| 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's patchy security | |
|
||
| Time: 05:33 EST/10:33 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
THE clock started ticking on Sept 10. That was when Microsoft issued the latest warning about a flaw in its Windows software, the 16th event of its kind this year that the company has categorised as 'critical'. The vulnerability is closely related to another problem, identified two months earlier, that allowed the Blaster and LoveSan worms to roam freely on desktop computers this summer. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 324 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:06:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 9/21/2003 11:56:33 AM |
|
It's sad how ignorant the press is. I mean, how come they're not blaming Toyota for the skyrocketing thefts of the Camry? I mean, how come the windows in the Camry aren't unbreakable?
It's ridiculous to attribute bugs to the company unless there's a bunch of them. By way of comparison, Linux has on the order of 10x-20x the bugs that Windows 2003 Server has to-date, but somehow Windows is more buggy? I don't get it. |
| #2 By 3 (62.253.128.7) at 9/21/2003 4:55:30 PM |
| I'm sure this would be the same if Linux or Apple were the major playing in Operating systems, companies just have to live with it. Although all of them need to tighten up itseems. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 9/22/2003 10:56:38 AM |
|
"there was a second patch released to fix additional bugs in the patch"
The second patch was not necessary to fix additional bugs in the first patch. The second patch was to fix additional bugs found in the software. "By way of comparison, Linux has on the order of 10x-20x the bugs that Windows 2003 Server has to-date, but somehow Windows is more buggy? I don't get it." 1: Open Source means the source code is publicly available for scrutiny. It is infinetely easier to spot bugs and vulnerabilities in open source software than in proprietary software for this reason. This makes Open Source software ultimately more secure. 2: Linux Distributions contain hundreds of 3rd party softwares. In many instances multiple packages are included that provide the same functionality. It is therefore not strange that more bugs are found in Linux distributions than with Windows 2003. "Hell, just so far this month alone Debian has had to release 29 patches." This is incorrect. Debian issued 15 security related patches so far this month. As Linux Distributions contain multiple 3rd party softwares that provide the same functionality it is highly unlikely that anyone was affected by all 15 of these. On a mail/web/file/database/firewall server I am running i was only affected by 2 of these for example. Additionally it was not required to reboot the server after applying the patches. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 9/22/2003 3:22:00 PM |
|
sphbecker:
"I'm not saying your wrong, but you say it as if its a fact, and its not" You are correct. I misstated my belief as fact. I stand corrected. "people don't voluntarily spend their life reading Linux's source code looking for problems." People might not spend their life reading Linux's source code. But i'd argue that just because open source code is out in the public it DOES get looked at and scrutinized by more people than proprietary code. I agree with you that bugs in proprietary systems are hidden. This however is nothing more than security by sobscurity. "Even when flaws are discovered and reported, the limited resources of the open source distributors make it difficult to rapidly design and distribute a patch." I think you might want to do a bit more research on this, I don't believe its true. My distribution had a patch within hours after the vulnerability was reported and so did many other distros. "Finally, as you pointed out, there is a lot of 3rd party software included with Linux, IE a lot of software that the distributor is not responsible for fixing, thus causing more delays in the time it may take for a problem to be patched. " I think if you'd dig a little deeper you'd be surprised at how fast security bugs in open source software are fixed AND distributed. dkg_ctc: "First off, there's no proof that it's "infinetely [sic] easier to spot bugs and vulnerabilities"" How can you make this statement. It is certainly infinetely easier to spot security vunlnerabilities and bugs in software when i can look at the source as opposed to spot such in software who's code is proprietary and closed. As i wrote above i misstated my belief that the open source process makes it more secure as fact. You are correct. It has not yet been proven (at least not to everyone's satisfaction. "Therefore, Linux distributions shouldn't be held to security. Gotcha. " Unfortunately I didnt say that. Also I didnt' give it as an "excuse". Its only a logical reason for why one may find more bugs in a Linux distribution than with win2k3. "Maybe you should start making Linux distros own up to their security vulnerabilities." They do own up to them. I didn't say they don't exist. I was simply giving an explanation for why you may see more security announcements in a Linux distro than with Win2k3. If code is out in the open, and hundreds of 3rd party software is included i'd EXPECT there to be tons of bugs to be found, woulnd't you? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 324 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:06:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
