| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft: Users must pay for security | |
|
||
| Time: 10:00 EST/15:00 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft is considering charging for additional security options, and admits it didn't move on security until customers were ready to pay for it. Microsoft "may offer new security abilities on a paid basis," according to the company's chief technical officer Craig Mundie. The possibility is under consideration within Microsoft's security business unit, recently set up under its own vice president, Mike Nash. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:32:11 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 10/8/2002 10:26:48 AM |
| #1 - Agreed. Additional security features for $$$, is fine. Making existing software secure to begin with should be a design goal from day 1, not a feature to be optionally paid for later. |
| #2 By 2138 (62.201.91.196) at 10/8/2002 10:47:11 AM |
|
I think that is a lazy man's way of saying sorry for screwing up our software that you just bought, but we regret; we have to charge you, to fix our mistake(s). Have a nice day and continue to purchase our software.
Now come-on people. WAKE-UP!!! belto... |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 10/8/2002 1:38:48 PM |
|
As always, ZDNet purposely and malicious misrepresents the facts with a sensationalistic headline. And, also as always, all the mindless "M$ $UCK$!!!" drones come out saying how horrible it is, when, in fact, it's nothing new.
No, you idiots, MS isn't going to charge for basica security services provided in Windows. No, MS is not going to charge for patches for vulnerabilities in their products. MS is going to offer extra security features like those required in highly secure Government medical, etc installations. 99.9999% of the people in this world would never use them and so MS otherwise couldn't justify the extra cost. |
| #4 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at 10/8/2002 2:49:09 PM |
| I still run the Mrs. DOS 6.22, it don't have them there secure tee problem. This Winders XP is for the birds! I never have to pay extra for my John Deere parts!?! don't ever change the oil neither, that Gill Bates is tryin to rip me off! |
| #5 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/8/2002 3:05:53 PM |
|
Cool!
Maybe Palladium, DRM and all that other control-freak nonsense will now be optional instead of mandatory! But, I doubt it :( |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/8/2002 7:47:14 PM |
|
Doesn't this, even if at the early stages and based on who knows what, represent MS's perspective on security? For those who do need the most secure systems, who are willing to pay extra, where would you expect the additional costs to be? I would want the extra cost to go into a ground-up redevelopment; hard, thorough testing of its security etc... I wouldn't want a couple of bells and whistles layered on top of a less secure system--that I can purchase from many other companies (apps to secure an insecure OS). No, if an OS company is doing security, it should be in the OS, if not from the beginning, considered throughout all design concerns; then at least using those principles going forward. If it's add-on software, I can't see a substantial security benefit that couldn't be delivered by another vendor. In other words, MS is wasting its time focusing on other businesses' markets without securing their's... That's the impression I get. I'm not prophesying any conspiracy, I'm not claiming it is so... that is simply my impression. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 at 20:29. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/8/2002 9:55:41 PM |
|
"The novice user complains about *nix OS, Why... because it isn't as user friendly as Windows... because it's built on security"
Um, how many remote root exploits have there been in the last year? *nix has its share of security flaws as well. Why don't you get off your high horse and be a little more realistic. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/9/2002 12:48:09 AM |
|
The scale of the issue, as you call it, only deals with the market share of the product. The flaws in Unix and Linux are, however, no less serious.
It certainly sounds like you have a "windows isn't secure like my *nix boxes are" opinion. If you are more open minded than that, though, I apologize for misjudging you. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:32:11 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
