Quick, post a load of off topic tosh to distract from the article. This place is getting as bad as UseNet with all the trolling. Does anyone here want to discuss how accessing data can allow the execution of arbitrary code on a machine.
By this logic I can patent a method of arranging a unique set of molecules into an Amino acid. This means that every restaurant or food grower on the planet owes me a license.
"I thought they were adverts. Why aren't they any IBM reccomends SuSE Linux adverts. The site has been slashdotted.."
Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Just look at the adverts on that site. PackardBell recommends Windows XP, Lenovo recommends Windows XP Professional, HP recommends Windows XP Professional, Dell recommends Windows XP Professional
"So you are hypothesizing that Microsoft can only succeed if they can impose a product on people by means of it's monopoly"
I'm not hypothesing this, I am quoting from the article. But I do agree with its sentiments. Do you believe otherwise, that 80% of revenues don't come from volume licensing and OEM licenses and that a large part of Microsofts' current and past sucess is derived from this. This looks to any disinterested observer as factual rather then hypothesis.
Interestingly, while Microsoft's monopoly power dominates the PC industry, it didn't achieve that position in the same manner as Apple found success with the iPod. This is very important to understanding why Microsoft can't compete with iTunes.
It has everything to do with choice.
More than 80% of Microsoft's revenues for Windows come from corporate volume licensing and OEM copies of Windows bundled with new PCs. That means the company doesn't have to compete to sell a product at retail.
"Many of you are geeks.. For all of you folk, browsers like FF are great"
Fud injection: only dyed in the wool geeks can use Firefox.
- What exactly can the non-geek not do using Firefox to browse the Web. Give us some specifics.
"Now consider everyone else in the world.. You have IE7.. offers tabs and good security, and works without a hitch."
"six of today's updates apply to fully patched Windows XP systems, and two of the flaws are actually present in Windows Vista."
"It is integrated into the OS so it opens faster and does not introduce any problems"
It is precicely because it is integrated into the OS that it is so insecure. It start faster because all its bits are loaded at boot time. The same effect can be achieved by using the Firefox Preloader.
"I have used IE6 for years and never once got a virus or spyware because of it"
"Secunia is reporting on three vulnerabilities in IE6 running on XP SP2.", Nov 2005
"remote code execution vulnerability exists in Windows Shell.. This vulnerability could potentially allow remote code execution if a user visited a specially crafted Web site", Oct 10 2006
Code morphing sound a lot like a software embedded runtime cross compiler that works at the p-Code level. In other words a JIT interpreter that runs on a chip. In other words where's the innovation.
If Intel merely utilized such methods to impliment "Code Morphing" then I don't think Transmeta should have a case. If they actually reverse engineered the Transmeta chip that would be a different matter. It wouldn't be the first time Intel was caught at it, according to experts at the time, the Xeon processor was a "reversed engineered" copy of the AMD64.
"One thing I do disagree with you... IE5 when it came out was better than the version of netscape out at that time, at least in my experience. It felt a lot slower", LocoMan
How can IE be better if Netscape don't have access to the API. I'm not sure if you actually read, but here are the relevent quotes, again.
"Test results showed that Communicator 4.6 beats IE 5.0 in browsing speed over a modem connection"
"The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser"
"I remember I had a net cafe back when IE5 came out"
Must have been one of the first, what was the name of it?
MS redefines the meaning of Open Source
on
Ballmer Sounds Off
·
· Score: 1
"[Take open source.] Open source is not a new technology area. It was a new business model", SB
"In the last three or four years, we have competed very well by extending our value", SB
"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to
exclude free software from accessing it.", FSF Europe
" RealNetworks.. sued.. Microsoft on antitrust charges.. Our case is based on.. failure to disclose interface information and imposing restrictions on PC makers"
"Open source never goes away as a business model or competitor. We have learned how to compete with open source", SB
"Microsoft is claiming some form of IP rights over.. a total of 130 protocols which Microsoft is offering for license.. Many of the listed protocols are [IETF] RFC to the core TCP/IP v4 and TCP/IP v6 protocol specifications"
"competing with open source will have to be something that's burned bright on the foreheads of our senior people", SB
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects' entry into the market."
"In the case of open source, we couldn't adopt the business model. We adopted a competitive approach that so far has worked very well", SB
"Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar "like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions"
"Microsoft and Sun.. announced the antitrust settlement/technology pact between the two on Friday"
"Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) has signed a deal to license SCO Group's Unix intellectual property"
"Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO"
"there are cases where software gets monetized through hardware", SB
Like years ago when you bought hardware and the software was included for free.
"I remember when Windows 95 came out, with its weak, obviously-an-afterthought "web browser" (IE 3.0)", ronkronk
It wasn't an afterthought it was a renamed Spyglass browser which they subsequently 'gave away' with Windows so as they wouldn't have to pay royaltees. After failing to buyout Netscape and get an exclusive deal from NCSA they settled with Spyglass.
"It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over", ronkronk
IE took over by billg strong arming the OEMs to take Netscape off the desktop. Can't you remember what the MS AOL court case was all about.
"AOL's March 12 and October 28, 1996 agreements with Microsoft also guaranteed that, for all practical purposes, Internet Explorer would be AOL's browser of choice"
"Compaq was the only one to fully commit itself to Microsoft's terms for distributing and promoting Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator"
"now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet", ronkronk
Like as an after thought.
"within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft", ronkronk
I've heard exactly the same kind of thing when NT came out.
"In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.", ronkronk
Netcape was never inferior to IE. As this test proves. The MS stratagy at the time was to make it a jolting experience for the enduser. Why are you trolling slashdot with patently false pro-MS propaganda.
"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience".
Firefox running on a more secure OS as standard user are not as serious as bugs in IE running on WinVista. You see as MS embedded the browser directly into the OS so as it couldn't be removed.
Secondly Netscape lost ground because of backroom shenagenans by billg an Co. After threatening to withold technical information, they offered to carve up the market between them or else they would cut off Netscapes oxygen supply.
`The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.'
"Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.'"
`After Netscape refused Microsoft's offer to divide the browser market, Microsoft embarked on a predatory campaign to eliminate the browser threat'
`In subsequent meetings in the Fall of 1995, Microsoft explained to Intel that its strategy would be to kill Netscape and control Internet standards'
`in exchange for steering clear of the Windows browser segment Netscape would be made a preferred Microsoft partner'
"I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.", ronkronk
I'm really an Open Source advocate except for bla, bla, bla
"Spamhaus and other block-list pushers are a solution to spam that's worse than the problem."
I've never had a problem not receiving legitimate e-mail. But spending 20 minutes a day clearing out my inbox of some tosser trying to sell me VltAGRA is a right pain. Right now in my unusable real e-mail box 238 unwanted adverts for s@#% I don't need.
This would be a good time to remove control of ICANN from the US government. A judgement in an Illinois court has no juristriction in an organization based in the UK. If they go ahead and suspend Spamhaus I can see the EU and the rest going their own way and setting up their own version of ICANN. Imagine what would happen if China arbitrally suspended falun.gong.org.
"Symantec!?! These guys have a business that depend entirely on Microsoft continuing to deliver a horribly insecure OS"
The anti-virus industry have been living parasitic like off Microsoft for decades. But what's the difference between paying Symantec or Microsoft for Live OneCare.
"So the question should be, is any OS relevant at all? "
It is relevent if you happen to be in any business that crosses Microsofts' radar. Some people might want what OS to use be irrelevant but that is understandable.
"Still, Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with a potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses."
"Between propriatary or nothing at all, its understandable why the project picked propriatary."
It didn't pick propriatary, the project picked a Linux-based laptop. All the hardware manufacturers have to do is provide the source code. NDA's and firmware that cannot be freely redistributed are a clear breech of the GPL. It appears that Marvell were unable to provide the firmware due to the use of a third party's embedded OS. Richard Stallmann and Theo de Raadt are correct in this instance as to allow this to happpen unopposed would set a very dangerous precident. Rest of ad hominem, offtopic abuse filtered out by bayesian FudAssassin..:)
"And this is why they should be letting a professional set their stuff up. If you knew nothing about cars, would you try to put an engine together and then drop it in by yourself"
When you buy a car, most people expect to insert the key in the ignition and put their foot on the accelerator. They don't expect to be handed the components and a 900 page manual and be expected to assemble it themselves. Why can't the average user go into a shop, buy a computer, bring it home and expect it to work - out of the box.
where are all the attacks coming from ..
on
The BBC's Honeypot PC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Well...I can guarantee that if you put a Linux or OS X box on the Internet that it would be attacked by exactly the same things. What's the point of this again?"
The point is thet the Internet is infested with compromised Windows boxen. Ok, where are all the compromized Linux web servers. Assuming they are running Apache under Linux. According to Netcraft Apache usage is at roughly 980,00,000 while IIS is at 490,00,000. Why don't we see an equivalent number of compromised Linux servers.
"This doesn't really show how vulnerable Windows XP really is, it shows how often it is subject to attack. Since all these are (mostly at least) worms and automated attacks, that's not really different from looking at the logs on my Linux boxes,"
And where exactly are all these attacks coming from. Where are these worms and viruses hosted. What's different is all the attacks are coming for other compromised Windows boxen. Of course it's totally different, you're not being attacked by Linux boxes.
"it is interesting when more mainstream media put focus on that, no need to attack Microsoft in order to make this story interesting."
Who's attacking Microsoft here. The content of the article only describing the state of Windows security in the latter half of 2006. It describes what we already know that the Internet is infested with compromised Windows computers.
It's funny how all the MS.bashers get perturbed when the slightest thing critical of MS is posted here. And yet another modded up 'Insightful' comment.
where are all the attacks coming from ..
on
The BBC's Honeypot PC
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"This is a pretty bogus test. Obviously they didn't install security updates before going about their business,", not already in use
"we installed an unprotected version of Windows XP Home configured like any domestic PC."
"made apparent by the fact that the system was vulnerable to viruses that came out over 3 years ago", not already in use
But these three year old attacks were still coming from other already infected machines on the Internet. Are all these infected machines running three year old software.
was Re:I have plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft..
Slashdot Mirror
Quick, post a load of off topic tosh to distract from the article. This place is getting as bad as UseNet with all the trolling. Does anyone here want to discuss how accessing data can allow the execution of arbitrary code on a machine.
"A number of users .. cut and paste the URL .. the broswer was quickly re-directed .. and infected the user's PC with a key logger"
Why don't you advise the high-level executives to use a browser that don't install malware just by typing in a URL. The same goes for your Granny.
Recent Trojans - Very good social Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Virus companies talk up scare, again. Why don't business users use a computer that don't get 'viruses'.
By this logic I can patent a method of arranging a unique set of molecules into an Amino acid. This means that every restaurant or food grower on the planet owes me a license.
"I thought they were adverts. Why aren't they any IBM reccomends SuSE Linux adverts. The site has been slashdotted .."
Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
Just look at the adverts on that site. PackardBell recommends Windows XP, Lenovo recommends Windows XP Professional, HP recommends Windows XP Professional, Dell recommends Windows XP Professional
"So you are hypothesizing that Microsoft can only succeed if they can impose a product on people by means of it's monopoly"
I'm not hypothesing this, I am quoting from the article. But I do agree with its sentiments. Do you believe otherwise, that 80% of revenues don't come from volume licensing and OEM licenses and that a large part of Microsofts' current and past sucess is derived from this. This looks to any disinterested observer as factual rather then hypothesis.
was Re:Hypothesizing...
The Power of Monopoly
Interestingly, while Microsoft's monopoly power dominates the PC industry, it didn't achieve that position in the same manner as Apple found success with the iPod. This is very important to understanding why Microsoft can't compete with iTunes.
It has everything to do with choice.
More than 80% of Microsoft's revenues for Windows come from corporate volume licensing and OEM copies of Windows bundled with new PCs. That means the company doesn't have to compete to sell a product at retail.
"You could look at BitLocker as anti-Linux because it frustrates dual boot,", Bruce Schneier
"Many of you are geeks .. For all of you folk, browsers like FF are great"
.. You have IE7 .. offers tabs and good security, and works without a hitch."
.. This vulnerability could potentially allow remote code execution if a user visited a specially crafted Web site", Oct 10 2006
Fud injection: only dyed in the wool geeks can use Firefox.
- What exactly can the non-geek not do using Firefox to browse the Web. Give us some specifics.
"Now consider everyone else in the world
"six of today's updates apply to fully patched Windows XP systems, and two of the flaws are actually present in Windows Vista."
"It is integrated into the OS so it opens faster and does not introduce any problems"
It is precicely because it is integrated into the OS that it is so insecure. It start faster because all its bits are loaded at boot time. The same effect can be achieved by using the Firefox Preloader.
"I have used IE6 for years and never once got a virus or spyware because of it"
"Secunia is reporting on three vulnerabilities in IE6 running on XP SP2.", Nov 2005
"remote code execution vulnerability exists in Windows Shell
was Still using IE and don't intend to change
Code morphing sound a lot like a software embedded runtime cross compiler that works at the p-Code level. In other words a JIT interpreter that runs on a chip. In other words where's the innovation.
If Intel merely utilized such methods to impliment "Code Morphing" then I don't think Transmeta should have a case. If they actually reverse engineered the Transmeta chip that would be a different matter. It wouldn't be the first time Intel was caught at it, according to experts at the time, the Xeon processor was a "reversed engineered" copy of the AMD64.
At the risk of ending up at Camp X-Ray I include these URLs
o rum=40&102 o rum=9&12
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?topic=8281&f
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?topic=4340&f
"if unsigned code is allowed to load you won't be able to play protected high-definition multimedia content"
"One thing I do disagree with you... IE5 when it came out was better than the version of netscape out at that time, at least in my experience. It felt a lot slower", LocoMan
How can IE be better if Netscape don't have access to the API. I'm not sure if you actually read, but here are the relevent quotes, again.
"Test results showed that Communicator 4.6 beats IE 5.0 in browsing speed over a modem connection"
"The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser"
"I remember I had a net cafe back when IE5 came out"
Must have been one of the first, what was the name of it?
"[Take open source.] Open source is not a new technology area. It was a new business model", SB
.. sued .. Microsoft on antitrust charges .. Our case is based on .. failure to disclose interface information and imposing restrictions on PC makers"
.. a total of 130 protocols which Microsoft is offering for license .. Many of the listed protocols are [IETF] RFC to the core TCP/IP v4 and TCP/IP v6 protocol specifications"
.. announced the antitrust settlement/technology pact between the two on Friday"
First RFC April 1969 for the ARPANET. The Open Source Initiative originated in Feb 1998.
"In the last three or four years, we have competed very well by extending our value", SB
"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to exclude free software from accessing it.", FSF Europe
" RealNetworks
"Open source never goes away as a business model or competitor. We have learned how to compete with open source", SB
"Microsoft is claiming some form of IP rights over
"competing with open source will have to be something that's burned bright on the foreheads of our senior people", SB
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects' entry into the market."
"In the case of open source, we couldn't adopt the business model. We adopted a competitive approach that so far has worked very well", SB
Under NO circumstances lose against Linux"
"Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar "like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions"
"Microsoft and Sun
"Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) has signed a deal to license SCO Group's Unix intellectual property"
"Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO"
"there are cases where software gets monetized through hardware", SB
Like years ago when you bought hardware and the software was included for free.
"I remember when Windows 95 came out, with its weak, obviously-an-afterthought "web browser" (IE 3.0)", ronkronk
.
It wasn't an afterthought it was a renamed Spyglass browser which they subsequently 'gave away' with Windows so as they wouldn't have to pay royaltees. After failing to buyout Netscape and get an exclusive deal from NCSA they settled with Spyglass.
"It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over", ronkronk
IE took over by billg strong arming the OEMs to take Netscape off the desktop. Can't you remember what the MS AOL court case was all about.
"AOL's March 12 and October 28, 1996 agreements with Microsoft also guaranteed that, for all practical purposes, Internet Explorer would be AOL's browser of choice"
"Compaq was the only one to fully commit itself to Microsoft's terms for distributing and promoting Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator"
"now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet", ronkronk
Like as an after thought.
"within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft", ronkronk
I've heard exactly the same kind of thing when NT came out.
"In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.", ronkronk
Netcape was never inferior to IE. As this test proves. The MS stratagy at the time was to make it a jolting experience for the enduser. Why are you trolling slashdot with patently false pro-MS propaganda.
"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience"
Firefox running on a more secure OS as standard user are not as serious as bugs in IE running on WinVista. You see as MS embedded the browser directly into the OS so as it couldn't be removed.
Secondly Netscape lost ground because of backroom shenagenans by billg an Co. After threatening to withold technical information, they offered to carve up the market between them or else they would cut off Netscapes oxygen supply.
`The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.'
"Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.'"
`After Netscape refused Microsoft's offer to divide the browser market, Microsoft embarked on a predatory campaign to eliminate the browser threat'
`In subsequent meetings in the Fall of 1995, Microsoft explained to Intel that its strategy would be to kill Netscape and control Internet standards'
`in exchange for steering clear of the Windows browser segment Netscape would be made a preferred Microsoft partner'
"I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.", ronkronk
I'm really an Open Source advocate except for bla, bla, bla
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613-1.htm
http://www.theregister.co.u
"Spamhaus and other block-list pushers are a solution to spam that's worse than the problem."
I've never had a problem not receiving legitimate e-mail. But spending 20 minutes a day clearing out my inbox of some tosser trying to sell me VltAGRA is a right pain. Right now in my unusable real e-mail box 238 unwanted adverts for s@#% I don't need.
re Re:Not such a bad thing
This would be a good time to remove control of ICANN from the US government. A judgement in an Illinois court has no juristriction in an organization based in the UK. If they go ahead and suspend Spamhaus I can see the EU and the rest going their own way and setting up their own version of ICANN. Imagine what would happen if China arbitrally suspended falun.gong.org.
The Letter That Won US Internet Control
"Symantec!?! These guys have a business that depend entirely on Microsoft continuing to deliver a horribly insecure OS"
The anti-virus industry have been living parasitic like off Microsoft for decades. But what's the difference between paying Symantec or Microsoft for Live OneCare.
"So the question should be, is any OS relevant at all? "
It is relevent if you happen to be in any business that crosses Microsofts' radar. Some people might want what OS to use be irrelevant but that is understandable.
"Still, Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with a potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses."
"Between propriatary or nothing at all, its understandable why the project picked propriatary."
.. :)
..
It didn't pick propriatary, the project picked a Linux-based laptop. All the hardware manufacturers have to do is provide the source code. NDA's and firmware that cannot be freely redistributed are a clear breech of the GPL. It appears that Marvell were unable to provide the firmware due to the use of a third party's embedded OS. Richard Stallmann and Theo de Raadt are correct in this instance as to allow this to happpen unopposed would set a very dangerous precident. Rest of ad hominem, offtopic abuse filtered out by bayesian FudAssassin
was Given the choice (Score:5, Interesting)
X-Fud-Flag: YES
X-Fud-Checker-Version: FudAssassin 3.0.4 (2006-10-10) on slashdot.org
X-Fud-Level: *****************
X-Fud-Status: Yes, score=17.8 required=4.5 tests=KNOWN.KEY.WORDS
X-Fud-Report: triggered on fanboys, spewing , IDEOLOGY
"And this is why they should be letting a professional set their stuff up. If you knew nothing about cars, would you try to put an engine together and then drop it in by yourself"
When you buy a car, most people expect to insert the key in the ignition and put their foot on the accelerator. They don't expect to be handed the components and a 900 page manual and be expected to assemble it themselves. Why can't the average user go into a shop, buy a computer, bring it home and expect it to work - out of the box.
Go here for a laugh. If cars were like computers
"Well...I can guarantee that if you put a Linux or OS X box on the Internet that it would be attacked by exactly the same things. What's the point of this again?"
.. Doh
The point is thet the Internet is infested with compromised Windows boxen. Ok, where are all the compromized Linux web servers. Assuming they are running Apache under Linux. According to Netcraft Apache usage is at roughly 980,00,000 while IIS is at 490,00,000. Why don't we see an equivalent number of compromised Linux servers.
Yet another mod troll
was Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
"This doesn't really show how vulnerable Windows XP really is, it shows how often it is subject to attack. Since all these are (mostly at least) worms and automated attacks, that's not really different from looking at the logs on my Linux boxes,"
And where exactly are all these attacks coming from. Where are these worms and viruses hosted. What's different is all the attacks are coming for other compromised Windows boxen. Of course it's totally different, you're not being attacked by Linux boxes.
"it is interesting when more mainstream media put focus on that, no need to attack Microsoft in order to make this story interesting."
Who's attacking Microsoft here. The content of the article only describing the state of Windows security in the latter half of 2006. It describes what we already know that the Internet is infested with compromised Windows computers.
It's funny how all the MS.bashers get perturbed when the slightest thing critical of MS is posted here. And yet another modded up 'Insightful' comment.
"This is a pretty bogus test. Obviously they didn't install security updates before going about their business,", not already in use
"we installed an unprotected version of Windows XP Home configured like any domestic PC."
"made apparent by the fact that the system was vulnerable to viruses that came out over 3 years ago", not already in use
But these three year old attacks were still coming from other already infected machines on the Internet. Are all these infected machines running three year old software.
was Re:I have plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft..