Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft: "Our products aren't engineered for security" [Duh!]
Computer Weekly ^ | Friday 6 September 2002 | CW360 Staff

Posted on 09/06/2002 10:36:06 AM PDT by toupsie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
"It's impossible to solve the problem completely," Valentine said. "As we solve these problems there are hackers who are going to come up with new ones. There's no end to this."

Good luck Windows Users! The next sound you hear will be a hacker going to town on your hard drive. Sounds like using running Windows is about as safe as bending over at a Gay Pride march--eventually, you are going to get screwed.

Microsoft is finally admitting that their problem isn't a large market share, its that they produce a completely insecure operating system. Its like Ford or GM admitting they purposely made unsafe cars! Preserve your data and switch or sort of switch. These two products with a focus on security.

1 posted on 09/06/2002 10:36:06 AM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: toupsie
Remember the "trusted computing initiative" memo to all the MicroSofties from Uncle Bill last year?

In ten years, you're going to be b!tching about how it isn't fair that Microsoft is hitting Orange Book A1 standards and has a monopoly on security technology.

2 posted on 09/06/2002 10:40:24 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
��5{��������ars, you're going to be b!tching about how it isn't fair that Microsoft is hitting Orange Book A1 standards and has a monopoly on security technology.

If in ten years, Microsoft produces a secure operating system, I will be dancing in the streets. That way I won't have hoards of zombied Windows servers pinging the hell out of my Class Cs around the country.

3 posted on 09/06/2002 10:44:13 AM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I find it amusing that they think a memo and maybe some classes for their programmers will fix the problem. No, Microsoft, it is about rewriting all your old code from scratch with security in mind for every line.
4 posted on 09/06/2002 10:44:21 AM PDT by sigSEGV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sigSEGV
I find it amusing that they think a memo and maybe some classes for their programmers will fix the problem.

One memo that says, "Do this."

Add a bunch of MicroSofties that want stock options so they can be rich. How do they get stock options? By giving Uncle Bill what he wants.

Mix in 20-hour days.

Presto, secure products.

5 posted on 09/06/2002 10:48:23 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
As you have said to me before, "Defend this!". Large market share? More software? Cheap hardware? Should be interesting to hear what you have to say about Windows and the confirmation by the lead M$ Windows guy that its completely insecure.

Don't just say I hate Microsoft, this was posted with a Microsoft Wireless Intellimouse and proofed in Word. :P

6 posted on 09/06/2002 10:50:33 AM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
This aspect is much like finding fault with a Cadilac for being easy to steal. The Cadilac was built for comfort, not security. Windows was designed for the average user, to become a useful cog in the technology industry. Windows is designed to work with a plethora of different hardware products, all using specialized software, on different processors, all operating at different speeds, as a base of yet another group of software applications doing 'God knows what' to hardware and software components. Do you think Windows anticipated connecting digital video recorders, morphing the pictures, adding sound plus internet security when it was written back in the 80's?

The public has clamored for features, but only a small minority have demanded security. Market demand determines marketing strategy. I think MS has done a wonderful job, trying to please bazillions of customers, all running near unique configurations; while keeping the OS fairly stable, adding features, and EARNING the marketshare they have acquired. If ONLY the leadership at Apple were 10% as competent.
7 posted on 09/06/2002 10:58:29 AM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
"It's impossible to solve the problem completely," Valentine said. "As we solve these problems there are hackers who are going to come up with new ones. There's no end to this."

Yes, apparently it is impossible. Microsoft operating systems are trivial for unauthorized users to crack because Microsoft is institutionally incapable of developing good software. Windows users are sitting ducks for any sufficiently motivated teenage intruder to break in and have his way with the user's files.

Mac users don't experience those problems. Apple's level of developer talent and dedication to secure, high-quality software puts Microsoft to shame.

8 posted on 09/06/2002 11:04:00 AM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
There are not 50 people constantly banging on a Cadillac trying to get in 24 hours a day. If we lived in a world like that people would want a secure Cadillac. Trust me, corporations that depend on MS want security, not features.
9 posted on 09/06/2002 11:05:46 AM PDT by sigSEGV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sigSEGV
I concede that the 'NEED' for security is real. However, say a corportation buys 1,000 copies of 'Secure MS Windows' and there is a market for 1,000 other such companies, that is only 1 Million copies of market to please.

We are quite aware that the individual is quite content to buy Symantec or other Firewall software (or a router) to solve the issue, not spend the major bucks to purchase MS's Enterprize software.

Thus, it is simply reduced to a market equation. Tweak existing software and make major bucks vs. re-write software and lose money.
10 posted on 09/06/2002 11:09:54 AM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
I think that might have been the case 5 years ago, but just about every corporation is getting sick of spending millions on personal firewalls, virus scanners, etc. And we're also sick of facing stuff like this:

http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/

or this:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q328691

In which none of the things mentioned above will have any effect.
11 posted on 09/06/2002 11:16:56 AM PDT by sigSEGV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
This aspect is much like finding fault with a Cadilac for being easy to steal. The Cadilac was built for comfort, not security.

Well I don't agree with this analogy. This more like an M1A2 Abrams Battle Tank not being able to handle small arms fire. Windows is designed to be used on the Internet, it should be able to handle "Script Kiddies" like the Abrams can handle small arms fire.

Windows was designed for the average user, to become a useful cog in the technology industry.

Then why can Apple do it? Its designed for the average user and generally described as more user friendly than Windows.

Do you think Windows anticipated connecting digital video recorders, morphing the pictures, adding sound plus internet security when it was written back in the 80's

Apple did. Apple had TCP/IP networking technology built into Mac OS before there was a World Wide Web. Apple even had a website before Microsoft.

If ONLY the leadership at Apple were 10% as competent.

They aren't the ones standing up in front of crowds saying, "Our products have so many holes that swiss cheese is jealous!".

12 posted on 09/06/2002 11:20:52 AM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
One memo that says, "Do this."
Add a bunch of MicroSofties that want stock options so they can be rich. How do they get stock options? By giving Uncle Bill what he wants.
Mix in 20-hour days.
Presto, secure products.

Hahahahahaaaah! That's some formula, but tired and whipped employees do not make better coders.

Try folding in some training, code inspections, testing and some mandatory security audits.

13 posted on 09/06/2002 11:21:21 AM PDT by TechJunkYard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
I always like the expression "Using Microsoft is like sharing needles!"

Just about sums up the risks and the distasteful habit :)
14 posted on 09/06/2002 11:26:13 AM PDT by IsItTimeYet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
Then why can Apple do it? Its designed for the average user and generally described as more user friendly than Windows

Because Apple is ran by marketing fools. Their product is easier to use, uses less parts, is more stable, and generally is the envy of the industry. But, when a consumer has a choice of buying the lowest Mac with little/no software; or a top notch PC with scads of software; the user typically choses the PC.

15 posted on 09/06/2002 11:40:16 AM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
I don't like the sound of his "built-in" excuse.
16 posted on 09/06/2002 11:43:36 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Because Apple is ran by marketing fools. Their product is easier to use, uses less parts, is more stable, and generally is the envy of the industry. But, when a consumer has a choice of buying the lowest Mac with little/no software; or a top notch PC with scads of software; the user typically choses the PC.

I wouldn't say marketing fools considering the praise they get in the advertising industry. Its basically a price issue. People think they are getting a bargain when they buy a cheap PC.

17 posted on 09/06/2002 11:58:58 AM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
I worked on the PowerPC chip, and was made aware of how much Apple paid for it. Let's say that the price is ~20% of the Intel rival. The motherboard costs are similar, the drive costs are similar, the memory is similar, and packaging is similar. Why is the apple so expensive? PowerPC made products superior to what Apple was turning out, and as a reward was shut down. I LOVE the Mac, but it's way overpriced for what you get. The Mac is awesome, but the PC is 'good enough', and that's what wins the market.
18 posted on 09/06/2002 12:04:15 PM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
The problem is that for years Apple was run by managers who couldn't sell ice water to people in hell.
19 posted on 09/06/2002 12:11:54 PM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
As you have said to me before, "Defend this!". Large market share? More software? Cheap hardware? Should be interesting to hear what you have to say about Windows and the confirmation by the lead M$ Windows guy that its completely insecure.

I don't have to defend it. If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize that no product is engineered to provide complete security. Not Windows. Not Linux. Not Apache. Not OSX. Etc, etc. Or have you already forgotten about hacks to OpenSSH, Apache chunk handling, Mac OS X Setuid root access, PHP for OSX, Linux WU-FTPD, Linux line printer daemon, Linux BIND, etc, etc, etc ...
20 posted on 09/06/2002 12:36:52 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Microsoft operating systems are trivial for unauthorized users to crack because Microsoft is institutionally incapable of developing good software.

Give it a rest, HAL. There are a truckload of recent Apple security updates listed on Apple's website. I suppose they're "institutionally incapable of developing good software", as well ... http://www.info.apple.com/usen/security/security_updates.html

Security updates

Security updates are listed below according to the software release in which they first appeared. Where possible, CVE IDs are used to reference the vulnerabilities for further information.

Security Update 2002-08-23

  • This security update is for Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) and applies the fixes contained in Security Update 2002-08-02 which was for Mac OS X 10.1.5.

Security Update 2002-08-20

  • Secure Transport: This update enhances the certificate verification in OS X and is now in full compliance with the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile (RFC2459).

Security Update 2002-08-02

Security Update 7-18-02

  • Software Update: Contains Software Update client 1.4.7 which adds cryptographic signature verification to the softwareupdate command line tool. This provides an additional means to perform software updates in a secure manner, along with the existing Software Update capability contained in System Preferences.

Security Update 7-12-02

  • Software Update: Fixes CVE ID CAN-2002-0676 to increase the security of the Software Update process for systems with Software Update client 1.4.5 or earlier. Packages presented via the Software Update mechanism are now cryptographically signed, and the new Software Update client 1.4.6 checks for a valid signature before installing new packages.

Security Update July 2002

Mac OS X 10.1.5

  • sudo - Fixes CAN-2002-0184, where a heap overflow in sudo may allow local users to gain root privileges via special characters in the -p (prompt) argument.

  • sendmail - Fixes CVE-2001-0653, where an input validation error exists in Sendmail's debugging functionality which could lead to a system compromise.

Internet Explorer 5.1 Security Update (April 2002)

Mac OS X 10.1.4

Security Update - April 2002

  • Apache - updated to version 1.3.23 in order to incorporate the mod_ssl security fix.

  • Apache Mod_SSL - updated to version 2.8.7-1.3.23 to address the buffer overflow vulnerability CAN-2002-0082 which could potentially be used to run arbitrary code. Further Details at: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2002-02/0313.html

  • groff - updated to version 1.17.2 to address the vulnerability CAN-2002-0003, where an attacker could gain rights as the 'lp' user remotely. Further details at: http://online.securityfocus.com/advisories/3859

  • mail_cmds - updated to fix a vulnerability where users could be added to the mail group

  • OpenSSH -- updated to version 3.1p1 to address the vulnerability CAN-2002-0083, where an attacker could influence the contents of the memory. Further details at: http://www.pine.nl/advisories/pine-cert-20020301.html

  • PHP - updated to version 4.1.2 to address the vulnerability CAN-2002-0081, which could allow an intruder to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the web server. Further details at:

  • rsync - updated to version 2.5.2 to address the vulnerability CAN-2002-0048 which could lead to corruption of the stack and possibly to execution of arbitrary code as the root user. Further details at:

  • sudo - updated to version 1.6.5p2 to address the vulnerability CAN-2002-0043, where a local user may obtain superuser privileges. Further details at:

Mac OS X v10.1.3

    WebDAV - Extended the Digest Authentication mode to work with additional servers

Mac OS X v10.1 Security Update 10-19-01

Internet Explorer 5.1.1

  • IE 5.1.1 - Fixes a problem with IE 5.1 bundled with Mac OS X v10.1 where Internet Explorer executes downloaded software automatically, which could result in data loss or other harm. More information is available in the Knowledge Base article 106503.

Mac OS X v10.1

  • crontab - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:09 where local users can read arbitrary local files that conform to a valid crontab file syntax.

  • fetchmail
  • ipfw - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:08.ipfw where a remote attack may be constructed with TCP packets with the ECE flag set.

  • java - Fixes the vulnerability described in:http://sunsolve.Sun.COM/pub-cgi/retrieve.pl?doctype=coll&doc=secbull/216&type=0&nav=sec.sbl&ttl=sec.sbl where an untrusted applet may monitor requests to and responses from an HTTP proxy server.

  • open() syscall - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-97:05.open where another user on the system could do unauthorized I/O instructions

  • OpenSSL - Included version 0.9.6b which contains a number of fixes from the previous version. See http://www.openssl.org/ for details.

  • procmail - Fixed the vulnerability described in Red Hat RHSA-2001:093-03 where signals are not handled correctly.

  • rwhod - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:29.rwhod where remote users can cause the rwhod daemon to crash, denying service to clients.

  • setlocale() string overflow - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-97:01.setlocale where the setlocale() call contains a number of potential exploits through string overflows during environment variable expansion

  • sort - Fixes the vulnerability described in CERT Vulnerability Note VU#417216 where an intruder may be able to block the operation of system administration programs by crashing the sort utility.

  • system clipboard / J2SE - Fixes a security issue that permitted unauthorized applets access to the system clipboard.

  • tcpdump - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:48 where remote users can cause the local tcpdump process to crash, and may be able to cause arbitrary code to be executed.

  • TCP Initial Sequence Numbers - Fixes the potential vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-00:52 where the algorithm to generate the number the system will use for the next incoming TCP connection was not sufficiently random

  • tcsh '>>' operator - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-00:76 where unprivileged local users can cause an arbitrary file to be overwritten when another person invokes the '<<' operator in tcsh (e.g. from within a shell script)

  • telnetd - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:49 where remote users can cause arbitrary code to be executed as the user running telnetd.

  • timed - Fixes the vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:28 where remote users can cause the timed daemon to crash, denying service to clients.

Mac OS X Server v10.1

  • MySQL 3.23.42 - Contains a number of fixes from the previous version. See the 3.23.42 section on the MySQL site for details.

  • Tomcat 3.2.3 - Contains a number of fixes from the previous version. See the Tomcat site for details.

  • Apache - Fixed the .DS_Store file vulnerability described in http://securityfocus.com/bid/3324

  • Apache - Fixed the potential vulnerability where .htaccess files might be visible to web browsers if created on HFS+ volumes. The files directive in the http.conf file was modified to block from visibility to web browsers all files whose names begin with .ht, regardless of case.

Mac OS X Web Sharing Update 1.0

  • Apache 1.3.19 - Fixes security issues with sites use of the mass virtual hosting module mod_vhost_alias or mod_rewrite.

  • mod_hfs_apple -- Addresses Apache case-insensitivity problems on Mac OS Extended (HFS+) volumes.

  • OpenSSH 2.9p2 -- Fixes SSH1 vulnerability described in www.openwall.com/advisories/OW-003-ssh-traffic-analysis.txt.

  • sudo -- Fixes the buffer overflow vulnerability described in FreeBSD-SA-01:38

Mac OS X 10.0.4 Server Update

Mac OS X 10.0.2

Mac OS X 10.0.1

  • OpenSSH-2.3.0p1  --  SSH services are enabled via the Sharing pane in System Preferences

Mac OS Runtime for Java (MRJ) 2.2.5

  • MRJ 2.2.5  --  Fixes a security issue that permitted unauthorized applets access to the system clipboard.

Note:
For the protection of our customers, Apple does not disclose, discuss or confirm security issues until a full investigation has occurred and any necessary patches or releases are available.


21 posted on 09/06/2002 12:46:45 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
I don't have to defend it. If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize that no product is engineered to provide complete security. Not Windows. Not Linux. Not Apache. Not OSX. Etc, etc. Or have you already forgotten about hacks to OpenSSH, Apache chunk handling, Mac OS X Setuid root access, PHP for OSX, Linux WU-FTPD, Linux line printer daemon, Linux BIND, etc, etc, etc ...

Cop outs and insults. What else would we expect from you? That was not what the manager from Microsoft was saying. He said that they haven't even made the attempt to secure their product. Insecure by default. The organizations you mentioned actually make the effort (and suceed in that effort) to make their products secure, Microsoft is saying it does not. Huge difference.

And to quote you, "If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize" that BIND and WU-FTPd are not products of Linux nor is their such a thing as a Linux product. Linux is just the kernel of a GNU/Linux system. We wouldn't want you to be 'technically incorrect'.

22 posted on 09/06/2002 12:51:26 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
Cop outs and insults. What else would we expect from you? That was not what the manager from Microsoft was saying. He said that they haven't even made the attempt to secure their product. Insecure by default. The organizations you mentioned actually make the effort (and suceed in that effort) to make their products secure, Microsoft is saying it does not. Huge difference.

Past tense, you moron.

And to quote you, "If you had some technical knowledge, you'd realize" that BIND and WU-FTPd are not products of Linux nor is their such a thing as a Linux product. Linux is just the kernel of a GNU/Linux system. We wouldn't want you to be 'technically incorrect'.

IIS, Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express, Office, etc aren't part of the Windows kernel either, bozo. And yet you're perfectly willng to demagogue all of those products as "Windows" problems. Sheez... don't you four-percenters have anything better to do with your time?
23 posted on 09/06/2002 12:54:06 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
That's so cool, all of Apple's problems can fit in one message and already have been fixed!!! Try doing that with Windows! Apple actually discovers and fixes security flaws! Microsoft still has 18 security holes that have been around for at least one year. When are they going to fix those?

Here's my favorite 'Security Issue' you mention:
OpenSSH-2.3.0p1  --  SSH services are enabled via the Sharing pane in System Preferences
Wow! The hacker's are going to get a lot of milage out of that one!

24 posted on 09/06/2002 12:57:44 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
IIS, Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express, Office, etc aren't part of the Windows kernel either, bozo. And yet you're perfectly willng to demagogue all of those products as "Windows" problems. Sheez... don't you four-percenters have anything better to do with your time?

Please post the message where I say that IIS, Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express, Office are a part of the Windows kernel. You make this claim all the time yet are unable to back it up. Please do for a change.

Got anything else besides personal insults to bolster your case? You seem to like to say "moron" a lot to folks that don't agree with you. Join us in the adult world.

25 posted on 09/06/2002 1:01:46 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
The problem is that for years Apple was run by managers who couldn't sell ice water to people in hell.

You got that right. Thank goodness that Steve Jobs is back at the helm. I didn't hop back on the Apple bandwagon until he returned. I was in my DEC Alpha period before that.

26 posted on 09/06/2002 1:03:22 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: toupsie
Please post the message where I say that IIS, Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express, Office are a part of the Windows kernel. You make this claim all the time yet are unable to back it up. Please do for a change.

I'll turn the tables. Show me bugs in which the Windows kernel caused a vulnerability.
28 posted on 09/06/2002 1:06:04 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Hodar
But, when a consumer has a choice of buying the lowest Mac with little/no software; or a top notch PC with scads of software; the user typically choses the PC.

Huh? Macs comes preloaded with a bunch of excellent software, including a superior operating system, Internet applications, word processing, graphics software, Quicken, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, QuickTime, utilities, etc. Is there some particular must-have application you know of that Mac users can't get?

30 posted on 09/06/2002 1:10:02 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
I'll turn the tables. Show me bugs in which the Windows kernel caused a vulnerability

How can I? Microsoft does not release information about its kernel to the general public like Apple and the Open Source OSes-- xBSD and GNU/Linux. In fact, Microsoft has tried to bully several organizations in order to prevent the general public from receiving information regarding an insecurity of Windows. What do they have to hide Bush2000? Even "proprietary" Apple has their kernel open for the whole world to view...for free!

31 posted on 09/06/2002 1:15:17 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
How can I? Microsoft does not release information about its kernel to the general public like Apple and the Open Source OSes-- xBSD and GNU/Linux.

Wrong. You can easily search the database of hotfixes and security bulletins. They describe exactly where the bug was found and the component it affects.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.asp
32 posted on 09/06/2002 1:21:09 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
If you run a business -- Access.
33 posted on 09/06/2002 1:25:49 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
You and the rest of the Mac bigots are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, holding up Microsoft as evidence of buggy code while sweeping your own bugs under the rug when somebody (namely, me) brings them up.

Ew, Mac users are now 'bigots' -- I thought you were calling us 'morons' and 'bozos' earlier. Got anymore personal insults up your sleeves?

Mac OS X bugs aren't swept under the carpet. They are fixed. As evidensed by your post of a total of one Apple Web Page of bugs. One page. That's the shortest bug list I know of in the OS industry. It shows that Apple isn't afraid of letting the general public know what they have fixed and what was wrong at the time.

Leave it to you to spotlight one of the less severe bugs while ignoring the rest of the serious bugs...

Leave it you to think that adding a menu option in a system preferences window is a "less severe bug". Do you actually read the things you cross post from the Apple web site?

Where are those supposive posts where I say that, "Outlook is a part of the Windows kernel"? Still waiting on that. Or was that just a case of you doing a "Drive By Lying"?

34 posted on 09/06/2002 1:26:12 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/5556
http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/5484
http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/5478
http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/5480
http://online.securityfocus.com/bid/5408

Just the past month. And that doesn't include whatever is causing the "mysterious hacks" that they can't figure out.
35 posted on 09/06/2002 1:26:33 PM PDT by sigSEGV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
There are a truckload of recent Apple security updates listed on Apple's website.

Yes, Apple is very good about issuing security updates whenever a potential vulnerability is discovered, often on the same day as the initial report. Typically, the update is installed automatically when the user logs on to the Internet. In contrast, Microsoft takes weeks or months to respond to security issues, if at all.

The list of security issues on Mac OS X is very short compared to the gaping holes in Windows, and the number of Windows virus/worm/security victims is probably in the millions.

To my knowledge, not one Mac OS X user has actually been the victim of the security exploits, thanks to Apple's better coding practices and response time.

It's amusing when I get a call from a Windows user complaining that their computer is malfunctioning, I tell them to check their web server home page and sometimes it comes up with a message like "This computer has been hacked by China!" I've never seen that happen on a Mac.

36 posted on 09/06/2002 1:31:48 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Wrong. You can easily search the database of hotfixes and security bulletins. They describe exactly where the bug was found and the component it affects.

I don't see the kernel source there. Where is it? That's what we were talking about, the kernel. What happens if I don't want to trust what Microsoft has to say about Windows' kernel? If you don't trust Apple, you can look and inspect their kernel source just xBSD and GNU/Linux systems. You don't even have to go to court to get that code, its free for the taking...even compile it on an x86 box.

37 posted on 09/06/2002 1:33:06 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Past tense, you moron.

Valentine said, "Our products aren't engineered for security."

Moron? At least I understand that "aren't" is present tense not past tense. If he was discussing the past he would have said, "Our products were not engineered for security." Review your 4th grade grammar book for details on past and present tense usage.

38 posted on 09/06/2002 1:39:56 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
I don't see the kernel source there. Where is it?

This is an honest question, no provocation intended: is the kernel source available for MacOS 9.x and earlier?

39 posted on 09/06/2002 1:44:22 PM PDT by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
As far as I know, MS has only been orange book certified once - and that was for NT service pack 4 on one specific hardware platform (I forget which one).  Contrast that to Novell which has a history of trying (and succeeding for the most part) of getting orange book certified on every release on every platform they run on.

Also, they should have learned from the Unix experience that implementing raw sockets was a brain-dead thing to do.
40 posted on 09/06/2002 1:46:05 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
IIS, Exchange, Outlook, Outlook Express, Office, etc aren't part of the Windows kernel either, bozo.

Well that would make YOU the idiot because most of what makes up "Linux" to people like you is platform agnostic. BASH, XFree86, KDE, GNOME, Apache, etc run just as well on FreeBSD and now on Darwin as they do on Linux. Let's see IIS run just as easily on MacOSX as it does on Windows. IIS is tied down far more heavily to Windows than Apache is to any particular UNIX. Of course you already knew that; you were just making yourself look like a moron for our amusement.

41 posted on 09/06/2002 1:50:00 PM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Show me bugs in which the Windows kernel caused a vulnerability.

If GDI or another component of the Windows windowing system has a problem it's a Windows issue. If XFree86 has a problem it's a XFree86 issue, not a "Linux" issue. Of course the concept of having XFree86 be a separate product that runs on the Linux kernel, *BSD, Darwin and MacOSX would make no sense to someone like you.

42 posted on 09/06/2002 1:53:31 PM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If you run a business -- Access.

Mac OS X does include an ODBC driver, so Access is accessable. But the demand for MS Access on Macs is virtually nil because better solutions are available.

I prefer to run MySQL on Mac OS X. It has many excellent features, tons of support software are available, it's web accessible and it's free. It also runs on Linux and several other platforms. MySQL is used on the FreeRepublic servers for storing information about user accounts and threads.

Oracle, Sybase and FileMaker RDBMS software is also available for Mac OS X.

Macs also includes a simple database system built-in to the AppleWorks applications suite.

43 posted on 09/06/2002 1:54:31 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
"We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security," admitted Valentine, who since 1998 has headed Microsoft's Windows division.

Past tense, you moron.

Don't insult him because the average elementary school student has a more thorough grasp of English verb conjugation than you do.

44 posted on 09/06/2002 1:59:41 PM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
So how many small businesses run their sales, gl, payroll, etc on Macs? I don't deny thy might be able to, but I suspect that at least 96% don't.
45 posted on 09/06/2002 2:07:25 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Is there some particular must-have application you know of that Mac users can't get?

For those of us using high-end Intel boxes for entertainment(gaming), the answer is an unfortunate yes.

Sure, consoles are a lot cheaper and have scads of available titles, but I'm more partial to strategy games and realistic flight sims, neither of which seem to be well-supported by the Playstation or the XBox.

Current flight sim titles on my PC: FS2002, IL2, Jane's F/A-18, X-Plane, Jane's WWII Fighters, Rowan's Battle of Britain, Mig Alley, European Air War, B-17II The Mighty Eighth, and Xtreme Air Racing. Of those, I know X-Plane has a Mac counterpart. The rest are, as far as I know, pure Windows apps. I'm aware of the Windows emulators available for OSX, but I have serious doubts that the kind of CPU cycle hungry sims I fly would run smoothly in that environment.

So are those "must-have" apps? Not really. But then again, neither is satellite or cable television, or any TV for that matter. It's just the kind of entertainment I prefer. (I don't own a TV, BTW. Ditched it in 1990 and haven't missed it a bit.) The television analogy, should I ever decide to buy one again,would be something along the lines of a sexy HDTV set with Dolby surround that only received Garrison Keillor and Live From Kennedy Center. Nice hardware, but where's Monday Night Football, Cinemax, Speedvision, and Fox News?

Don't get me wrong - I think that Apple builds some very desirable hardware, with a good OS to match. I'd like to see the kind of gaming support the Mac enjoyed in the early 90s before I'd consider buying a new machine.

46 posted on 09/06/2002 2:14:17 PM PDT by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Mac OS X does include an ODBC driver...

That's what I call a user friendly app. LOL

47 posted on 09/06/2002 2:15:48 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So how many small businesses run their sales, gl, payroll, etc on Macs?

The software is available, but I don't know how many businesses use them.

Intuit has announced that QuickBooks Pro 5.0 for Mac OS X will be released early next year.

48 posted on 09/06/2002 2:19:55 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Denver Ditdat
This is an honest question, no provocation intended: is the kernel source available for MacOS 9.x and earlier?

I am not sure about OS 9 (I try not to use it) but I do know that System 7.5 is available for free. Mac OS X is completely open at the kernel level. However, unless you want to kill your product, I would never touch the code of kernel from the old "Classic" Mac OS. I am a UNIX fan and not a fan of Apple's past OS design. They got it right with OS X.

49 posted on 09/06/2002 2:22:23 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
As far as I know, MS has only been orange book certified once - and that was for NT service pack 4 on one specific hardware platform (I forget which one).

I think that was the Alpha version of NT if memory serves me right. I ran it (played around with it is more accurate) on one of my DEC Alphas as a Dual Boot a several years ago. I even have a PPC port of Windows NT which never made it out to the general public -- just a developer release -- I am sure that was not the secure one. :)

50 posted on 09/06/2002 2:24:51 PM PDT by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson