Yes, but you do not have to allow the same path into the network for IIS as the users have for outlook. Meaning IIS does not need exposed by default to the internet. To connect using OWA you have to expose IIS.
I don't want to hear any crap about migration costs. Proof. Give me proof. Give me case studies. I'm tired of excuses. Maybe they're true, but they're always just excuses. It's just people afraid of a new thing and nothing more.
You're not in marketing are you? LOL, sorry I just like the pitch. OK, I will bite. In a mid sized corporation (50-300 users) downtime of a single office worker can be major. Efficiency is of the utmost importance. I would love to use Linux however I can not down groups of sales people or purchasing to spend a day or two acquanting them to a new desktop. Is that an excuse. Sure it is, it is my excuse and as IT Director my excuse is my perogative. I have no fear of something new just a deep rooted love of profit and a desire to maximize it.
Oh yeah, the TCO question. Out of 200 PCs and 40 remote laptops I had three sasser infections. One was inhouse and took about 5 minutes for me to clean, another was a remote laptop with a savvy user whom I talked through cleaning and patching her system (and scolded her for turning off my autoupdates) and the third was a user who was not too savvy I fedexed her a new laptop (imaged off Windows RIS) and she fedexed me the old one. I would estimate sasser cost me about 110$. No the antivirus system and patch maintenance are not part of that cost because you do the same thing with 'nix systems. Proper management of any OS is going to get less trouble.
Furthermore, this creates a OSS project that now directly challeges Outlook, which will exempt users from most of Outlook's exploit issues...
Sorry, but no. First, this 'exchange connector' depends on Outlook web access, so it is not TRULY an Exchange connector. It is more an exchange translator. Second by requiring Outlook web they will cause more sites (not less) to run Iis (internet information server) The only thing worse than a site running exchange (as an MCSE I know) is a site running exchange with Outlook Web enabled. They get all the power of exchange viruses coupled with the ease of IIS viruses for an optimal user experience Sarcasm I hope that they are pursuing a true Exchange connector.
Man, that site must have been running on the tester's machine (a P3-500). Slashdotted at 6 comments.
Either that or the webserver was running ext3... slow as molasses by the test results.
Yes, it must be disk throughput or some other problem because all websites have unlimited bandwidth...can't be a network issue;-)
The burden could be carried, but dont expect a company to provide that level of support for what the price of a current Windows license is.
No, it couldn't actually. Microsoft is very careful to make sure that they are not underpriced for what the market will carry. If they had to carry that burden the cost of the OS would be higher than the market would bear. If the govt. decided at that point there was still not enough competition they would probably just drop making MS carry the burden so they could regulate price. So, it could at best be a failed experiment. The billions of dollars these worms do in damages worldwide would devastate even MS.
How about paying for the time of all the admins that have been running around patching systems to get rid of it?
Despite the fact that you call me a troll, I think your question is valid. If MS pays damages for any downtime caused by a virus they accept responsibility for ALL of it. No company could carry that burden nor should they have to. To be perfect from initial rollout date there would be no need for Macafee or Symantec etc... You think that level should be expected? We don't expect that of car or even airplane manufacturers. We expect best possible efforts and we expect prompt notification of problems which we will have fixed. I suppose there is room for the argument that a truly bad car defect will prompt a recall, but how would we equal that in the computer world (my guess is a patch, oh we do that)
You should also mention that the patch fucked SMP machines and possibly (depends how lucky you are) any NT machine with a partition over 7.8GB. When testing reveals that the patch is borked you do NOT install it.
Don't forget to also mention that when a manufacturer waffles back and forth about wether or not to continue support on a platform (NT) that platform should be dropped from production. All my Windows 2000 boxes are SMP I have partitions MUCH greater than 7.8 GB and the patch I installed 3 weeks ago works great.
While I do agree that they need to do better (not more) auditing of code, I also think it is admirable that they are taking responsibility for the damage in some way. Props to Microsoft.
Suggestion, instead of suing security companies who find and point out vulnerabilities they should implement rewards there. For example, if xyz security found a vulnerability they could either
A: release it to the news/public and risk MS ire or
B: Submit it confidentially to the MS bug track for a hefty reward
Yes, that lacks disclosure but it is a healthier system than now exists.
And what if he was just curious? He's supposed to live under FBI surveillance until they decide he's not a threat? With PATRIOT he loses all of his privacy...
Sorry, but the govt. is just trying to prevent having another 3000 people simultaneously lose their privacy. I value freedom as much as you, matter of fact I was there when daddy bush sent us to Iraq for "war in the Sand Vol I" but I see no harm in watching someone who expresses curiosity about a potential target of opportunity.
Your post leaves me with the distinct impression that you believe Asians pirate more software and get more viruses than the rest of the world which is just false.
That's a little trick we engineers like to call math. See, there are as many computers in asia as there are in the rest of the world combined. Add to that the fact that Microsoft has admitted to leniency in pirating and the fact that business people KNOW that in Bangkok they can buy a burned XP cd for around 8$ and you can easily believe the original statement.
If the original statement said something to the effect of "yeah on my network its just the chinese people that get viruses", that would be racist. But pointing out that the largest distribution of computers is statistically likely to have the largest distribution of viruses.
But then who is it to determine what a legitimate reason is for wanting the information? After all, someone who is researching the tunnels for a civil engineering paper may have a very valid reason, but is everyone going to think that?
Probably a set of guidelines developed by a small commitee working on the case at hand. Most of your post dealt with exactly why someone SHOULD be interrogated after such a request. We think of interrogation as awful (look what they did to those Iraqis) but the truth is the word means question. It could weel have gone:
FBI: "Why did you ask for this information"
Kid: "For my civil engineering project, here are my notes and here is my profs phone number"
FBI: "This looks reasonable, do you mind if we call your prof and check this through him? Further, could we call you if any other questions that come up."
Kid: "Sure"
That is their job.
As a linux user and a Windows user and an admin of a large homogenous network I can tell you this. I simply do not like open office or star office. Don't like them at all, don't like their interfaces of file pickers etc... I also don't like Outlook, I prefer e-mail clients that are well, e-mail clients. So I use Office (currently 2003) and for mail I use whatever is handy for e-mail (on my Linux boxes) usually K-mail. So, I do not frown on people replacing Office I just say make sure that your users are comfortable with what you put out. (Yes I tried using it, and still do occasionally).
So remember, open source is about having a choice. Remember some people may choose something you don't like. I use Office because I choose to.
Aspiring young hackers?! Aspiring young hackers don't cut and paste other people's code.
Agreed, as someone who long was aspiring to be in IT (why?!?). I believe I was referred to along the lines of dork etc... Never script kiddie. But then All my code are belong to me! no cut & paste here
Why it's so easy for us to accept the typical cracker/hacker defense ("I am just exposing vulnerabilities in this computer system or data encryption scheme")
Who accepts that? Just last year a man (I can not remember the name but the story made slashdot) almost went to jail for reporting a weaskness that could be exploited to a large corporation. e did not even exploit it, simply noticed it. If you think that in this post patriot act world you can hack using the above as an excuse, you are a bit out of touch.
Sure, there are some legitimate uses for file sharing, like swapping public domain files. But ask almost any college student what kazaa is, and they'll explain that it is for sharing music...
Music can be legitamately shared. That more than anything is what the MIPI and RIIA and other goons are trying quietly to suppress. The "one percent" as you call it of legitimate use. People like Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel who are releasing (and helping other artists to release) music on their own terms, thus shutting out the recording industry. If this were to continue, in five years that could be 20-25%. So, if the RIIA and others shout PIRATE loud enough in the right ears, no one will ever notice those people and before long they will be legislated (coerced) into either A. Recording music with the industry or B. Not recording music. These people are thugs and are using heavy handed monopolistic practices as well as sly legal trickery to perpetuate their empires. Sorry you can't see that.
Recently, due to a family death, I have come into posession of a large sum of money. For reasons that I can not explain I am unable to hold onto this money and that is where I need your assistance. My plan is to purchase wireless network equipment which I will use to improve the quality of life for my people (the other tenants in my building). Upon advisement from you, I will transfer the money to a computer supplier of your choice in return for the goods we decide on. You will receive nothing from this as it is not several million dollars and I am not an African Prince.
Who said anything about selling India short? If any short selling was going on, it was RMS who was the recipient. India will do fine...with or without RMS.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you do not have to allow the same path into the network for IIS as the users have for outlook. Meaning IIS does not need exposed by default to the internet. To connect using OWA you have to expose IIS.
I don't want to hear any crap about migration costs. Proof. Give me proof. Give me case studies. I'm tired of excuses. Maybe they're true, but they're always just excuses. It's just people afraid of a new thing and nothing more.
You're not in marketing are you? LOL, sorry I just like the pitch. OK, I will bite. In a mid sized corporation (50-300 users) downtime of a single office worker can be major. Efficiency is of the utmost importance. I would love to use Linux however I can not down groups of sales people or purchasing to spend a day or two acquanting them to a new desktop. Is that an excuse. Sure it is, it is my excuse and as IT Director my excuse is my perogative. I have no fear of something new just a deep rooted love of profit and a desire to maximize it.
Oh yeah, the TCO question. Out of 200 PCs and 40 remote laptops I had three sasser infections. One was inhouse and took about 5 minutes for me to clean, another was a remote laptop with a savvy user whom I talked through cleaning and patching her system (and scolded her for turning off my autoupdates) and the third was a user who was not too savvy I fedexed her a new laptop (imaged off Windows RIS) and she fedexed me the old one. I would estimate sasser cost me about 110$. No the antivirus system and patch maintenance are not part of that cost because you do the same thing with 'nix systems. Proper management of any OS is going to get less trouble.
Furthermore, this creates a OSS project that now directly challeges Outlook, which will exempt users from most of Outlook's exploit issues...
Sorry, but no. First, this 'exchange connector' depends on Outlook web access, so it is not TRULY an Exchange connector. It is more an exchange translator. Second by requiring Outlook web they will cause more sites (not less) to run Iis (internet information server) The only thing worse than a site running exchange (as an MCSE I know) is a site running exchange with Outlook Web enabled. They get all the power of exchange viruses coupled with the ease of IIS viruses for an optimal user experience Sarcasm I hope that they are pursuing a true Exchange connector.
Man, that site must have been running on the tester's machine (a P3-500). Slashdotted at 6 comments.
;-)
Either that or the webserver was running ext3... slow as molasses by the test results.
Yes, it must be disk throughput or some other problem because all websites have unlimited bandwidth...can't be a network issue
Babbage did the real work.
Don't forget the poet Ada, who was set to be a programmer long before Turing (yes, for Babbage)
The burden could be carried, but dont expect a company to provide that level of support for what the price of a current Windows license is.
No, it couldn't actually. Microsoft is very careful to make sure that they are not underpriced for what the market will carry. If they had to carry that burden the cost of the OS would be higher than the market would bear. If the govt. decided at that point there was still not enough competition they would probably just drop making MS carry the burden so they could regulate price. So, it could at best be a failed experiment. The billions of dollars these worms do in damages worldwide would devastate even MS.
How about paying for the time of all the admins that have been running around patching systems to get rid of it?
Despite the fact that you call me a troll, I think your question is valid. If MS pays damages for any downtime caused by a virus they accept responsibility for ALL of it. No company could carry that burden nor should they have to. To be perfect from initial rollout date there would be no need for Macafee or Symantec etc... You think that level should be expected? We don't expect that of car or even airplane manufacturers. We expect best possible efforts and we expect prompt notification of problems which we will have fixed. I suppose there is room for the argument that a truly bad car defect will prompt a recall, but how would we equal that in the computer world (my guess is a patch, oh we do that)
You should also mention that the patch fucked SMP machines and possibly (depends how lucky you are) any NT machine with a partition over 7.8GB. When testing reveals that the patch is borked you do NOT install it.
Don't forget to also mention that when a manufacturer waffles back and forth about wether or not to continue support on a platform (NT) that platform should be dropped from production. All my Windows 2000 boxes are SMP I have partitions MUCH greater than 7.8 GB and the patch I installed 3 weeks ago works great.
That system already exists.It is called "Black Mail."
LOL! That's too true. However, they could make it easier to find the correct contact information for that task.
While I do agree that they need to do better (not more) auditing of code, I also think it is admirable that they are taking responsibility for the damage in some way. Props to Microsoft.
Suggestion, instead of suing security companies who find and point out vulnerabilities they should implement rewards there. For example, if xyz security found a vulnerability they could either
A: release it to the news/public and risk MS ire
or
B: Submit it confidentially to the MS bug track for a hefty reward
Yes, that lacks disclosure but it is a healthier system than now exists.
as apparently Mr. Burns is running SCO and has a whole team of Homer Simpsons working for him. :)
Doh!!
And what if he was just curious? He's supposed to live under FBI surveillance until they decide he's not a threat? With PATRIOT he loses all of his privacy...
Sorry, but the govt. is just trying to prevent having another 3000 people simultaneously lose their privacy. I value freedom as much as you, matter of fact I was there when daddy bush sent us to Iraq for "war in the Sand Vol I" but I see no harm in watching someone who expresses curiosity about a potential target of opportunity.
Your post leaves me with the distinct impression that you believe Asians pirate more software and get more viruses than the rest of the world which is just false.
That's a little trick we engineers like to call math. See, there are as many computers in asia as there are in the rest of the world combined. Add to that the fact that Microsoft has admitted to leniency in pirating and the fact that business people KNOW that in Bangkok they can buy a burned XP cd for around 8$ and you can easily believe the original statement.
If the original statement said something to the effect of "yeah on my network its just the chinese people that get viruses", that would be racist. But pointing out that the largest distribution of computers is statistically likely to have the largest distribution of viruses.
But then who is it to determine what a legitimate reason is for wanting the information? After all, someone who is researching the tunnels for a civil engineering paper may have a very valid reason, but is everyone going to think that?
Probably a set of guidelines developed by a small commitee working on the case at hand. Most of your post dealt with exactly why someone SHOULD be interrogated after such a request. We think of interrogation as awful (look what they did to those Iraqis) but the truth is the word means question. It could weel have gone:
FBI: "Why did you ask for this information" Kid: "For my civil engineering project, here are my notes and here is my profs phone number" FBI: "This looks reasonable, do you mind if we call your prof and check this through him? Further, could we call you if any other questions that come up." Kid: "Sure"
That is their job.
As a linux user and a Windows user and an admin of a large homogenous network I can tell you this. I simply do not like open office or star office. Don't like them at all, don't like their interfaces of file pickers etc... I also don't like Outlook, I prefer e-mail clients that are well, e-mail clients. So I use Office (currently 2003) and for mail I use whatever is handy for e-mail (on my Linux boxes) usually K-mail. So, I do not frown on people replacing Office I just say make sure that your users are comfortable with what you put out. (Yes I tried using it, and still do occasionally).
So remember, open source is about having a choice. Remember some people may choose something you don't like. I use Office because I choose to.
Those NDAs were most important in the 90s when every tech thought was worth a BMW. You can negotiate now somewhat easier. Good luck.
That sounds like a lot of work and it should be very interesting to read! Yay editor!
Aspiring young hackers?! Aspiring young hackers don't cut and paste other people's code.
Agreed, as someone who long was aspiring to be in IT (why?!?). I believe I was referred to along the lines of dork etc... Never script kiddie. But then All my code are belong to me! no cut & paste here
Why it's so easy for us to accept the typical cracker/hacker defense ("I am just exposing vulnerabilities in this computer system or data encryption scheme")
Who accepts that? Just last year a man (I can not remember the name but the story made slashdot) almost went to jail for reporting a weaskness that could be exploited to a large corporation. e did not even exploit it, simply noticed it. If you think that in this post patriot act world you can hack using the above as an excuse, you are a bit out of touch.
Sure, there are some legitimate uses for file sharing, like swapping public domain files. But ask almost any college student what kazaa is, and they'll explain that it is for sharing music...
Music can be legitamately shared. That more than anything is what the MIPI and RIIA and other goons are trying quietly to suppress. The "one percent" as you call it of legitimate use. People like Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel who are releasing (and helping other artists to release) music on their own terms, thus shutting out the recording industry. If this were to continue, in five years that could be 20-25%. So, if the RIIA and others shout PIRATE loud enough in the right ears, no one will ever notice those people and before long they will be legislated (coerced) into either A. Recording music with the industry or B. Not recording music. These people are thugs and are using heavy handed monopolistic practices as well as sly legal trickery to perpetuate their empires. Sorry you can't see that.
Don't squeeze the Sharman
Dear slashdot,
Recently, due to a family death, I have come into posession of a large sum of money. For reasons that I can not explain I am unable to hold onto this money and that is where I need your assistance. My plan is to purchase wireless network equipment which I will use to improve the quality of life for my people (the other tenants in my building). Upon advisement from you, I will transfer the money to a computer supplier of your choice in return for the goods we decide on. You will receive nothing from this as it is not several million dollars and I am not an African Prince.
Thank you
The only reason Bush is planning a mission to Mars is someone told him the Martians worked for less than Indians
That and the martian WMD.
Fermi Lab: Not Fair!
Student: Pirate
Who said anything about selling India short? If any short selling was going on, it was RMS who was the recipient. India will do fine...with or without RMS.