake and RedHat, Linux distributions are becoming easier to use constantly, while distributions like gentoo and debian exist for the power users, and they all are mostly binary compatible, and completely source compatible, so it is a great deal more variety of choice than say 'Home', Professional, Server, etc... Which are all basically the same thing with a few extra things tossed in at every level, with nothing ever removed nor more power given over the system to more advanced users.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:microsoft bagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dumbass. Just becuase it's easier for you doesn't make it easier or better. You only like Windows better because it's what you know. If you'd take the time to learn some shite instead of geeking over lame ass Windows -- you'd realize the world is stuck with a lame ass operating system that any UNIX/LINUX distro is better than. Turn on your brain.

    3. Re:microsoft bagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, i find installation of software in linux to be faster and more convenient!! everytime i install software on my windows systems, it is install, REBOOT (which takes a lot of time)!!! on linux, it is install and RUN!!! because of package managment on linux, you can easily find out where every file of the install went...With windows, you install it and you have no idea where some program stuck its fingers!!! i have had many cases where installing some software in windows overwrote system .dlls, and broke all kinds of things that required reinstalltion of windows and all previous software to fix!! Because of proper file permissions in linux (or any unix), programs cannot overwrite critical libraries...

    4. Re:microsoft bagging by talks_to_birds · · Score: 1, Troll
      Score: 2 Insightful

      Well, the Micro$oft pimps are moderating today...

      t_t_b

      --
      I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  49. the communists have built up a huge arsenal by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    I sent them this:-

    I know what BSA fears most,
    It's the possibility that the communists have built up a huge arsenal of
    keygens (before thecrack.net went down a couple of weeks ago.) and they
    are planning to release a worm that generates everyone a new random
    license, making it impossible to tell which software is pirated and which
    is not. This will of course be the end on the BSA, probably through the
    madness of running round in circles if nothing else.

    But don't tell them I know these things, or I might gave a knock on the
    door tomorrow asking why I have no licence for my Linux boxen.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  50. Good bang for your buck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always thought I've gotten banged pretty well for my Microsoft buck.

  51. [OT] sig by alienmole · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I'd rather stay... what?

    Analysis of the lyrics of White Room

  52. So who actually read the technical right up: by Mr+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative
    This isn't really a Media player bug, even though the media player allows it to happen. This is an IE/Outlook bug.
    From http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-032.asp
    What causes the vulnerability? The vulnerability results because of a flaw in how Windows Media Player handles certain types of licenses for secure media files when the media file is stored in the IE cache. Specifically, when a type of secure Windows Media file is opened, the media player erroneously returns information to the server that discloses the location of the IE cache as it processes the request to the site for the licensing information.
    If you don't use IE or Outlook, you are fine.
    1. Re:So who actually read the technical right up: by phil+reed · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you don't use IE or Outlook, you are fine.


      That's the problem. You have to use IE. It's what Windows Media Player uses to draw its window. It's integrated in the operating system, remember?

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    2. Re:So who actually read the technical right up: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, but what's the alternative? WMP uses IE to get web content. If for some strange reason, it didn't use IE it would use it's own built in web-browser which would most likely have the same bug. Assume this since they are both coming from the same company and why would they re-invent the wheel? Of course, now there would be 2 patches, 1 for IE and 1 for MP.

      A web browser should be an integrated part of any modern OS, the same way a display engine or file system is.

    3. Re:So who actually read the technical right up: by WNight · · Score: 2

      Hell no.

      Web browsing is interpreting of content. That should be in user space. Perhaps it should be a part of every OS install, but that's a lot different than the networking code which fetches the content.

      The OS really shouldn't do much, it should just provide services to the other components.

      Remember how everyone gave MS hell for Win95, saying it was still a DOS app? Well, people were somewhat wrong to do so. Win95 sucked in that it was limited by the same things a MS-DOS, but it shouldn't have been an OS. It should have just been an integrated desktop environment running on top of the real OS. Anything else is hideous to debug and very unsafe.

  53. Conspiracy theory time! by joel8x · · Score: 1

    It seems like MS is joining the ranks of McAafee and the other AV vendors in creating a scare with an ulterior motive. In MS's case, to quitely patch the system until its fully disabled from viewing content they deem as illegal! And to do this they either take an actual security issue and piggyback the DRM patches, or they planned the "holes" from the get go to be announced and "patched" at key points in time, as to slowly wane the users into locking down their systems from "illegal" content. With the latest talks of Palladium and such, it seems like this isn't such a far off theory either - such an obvious one, actually, that it could be true!

    --
    Sound waves should be free!
  54. Why flog MS by Linux vendors? Because Hypocrisy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait


    Why flog MS by Linux vendors? Because Hypocrisy thats why! Why would a Linux corp crow about a MS security weakness, even if easy to explain, whrn other OSes have NEVEr had a remote security weakness in many years?

    Microsoft XP trojans existed since day one. Remember the groundbreaking Reuters news stories when the reporter had his virgin laptop with XP successfully infiltrated by hackers alleging the weaknesses?

    Thats why I reccommend the Mac OS for the ultimate in security from external infiltration.... it has NEVER been shown to have any defects with its standard installation EVER, unlike even OpenBSDs SSH vulnerability this week.

    The fact is :

    No Mac webserver has ever been hacked! Ever.

    I am speaking about the the current 9.2 or older of Mac OS X (not OS X (unix FreeBSD OS)).

    This is despite two large contests (10,000 us dollars over one month duration).

    That is why the US Army once gave up being exploited and for some of its sites used Mac OS 9.x and Webstar (a commercial web server).

    There are numerous technical reasons why no mac webservers have ever been remotely hacked and exploited, many are quit interesting.

    No Linux/UNIX is as secure as Mac OS 9.x and earlier, as demonstrated by the hundreds and hundreds of exploits in Unix and the lack of a single exploit ever discoverred in OS9 web servers. Ever.

    If you want security in an OS implement what Apple's Mac OS 7 through 9.2 offers:

    get rid of root (leaves a false sense of security lazy programmers dont understand)
    make microkernel as small as possible (even if you pass gary dividians birthaday in a register to get into kernel space, you cannot cause
    mischief that can be caused external from mac kernel)
    get rid of command line (creates a huge way of exploiting between processes)
    get rid of single file fork executables (use a second invisible file associated with each executable file)
    get rid of filename extensions (use an invisible embeded file type that cannot be set by users typing)
    get rid of unix utility software (use non-command line tools that use high level scripting rules)
    get rid of ANSI C library based code (The mac uses safe Pascal Style Strings often, including in ROM)
    avoid C string buffer exploits (again, most commercial mac programs avoid null terminated strings).
    sotre all web server files meant to run as executables and CGI as specially "typed" files
    and most importantly have compilers save return addres HIGHER up the stack (prevents most clever overflow exploits)

    Basically you end up with Mac OS 7 through 9!

    If security is paramount, to exclusion of all else, then Mac OS 7 through 9 cant be beat. And is 100% secure so far according to historical facts.

    SecurityFocus concurs.

    But most linux loving slashdot readers will never understand the TECHNICAL reasons no mac web server running Webstar and Mac OS has ever been rooted, or ignore the facts.

    I wonder why people try to award silly designations to "secure" linux distros! When it has been shown to have many holes historically.

    Windows NT and XP have regularly shown to have security exploits available over their histories while the Mac has never had one published instance of an exploit.

    Now that some poeple use OS X (unix) I will have to routinely warn people that it has already had over 15 exploits since released while regular Mac OS is still untarnished.

    ---
    Please dont bother calling this informative post a Troll. This is not a troll. Why? because I am formally requesting that i am not intrerested in your rebuttals. Do not bother to criticize this post.

    A true troll, by definition, WANTS responses and is not stating anything important. By requesting no criticism, I am proving I am not a troll.

    This post is meant to only educate people on why no mac servers have been rooted and state a few inarguable facts. So quit modding it as a troll without reading the FAQ on the web regarding the definition of 'trolling'. Otherwise -1 mods are merely ignorant censorship by fanboys that hate to admit they know nothing about secure OSes..

    Now I will have to post it 5 times becuase someone keeps trying to suppress interesting posts that SPECIFICALLY opt-out of being classified as trolls such as this one.

  55. OpenSSH free, WinXP eXPensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you start having to shell out big bucks for something, one should have a right to expect some higher quality.

    When things go wrong with something that you've paid for, they often do get scathing reviews. However, when something goes wrong with something that cost you nothing, the usual reaction is "Oh well, what're ya gonna do?".

    Considering Microsoft's most expensive operating system has extremely serious security flaws found in it at least monthly, I'd say its defective. Imagine if you had to go back to the people who made your car every month to have it repaired...

  56. Re:So who actually read the technical write up: by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    s/right/write/ sigh

  57. Gee I Don't Know by _Neurotic · · Score: 1

    "Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?"

    Duh... it's already patched. Showed up as an automatic update on my PC yesterday!

    Yea, I'd say I get enough bang for my buck.

    1. Re:Gee I Don't Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being banged for the MS/RIAA buck. The 'critical update' fixed a problem with DRM, so now you're fucked, bitch. Aww what's the matter? Thought you were all big and bad with your Windows XPlode box? Pahahaha.

    2. Re:Gee I Don't Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, seeing as how I don't have any pirated goods on my machine exactly how am I 'fucked'?

  58. What if you're not online? by nullard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing that's always bugged me about these kinds of updates? What do you do if the machines don't have internet access? I know that that invalidates most of the vulnerabilities (except inside the lan), but what happens someday in the future when the machine finally goes online and tries to download 3000 security updates?

    Maybe vendors should have to release these updates on CD as well.

    NOTE: I'm not focusing on MS here, other vendors should be asked to do the same.

    --


    t'nera semordnilap
  59. Re:I am %100 pro Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  60. Geez... by edremy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    Timothy, you do every day. What would /. be without the daily "M$ sucks! Lets all post about how horrible M$ is!" story to increase those page loads?

    Why, /. might actually have to talk about things of interest to geeks!

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  61. 'Man bites Dog' by vrt3 · · Score: 1

    Is that an existing expression, in Dutch and/or English and/or another language, or really an invention of Desert Fish (Woestijnvis)?
    Just wondering.

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    1. Re:'Man bites Dog' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a common expression in America, originating, I think, from reporters, "When dog bites man, it's not news, when man bites dog, that's news". So "man bites dog" refers to something that's newsworthy by virtue of being so unusual.

  62. Or better yet.... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    I also think the article forgot to mention you can install Critical Update Notification in Windows 98/ME/2000/XP that automatically flags you about security and other important updates whenever you log onto the Internet.

    1. Re:Or better yet.... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      I also think the article forgot to mention you can install Critical Update Notification in Windows 98/ME/2000/XP that automatically flags you about security and other important updates whenever you log onto the Internet.

      Actually, Critical Update Notification has been superseded by Automatic Updates. Instead of telling you that you need to go download some updates, it'll download them and tell you that they need to be installed.

      (Of course, to add Automatic Updates, you need to have checked the Windows Update site sometime in the past month or two. The luser who's been running unpatched Win98 for the past four years isn't too likely to have done that.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    2. Re:Or better yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that nobody trusts Microsoft anymore and most people turn off ANY feature that they think will contact the MS servers.

  63. Due to their new strategy by Zelet · · Score: 1

    I think the flurry of bugs and bug fixes has been due to Microsoft's commitment to security lately. At first I thought it was pure BS but now I am beginning to think that they are going over their code with a fine tooth comb.

    I don't personally use Microsoft, but I am glad that they are cleaning up their act. Their flaws are costing everybody money... not just MS users.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
  64. Re:So who actually read the technical write up: by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

    I think it was supposed to read "Re:So who actually read the technical rite up...front"

  65. M/$ Security Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You asked: Will I ever get the bang from my MS buck?

    Rest assured. M$ gets a bang out of your buck.

  66. Danger Danger Danger by Llywelyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >Perhaps it's too technical

    *Exactly*.

    In a world where we cannot convince people that MHz don't matter, and people believe that security is a product, attempting to convince them of the security issues with MS will prove fruitless.

    MS will just release statistics and compare their OS with the number of security holes found in OS + Applications and people will believe it to show that Linux is less secure. They will turn up their marketing engines and hype that Open Source means Lower Security and people will believe it.

    True Story: I was attempting to convince a certified MS XP technician that MS didn't understand security. Keep in mind this is someone deep within the ranks of the Microsoft Heresy (like the Cainite Heresy, but more Hideously Evil(TM)).

    I cited Scheiner, cDc, L0pht, and a half-a-dozen others. I talked about how open source was a good thing, the reply I got back can be summarized:

    1) Security is a product ("A firewall will make you secure")

    2) He thought the only reason you would want to secure your system was to keep people from browsing the pr0n there (and seeing the other files).

    3) The threat level is minimal--no one would want to break into *your* system.

    4) Believing that security was a real issue was like believing everything anyone told you (down to "three headed big foots in Utah").

    Of course this is absolutely absurd, but thats what he believed. While you may not be able to sell the general public on all of that, it gives an impression on how MS treats security and how their marketing department would convince their users to treat it.

    Sad, but true.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  67. bullcrap by BigChigger · · Score: 0

    probably just a ploy to get people to upgrade. BC

  68. Re:Microsoft has had many unpatched exploits, FACT by nagora · · Score: 2
    get rid of command line (creates a huge way of exploiting between processes)

    Unfortunately, I want to exploit the applications on my machine. I could just buy a pocket calculator and get rid of my computer - that would be secure too.

    If security is paramount, to exclusion of all else,

    Which it never is. If security is paramount to the exclusion of all else you simply leve the computer switched off.

    I'm computing in the real world, you are clearly computing in the MacWorld.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  69. Re:At last an end to these senseless free patches. by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

    At least by charging people for the 'privalage' of downloading their patcher, Microsoft will finally have an incentive to announce its security flaws. Of course, this has the side effect that they might not beta test their software as much becuase if there is a bug in thier software, they get paid to fix it down the road.

  70. Re:And what about more secure OSes? Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Double check your facts and never say never.

    And for that reason, you are a troll.

    Successful hack of a Mac webserver during the Crack-A-Mac contest: http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_1189.h tml

  71. Re:Why flog MS by Linux vendors? Because Hypocrisy by Troed · · Score: 1
    ... on the other hand some Mac people seem to rely a bit too much on this. An "unhackable" Mac webserver was hacked through Lasso by a student I know a few years ago - and that caused quite a big uproar.


    (Do notice I mentioned Lasso, I know it wasn't the webserver itself - my point is that you should never trust anything - not even Mac OS 7-9 .. )

  72. How is this /. worthy? by intermodal · · Score: 1

    Microsoft admits to a flaw it has now patched. Big deal. When Microsoft admits to holes that aren't patched, then you'll be telling us something we don't already know.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  73. Re:Microsoft XP trojans existed since day one! Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac webserver hacked, just 1 example.

    http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_1189 .h tml

  74. Re:Microsoft has had many unpatched exploits, FACT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac webserver hacked, one of many.

    http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_1189 .h tml

  75. Re:I am %100 pro Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STFU

  76. M$ Bucks? by boowax · · Score: 1

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    You have MS bucks? Where did you get them?

    You mean we've already switched to the new Microsoft Exchange Rate XP where we all trade goods and services in M$ (thats Microsoft Dollars)? I know they're supposed to be changing the US dollar at some point soon but I didn't think M$ had that much control over things. I've heard of Microsoft Money, but this is ridiculous!

    --

    You report, Slashdot decides
    Prevueing you're poast ownly hellps iff ewe no how two spel inn teh furst plase
  77. Given M$ history with backward data compatibility by crovira · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and their repeated use of backward IN-compatibility to force people to upgrade or lose access to their old data, this phrase from "Cringely's Pulpit" scared the fuckin' crap out of me: "then encrypting the data EVEN INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER PROCESSOR."

    Its the ultimate in Big Brother technology. The eradication of memory or of access to memory.

    Ever seen people with disorders of the hipo-thalamus? They can't form short term memories. Their lives are hard and extremely confusing since the world is a new mystery every damn day. They are extremely vulnerable to being scammed from one minute to the next.

    Whoever proposed this inside of M$ is an absolute diabolical monster. A human being (given the events of the last two centuries and the incredible slaughter perpetrated on each other, that is NOT a compliment,) with delusions of god-hood. One that looks bad even compared with the most the megalomaniacal tyrant to slaughter people in order to change their minds about something.

    At least when you kill people, you're show for the sub-simian scum you are and/but your victims a're well and truly safe from further predation.

    But this deliberate creation of the potential for maiming of the aggregate memory of an entire culture makes the death camps is so utterly base, so vile, so despicable, so ... I'm a loss to find words to describe the enormity of the evil.

    And M$ will find enough "Judas Goats," enough imbeciles to plunge mankind into a second dark ages. Would that the road to the coming Hell was not paved with moot intentions and banal disregard.

    Slavering drooling monsters and utter despicable despots, we can overthrow. But our doom will come in the form of some utterly reasonable man in a suit who's just doing his job.

    There are a hundred million graves prematurely filled by the victims of some utterly reasonable men in some (uni)form of suit, who's just doing his job.

    The ultimate triumph of Voltaire's bastards will be even more thorough and degrading than the patrician nightmare of the religious maniacs who merely preach evil and bring subjugation and death.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  78. bang for your buck? by mattsucks · · Score: 1

    Oh, you're getting banged all right ......

  79. As TS Eliot once said... by lostboy2 · · Score: 1

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    not with a bang but a whimper.

    -- D

    1. Re:As TS Eliot once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      not with a bang but a whimper


      wouldn't that be a "WMPer"?
  80. It's unstable ? by akintayo · · Score: 1

    It has been my experience, that the pre MacOS X releases crash at an alarming rate. Considering I have never used a mac for more than two hours, this is very disappointing - Windows is more stable.

    I also believe that the MacOS kernel implemented cooperative multitasking instead of preemption - which is a bad thing [TM] especially in a server. Since these means that a bad behaving app could take out the entire system.

    So the reason I don't think the MacOS is a suitable platform is that it is built on a fundamentally broken architecture.

    --
    Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
  81. Re:I am %100 pro Microsoft by kingkade · · Score: 1

    Why would you post this? It serves no purpose as to annoy people. Sure, Linux isn't as polished as Windows, or has as advanced a kernel in design, but at least its free. Anyone can contribute to it. The only problem i see w/ Linux is that distros include apps that are ridiculously buggy (arhmm -- pkg man) and therefore give it a bad view in some desktop users. I dual boot mandrake and xp and do just fine. That other fellow's right, at least most linux installs ask whether or not to overwrite the mbr unlike windows. That's why I always install windows first. Have a great day.

  82. So close... by eddeye · · Score: 1
    This is not the Anti-MS rhetoric you're looking for.

    How many times do I have to tell you, wave your hand at the close of a jedi mind trick?!

    --
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
  83. No no no . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they'll bang you for a buck.
    Didn't you read the license?

  84. Why... by Llywelyn · · Score: 2

    Why do we stand for this?

    Why do you, whoever you happen to be, stand for this?

    The only way this can truly change is through market intervention: legal solutions will be iffy and likely do more harm than good; internal forces certainly won't cut it; and petitioning is useless.

    Support Apple, Support Linux, Support OpenBSD, but don't support Microsoft!

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  85. WMP? by virtue1 · · Score: 1

    This certainly isn't helping Microsoft's plan to brainwash the public into thinking they make the safest/reliable products, and should own the world. lol. Ok, yes I understand that many OS's have flaws and security issues. However, this is in its MEDIA PLAYER. WTF?!?! I downloaded the latest version of WMP about a month ago, and was going to install it until I realized it forced you to install like 5 other non-useful bloatware packages. I'm glad I didn't. This makes me feel very unsafe knowing that everytime I watch a movie, or listen to an audio file, microsoft opens a connection into my computer, for the knowledgable to access. What's the use in that? Is it an error, or another backdoor for M$ to secretly spy on your private materials? Thanks again Bill!

    1. Re:WMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do all /.'ers have a problem with select the 'Complete / Custom' install option in MS software? Select that and choose what you want to install. Sheesh.

      Also, WinAmp will also open a connection to your machine.

  86. Patches by nil_null · · Score: 1

    Here is a page that has direct links to the patches.

    Windows Update did not correctly detect that I'm using 6.4, and wanted to patch 7.1 instead.

  87. Bang for your MS buck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me like you'll be getting banged for your buck over and over and over again. No wait...I meant "screwed".

  88. Didn't think it'd be moded that much. by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    The email was from Thomas Greene of The register fame.
    So I better give him the credit.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  89. Re:and why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah damn it, I agree with a troll!

  90. off topic and bashing score whore by The+Rogue86 · · Score: 1

    if we must get picky, News implies information bias or otherwise is unspecified and i know i cant spel so deal with it ....... i would like to take this time to apologize to everyone else who has to read this

    --
    This is how you know you're a geek the power goes out and you are unemployed and unemployable. Yes I know I can't spell
  91. Re:And what about more secure OSes? Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best you can do is an article dated 1997? That was written before Netscape 4.0 was released-just look at the headline above the Crack-A-Mac contest. You cant find a single article about a Mac server being cracked since 1997? No articles about problems with OS X? Looks like Macs really are more secure.

  92. Re:microsoft bagging, I dunno... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no trouble connecting windows to windows OR Linux to linux. BUt I can't seem to get SAMBA to work, drat it all.

    What Linus giveth, Billy taketh away

  93. Re:And what about more secure OSes? Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love that cut and paste flamebait.

    "Remove ALL functionality of other OSs, and you have... MacOS!" Great!

  94. Try this at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For XP users out there, try setting the system date way out there (like 2075) and getting any media to play with WMP or Real Media.

  95. Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The fact is :

    No Mac webserver has ever been hacked! Ever."

    You're missing the point.
    The point was, that someone stated an absolute, that absolute was not only incorrect it was blatently false, therefore, the entire statement is in doubt. The majority of the post was opinion stated as fact and had very little technical merrit.

    It was only one example, and only one was needed. It just happened to be the first opinion I could find on Google in under 30 seconds. Putting any more time into it wouldn't be worth it, I've already proved my point; the statement is false.

    The original post is overrated, a troll, and flamebait, and should be moderated as such. The fact that it was posted several times in a puerile fasion proves this.

  96. Re:At last an end to these senseless free patches. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beta Test? Of course they Beta test.. in fact, they have the largest number of Beta testers in the world... everyone who is running a MS OS.

    Hmm... we release a buggy product, and then you have to *pay* to receive the fixes. Somehow this doesn't seem to relate to most industries (aka, the automotive industry.. we build a car with a faulty fuel pump, and then issue a recall to replace the faulty pump *free* of charge). MS, "we ship a faulty product, and then *charge* you to fix the problems". Hmmm...

  97. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother rooting Microsoft's closely monitored servers and uploading a trojan that needs to pass a fairly strong digital signature check, when you can just root the update code, which is LESS SECURE than the original?

    Have fun with the new version of MS DRM. I will...

  98. You should have already by sharkey · · Score: 2

    Will I ever get the bang for my MS buck?

    Just remember, YOU'RE the bang-ee.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  99. Re:I am %100 pro Microsoft by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

    You should have read the installation instructions. I'm not sure about Redhat but my Debian asks if it may overwrite the MBR while Windos does it unconditionally.

    Probably because your average microsoft user would think that any question pertaining to the MBR would be some erroneous message and create a nasty support issue. just one more thing that was intelligently left out of the install options.

  100. Computer AIDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if a hacker took over Windows Update and used it to install a worm. He could automatically update the worm. He could also take over you computer remotely, alter software at will, and generally cause havok. It would be like computer AIDS where the immune system is a source of contagious material.

  101. !!!OT!!!!!to hell with your baning by The+Rogue86 · · Score: 1

    if i see another sex joke on here ill have to go out and strangle a baby seal....do you want that..... could you sleep at night with that on your mind.....

    --
    This is how you know you're a geek the power goes out and you are unemployed and unemployable. Yes I know I can't spell
  102. Re:At last an end to these senseless free patches. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does it say that? I went to the M$ site and didn't see anything mentioned about Gates slaves having to pay $14.95

  103. No one's up in arms over Apache bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone up in arms about every MS security hole, yet complacent when similar
    vulnerabilities are found in Mac or Linux
    sw? What a bunch of 2-faced losers.

  104. OK, silly question by pod · · Score: 1

    This is a newswire story, why would you link to Salon, as opposed to a dozen of more obvious places? Like, say, Yahoo? I understand Salon is going under, but really, come on...

    --
    "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
  105. Hello by CaptPungent · · Score: 0

    I'm not sending this file for your advice, because you are obviously a dumbfuck.

    --
    C Pungent
  106. Re:I am %100 pro Microsoft by IXI · · Score: 1

    It was left out because M$ don't bother if there was another OS on your harddisk. Because they don't want you to have any other OS on your computer.

    It's annoyingly stupid from the users point of view.

    --
    He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
  107. Did you read what it said? by Erris · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Since when did WM's DRM remove the ability to use WinAmp? Just don't buy "secure crap" music.

    Look at that EULA again:

    These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer.

    WinAmp is one of those "other software on your computer" which may be disabled. Duh.

    Essentially, this is a backfit of their XP license and DRM technology for the 60% of WinSlaves that are using Win98.

    Given that Windows Security is an oxmoron, there's no reason to "upgrade" your computer this way. Outlook, IE or some stupid piece of junk like a plug and play deamon that you never knew listened to the network will eat you anyway.

    If you just must have M$ in your house, blind it to the network by NOT installing the network card drivers or pointing it to a bogus gateway IP number. Never use it to surf, read email or anything else that M$ will never do right. I admit that I have such a beast in the corner for talking to cameras and an old scanner. It's legal and I own it. But I'll never ever trust it. Red Hat's dual boot (GRUB) let's me get the information off of it.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  108. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 and 2 are related
    3 and 4 are related

    {1,2} and {3,4} are related since money making and open source doesnt necessarily go hand in hand

  109. Re:Is it safe? THAT line ... by vortexau · · Score: 1

    "Damn Microsoft all to hell"

    Darn! I coined THAT line for a office junior to say in a short film (Cubical Crisis) in which a computer converted to Linux dies, and the junior figures out that MS is responsible!
    .

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  110. The real question is... by qwerpoiu · · Score: 1

    Will we be able to sue and get a buck for the MS bang?

  111. Re:At last an end to these senseless free patches. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a huge R&D lab too. Apple