Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Investigates Windows 7 "Black Screen of Death"
duguk writes "Microsoft has confirmed that it is investigating a problem described as the 'black screen of death,' which affects Windows 7 — and reports suggest it affects Vista and XP, too. The firm said it was looking into reports that suggest its latest security update, released on Tuesday 25 November, caused the problem. The error means that users of Windows 7 and earlier operating systems see a totally black screen after logging on to the system." Update: 12/01 22:35 GMT by KD : Microsoft now says that its November Windows updates are not causing the BlackSOD: "The company has found those reports to be inaccurate and our comprehensive investigation has shown that none of the recently released updates are related to the behavior described in the reports."
He might not do much with it, but the botnet it's on has plenty of uses.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
it's not a bug it's a feature!
;-)
Microsoft heard all the buzz about 'skinning' apps and figured they'd one up them and skin an integral part of windoze
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Insightful.
Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
11/24 my windows machine is working perfectly,....11/28 come back from vacation turn my computer on and it updates itself with the 11/25 patches. As soon as they are installed all of a sudden my copy is no longer genuine and I get all the warnings....Spend 2 hours with Microsoft last night. product key is valid. They tell me that windows updater is corrupted and I need to reinstall the entire OS. I was told it is an "issue" when doing a custom upgrade from Vista.
Best argument for mac, linux, freebsd (insert your favorite non-DRMed OS here) ever.
It angers me to NO END that tech supports answer to all computer problems is "re-format and re-install". It is somewhat understandable since it can be very hard to figure out what kind of mess a machine is in on the end of a phone... but all consumer OSes should be able to boot into a live CD version of the OS that gives tech support access to the machine so they can diagnose the actual problem.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
Let me just start by saying... You are soooo cool. You're running an Operating System from 2003. I hope you're not in IT. I can imagine you telling your management, "we're running Solaris 8/9 and have never applied any patches." I also hope you're not a developer that has made updates/fixes to your products so you can say to your customers, "How come you've never applied any of my updates? I've slaved over this code for the past seven years!"
And since this is /., where everyone brags about their personal machine in their basement, I hope you've never run apt-get update and still run firefox 1.x/2.x (or whatever version was around in 2003).
Or do you think that all fixes in linux/firefox are better than even service packs in winXP...
I also hope you've never fixed your car or a leaky faucet..
Because that would make you a hypocrite.
People like you give IT a really, really bad name.
Securing windows is actually not that hard since XP/SP2, but I suppose you haven't left your mother's basement since then.
A user can list the contents of a directory if he has execute (X) permissions for that directory.
A user can create new files/folders in a directory if he has write (W) permissions for that directory.
A user can delete a file if he has write (W) permissions on that file.
You actually only got 1 out of 3 correct.
A user can list the contents of a directory if he has R permissions on that directory. The X bit controls whether that directory can be an element of a pathname which is being accessed. In other words, you can access a file in a directory even if you do not have R, provided you know the filename beforehand -- you just can't LIST the directory contents. It's like being blindfolded in a maze of rooms. The X bit allows you to open the doors -- if you already know where the doors are, you can still navigate. The R bit just takes off the blindfold.
A user can delete a file if he has W permissions on the directory which contains the file. The permissions of the file itself (indeed, even the ownership) are irrelevant.
Not much use when there is a huge amount of software that has to run as Administrator is it?
It takes a lot more than something that is a slightly different way of doing things than the user+group model to get "light years beyond" it - let alone every other feature on the different platforms. Personally I see the ability of people to grant their own permissions to others without authorisation as a major security hole in the entire way it is implemented on the MS platform so consider it a step backwards. You end up with students on work experience with full access to everything because those granting them permission don't have any idea how it works.
I'll bet you didn't even know that it stands for access control list since you are considering it to be such a wonderful advantage. We're supposed to be above cargo cult worship of things that just look like security in discussions like this.
Pillock.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.