They spread FUD about the competition more than they boast about what Linux or open source can actually do. Then they take something positive about the competition and turn it into FUD. That says to me that open source/Linux apologists have something to fear, otherwise they wouldn't have this attitude. I'm not an MS apologist, i'm just a person who sees people acting like prepubescent children.
You must be the person that chooses either all Democrats or all Republicans on a ballot. Likewise, you believe something is all bad, or all good, and nothing inbetween.
Me, I choose inbetween. I don't blindly agree to everything they do, or like everything they do without question.
As someone said, security is a process and not a product. But for those who bothered to look or care to notice, upgrade from 2000 to XP SP2 is more than eye candy. It is just that the hidden features are ignored by Slashbots and ignorant users alike.
One thing to help would be a default account type in the Users group, and if currently an admin, switch your group to Users. Third parties need to fix their programs that requires more privileges (not necessarily admin) after the program is installed because of write access to system folders and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Vista fixes this, but if you ask me I think MS is only encouraging the bad behavior of alot of third party programs by providing this method of keeping non-compliant applications compatible with least privilege. (Keep in mind, there are a$$holes like Even Balance who purposely wrote their anti-cheat to require true admin privileges)
Sure they have a firewall... you're screwed as admin because the code that launched can also create an exception for itself via netsh command or damn it all to hell and disable the firewall via "net stop". Malware does do this today, and sad how easy it was stopped.
Don't want to run as non-admin? XP can run specified apps automatically with User privileges even if you are admin (and I am not talking about Run As with a lower privileged account). And for fuck's sake, don't take the default of "SYSTEM" for your apache or whatever server software services.
Linux defenders do more harm than good. My real point is: Why does Slashdot bother with articles like this? More Open Sauce news, less bitching about what Microsoft does. If one must resort to personal attacks then you've already lost..
As people already mentioned a limited user is the best way to go.
A firewall does not instantly mean you are secure. You have to have it properly configured and you must know how to deal with anything needing access to/from the internet. Blindly allowing everything through isn't the way..
AV requires maintenance... updates, etc.
I constantly see people asking for help who have both because their system still got hosed by something they ran. They end up formatting. I think it is too late once your AV detects it.. the next thing you can go is deprive it of powerful privileges because it can only fubar your account. As a rule, though, I would also suggest ZIP files instead of executable setups if possible and as an additional rule: if it can't be run with less privileges, you better make damn well sure you know what it is before giving it admin privileges.
Re:Admin permissions required in windows? Hogwash.
on
Antispyware Shootout
·
· Score: 1
You don't even need to logout to do anything admin in a limited user. It takes some learning. But yeah, alot of people will abuse Run As just to install what they want.
I think we need more people in the USPTO that have IT and/or programming backgrounds to handle patents dealing with computers. Even if you hate Microsoft, you can't possibly agree with Eolas.
So if I am getting this right, Firefox et al won't require me to activate the UI controls even after i've installed a version of IE that does? Hopefully MS provides a way of returning said controls back to their old behavior instead of this new one.
Not to mention that in Europe, Microsoft no longer has control of programming whatever they please, they have to get the EU's governmental approval.
You can run applications with lower privileges than the account, without needing to invoke a lower privilege account (Run As) or actually have lower privileges on the account itself.
ok, some people may be saying that it had been around for 6 months. Admittedly yes. But, had they not decided to listen to their customers, they could have been on it and had a patch released long ago when it was determined to be more serious than crashing the browser.
Disclosure of exploit code for only MS products was wrong too. (I don't see it too often for other vendors)
Internal MS memo: "By popular demand of you, the customer, we regret to inform you that we will be releasing a patch, but only on the second Tuesday of next month. Again, we are sorry for the inconvenience you caused yourself."
Slashdot Mirror
They spread FUD about the competition more than they boast about what Linux or open source can actually do. Then they take something positive about the competition and turn it into FUD. That says to me that open source/Linux apologists have something to fear, otherwise they wouldn't have this attitude. I'm not an MS apologist, i'm just a person who sees people acting like prepubescent children.
I wish you luck in your delusional little world as well.
Me, I choose inbetween. I don't blindly agree to everything they do, or like everything they do without question.
People like are just plain assholes.
From the horse's mouth: Activation will not be used to force upgrades.
Try again.
"TrackBack See links from elsewhere to this story."
Don't show your weakness to the enemy (and I am not talking to Microsoft)...
~12MB
Also, when I saw "Phonographic," I thought it said "Pornographic." :-)
You mean it required user interaction to get infected?
D'oh! Nevermind, seems 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of Windows viruses/malware are still like that.
One thing to help would be a default account type in the Users group, and if currently an admin, switch your group to Users. Third parties need to fix their programs that requires more privileges (not necessarily admin) after the program is installed because of write access to system folders and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Vista fixes this, but if you ask me I think MS is only encouraging the bad behavior of alot of third party programs by providing this method of keeping non-compliant applications compatible with least privilege. (Keep in mind, there are a$$holes like Even Balance who purposely wrote their anti-cheat to require true admin privileges)
Sure they have a firewall... you're screwed as admin because the code that launched can also create an exception for itself via netsh command or damn it all to hell and disable the firewall via "net stop". Malware does do this today, and sad how easy it was stopped.
Don't want to run as non-admin? XP can run specified apps automatically with User privileges even if you are admin (and I am not talking about Run As with a lower privileged account). And for fuck's sake, don't take the default of "SYSTEM" for your apache or whatever server software services.
Linux defenders do more harm than good. My real point is: Why does Slashdot bother with articles like this? More Open Sauce news, less bitching about what Microsoft does. If one must resort to personal attacks then you've already lost..
Some of the things it does requires admin, so it wouldn't totally be a question of just file system permissions.
*cough* EU *cough*
Adult Swim for teh win.
Use the installer without GTK. Does 2.8.7 otherwise work for GAIM 2 beta?
Just watch Security Focus or FRsirt for all your 0-day MS exploit needs.
Because it's not a Microsoft product?
A firewall does not instantly mean you are secure. You have to have it properly configured and you must know how to deal with anything needing access to/from the internet. Blindly allowing everything through isn't the way..
AV requires maintenance... updates, etc.
I constantly see people asking for help who have both because their system still got hosed by something they ran. They end up formatting. I think it is too late once your AV detects it.. the next thing you can go is deprive it of powerful privileges because it can only fubar your account. As a rule, though, I would also suggest ZIP files instead of executable setups if possible and as an additional rule: if it can't be run with less privileges, you better make damn well sure you know what it is before giving it admin privileges.
You don't even need to logout to do anything admin in a limited user. It takes some learning. But yeah, alot of people will abuse Run As just to install what they want.
So if I am getting this right, Firefox et al won't require me to activate the UI controls even after i've installed a version of IE that does? Hopefully MS provides a way of returning said controls back to their old behavior instead of this new one.
Not to mention that in Europe, Microsoft no longer has control of programming whatever they please, they have to get the EU's governmental approval.
Just let /. have their way for the millionth time.
http://martinzugec.blogdrive.com/archive/26.html says it all
But if an exploit makes it to your Run or Startup you are done for, which is why I would recommended learning to use a limited account.
Yeah, by the looks of I recognize a few of those on the list have been fixed. So much for his credibility.
Disclosure of exploit code for only MS products was wrong too. (I don't see it too often for other vendors)
Internal MS memo: "By popular demand of you, the customer, we regret to inform you that we will be releasing a patch, but only on the second Tuesday of next month. Again, we are sorry for the inconvenience you caused yourself."
1. Windows 2000.... Professional?
2. GIMP for Windows. That exists
3. Lots of free stuff (BTW Norton sucks
4. OpenOffice
5. Audacity
But I understand (not really) if you are in the crowd that everything you have must have open source code.