the number 1 issue in computing is security or rather the lack thereof. and this is a defect that has been foisted upon us all by Ms. Windows
we patch and patch and patch. and we patch some more and we patch every tuesday
and still: NOTHING CHANGES security problems are getting worse at an increasing rate, not only in the number of attacks but in the sophistication and damages
one approach to breaking Ms monopoly would be to consider Ms Windows as an application program, not an OS. Security is a fundamental requirement of an operating system: the operating system must seize and maintain control over all system resources.
compatibilty operating environments have never been very satisfactory as they add a lot of system over-head and a lot of complexity. but these such systems have been helpful in making transitions
it will not be acceptable to stay on Ms indefinitely.
for the moment, putting on all the recommended security patches is considered doing an adequate job ( doing all possible ) of insuring security
sooner or later the truth about the king's latest outfit will have to be recognized: the security patches have not produced a secure system and there is no longer any reason to expect that will change in the future.
all you can do is critique my writing style and tell me i live in fantasy land and use too many asterisks?
"RACF" stood for Resource Access Control Facility, and that is what that software provided.
and that is precisely what is needed in Ms Windows: restricted access to updating the system.
unless this issue is attended, and soon, it will be the end of our promiscuous friend Ms Windows. an un-secure system is not suitable for business and to a greater degree each quarter we are using Ms Windows for business purposes. both on the job and at home.
now sometimes i like to editorialize. and when i do that i will usually remember to mark my work as such. i don't always, sometimes i get in a hurry but if i do that i apologize.
Windows is promiscuous: runs anything for anybody. small wonder it gets compromised so often.
Computer Security is not a new discipline: I studied IBM/RACF twenty years ago.
I think computer security can be implemented. but first you must want security.
I am not convinced efforts to date to secure Ms. Windows are sincere
can you imagine how a CIO must feel going in to see the CEO and requesting downtime to install "security patches" . might as well ask for permission to play tiddle-winks, at least ya only waste yer own time instead of everyone's.
might as well smoke 'em cuz they do nothing to help security: our systems are still being hacked and hacked and hacked until now "computer security" is just a joke
Microsoft will *never* produce a secure system: the user is *not* the customer: the advertising industry is. just as in television, *we* are *not* the customer: *we* are what is for sale, advertising is the customer, tv industry is selling *us* as *audience* to the advertisers
and Windows is not any different in this respect but is rather a transitional product taking us from the television screen to the selectivision screen which is what the WWW+television will morph into
the initial work is already done: the www has injected so much graphics into computer presentaions that hi-speed broad band is now necessary for "surfing".
now that that's been done the next step is to combine the web with digital TV and you have the advertising marketing dream come true: television with instantaneous feed-back on what everyone is watching and how everyone is responding to it
the ability to adjust your windows programming all along a little here and there is critical to the development and maintenance of this scheme and that is why Microsoft can *never* produce a secure system. Their system provides access to customer computer for paying customers and that includes the ability to modify the client programming ( your computer ). all of this is hidden from everyone except the hackers of course
why do you think we patch and patch and patch and patch and for every patch a new vulnerability shows up? because the patch only moves the remote access capability from one hiding place to another it doesn't remove it. and never will.
as a means of contact an executable programs capability offers many many options to its author
you may be happy that you don't have to sign your executables and maybe you aren't writing anything malicious. but rest assured we do have people who are writing malicious code and so we will have to adopt some process to bring that under control
while we certainly won't be able to require anyone to sign their code we can REJECT and REFUSE any code that has not been signed and this is where we are going with this change.
you will always have to determine for yourself what to trust and what to reject
the wider and more varied your experience the better you will be able to do this
Freedom of Speech is the First Defense against Tyranny
Tyranny is the unrestricted or arbitrary use of power and is preferred by thugs of every feather.
when people are arrested for simply saying they don't like their government, then that is a bad thing. especially if some of them are then executed so their organs can be "harvested" ( sold to selected "important" people )
I think the hardest part of defending freedom is in accepting the extent of evil that develops if unchecked.
the freedom of speech that has developed as a result of electronic communication over the last 15 years may be the best thing that has happened to humanity in the last 15 centuries
the industry goons look at the "pirated" copies and count each one as a lost sale
that is wishful thinking and nothing more
each pirated copy actually serves as a promotion for that particular show, CD, DVD etc what have you but again to what extent isn't known or even measurable
the existing copyright laws is fine as it is, and if some goof-balls start running off counterfeit DVDs in volume and for sale then the copycops will come and haul them birds off to jail. note that running off DVDs or computer copy files is equivalent: a copy is a copy what media is used is irrelevant.
ownership of the copyright the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute/sell copies is what is as issue
and yes, you can have a copyright on intellectual property, written or recorded material is not "imaginary" or fake or in any other way any less real than any asset.
With our ID's info all over everywhere why would anyone worry about wireless keyboards
Gimmie a break
let's get a safe a lock up our sensitive paperwork
let's get a shredder and take care our sensitive garbage
let's check into PrivacyGuard and take care ourselves where we can
whether cryptography can be cracked or not ain't the game. the game is to get decent security measures into play where it is needed and that includes cryptography as appropriate.
99.9% of what we need to do is to defeat dumb crooks who just take advantage of our dumb mistakes and laziness.
Slashdot Mirror
the number 1 issue in computing is security or rather the lack thereof. and this is a defect that has been foisted upon us all by Ms. Windows
we patch and patch and patch. and we patch some more and we patch every tuesday
and still: NOTHING CHANGES security problems are getting worse at an increasing rate, not only in the number of attacks but in the sophistication and damages
one approach to breaking Ms monopoly would be to consider Ms Windows as an application program, not an OS. Security is a fundamental requirement of an operating system: the operating system must seize and maintain control over all system resources.
compatibilty operating environments have never been very satisfactory as they add a lot of system over-head and a lot of complexity. but these such systems have been helpful in making transitions
this entire discussion reminds me so much of the collapse of Big Blue
at first there was some dissent down the halls of academia
and then the complaints increased while the pundits asserted all was well and that the complainers were all looney
more voices joined the dissent
and dissent turned to demise as we all burned our blue underwear
Alligateor Computing is next
John Kenneth Galbraith said once "In any large organization it is far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right and alone"
and in that is the Essence of _Why the Mighty Fall_ : always: a failure to adapt
we require that our computer system must be secure and that means free of un-authorized programming.
the Allegateor can either pay attention and fix this, and it better be pronto -- or join Big Blue at the bottom of the pond.
things cannot be allowed to continue as they are
that be why everyone runs as administrator: if you don't run as administrator you have things that don't work.
the biggest security issue is un-authorized programming.
and with Ms Windows that is a pervasive problem
it's also UN-ACCEPTABLE
what is the future? is there any reason to expect Ms to fix this?
lies are a psychedelic drug which allow people to live in dreamland
but bandits are real and they don't believe in peace and love
it will not be acceptable to stay on Ms indefinitely.
for the moment, putting on all the recommended security patches is considered doing an adequate job ( doing all possible ) of insuring security
sooner or later the truth about the king's latest outfit will have to be recognized: the security patches have not produced a secure system and there is no longer any reason to expect that will change in the future.
in other words: scuttle the bucket
no hate involved: hat is an emotion.
the issue is Ms Windows is not secure and we have to have secure systems, for business -- both at home and at work: for all that we do.
the object is to embareass Ms to the point where she cleans up her act or to encourage the development of OpenSource
look what happened to Big Blue. Alligateor Computing is headed for the same swamp.
yep, "windows security" is just a joke
OP ED (reply)
all you can do is critique my writing style and tell me i live in fantasy land and use too many asterisks?
"RACF" stood for Resource Access Control Facility, and that is what that software provided.
and that is precisely what is needed in Ms Windows: restricted access to updating the system.
unless this issue is attended, and soon, it will be the end of our promiscuous friend Ms Windows. an un-secure system is not suitable for business and to a greater degree each quarter we are using Ms Windows for business purposes. both on the job and at home.
now sometimes i like to editorialize. and when i do that i will usually remember to mark my work as such. i don't always, sometimes i get in a hurry but if i do that i apologize.
==most secure version of Windows
second the "whoopdidoo"
Windows is promiscuous: runs anything for anybody. small wonder it gets compromised so often.
Computer Security is not a new discipline: I studied IBM/RACF twenty years ago.
I think computer security can be implemented. but first you must want security.
I am not convinced efforts to date to secure Ms. Windows are sincere
can you imagine how a CIO must feel going in to see the CEO and requesting downtime to install "security patches" . might as well ask for permission to play tiddle-winks, at least ya only waste yer own time instead of everyone's.
foolish is a good word: security in ms windows is a joke
patches
might as well smoke 'em cuz they do nothing to help security: our systems are still being hacked and hacked and hacked until now "computer security" is just a joke
what are you smoking?
e/j I could buy your argument
except Ms response is so late and security problems so pervasive that Ms sincerity must now come into question.
I don't think they have any intention of producing a secure system.
just my opinion of course bu that's how this looks to me.
I'd prefer to be proven wrong. and the way Ms can do that is ship us a system that the hackers don't get into. Not too much to ask.
is used to be "military intelligence" was the favorite example of an "oxymoron" not no more "computer security" is the oxymoron
OP ED
Microsoft will *never* produce a secure system: the user is *not* the customer: the advertising industry is. just as in television, *we* are *not* the customer: *we* are what is for sale, advertising is the customer, tv industry is selling *us* as *audience* to the advertisers
and Windows is not any different in this respect but is rather a transitional product taking us from the television screen to the selectivision screen which is what the WWW+television will morph into
the initial work is already done: the www has injected so much graphics into computer presentaions that hi-speed broad band is now necessary for "surfing".
now that that's been done the next step is to combine the web with digital TV and you have the advertising marketing dream come true: television with instantaneous feed-back on what everyone is watching and how everyone is responding to it
the ability to adjust your windows programming all along a little here and there is critical to the development and maintenance of this scheme and that is why Microsoft can *never* produce a secure system. Their system provides access to customer computer for paying customers and that includes the ability to modify the client programming ( your computer ). all of this is hidden from everyone except the hackers of course
why do you think we patch and patch and patch and patch and for every patch a new vulnerability shows up? because the patch only moves the remote access capability from one hiding place to another it doesn't remove it. and never will.
"IMHO", -- FWIW
all that LINUX needs to do is to is to provide EFFECTIVE security
just cool it with the promiscuous running of anything and everything and set up the idea that only authorized programs are allowed.
Ms. Windows would be toast in a year
and good riddance
why on earth would you say that?
as a means of contact an executable programs capability offers many many options to its author
you may be happy that you don't have to sign your executables and maybe you aren't writing anything malicious. but rest assured we do have people who are writing malicious code and so we will have to adopt some process to bring that under control
while we certainly won't be able to require anyone to sign their code we can REJECT and REFUSE any code that has not been signed and this is where we are going with this change.
you will always have to determine for yourself what to trust and what to reject the wider and more varied your experience the better you will be able to do this
Freedom of Speech is the First Defense against Tyranny
Tyranny is the unrestricted or arbitrary use of power and is preferred by thugs of every feather.
when people are arrested for simply saying they don't like their government, then that is a bad thing. especially if some of them are then executed so their organs can be "harvested" ( sold to selected "important" people )
I think the hardest part of defending freedom is in accepting the extent of evil that develops if unchecked.
the freedom of speech that has developed as a result of electronic communication over the last 15 years may be the best thing that has happened to humanity in the last 15 centuries
tee hee this should be a fun thread
we alll joined the UN and we don't do that no more
ROF,LMFAO
tee hee you got that right on the money
the industry goons look at the "pirated" copies and count each one as a lost sale
that is wishful thinking and nothing more
each pirated copy actually serves as a promotion for that particular show, CD, DVD etc what have you but again to what extent isn't known or even measurable
the existing copyright laws is fine as it is, and if some goof-balls start running off counterfeit DVDs in volume and for sale then the copycops will come and haul them birds off to jail. note that running off DVDs or computer copy files is equivalent: a copy is a copy what media is used is irrelevant.
one 99 cent song is not the issue
ownership of the copyright the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute/sell copies is what is as issue
and yes, you can have a copyright on intellectual property, written or recorded material is not "imaginary" or fake or in any other way any less real than any asset.
there are three principal players in society
1 We, The People
2 Government
3 Corporations
the government was draw up to be By the People and For the People
but today you have to have BIG MONEY to pay BIG MEDIA for INFLUENCE in order to get what you want
change requires LEADERSHIP and COMMUNICATION
and just exactly where and how are you going to come up with those given the way society is organized?
we never believe any of these without the bill number.
With our ID's info all over everywhere why would anyone worry about wireless keyboards
Gimmie a break
let's get a safe a lock up our sensitive paperwork
let's get a shredder and take care our sensitive garbage
let's check into PrivacyGuard and take care ourselves where we can
whether cryptography can be cracked or not ain't the game. the game is to get decent security measures into play where it is needed and that includes cryptography as appropriate.
99.9% of what we need to do is to defeat dumb crooks who just take advantage of our dumb mistakes and laziness.