Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Expert says M$ threat to the Internet!


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:01 AM

Experts say Microsoft's silly decision not to give all Windows users a secure and updated browser has put the entire internet at risk.

http://www.eweek.com...,1650827,00.asp

Should IT managers and computer users continue to support a company that will not support its own products for the good of the community :?:

What do you think about the Microsoft decision to tie IE to the OS :?: IE is not now a stand alone product as it once was.

They want to tie the browser to the OS and force users to upgrade to XP by NOT giving users the latest browser, but forcing them to pay $99.00 to upgrade to XP.

Many experts mention the reason M$ is doing this is because they are short handed in their development personnel as they are working on Longhorn.

In addition to this, they say that since Microsoft is in between OS product offerings they want to promote sales of XP since 50% of Windows users refuse to upgrade their OS.

I say this is a case of Blackmail and extortion.

What do you think :?:

#2 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:18 AM

Apart from the fact that it isn't correct as Adrian spent hours showing you, you may be interested in these words:

http://news.com.com/..._3-5215586.html

http://news.com.com/..._3-5220285.html

According to mi2g, the firm's Intelligence Unit study analyzed more than 235,000 successful attacks against "permanently connected -- 24/7 online -- computers" worldwide between November 2003 and October 2004. According to the study, computers running Linux accounted for about 65 percent of all recorded breaches, while Microsoft Windows-based systems accounted for about 25 percent of such attacks.



#3 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:19 AM

So the writer at E-week is a propaganda agent for open source Eddie?

If that is what you are using to dismiss this issue Eddie I have one thing for you.

:) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#4 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:22 AM

Just for once, try reading ALL the article and not just the bit that suits your propoganda. Are mi2g propogandists as well ?

#5 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:25 AM

So what you are saying is that the experts at E-week are just blazing idiots, correct :?:

Why don't YOU read the article from E-week Eddie :?:

#6 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:33 AM

Once again you have not answered my post, and once again you try to place words in my mouth.

In the same way you ignored the proof that Adrian gave you on the subject of browser vulnerability updates.

Are you concerned that:

more than 235,000 successful attacks against "permanently connected -- 24/7 online -- computers" worldwide between November 2003 and October 2004. According to the study, computers running Linux accounted for about 65 percent of all recorded breaches, while Microsoft Windows-based systems accounted for about 25 percent of such attacks.



#7 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:39 AM

Are you sure that was not sponsored by Microsoft's public relations and propaganda department Eddie?

Eddie you should look in the mirror since you like to answer a question with more questions instead of addressing the issue of the insecure browser that Microsoft produces.

Next, you refuse to consider the subject of the thread, that being Microsoft not securing 90% of the world's computers, creating a great security risk for the entire internet community.

#8 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:43 AM

Are you sure that was not sponsored by Microsoft's public relations and propaganda department Eddie?  

:)

You have just made yourself look even more foolish than you normally do.

So to sum up, all the criticisms of Microsoft are good and valid, and all other opinions are paid for by Microsoft. :lol:

#9 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:46 AM

The study that Microsoft's propaganda department produced on the cost of ownership of Linux servers versus Microsoft servers was a proven false study that was produced and publicized by the Microsoft propaganda machine Eddie.

Do you own Microsoft stock Eddie?

#10 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:53 AM

We were not discussing the cost of wonership, we werew discussing security vulnerabilities.


CNet reports that successful hacks of Web hosts running Linux have risen to 7,630 while successful hacks of ones running Windows have fallen to 9.404 for the first six months of this year, according to a report by British company, Mi2g. If the trends continue at their current rates, it looks as though Linux will be enjoying more hacks than Windows this time next year....


Your Title:
Expert says M$ threat to the Internet!

Now again are you concerned that computers running Linux accounted for about 65 percent of all recorded breaches, while Microsoft Windows-based systems accounted for about 25 percent of such attacks

#11 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:14 AM

We are discussing the IE browser and Windows desktop PC's Eddie that are in fact a great threat to the Internet itself.

You are the one that always avoids the subject of the threads by introducing Microsoft propaganda.

Let the readers decide, your points are not even relevant to the subject matter, but do bring to mind more Microsoft hype.

How you go from IE and desktop PC's that are a great threat to the internet (since they are filled with Malware, spyware, browser and zombie high jacks) to servers is way out in left field.

#12 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:27 AM

CNet reports that successful hacks of Web hosts running Linux have risen to 7,630 while successful hacks of ones running Windows have fallen to 9.404 for the first six months of this year, according to a report by British company, Mi2g. If the trends continue at their current rates, it looks as though Linux will be enjoying more hacks than Windows this time next year....

But I expect that cnet are being paid by Microsoft

#13 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:30 AM

This still does not address 90% of the worlds desktop PC's Eddie that are a great threat to the security of the internet and Microsoft's refusal to secure these machines.

#14 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:34 AM

If

90% of the worlds desktop PC's Eddie that are a great threat to the security of the internet and Microsoft's refusal to secure these machines.


How is it that

successful hacks of Web hosts running Linux have risen to 7,630 while successful hacks of ones running Windows have fallen to 9.404 for the first six months of this year

#15 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:48 AM

What is amazing Eddie, is how you avoid addressing the danger of PC's that are hosts for viruses, spyware and acting as zombie servers for malware by attempting to turn the subject of the thread to server security.

You never answered my question Eddie.

Are you a Microsoft shareholder?

#16 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:54 AM

:)

READ what I wrote. ALL computers are vulnerable top viruses and hacks, and that of course includes macs and linux boxes.

Not that it is any of your business, but I don't own any Microsoft stock, neither do I sell them.

Now, how do you reconcile those 2 sets of figues I gave you in my last post ?

#17 DianeV

DianeV

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 7216 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:59 AM

What does it matter what stocks anyone holds?

It would be best to stick to the facts -- all of them, not just the ones that support one's cause.

#18 DaveChild

DaveChild

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3446 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:00 AM

65 percent of all recorded breaches


Bit of a leap there Eddie. The sample was of always-on machines. That sounds like servers to me. Linux enjoys a far higher share of the server market than the desktop one.

If you're going for all vulnerabilities and all exploits, there are better surveys and data to use. The other point would be that they are meauring breaches, not vulnerabilities - which is of little use to anyone.

There's a pretty good security report on Linux vs Windows at http://www.theregist...ndows_vs_linux/ if you are interested.

ac, once again you have raised the same points. Once again though, you have missed the most important one. Security is a shared resonsibility. Microsoft have a responsibility to fix flaws in their products that create security problems. And Users have a responsibility to learn the basics of security and operate a secure environment. The reason there are so many "zombie machines" is because most users do not know how to use and secure their computers. IE has flaws that have helped bad people exploit systems, but the blame is not entirely with MS.

#19 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:01 AM

Really Eddie it is something to think about, I am sure that there are security experts that are interested in the figures.

But, what I am discussing is the subject that the writer at E-week brought up.

Microsoft's refusal to secure the machines of the Windows user base and the threat that Microsoft's silly decisions have created to the security of the internet.

#20 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:05 AM

Thanks ILoveJackDaniels

Yes it was for always on machines, but I'd have thought that breaches were a more reasonable real world worry than theoretical vulnerbilities.

My only concern and my reason for posting is that the constant mis information and distortion given is dangerous and simply spreads alarm for no good reason.

#21 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:09 AM

So the E-week technical writer is spreading anti-Microsoft propaganda, right Eddie?

Why don't you send E-week an e-mail and tell them about the mis-information that they publish everyday to IT professionals worldwide.

I am sure that they would stop publishing anti-Microsoft mis-information if you would kindly make them aware of what a bunch of nuts they really are.

#22 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:14 AM

The mis information and distortions are coming from you. Try reading the posts from Adrian and ILoveJackDaniels at the very least

#23 ac

ac

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:18 AM

You and I always come to the same conclusion when we are in threads debating Eddie, we always disagree.

So just leave the thread be, I will not comment for a while, feel free to do so if you wish, my choice is to let others have their say.

For now Eddie, have a good day.

#24 DaveChild

DaveChild

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3446 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:18 AM

You're right, Eddie, there is a lot of misinformation. It can be difficult to pick out the stuff worth reading from the stuff that isn't. I had a look at the mi2g FAQ, which has a bit more information. Apparently, a breach of security on one system hosting many sites counts as many breaches, for the purposes of this study as well.

This is the problem - statistics can be made to "prove" anything. The study you linked to, Eddie, appears to be more a measure of hosting choices than actual security.

ac, the article you linked to misses out on the basics. Microsoft could do more to secure older systems, but they have no obligation to. People using any OS, old or new, should take responsibility for their own security. As Eddie says, all OSes have vulnerabilities - switching to Linux or Mac won't make you safe by itself, you need to learn to secure your own system.

#25 DaveChild

DaveChild

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3446 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:22 AM

I'd have thought that breaches were a more reasonable real world worry than theoretical vulnerbilities.


And you'd be right. However, the way those breaches are measured is also important. As the security article I linked to above explains, there are many ways to measure insecurity. The majority of reports released elsewhere use just one of those measures - whichever one makes the product they are pushing look great. In the case of mi2g, they aren't pushing a product, but their investigation is flawed in that the technique used cannot produce useful results.

#26 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13469 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 10:18 AM

<<Moderator note: Personal attacks are not welcome in these forums. What OS someone chooses to use is their choice. -- KK>>



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users