Slashdot Mirror
Dept. of Homeland Security Says to Stop Using IE
LWATCDR writes "I have been saying this for a long time but now it is offical. From Yahoo News:
'The Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team touched off a storm this week when it recommended for security reasons using browsers other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer.'" In related news, rocketjam writes "According to Wired, the widespread Internet Explorer security exploit last week and CERT's subsequent recommendation that IE users should consider switching to another browser has resulted in a large spike in downloads of the Mozilla Organization's Mozilla and Firefox web browsers."
"In the meantime, we have provided customers with prescriptive guidance to help mitigate these issues."
This translates to a set of instructions for making changes in I.E. settings since the default settings are not terribly good for security. THe MS spokesperson said that a "comprehensive" security pack for I.E. will be out later this summer. You gotta love this. You just cannot make stuff up like this!
Cheers!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
I didn't listen to them when they asked me to duct tape and plastic wrap my house, I didn't listen to them when they raised the alert level 5 different times, I didn't listen to them when they told me to trust them, but I am glad that other people do... Perhaps this will do double duty! It will fix websites that cater to IE only so that they work with the currently "broken" Firefox so that I don't have to refresh or cross my fingers to get it to work.
the courts have ruled that Msft's bundling and pushing IE with every OS purchase is good for the consumer. Let business be free to manipulate their customers! It's good for the economy.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Hopefully people switching to FF will mean that more bugs will be squatched from it. Perfect timing for that 1.0 release.
I've been posting news articles like this one around the workplace, but man, is it hard to get anyone to listen. If HQ won't even listen to this headquarters's own IT department, why should they listen to someone in R&D?
Bah. Anyone have any advice on this?
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
"Microsoft certainly respects the work CERT does to help protect the Internet and users. Regarding the consideration that users switch browsers, it is unfortunate that the published articles have misrepresented CERT's suggestions, and we are working with CERT to clarify their advice," Schare said.
Let's see what we have here.
- First sentance tells us that Microsoft isn't going to try to attack the credibility of CERT because that'd be unlikely to get anywhere.
- Second sentance is trying to blame "the media" for misreporting the story, but the media's working from a primary source that has a section heading called "Use a different web browser". I don't know how you're "misrepresenting" that when you take that as a suggesting to download any browser that isn't Internet Explorer which means Mozzila, Opera, Netscape or any other compeitor out there. They want CERT to take back the recomendation to just stop using IE... that's the only kind of "clarification" that's possible here.
Microsoft clearly wants a CERT retraction. But do they stand any chance at getting one?
I've got a better way to convince users.
We need to stand up and tell all the family members and friends we're supporting for free - we are, after all, unpaid Microsoft technical support, without whom the users might as well be using command-line Unix - that they can either stop using IE, stop calling us for support, or expect a $200.00 per hour charge, with a one hour minimum per call.
Enough is enough. No more unpaid work cleaning up after Bill. It's like walking behind an elephant with a dustpan and a broom.
Anyone want to place bets on whether some clever MS lawyer is preparing to argue that any antitrust action related to the browser bundling should be tossed out, because the feds are now encouraging people to use browsers written by the competition? After all, if the government acknowledges that there is legitimate competition, then clearly, MS must not be abusing its desktop monopoly, since so many people are now downloading those free alternatives... right?
As an alternative... imagine if DHS came out and said that a flaw in GM vehicles aided terrorists, and people should purchase Ford and Chrysler vehicles until the flaw is repaired. Do you think GM would immediately start demanding financial compensation for lost sales and market share from the federal government?
Now, extend that to MS, despite the fact that IE is, effectively, free. If the whole thing still seems unbelievable, insert Robert Heinlein's quote about corporations thinking they have an unassailable right to make a profit above all else here. I'll bet good money MS is already preparing the legal briefs for some kind of retaliation.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Cool, will that mean that some of the idiot web designers will actually start taking non-compatibility complaints seriously? Like those ladened with Javascript that works nowhere else but with IE. Take Expedia.com, where the calendar pop-ups only work with IE or Priston Tale web site where the side menus don't appear if you don't have IE (I already supplied a fix which was ignored) - actually this one should be lumped with the GIS2 web site for excesive use of Flash.
Maybe pigs will fly first?
Just one note Mozilla has one big advantage over Opera and Safari for MS base corportate networks: it supports NTLM.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I'd like to take this opportunity to emphasize the negatives of an unhealthy competitive market.
When monopolists crush the competition, and you have one company with 95% marketshare, that company gets lazy.
It produces shitty products, slows development (compare development now with when they were trying to crush netscape), all the while making monopoly profits.
Thankfully, the GPL seriously reduces the barriers to entry, because it would be DAMN hard to get either Gecko/Mozilla or KHTML/Konqueror/Safari relicensed and 'shut-down', or integrated into the MS lineup.
Mark my words, if there was no one else but Opera, MS would think long and hard about crushing it.
Monpoly bad, folks, m-kay?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Too bad that ADODB.Stream is just a symptom and not the root cause of IE's problems. Applying this will only temporarily break some of the IE rootkits, until they come up with a different method for writing files.
Wow. Think how much worse this'd be for Microsoft if IE was a core part of the operating system!
- mark
-----
I tried an internal modem, but it hurt when I walked.
Then it will be interesting to see if Mozilla has the same inherent weaknesses as IE, won't it? For years MS has used the excuse that they're the largest installed base, thus the target for most virii, etc. I say lets see if thats true.
You know, everyone says that but I never have problems. I've been using Mozilla (and then FireFox) for ages and I constantly do online banking (psecu), access my (admittedly too many) credit cards (mbna, discover, amex, etc) via web sites, get all my news online, buy stuff online, etc. The only time I ever had a serious problem using a website that was designed for IE and didn't work in Mozilla was AT&T's Blackberry webmail client. Seriously, that is THE ONLY ONE.
I think this whole "IE is required for banks, online stores, etc". is a big FUDdy myth. Start pointing out sites that do not work with standards if there are so many and let's all encourage those sites to fix their broken stuff.
Finkployd
Gary Schare, director of the Windows Client Division at Microsoft, said that CERT's advice had been misrepresented in much of the press coverage.
So the press misquoted CERT? I've read the text and almost everything I've seen is a quote, albeit summarized occasionally.
I think it's absolute comedy that when MS plays hardball, it's just business as usual, but when things swing the other way they can't stop complaining how they aren't getting a fair shake.
Regarding the consideration that users switch browsers, it is unfortunate that the published articles have misrepresented CERT's suggestions, and we are working with CERT to clarify their advice," Schare said.
Translation: We are currently researching ways to extort CERT into issuing a new statement saying our browser is the most secure as long as you don't use the default settings we chose for you. Fact: IE is the most secure browser when completely blocked by a firewall.
Is IE targeted because it is widespread? Perhaps. But that does not mean Mozilla is just as insecure.
It's not just that IE is widespread, but its a design issue. If the usage numbers were inverted, IE would still have more exploits because it has some extremely poor design concepts behind it. First, it is directly hooked into the OS. If an exploit executes on the browser, then it is a very short leap for it to execute on the OS. Second, IE has a promiscuous plug-in model that allows nasty malware to execute without enough checks or controls.
What drug was the IE design team engineers taking when they decided to to let (or at least failed to prevent) untrusted program execution? The drug is named "Market-share". They were trying to turn on as many features as possible to capture every possible market. Microsoft made an early design decision to tout features over correctness. It is a fatal defect that now is probably nearly impossible to correct.
Now that MS is re-starting IE development, they should probably do what the Mozilla team was forced to do years ago. When Mozilla first inherited NS-Navigator 4.X, they looked at it and decided to ditch most of it. They started clean with new design concepts. I think MS is going have to do the same thing. The current design of IE is fattaly flawed. It will have to be rebuilt from the ground up with a new security model.
It is bad PR for Microsoft and we are all exited about people now starting to install Firefox and Opera. But what in the world makes us believe Microsoft will just sit and watch?
Sooner or later MS will provide some kind of fix for the security holes. Then there will be a version of IE coming which has tabbed browsing and all the other niceties in Firefox and Opera. That new IE will enter the desktop conveniently through Windows Update. That day people will be happy that IE is safe and they will go back to using it. Just because they are used to it and they do not need to bother finding and installing some other strange program.
Today Firefox and Opera are attractive because they offer better features and improved security over IE. What makes us believe it will always be like that? And are features and security good enough to battle the desktop monopoly?
A dramatic increase in the userbase will also make the mozilla/firefox platform more attractive for exploit seekers/writers. Such increased level of "real-world testing" will benefit the quality of the browser in a very positive way if handled properly by the developers.
So when is the Govt. going to fix all of their web sites to work with Mozilla? Currently there are a great number of sites that only work with IE and some businesses rely on those sites.
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
Because one of the biggest hurdles of getting people to change software is the interface. Most end users say to hell with functionality, if they can't recognize how it looks.
while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
"money" , and the reality that most people use IE because of illegal monopolistic actions that resulted in MSOS being the defacto install on their computers, so they use what came with the package, which includes IE, and they are encouraged to go onto the internet without adequate instructions, or without adequate protections, both of which are well known to MS and the various vendors who sold them their computers.
When you have the vast bulk of PCs the last decade and a half being shipped with MSOS, they had a responsibility to make sure they weren't violating anti trust laws, which they failed to do, and got convicted of it.
The consumer was long ago denied any reasonable* expectation of free market choice, when the vendors themselves conspired with MS to ONLY include MSOS to such an extent. It's intent, and to my way of seeing it, is an example of RICO action and should have resulted in MS and several large vendors getting charged with criminal violations, not just civil violations, and several billionaires going to jail over it.
Even though IE is a free download, it is easily observed that most people did not have some other OS OR of their free will go "download IE", it came as a bundled app with their monopoly enforced distribution of MSOS, and the product is seriously flawed. Seriously. The EULA should be challeged, and we need to get a determination of when and how any product may be profited from, but still avoid an implied warranty for suitability for purpose. If they get granted a patent and a copyright, they have certain responsbilites when they trade it in some fashion for money. When you receive something for free, it's a different story. That's the major difference there. And if that again causes a shift in free/open source, how it's distributed, it would be worth it to force closed source/propietary and for-profit sodftware to get classed as a product that is sold, and have normal consumer protections. The tradeoffs are worth it, IMO.
* please note, I said reasonable as opposed to technical. Technically yes, they had a choice, reasonably, no, there was little choice, and still not much. Walk into any big computer store, what is the default install on the boxes there? Are any of them safe to go on the net "as is", how they are sold? No, they are not. The EULA basically is an example of a vast huge case of consumer fraud, IMO. People assume their brand new computers will work, and part of their entire computer package they purchase with real money is the software that comes with it. They would sell little if any new computers bundlked with MSOS if they were merely labled truthfully, as in "you will probably get infected with virus, malware, trojans, backdoors, etc within one hour of being on the internet with the default install and configuration if you click accept on the EULA provided for the bundled microsoft software". If that sticker was on the outside of the boxes, the stores wouldn't seel hardly any of them. How many computers and copies of MSOS would they sell then, if they were merely required to tell the truth, even keeping the current EULAs in place, exactly how they are written now?
I personally *do not care* if the entire software industry top to bottom, left to right, inside to outside has to change licensing,thinking, what they do or how they do it, enough's ENOUGH on claiming a 60 year old industry that has raked in untold hundreds of billions of dollars or more isn't mature and sophisticated enough to offer products that can be covered by minimum consumer implied warranties. Time to take the training wheels off, and get rid of the EULA get out of any responsibility "license". If it slows down releases and causes huge shifts in PHB and investors thinkings and stock holders profits, I could care less, and I bet millions more consumers feel the same exact way. Software will still be written and sold or given away, just of much better quality. Releases will be slower, but they will be much better quality. Pressure will shift from get i
This may be the beginning of the end... if people massively switch to Firefox (which is open source, not from MS, and damn good), the perception about FOSS will certainly change... people will realize MS is not the only choice.
The next step could be a Windows desktop, but with Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and all free/open software with Linux counterparts... once they get used to all that software, the final switch to Linux is seamless.
My website
"Global Class Action Lawsuit against Microsoft"
This is what people don't understand about capitalism. If you don't like the product, you don't have to sue, just stop using the damn product.
I really hate this attitude, "the man keeps us down, so lets sue." It makes absolutely no sense at all. Corporation uses child labour to make affordable products, sue them. Heaven forbid you should accept responsibility for it and stop buying their low-quality products. MSFT sells software for too much money, sue them, don't simply use something else. It's no wonder we have so much unnecessary litigation in this country.
...because they are a monopoly (in regard to the IE bugs and the DHS advisory).
They will be sued because they were willfully negligent in the maintenance a monopoly product, the sabotage of which inflicts material damage upon third parties in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Don't let your dislike of antitrust law cloud the real harm that this software has done. If Standard Oil had sold petroleum products that destroyed the engines of their customers during their monopoly breakup, would they still be liable for damages? Of course.
p.s. IANAL.
Is /. populated by communists? The parent should be labeled "Insightful." Seriously, if the product is bad, let the market kill it. As soon as the wonderful and egalitarian Linux is actually usable, I'm there! In the meantime, I'm stuck with a kludgey P.O.S. OS, and continuously patching it.
I use Mozilla for everything internet related and OOo for office tasks because I can actually use them! Call me a moron, but I really don't relish the thought of using an OS that can't do all the stuff I need it to do, specifically, Quicken, Photoshop, and 3D CAD (SolidWorks). I rely on those programs. Make Linux run them and I'll switch immediately. Until then, I suffer with MS crap, along with the rest of the world.
But, please, spare me the Marxist bunk about some "ideal" Star Trek world in which everyone has a perfect job and never wants for anything. It ain't gonna happen.
The Philosophy of Liberty | lewrockwell.com
They don't. By their own testimony, IE is an integral part of their operating system. And indeed, several important operations in Windows are impossible to perform without IE installed. The operating system is not free, and neither are its integral parts.
I don't know where you USian guys get this rubish about companies have only one goal, the damned profit.
You have been brainwashed and repeat your little mantra like the good Chinese workers used to parrot Mao's Red Book.
Companies can be the expresion of an ideal, the realization of a dream or the intent to attack social problems. You have companies that have been set up to ensure fair trade of tea and coffee, other companies that operate in a cooperative basis in which the workers are owners and benefit.
In Brazil a well known style of management (like some forward thinking USian companies like Google) support their employees to start their own businesses on their free time using company's resources that otherwise would not be utilized.
Many companies have programs to vinculate them with their local communities (mine is one of them) helping with reading skills, IT skills on deprived schools, and promoting on their employees a culture of solidarity and social responsibility. Many of you don't know, but many corporations have strict guidelines about what is legal or moreal and what is not, and employess are lectured constantly (to the point of boredom) about legal and moral obligations.
There are companies out there that compete trying to put innovative products on the market and not by the shameful "embracing and extending" touted by the greatest megalomaniac of the IT industry.
The companies are what you want them to be, if they only pursue profit without regards for the consequences it is because greedy unscrupulous individuals have been made heroes by their peers, the media and unsuspected Red Book reciters.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.