The utter PITA that is an XP install on modern hardware is mostly attributable to Microsoft's refusal to re-issue the XP install CD with an updated driver database (*).
This, of course, it to ensure that there's at least one good reason to upgrade to Vista.
(*) Yes, I know drivers can be slipstreamed, but why should we have to do that?
Thanks to Enron... Expect that SSL termination will be a growing trend in the years to come as more and more companies come on board.
Which, like most 'security' measures, is a great way to keep honest people honest.
But then, I guess, it's not about stopping the bad behaviour, it's about being able to deflect lawsuits by being able to prove that you put measure in place, however ineffective, to try to stop it.
I have a very low threshold of tolerance for malware. My usual reaction to an infestation is "nuke form orbit and re-install from scratch".
(yes, that's my reaction to having other people's infected PCs. My PCs have been clean (to the best of my knowledge:-) and, given the pain of a reinstall, I might change my mind if it got infected regularly).
It's hard enough getting benign software to cleanly un-install. Malware does not come with uninstallers, and it's designed to be as difficult as possible to get rid of. Hence, I don't trust malware removal tools (other than fdisk:-)
.PST files, however, are just a bunch of emails; self-contained blobs of binary data. It _should_ be possibly to identify the infected one and remove it.
Think of it as removing a bad entry in a database table, no need to nuke the whole thing just to get rid of one entry!
That assumes, of course, that the computer itself wasn't infected. In that case, it's back "nuke form orbit...."
So in one way, getting rid of the whole file is (IMHO) the _right_ _thing_ (though I wouldn't stop at the file, I'd do the whole system), but on the other hand a more subtle approach should be adequate.
I totally don't understand the bizarre perception that software thievs are somehow Robin-hood-like characters. They're the 21st century equivalent of pick-pockets.
I agree. But here's the rub: In order to discourage these thieves Microsoft has externalised a lot of cost and pain onto its customers.
That's nasty. The only reason they can get away with that is because they're a monopoly.
If someone uses my key (assuming for one second I'd actually buy Vista:-) Microsoft is going to assume that I shared it and they're going to punish me. If I did share my key, I broke the license and probably deserve what I get.
This exploit, however, demonstrates that the assumption that a duplicate key was willingly shared, and thus deserves to be blacklisted, is just plain wrong. The burden of proof should be on them; I should be "innocent unless proven otherwise" (I'm sure I've hear that somewhere before.....) not "guilty until I buy another copy 'cos it's easier than fighting the system".
The sooner Microsoft looses its monopoly the sooner its customers will be better off.
So we make fun of Homeland Security for their meaningless color-coded threat levels, but take the colored borders of confirmation dialogs on Vista as gospel?
Not to say that I take Microsoft security seriously, but...
... the reason DHS colour codes are (rightly) ridiculed is that they are undefined and therefore meaningless. No one knows what prompts a given level, or what response is required.
The UAC colours are supposed to mean something (code asking for permissions is "blessed by MS" vs "blessed by someone" vs "of unknown origin"). It turns out that this distinction isn't strictly enforced.
I still agree with what I believe is your overall sentiment though, trusting MS on security issues is like believing that taking your shoes off makes air travel safer.
Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
They're feeding those exploits to Apple so that they can improve the Mac.
That would be an example of "responsible disclosure", which Microsoft is so much in favour of.
Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to do so?
Windows: I've never used anything other than Windows and Windows is the best OS I've ever used.
Mac: I switched from Windows to Mac and Mac is the best OS I've ever used.
Linux: I've used all 3 and Linux is usually the best tool for the job.
Microsoft has a limited amount of dollars to spend on development and W2K support for the Vista Upgrade Advisor falls below the line.
You're making it sound like this advisor is some revolutionary piece of software.
It's a spreadsheet, taking a few numeric parameters (CPU speed, RAM size, HDD seek times etc. etc.) and spitting out a number (actually, spitting out a bunch of numbers, then taking the minimum and reporting it).
Yeah, I can see how MS would be hard-pressed to support something like that under W2K:-)
90% of computers in the business world don't need anything better then Windows 2000.... What businesses do need is a reliable long term solution that runs with minimal trouble.
I'm having trouble reconciling those two statements...
A windows install is about 2 hours of pain and mysery, downloading drivers, answering questions and clicking OK endlessly....
And then you have an OS, browser, minesweeper and little else.
Ubunto 6.10 takes about 3 hours, but you only really need to be there for the first 15 mins.
And when you're finished, you have a system with all the tools you need to actually DO something!
Ghostbuster, a rootkit detecting rootkit.
great... now we need the bad-guys to do a rootkit-detecting-rootkit-detecting rootkit,
Shield, a protective technology that is "is vulnerability-specific, not exploit-specific,"
'cos that's _SO_ much easier than fixing the vulnerability in the first place....
Suremail, helping notify when the expected 1% of mail is lost
ROTFL!!!
Vegelante, see Shield. Fix the problem, not the symptom!
Slashdot Mirror
one laptop per billionaire
That's standard sales training. That's what everybody learns in basic marketing management.
It's also the stuff everybody learns to ignore in basic bullshit filtering.
If you want a windows PC, buy a windows PC. Don't lobotomise a Mac.
Windows` strength is the diversity of third-party support, both hardware and software.
Why give half of that up and run only on mac hardware?
To answer your question, it's no different from only buying Dell or Brand X or whatever. It's just as wrong.
The utter PITA that is an XP install on modern hardware is mostly attributable to Microsoft's refusal to re-issue the XP install CD with an updated driver database (*).
This, of course, it to ensure that there's at least one good reason to upgrade to Vista.
(*) Yes, I know drivers can be slipstreamed, but why should we have to do that?
OK... enough trolling for one day....
... diversity good.
Even it it's a 'non-evil' monoculture.
Thanks to Enron ... Expect that SSL termination will be a growing trend in the years to come as more and more companies come on board.
Which, like most 'security' measures, is a great way to keep honest people honest.
But then, I guess, it's not about stopping the bad behaviour, it's about being able to deflect lawsuits by being able to prove that you put measure in place, however ineffective, to try to stop it.
I have a very low threshold of tolerance for malware. My usual reaction to an infestation is "nuke form orbit and re-install from scratch". :-) and, given the pain of a reinstall, I might change my mind if it got infected regularly).
:-)
.PST files, however, are just a bunch of emails; self-contained blobs of binary data. It _should_ be possibly to identify the infected one and remove it.
(yes, that's my reaction to having other people's infected PCs. My PCs have been clean (to the best of my knowledge
It's hard enough getting benign software to cleanly un-install. Malware does not come with uninstallers, and it's designed to be as difficult as possible to get rid of. Hence, I don't trust malware removal tools (other than fdisk
Think of it as removing a bad entry in a database table, no need to nuke the whole thing just to get rid of one entry!
That assumes, of course, that the computer itself wasn't infected. In that case, it's back "nuke form orbit...."
So in one way, getting rid of the whole file is (IMHO) the _right_ _thing_ (though I wouldn't stop at the file, I'd do the whole system), but on the other hand a more subtle approach should be adequate.
VandalMail Live (Windows Live Mail)
What gives with the name?
I totally don't understand the bizarre perception that software thievs are somehow Robin-hood-like characters. They're the 21st century equivalent of pick-pockets.
:-) Microsoft is going to assume that I shared it and they're going to punish me. If I did share my key, I broke the license and probably deserve what I get.
I agree. But here's the rub: In order to discourage these thieves Microsoft has externalised a lot of cost and pain onto its customers.
That's nasty. The only reason they can get away with that is because they're a monopoly.
If someone uses my key (assuming for one second I'd actually buy Vista
This exploit, however, demonstrates that the assumption that a duplicate key was willingly shared, and thus deserves to be blacklisted, is just plain wrong. The burden of proof should be on them; I should be "innocent unless proven otherwise" (I'm sure I've hear that somewhere before.....) not "guilty until I buy another copy 'cos it's easier than fighting the system".
The sooner Microsoft looses its monopoly the sooner its customers will be better off.
So we make fun of Homeland Security for their meaningless color-coded threat levels, but take the colored borders of confirmation dialogs on Vista as gospel?
... the reason DHS colour codes are (rightly) ridiculed is that they are undefined and therefore meaningless. No one knows what prompts a given level, or what response is required.
Not to say that I take Microsoft security seriously, but...
The UAC colours are supposed to mean something (code asking for permissions is "blessed by MS" vs "blessed by someone" vs "of unknown origin"). It turns out that this distinction isn't strictly enforced.
I still agree with what I believe is your overall sentiment though, trusting MS on security issues is like believing that taking your shoes off makes air travel safer.
... email is not delivered by trucks driving through tubes.
Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
They're feeding those exploits to Apple so that they can improve the Mac.
That would be an example of "responsible disclosure", which Microsoft is so much in favour of.
Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to do so?
Like the ramen worm that effected most Redhat systems ...
"most"?
I think you meant "mostly", 'cos it sure didn't touch my Reahat boxes.
Windows: I've never used anything other than Windows and Windows is the best OS I've ever used.
Mac: I switched from Windows to Mac and Mac is the best OS I've ever used.
Linux: I've used all 3 and Linux is usually the best tool for the job.
If they're using Mbps instead of MBps then you're not really going any faster :-)
It looks like you are tring to decypher this ancient artefact!
Microsoft has a limited amount of dollars to spend on development and W2K support for the Vista Upgrade Advisor falls below the line.
:-)
You're making it sound like this advisor is some revolutionary piece of software.
It's a spreadsheet, taking a few numeric parameters (CPU speed, RAM size, HDD seek times etc. etc.) and spitting out a number (actually, spitting out a bunch of numbers, then taking the minimum and reporting it).
Yeah, I can see how MS would be hard-pressed to support something like that under W2K
It would be a hellish experience though, since you'd know your free will had been strongly curtailed.
For a second there I thought I was back in the Vista thread...
90% of computers in the business world don't need anything better then Windows 2000. ... What businesses do need is a reliable long term solution that runs with minimal trouble.
I'm having trouble reconciling those two statements...
I want to install an OS, and have it work.
Wow, you must really hate windows then....
A windows install is about 2 hours of pain and mysery, downloading drivers, answering questions and clicking OK endlessly....
And then you have an OS, browser, minesweeper and little else.
Ubunto 6.10 takes about 3 hours, but you only really need to be there for the first 15 mins.
And when you're finished, you have a system with all the tools you need to actually DO something!
I wonder if ./configure ; make ; make install
would work on a 15-year old app.
Heck, if it doesn't you can always fix it yourself (or get someone else to) if you want it badly enough.
Ah.... the power of Open Source
I've used Microsoft products since early days of DOS, and have never been infected with spyware. Nor have I experienced any tremendous suffering ...
Do you have an email account?
How much SPAM do you get?
Where do you think it comes from?
I suffer under Windows' shoddy security, and I don't even use it!
Ghostbuster, a rootkit detecting rootkit.
great... now we need the bad-guys to do a rootkit-detecting-rootkit-detecting rootkit,
Shield, a protective technology that is "is vulnerability-specific, not exploit-specific,"
'cos that's _SO_ much easier than fixing the vulnerability in the first place....
Suremail, helping notify when the expected 1% of mail is lost
ROTFL!!!
Vegelante, see Shield. Fix the problem, not the symptom!
XFIm Wow, that sounds just like a Java Sandpit!
I am _so_ impressed!
When will Firefox's automation capabilities match those of IE?
Yeah, 'cos I really miss having my machine automatically turned into a Zombie.......
and can be removed easily when it is no longer needed.
...to be redeployed elsewhere.
I don't like the precedent. It's one of those "we CAN, but SHOULD we?" questions.