But they do target me windows! (And me lucky charms!)
Seriously though, these aren't viruses, they are exploits. And most of the ones that infect IE are not limited to XP, but trickle on down to the version of IE in previous operating systems.
Hell, Windows 98 support had to be put on life support because new exploits coming out causing problems for that user base still.
I did read the article. I also read most of the replies here, and many were talking about the recent 'fix' for the shell exploit. It sounded like you were going the same route. I apologize if you were intending your response to the main article, however you did falsely state:
"before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware:"
Exactly. With Windows, a new OS release seems to mean you need to upgrade your computer. The history for Macs seems to be more like a new OS release allowing you to use your older computer a little longer.
C'mon, give me a break here. I like Macs and I use Windows because I have to.
When you upgrade from Windows 9x to Windows XP, yes, you need a better computer.
But when you upgrade from MacOS 9 to MacOS X, you ALSO need a better computer! Let's see the typical OS9 machine running X -- it blows, in general.
Then you have the point releases of X that have increased performance, as you'd expect from subsequent releases in the same series of an operating system.
I would like to point out that this is slightly misleading (as it implies Mozilla had a security flaw before the fix), because, even before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware...
I don't think this is true. The specific exploit in XP allows shell: protocol links to run arbitrary code if crafted properly. Mozilla was passing these links right on to the OS.
I think you are confusing this bug with the idea that people can install malware via XPI.
No, the bug was in Windows XP's handling of the shell: protocol. It can be exploited to run arbitrary code. When this was found out, Mozilla team released a patch to prevent shell: protocol links from working, cutting off access to the real culprit in Windows, which won't be fixed until SP2 for XP.
The 'bug report' opened at Mozilla in 2002 was essentially trying to deal with the way Mozilla handles unknown protocols. The normal way was just to pass them to the OS.
E.g. since aim: isn't recognized by Mozilla, an aim: link would be passed to the OS, and if you had AOL IM installed, it would have registered to handle that protocol. (Often used to install a new "buddy icon.")
I believe Mozilla is now going to allow you to let certain protocols through, instead of allowing all.
So it's QUITE a stretch to say that this exploit bug we're talking about is (a) in mozilla, and (b) around since 2002.
That isn't the defining point to capitalism, although it is easy to get that impression if you watch the stock market. The point of capitalism is to do something better than everyone else, and make money from it -more than your competitors. It doesn't have to be more than you made last year.
It also doesn't have to be "more than your competitors." The defining point of capitalism is to produce a good or service for sale, and to take in more money than you spend while doing so.
The Longhorn sidebar is giant and useless. In fact, I find it incredibly ugly and a large waste of space. Having everything fly in and out on demand is much better, IMHO.
The point is, how do you know the longhorn sidebar won't fly in and out from the side, on demand? It's not a new concept, the taskbar has had that behavior available since Windows 95. I would be absolutely blown away if similar behavior was not available to the sidebar in longhorn.
But there are people out there that have these things called jobs. And these people make money at these jobs, and they are able to save that money and spend it on certain things. Some people like to buy Hondas, large mufflers, and spoilers. Some people like to buy SLI video cards and expensive motherboards.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever notice how no viri target Windows ME?
But they do target me windows! (And me lucky charms!)
Seriously though, these aren't viruses, they are exploits. And most of the ones that infect IE are not limited to XP, but trickle on down to the version of IE in previous operating systems.
Hell, Windows 98 support had to be put on life support because new exploits coming out causing problems for that user base still.
I did read the article. I also read most of the replies here, and many were talking about the recent 'fix' for the shell exploit. It sounded like you were going the same route. I apologize if you were intending your response to the main article, however you did falsely state:
"before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware:"
The shell: exploit says NO to that idea.
Exactly. With Windows, a new OS release seems to mean you need to upgrade your computer. The history for Macs seems to be more like a new OS release allowing you to use your older computer a little longer.
C'mon, give me a break here. I like Macs and I use Windows because I have to.
When you upgrade from Windows 9x to Windows XP, yes, you need a better computer.
But when you upgrade from MacOS 9 to MacOS X, you ALSO need a better computer! Let's see the typical OS9 machine running X -- it blows, in general.
Then you have the point releases of X that have increased performance, as you'd expect from subsequent releases in the same series of an operating system.
Yeah, yeah. Point is, Mozilla shouldn't have been affected at all (like Opera, for example).
Yeah, Opera never suffers from security problems!
Gimme a break. No fancy software is secure.
I would like to point out that this is slightly misleading (as it implies Mozilla had a security flaw before the fix), because, even before the whitelist fix was added, you had to do the following to get infected by any malware...
I don't think this is true. The specific exploit in XP allows shell: protocol links to run arbitrary code if crafted properly. Mozilla was passing these links right on to the OS.
I think you are confusing this bug with the idea that people can install malware via XPI.
No, the bug was in Windows XP's handling of the shell: protocol. It can be exploited to run arbitrary code. When this was found out, Mozilla team released a patch to prevent shell: protocol links from working, cutting off access to the real culprit in Windows, which won't be fixed until SP2 for XP.
The 'bug report' opened at Mozilla in 2002 was essentially trying to deal with the way Mozilla handles unknown protocols. The normal way was just to pass them to the OS.
E.g. since aim: isn't recognized by Mozilla, an aim: link would be passed to the OS, and if you had AOL IM installed, it would have registered to handle that protocol. (Often used to install a new "buddy icon.")
I believe Mozilla is now going to allow you to let certain protocols through, instead of allowing all.
So it's QUITE a stretch to say that this exploit bug we're talking about is (a) in mozilla, and (b) around since 2002.
24 hours to install on a shiny new Pentium 4 is NOT progress.
C'mon, you're accepting the "it takes 24 hours to install" idea from some guy that says "without no previous experience!"
Damn I thought i was filled with miss information.
And one time Miss Information was filled by me!
Bada-bing!
I'm out.
Gah. An e-mail client has a lot more free cycles than a browser
It does? What makes you think that? Both programs:
- Render formatted text (and usually HTML) when items are selected.
- Download information over the internet.
The email client also does things the browser doesn't, such as downloading email on a scheduled basis, organize and filter incoming information, etc.
Here's an example:
Bayesian filtering
Thunderbird wouldn't be the same without it. Does it drag your system to a halt? Nope.
I'd be awfully surprised if anything real CPU intensive would ever be installed into Firefox by default. Give these guys some credit.
That isn't the defining point to capitalism, although it is easy to get that impression if you watch the stock market. The point of capitalism is to do something better than everyone else, and make money from it -more than your competitors. It doesn't have to be more than you made last year.
It also doesn't have to be "more than your competitors." The defining point of capitalism is to produce a good or service for sale, and to take in more money than you spend while doing so.
AKA Java 2.0
Some of us actually have friends, and these people are capable of controlling the radio even when I'm not.
And yes, with 40GB of music, I do occasionally forget the name of the song.
There are even magazines devoting to WALKING!
Look at this article, Bob! It's called "Putting one foot in front of the other!"
(Sorry, Carlin.)
How many script kiddies do you think are going to copy that code and try to compile or execute it?
I dunno, zero to 255?
I read Penthouse for the pictures.
The Longhorn sidebar is giant and useless. In fact, I find it incredibly ugly and a large waste of space. Having everything fly in and out on demand is much better, IMHO.
The point is, how do you know the longhorn sidebar won't fly in and out from the side, on demand? It's not a new concept, the taskbar has had that behavior available since Windows 95. I would be absolutely blown away if similar behavior was not available to the sidebar in longhorn.
so far from screenshots I think its pretty clear Apple has solved this problem better than Microsoft.
Yes, I find the best way to compare products is to compare screenshots of beta versions of said products.
And the sharks in the video have fricken lasers attached to their heads!
200% more GPU.
200% more expense on said GPU.
And 200% more problems calculating percentages!
I know this is gonna blow your mind.
But there are people out there that have these things called jobs. And these people make money at these jobs, and they are able to save that money and spend it on certain things. Some people like to buy Hondas, large mufflers, and spoilers. Some people like to buy SLI video cards and expensive motherboards.
Some people even buy this stuff called... food.
The bin Ladens flew out of the country after the air restrictions were lifted, not before.
There's your one lie, are you happy?
I wasn't aware that this program installs itself, then replicates by copying itself into other programs.
Malware, maybe. Virus/Worm/Trojan? Nope.
Why bother blocking the infected sites, when you can block a single site and stop infections (the russian site hosting the exploit).
Surely it would be easier to keep up with the servers hosting the virus.
I'll bet you $100 that pope was one guilty motherfucker.