Expert says M$ threat to the Internet!
Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:31 AM
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 :?:
Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:48 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:49 AM
If that is what you are using to dismiss this issue Eddie I have one thing for you.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:52 AM
Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:55 AM
Why don't YOU read the article from E-week Eddie :?:
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:03 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:09 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:13 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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:16 AM
Do you own Microsoft stock Eddie?
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:23 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....
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
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:44 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:57 AM
But I expect that cnet are being paid by Microsoft
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:00 AM
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:04 AM
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
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:18 AM
You never answered my question Eddie.
Are you a Microsoft shareholder?
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:24 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 ?
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:29 AM
It would be best to stick to the facts -- all of them, not just the ones that support one's cause.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:30 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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:31 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:35 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:39 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:44 AM
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:48 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:48 AM
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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:52 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.
Posted 04 November 2004 - 10:48 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users