What sort of crazy conspiracy theory do you have twirling around in your head that makes you think Microsoft would rather block malware by using AV software than securing the OS? What makes you think Microsoft, who has the software industry's most advanced and rigorous secure software development methodology (SDL), isn't already trying to secure the OS?
You should work at the Improv. Really.
every modern OS has privilege escalation vulnerabilities
Except, perhaps, iOS. You can't get SW for your iPhone from anyone else. MS, perhaps, should set up an app store, and anything anyone wants to sell has to be filtered through them. They can scan it for virusen, and get credentials with real traceability from the submitter, and then, and only then, can users load it to their computers.
Anything else just doesn't get any sort of privs, unless the user goes through significant hoops to check the right ACL boxes.
You can change your OS so that users can't install code that overrides the OS. Around here we call that "superuser privilege". Around MS they call that "Do you want to continue?"
I assume they have access to the repository and can change their own source code. They would access their repository and change their source code to close the massive holes they left in by writing it without a design in anyone's mind other than the person writing it.
If I'd stopped speaking English for that one word, I'd have spelled it virera, instead. But I kept speaking English, so I spelt it virera.
BTW, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Yours told you what that word means when you see that word, not what that word should be when you write what you mean by that word.
Well, there's that, but it's beside the point of to whom the value of that coin (or bill or check or electronic ledger entry) belongs. When it's in your possession, it's yours, and your control over it is absolute and protected by law. When it's in their possession, it's not yours; it's not even "yours". It's theirs, and your control over it is more than a few times removed, and may be zeroed-out by your choice to throw in with minority political associations who never get any direct power in the government.
"It's my money they're spending" is code for "I'm a dumb hick who fell for a political rant."
In order to be perfectly secure, you have to know that there is no way to jailbreak your OS.
If there is a possibility of any process gaining root access without prior authorization, or putting the CPU in supervisor mode when it shouldn't have that ability, then your OS can be infected by a virus.
AV programs check incoming data for virus signatures, and search your system for any that may already have gotten through.
Microsoft's problem is that it left the idea of security so late that it didn't design its base libraries to prevent promotion of processes to supervisor level. So it's still an easier target for exploits. And it's 50-100X more popular than the competitors, so it's a much more attractive target for exploits.
If MS wanted to lose its reputation as an easy mark, it would take its most secure known system and demand that every MS user on the planet install that before being allowed to access the internet for anything else.
To me, this is kinda like saying IrfanView should sue because MS includes Paint or Picture Viewer or whatever they include.
There are those who say that MS selling apps along with its OS is, in fact, engaging in anticompetitive bundling.
MS has the money to argue otherwise sufficiently that the result is otherwise. But if MS didn't argue, the judge would probably find otherwise, and MS would be forced to sell you an application package separate from the OS, and, like the four-function cards of old, there would be plenty of room for competitors for that "first package bought with a new OS" market.
Would anyone seriously buy MS Paint or Notepad or Picture Viewer if they didn't come for even-less-than-free with the default install? I doubt it. But that would give Microsoft incentive to make them competitively featured. Then you'd see a robust competitive market in those applications.
So no, it's not a good thing that you can minimize this argument this way.
No, it's their dime. You're in possession of it until you aren't, then it's someone else's. Most dimes they have were never yours in the first place. You negotiated your pay in full knowledge that a portion of that number would be sent straight to the government.
Now, you have a vote, and a voice, so you have a say in who will be making laws regarding the apportionment of that dime, and you can tell them how you feel about their decisions.
But, no, it is absolutely not your dime, and it probably never was.
There's no "one main target" among them. Just holes in their database. Small holes in very large databases.
Avast yesterday told me it had something like 5 million different signatures it could check. Which is both impressive and scary. That's a lot of miscreants being miscreative at a breakneck pace.
As for those stories of bacteria living on satellites yada yada, just how did we find those bacteria without bringing the satellite back in contact with Earth?
Define 3 times t1 t2 t3. Set up two experiments that can "send information back in time" from t3 to t1.
At t2 i will flip a coin. At t3 I will run e1 if the coin came up heads, and e2 if it came up tails.
At t1 I will check the two experiments' output ports. If e1 is done, then it means I ran e1 at t3. If e2 is done, then it means I ran e2 at t3.
Simple, right?
Now do this:
Instead of flipping a coin, I will use the experiment results at t1 to determine which experiment I run at t3. If e1 is done at t1, I will start e2 at t3. If e2 is done at t1, I will start e1 at t3. If neither is done, I will start e1. If both are done, I will start only e1. In fact, I won't do it at all. I'll set up a piece of hardware to read the results and start the experiments according to these rules, and stand back.
Now what? One experiment must be done at t1, but it won't be the one I will start at t3.
The existence of a paradox is a revelation that you have done something with language that can not be done with actual logic. "This sentence is false," e.g. The only thing we're doing wrong with language here is inserting the semantics of "send information back in time" into it. Since such a concept leads to a logical impossibility, it is logically an impossible concept.
But, you'll say, what is a bistable flip-flop but a set of gate that does exactly this: read the output and set the input to the opposite of the one that could produce that output? And to that I'll say yes, but they do that in a time-ordered sequence. When we say that we'll do things out of time-order, they no longer work. In order to make them work, we have to have a concept of imaginary time, in which sequence can still be maintained and even iterated, while time itself is moving back and forth to couple the causes to the effects, which become causes for the next effects.
But, again, that still doesn't explain what experiment will show itself to be done at t1. So it's still impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Let my neighbor's kids run around the parking garage while I stand outside waiting for it after I've "summoned" it?
2. Fiddle the transmission knob while it's auto-mobiling?
3. Tell it to run through the sand at the beach?
4. Sit in the back instead of the front? Just to freak out everyone else on the freeway.
5. Bring a date?
What sort of crazy conspiracy theory do you have twirling around in your head that makes you think Microsoft would rather block malware by using AV software than securing the OS? What makes you think Microsoft, who has the software industry's most advanced and rigorous secure software development methodology (SDL), isn't already trying to secure the OS?
You should work at the Improv. Really.
every modern OS has privilege escalation vulnerabilities
Except, perhaps, iOS. You can't get SW for your iPhone from anyone else. MS, perhaps, should set up an app store, and anything anyone wants to sell has to be filtered through them. They can scan it for virusen, and get credentials with real traceability from the submitter, and then, and only then, can users load it to their computers.
Anything else just doesn't get any sort of privs, unless the user goes through significant hoops to check the right ACL boxes.
You can change your OS so that users can't install code that overrides the OS. Around here we call that "superuser privilege". Around MS they call that "Do you want to continue?"
I assume they have access to the repository and can change their own source code. They would access their repository and change their source code to close the massive holes they left in by writing it without a design in anyone's mind other than the person writing it.
If I'd stopped speaking English for that one word, I'd have spelled it virera, instead. But I kept speaking English, so I spelt it virera.
BTW, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Yours told you what that word means when you see that word, not what that word should be when you write what you mean by that word.
Someone should facebook it then scrobble the intent to their twitter.
Well, there's that, but it's beside the point of to whom the value of that coin (or bill or check or electronic ledger entry) belongs. When it's in your possession, it's yours, and your control over it is absolute and protected by law. When it's in their possession, it's not yours; it's not even "yours". It's theirs, and your control over it is more than a few times removed, and may be zeroed-out by your choice to throw in with minority political associations who never get any direct power in the government.
"It's my money they're spending" is code for "I'm a dumb hick who fell for a political rant."
Your biggest problem here is that it's the only correct one you've ever seen.
Did they breed? What did they eat? Did they evolve?
No OS is perfectly secure.
In order to be perfectly secure, you have to know that there is no way to jailbreak your OS.
If there is a possibility of any process gaining root access without prior authorization, or putting the CPU in supervisor mode when it shouldn't have that ability, then your OS can be infected by a virus.
AV programs check incoming data for virus signatures, and search your system for any that may already have gotten through.
Microsoft's problem is that it left the idea of security so late that it didn't design its base libraries to prevent promotion of processes to supervisor level. So it's still an easier target for exploits. And it's 50-100X more popular than the competitors, so it's a much more attractive target for exploits.
If MS wanted to lose its reputation as an easy mark, it would take its most secure known system and demand that every MS user on the planet install that before being allowed to access the internet for anything else.
I think they didn't because they had a decent bundling relationship with McAfee and Norton.
They've probably run some numbers and realized they can tell those guys to go fuck themselves.
Then Ballmer tossed a chair and left the room. (Isn't that how all MS meetings end?)
Yes, you need AV.
But do you need it built into the kernel?
Modern kernels should be modularizing things out, not embedding them in.
There's nothing magic about what a MS AV needs to do. They should just create the hooks and let any AV hook into it.
Oh wait, that's what they do now, and it's letting others compete with them. So they must stop it.
Plaintiff has a good point.
No, my worry was that they misunderstood the word "firewall" and it would set my wall on fire.
MS has an anti-virus program. Such a thing isn't really the issue, to me.
MS has the ability to do things that completely secure the OS against incursion, and they want to build in virus-checking.
How about just closing the holes the virera are using?
To me, this is kinda like saying IrfanView should sue because MS includes Paint or Picture Viewer or whatever they include.
There are those who say that MS selling apps along with its OS is, in fact, engaging in anticompetitive bundling.
MS has the money to argue otherwise sufficiently that the result is otherwise. But if MS didn't argue, the judge would probably find otherwise, and MS would be forced to sell you an application package separate from the OS, and, like the four-function cards of old, there would be plenty of room for competitors for that "first package bought with a new OS" market.
Would anyone seriously buy MS Paint or Notepad or Picture Viewer if they didn't come for even-less-than-free with the default install? I doubt it. But that would give Microsoft incentive to make them competitively featured. Then you'd see a robust competitive market in those applications.
So no, it's not a good thing that you can minimize this argument this way.
MS is evil for including paint and notepad?
The makers of other picture and text editors have tried to make that case.
The users of Paint and Notepad aren't all that happy, either.
No, it's their dime. You're in possession of it until you aren't, then it's someone else's. Most dimes they have were never yours in the first place. You negotiated your pay in full knowledge that a portion of that number would be sent straight to the government.
Now, you have a vote, and a voice, so you have a say in who will be making laws regarding the apportionment of that dime, and you can tell them how you feel about their decisions.
But, no, it is absolutely not your dime, and it probably never was.
There's no "one main target" among them. Just holes in their database. Small holes in very large databases.
Avast yesterday told me it had something like 5 million different signatures it could check. Which is both impressive and scary. That's a lot of miscreants being miscreative at a breakneck pace.
You're typing into it.
Earth was the best place for them to land.
As for those stories of bacteria living on satellites yada yada, just how did we find those bacteria without bringing the satellite back in contact with Earth?
It should have a cargo-hold full of Wall-E type devices that can scatter during the day and return home to charge at night.
Give more than one scientist at a time a chance to drive.
(And reduce the risk of total mission failure in case of a Walowitz incident.)
Um, no. Unless that micro-organism is already adapted to conditions under which no micro-organisms can grow.
However, one misplaced primordial soup, and we could be saying hello to Grzpltrx on the return journey in a few billion years.
Well, no, because i meant "anything else."
Define 3 times t1 t2 t3. Set up two experiments that can "send information back in time" from t3 to t1.
At t2 i will flip a coin. At t3 I will run e1 if the coin came up heads, and e2 if it came up tails.
At t1 I will check the two experiments' output ports. If e1 is done, then it means I ran e1 at t3. If e2 is done, then it means I ran e2 at t3.
Simple, right?
Now do this:
Instead of flipping a coin, I will use the experiment results at t1 to determine which experiment I run at t3. If e1 is done at t1, I will start e2 at t3. If e2 is done at t1, I will start e1 at t3. If neither is done, I will start e1. If both are done, I will start only e1. In fact, I won't do it at all. I'll set up a piece of hardware to read the results and start the experiments according to these rules, and stand back.
Now what? One experiment must be done at t1, but it won't be the one I will start at t3.
The existence of a paradox is a revelation that you have done something with language that can not be done with actual logic. "This sentence is false," e.g. The only thing we're doing wrong with language here is inserting the semantics of "send information back in time" into it. Since such a concept leads to a logical impossibility, it is logically an impossible concept.
But, you'll say, what is a bistable flip-flop but a set of gate that does exactly this: read the output and set the input to the opposite of the one that could produce that output? And to that I'll say yes, but they do that in a time-ordered sequence. When we say that we'll do things out of time-order, they no longer work. In order to make them work, we have to have a concept of imaginary time, in which sequence can still be maintained and even iterated, while time itself is moving back and forth to couple the causes to the effects, which become causes for the next effects.
But, again, that still doesn't explain what experiment will show itself to be done at t1. So it's still impossible.
And if you find out they're serving it from one of these computers, will you say that with the same attitude?
If you can get the Chrome browser on your work computer, you can do that already.