Report Just In: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates
Source: The Register
http://www.theregister.com/content/55/35145.html

heh, what Ive been saying for years, this is one of my biggest defences for
anti-hacker people.
But why did it have to be Gates :P


--
Mimic

ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== ( www.hidemyemail.net )
"Without knowledge you have fear. With fear you create your own nightmares."
"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand Binary,
and those that dont."
"He who controls Google, controls the world".

"Mimic" <andrew@automaticmoney.biz> wrote in message
news:iPGdnQ-HjdO95IvdRVn-hA@brightview.com...
I guess using decent programming practice to make Windows more secure never
occurred to a man totally obsessed with milking as much out of his customers
as poss, eh?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:47:40 -0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

LOL, seeing as you either stole a copy or paid for one yourself, PKB?

You could always use a *nix distro and be a little more believable.

"Iceman" <1c3m4n@chi-mafia.org> wrote in message
newstj8kyskvkvc.dlg@icepick.org...
Unfortunately most of the software I like to run at home doesn't run on
Linux, and at work (where I posted from) we are currently looking at making
the switch. About the only thing holding us back is our reliance on Sage
accounting software.

Still, my point still stands.

"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dqMRb.19554$tQ6.1117712@wards.force9.net...

Most things will run under WINE or some other win emulator (afaik)

--
Mimic

ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== ( www.hidemyemail.net )
"Without knowledge you have fear. With fear you create your own nightmares."
"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand Binary,
and those that dont."
"He who controls Google, controls the world".

"Mimic" <andrew@automaticmoney.biz> wrote in message
news:Y92dnQin2o3fTordRVn-jg@brightview.com...
Has that come on a bit though? Last I heard it was flaky, although I am
going back a ways.

Sgtill, no harm in trying it, although Sage software isn't exactly rock
solid on windows!

"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FCQRb.28491$qx2.3355065@stones.force9.net...
I honestly dont know, the only time i use *nix is remotley and if i get
bored and
tell lilo to boot into SuSe instead of win :P

--
Mimic

ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== ( www.hidemyemail.net )
"Without knowledge you have fear. With fear you create your own nightmares."
"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand Binary,
and those that dont."
"He who controls Google, controls the world".

"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FCQRb.28491$qx2.3355065@stones.force9.net...
Flaky, last time I looked.

And, no, I'm not saying which one was worse! ;o)

H1K

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:44:32 -0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

No it doesn't. Your statement of fact regarding bilking as a way of life
with BG is incorrect on many levels. One of which is that no one who
doesn't want to is forced to buy MS products, nor use them.

Also the security issues while always there in one respect or another was
not one of the primary functions of windows in the beginning as it was not
designed to go on the WAN until later, and it became far more important and
the Net took off. Its a long history that a person with rationality could
understand. Those who claim Linux is inheritently more secure is crazy. It
also requires constant supervision and upgrades, things that most lazy ass
windows users ignore, and putting them into a Linux package with the same
attitudes will only drive up incidence's in Linux.

Dump the overpriced products for MS and start looking for replacements in
the Linux world, your sorry excuse for running windows at home is just
that, an excuse. In regards to work and Sage, I'm sure there are more than
on program that can do the same thing in Linux, free or otherwise.

"Iceman" <1c3m4n@chi-mafia.org> wrote in message
news:l6vn0or4eeh6.dlg@icepick.org...

Yes, it does. This move should have been made at least 2 years ago. M$ were
warned before the release of XP that they needed to beef up security. As
usual, they took a half-assed approach. Why is the XP firewall only one way?
Why do net scripts not run in a tight security context?


Hahaha this statement is hilarious. Go and tell it to anyone who buys a new
PC preloaded with WinXP.


Please provide evidence that I made any kind of claim as to the security
capabilities of Linux.


Really? How come the games I like to play are not available on Linux? Is
that also an excuse or are you just BSing again? The "big" games sometimes
come with a Linux version but nowhere near enough do. Until that happens,
I'm stuck with XP. Or at least a dual boot.


I'm sure there are, however our existing data is tied into sage. You'd also
have to look at accreditation by the UK tax office for any package you
choose to use. Our accoutants bills would also skyrocket if our accounts
data was in a format they couldn't use.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a82ce168b7284a298a0fb@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
True, the situation is changing but last I heard you'd pay for a windows
license on those PCs anyway. Has that changed at all?

Iceman wrote:
Security in Unix systems has always been a primary function, even when
networks were uncommon.

When networks became fairly common, Microsoft got into networks. They
still didn't think too much about security - they had obfuscation.

Microsoft started to think about security only when customers complained
that viruses and hackers were getting access to their computers and
data. This was way after the internet took off.

They have a lot of catching up to do. Especially with their legacy of
"old software" compatibility.

Now those are two separate things.

It is simply not possible to protect a system that is being administered
by somebody who is a "lazy ass user" without forcing them off all networks.

If you put two irresponsible drivers in two cars, one with ABS, one
without, then they are both likely to have a crash, regardless of
braking system. You can't then say that ABS is less effective at
preventing crashes.

Likewise you can't say anything about comparisons of the security of
various operating systems unless the administrators are competent and
care about security. If the comparison is done properly, Linux is the
clear winner, even when based on patch release times alone.


I'm sorry to go on so long but I felt your comment "Those who claim
Linux is inheritently more secure is crazy" was extremely unfair.

--
Ben M.

----------------
What are Software Patents for?
To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

What do Software Patents do?
In its current form, they protect only companies with
big legal departments as they:
a.) Patent everything no matter how general
b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
years of harassment).

Don't let them take away your right to program
whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
before its too late.

Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
----------------

Leythos wrote:
I don't suppose you saw this story, and others like it?
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0226018826.htm

Now whilst I'm not saying that XP is spyware, per se, I don't think you
should be all trusting. Especially if you don't read their (overtly
verbose) EULAs.

--
Ben M.

----------------
What are Software Patents for?
To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

What do Software Patents do?
In its current form, they protect only companies with
big legal departments as they:
a.) Patent everything no matter how general
b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
years of harassment).

Don't let them take away your right to program
whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
before its too late.

Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
----------------

Leythos wrote:
And what happens when the updates stop? You'll be content with the new
viruses/worms?


--
Ben M.

----------------
What are Software Patents for?
To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

What do Software Patents do?
In its current form, they protect only companies with
big legal departments as they:
a.) Patent everything no matter how general
b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
years of harassment).

Don't let them take away your right to program
whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
before its too late.

Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
----------------

Jim Watt wrote:
Huh, funny story. Well not so funny:

Microsoft changed Media Player's EULA with an inconspicuous "Security
Update". Apparently, they can now automatically download software to
your computer without your explicit consent. Contravenes several
European Data Protection laws...

http://bsdvault.net/article.php?sid=527&mode=&order=0


Doesn't exactly make me want to give Microsoft my complete trust.

--
Ben M.

----------------
What are Software Patents for?
To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

What do Software Patents do?
In its current form, they protect only companies with
big legal departments as they:
a.) Patent everything no matter how general
b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
years of harassment).

Don't let them take away your right to program
whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
before its too late.

Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
----------------

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:54:41 +0100, Jim Watt wrote:

Withdrawing W2k??

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:57:18 -0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

Wait till SP2 it will piss you off, it comes locked down.
Two years ago XP was in full swing, it was based on W2K not a total new
system like the next one coming out. MS did beef up security, it was, out
of the box more secure than a typical new Linux distro.

That was your or their choice. You could buy one without a preload, and you
could have built up any computer you wanted without a MS product.

Read you post.

No, you aren't stuck, you made a choice, and it was for XP. Get it, your
*choice* You could get a game box which is better in any event and use your
computer for what it is best used for. Novel idea, eh?

I see you are talking without doing any research. Why am I not surprised?

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:43:54 +0000, Ben Measures wrote:

You might remember how Linux came about, and networking was involved.
Linux's downfall is that when it gets hit it can and usually will bring
down the whole system. Good point and/or bad point.

No, they built or started using NetBeiu (sp) based on an old standard. It
was somewhat good albeit incompatible with other networks. Was not good for
large networks.

True, when it became the focus of attention, mainly due to animosity it
became a big target. NT thwarted a lot of that for years. As a side point I
always had a good laugh at "windows" users getting hit my virus', trojans
and the like since I ran strictly NT and was not affected.

This is happening, but the legacy crap stays on, mainly to support the
"cheap" populace and good for nothing lazy programmers who have yet to get
with the picture.

True

But that is what rabid Linux supporters would have you believe.

From personal experience I have never had a NT server breached, no virus,
not trojan, nada, other then poorly written software or shit video drivers.

They are crazy. It is unfounded. Both can be made secure. Both can be
equally open.

For years I can remember the tricks one Linux user would play on another as
security was being learned by all, same with Windows.

I think you will agree that nothing is inherently secure.

You did reference above the Admin's responsibility but given the advent of
Linux workstations and idiot Windows users moving over to that OS with no
training, little knowledge, etc. That they will soon find their systems
breached for the very same reasons that they are breached in Windows. Poor
user administration.

I would much rather that current Linux guru's would stress
maintenance/administration rather then stating that Linux is "secure". It
is misleading to the novice and or the lazy ones. For them to run such an
OS is to leave them blindly confident in an unsecured OS and thus exposed.

Iceman wrote:
You can't be serious with that last statement. I suppose the
Blaster/Lovesan viruses and all its relatives were just bad dreams?

Yes, he is stuck: he can't "Dump MS and start looking for replacements
in Linux".

My computer is currently better than any console, and I can keep it that
way with lovely upgrades. If you really play a lot of games, you'll also
notice that with at least the FPS/strategy genre on the consoles are
sorely lacking compared with their computer counterparts. The only thing
a console can claim to have over a computer is their gamepad control and
tv-output - things I happen to have on my PC. You could say that you
don't have to load games onto the consoles, to which I would say, I can
load games onto my pc, and keep my precious CDs/DVDs locked away.

Now that we've got the PC down as the best gaming platform, the next
choice is the OS. But what the heck? There is no choice. If you want to
play the huge variety of games the computer has, you've got to buy
Microsoft. Now we're stuck - we can't dump Microsoft.

If there's a choice that was made, it was wanting to play the best games
in the best possible way. Getting Windows is just a required side
effect. One day it may be gone but not today.

--
Ben M.

----------------
What are Software Patents for?
To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

What do Software Patents do?
In its current form, they protect only companies with
big legal departments as they:
a.) Patent everything no matter how general
b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
years of harassment).

Don't let them take away your right to program
whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
before its too late.

Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
----------------

Iceman wrote:
I specifically said Unix. Unix was about when networks were expensive
and uncommon (late 1960s).

Uncommon...

I'd like you to cite some references. It is not in a virus'/worm's best
interests to kill its host computer.

Are you saying they built or started networking?

I don't see the part about security there. That was my main point. I'll
write it again in case you didn't catch what I wrote.

"They still didn't think too much about security - they had obfuscation."

NT has been the target of many serious viruses. It continues to be. Of
the top 10 viruses of the year 2003, all ten could infect Windows NT
systems.

1. W32/Sobig-F
2. W32/Blaster-A
3. W32/Nachi-A
4. W32/Gibe-F
5. W32/Dumaru-A
6. W32/Sober-A
7. W32/Mimail-A
8. W32/Bugbear-B
9. W32/Sobig-E
10.W32/Klez-H

http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/pr...eartopten.html

This "legacy crap" helps to make Windows so vunerable. That can't count
as a plus.

Not at all. "Rabid" Linux supporters laugh at what irresponsible admins
believe is security.

Then you've either been lucky, or don't connect to the internet. (Though
luck goes down as diligence goes up.)

When a security vunerability is released in the Linux world, patches are
available to download within minutes.

_If_ a security vunerability is released in the Windows world, patches
are only available after several weeks, if you're lucky.

With Linux there are millions of people pouring over the source code
every day. Vunerabilities are announced, even if they are theoretic and
impractical.

With Windows vunerabilities are usually only discovered after finding
some software already abusing the exploit. The vunerabilities are rarely
announced, and even when they are, they are delayed by several months in
order to tell Microsoft's bigger customers first. Windows is definitely
not open (unless you're a government agency).

In short, with Linux you get vunerability announcements fast and
freqently, with patches being available almost immediately. With Windows
you sometimes get delayed vunerability announcements (usually after an
exploit in the wild), with patches being available weeks after. Its
difficult to secure a system that way.

Like this one perhaps?
"Hey dude,
login as root, and type
rm -r /
heheheheheh."

Its much more difficult to trick a Linux user into seriously damaging
their system or into giving away information not belonging to that user.

Absolutely. The search for bugs/vunerabilities/exploits must go on, and
it must not be impeded.

I see two flaws in that argument:

1. The whole vunerability/patch thing again. I can keep my computer
updated with patches that come out _before_ exploit-exploring code goes
wild. I now don't give a damn what happens to the systems that fall.
Every man for himself.

2. Things aren't handed to you on a platter with Linux. You have to go
out there and learn. You read documentation and eventually it becomes
habit. This is more likely to happen with Linux than with Windows, which
has preconfigured setups that are suitable "for most users". I don't
imagine there will ever be a time documentation reading gets ejected
from "compulsory things to do before starting Linux". When it does then
we get back to "every man for himself".

I agree with you here that maintenance/administration is *the* most
important thing in keeping a system secure. Nothing does a job better
than diligence.

However, Linux "Gurus" frankly don't care too much about telling lazy
people that maintenance is important - theres plenty of material on the
web stating this. When the Linux Gurus talk about Linux being more
secure, they're generally talking to other Gurus. If newbies mistake
this for themselves, then they only have themselves to blame.

As for the security that Linux can offer novices, well it does so by
forcing/teaching users to understand their systems and get right into
the configuration of security first before they can even claim to say
their system is secure.

In Windows novices can just set "high security", bumping this down if
they come across any problems. Its the lack of understanding that breeds
laziness, and casual to non maintenance.

You can only truly maintain what you strive to understand.

--
Ben M.

----------------
What are Software Patents for?
To protect the small enterprise from bigger companies.

What do Software Patents do?
In its current form, they protect only companies with
big legal departments as they:
a.) Patent everything no matter how general
b.) Sue everybody. Even if the patent can be argued
invalid, small companies can ill-afford the
typical $500k cost of a law-suit (not to mention
years of harassment).

Don't let them take away your right to program
whatever you like. Make a stand on Software Patents
before its too late.

Read about the ongoing battle at http://swpat.ffii.org/
----------------