| 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 Faces Class-Action on Security Breaches | |
|
||
| Time: 18:42 EST/23:42 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks BlueJMC "Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O faces a proposed class-action lawsuit in California based on the claim that its market-dominant software is vulnerable to viruses capable of triggering "massive, cascading failures" in global computer networks. The lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, also claims that Microsoft's security warnings are too complex to be understood by the general public and serve instead to tip off "fast-moving" hackers on how to exploit flaws in its operating system." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:39:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (68.209.99.21) at 10/2/2003 7:06:43 PM |
|
This is ridiculous; ever heard of autoupdate?
|
| #2 By 18033 (211.26.193.94) at 10/2/2003 7:20:11 PM |
|
Every OS out there is vulnerable to viruses that potentially could lead to cascading failures on a network...................
The admins that administer these computer systems are simply not doing their job if they cant visit the 'product update' site within a month after a patch has been released for a flaw, which has been exploited by some virus. Hello???? A whole month is plenty of time to patch an enitre global network. To all those who were to slow to patch their systems, you simply shouldnt have your job. |
| #3 By 531 (68.185.168.139) at 10/2/2003 7:40:06 PM |
|
That's why I believe - and I'm saying this in all seriousness - that denial of oxygen should be exacted on anyone who files a frivelous law suit, AND the attorney who represented them. This post was edited by mikekol on Thursday, October 02, 2003 at 19:41. |
| #4 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 10/2/2003 8:17:48 PM |
|
Another lawsuit for Lindows to weasel into. I wouldn't be surprised if the single client was Michael Robertson (or Scott McNealey). This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, October 02, 2003 at 20:19. |
| #5 By 16451 (65.19.17.217) at 10/2/2003 8:26:09 PM |
| microsoft good...public stupid...microsoft good...system administrators incompetent...microsoft good...lawyers evil...microsoft good...other products just as bad...microsoft good...all hackers fault...microsoft good...older products irrelavent...microsoft good... |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 10/2/2003 8:36:29 PM |
|
#3 Need to find new jobs? What the hell for? They are making a killing!!!
This just goes to show that people will sue over anything and everything. "Microsoft's security warnings are too complex to be understood..." wtf?!? Now clippy is going to pop up to help everyone with their security warnings! |
| #7 By 2231 (68.100.112.72) at 10/2/2003 9:03:23 PM |
|
OK, so everybody with three living brain cells knows that a class action suit is not the answer. The only people that benefit are the blood sucking lawyers. So what is the answer?
How long should a security problem go without a fix before the vendor is made to feel pain? Users should also be made to feel pain for not patching their systems. |
| #8 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 10/2/2003 10:11:29 PM |
|
I'm hoping that someone comes up with the solution and recommends it to Microsoft.
Frankly I think it involves reducing the price of WinXP to $50, bundling in Norton AntiVirus, Outlook 2003 and enabling the Firewall by default. |
| #9 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 10/3/2003 12:13:51 AM |
|
Say, this is great! If this is succesful, I am going to sue Gray-out Davis. He just signed into law the ability of illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. So, I'll just claim that Davis' has rendered our nation's security worthless and if the "bad guys" aren't tipped off to exploit this flaw, then I don't what will do it!
Next time you write your elected officials, tell them we need tort reform to get rid of these monkeys . . . er . . . lawyers BS lawsuits. |
| #10 By 40 (216.68.161.50) at 10/3/2003 10:39:14 AM |
|
The funny thing is all the talk about law suits and how MS is at fault, they always quote how much money MS has in reserve, as if that makes MS guilty, just a better target with deeper pockets.
If this suit goes forwards, I guess I can sue Red Hat for all the flaws in there product, and the other linux products out there, since they are the top targets of hackers right now, (according to a report released in Sept, Linux web servers were successfully hacked at a rate of 2 to 1 over windows). Q This post was edited by johnnyq on Friday, October 03, 2003 at 10:43. |
| #11 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 10/3/2003 12:21:47 PM |
|
Sometimes the purpose of a lawsuit is to punish a company for repeated violations of consumer trust. Sometimes the total cost of potential lawsuits does not warrant correcting a known defect. Sometimes federal or state laws force the correction of a defect. If all else fails, a lawsuit may give a company a clue that the defect must be corrected and the company may be financially punished.
Microsoft's case may appear, on the surface, to be very different than the product liability suits we are used to seeing (not the frivolous spilled hot coffee in my lap, or I poked my eye out with a sharp pencil type suits). But why should MS be any less liable for damages inflicted upon users of its software? MS has known for a very, very long time that they have security deficiencies--otherwise there would have been no need for the BIG security initiative and code review. MS made the decision a long time ago that due diligence in developing secure software was not a top priority. A simple economic decision--why spend additional money and resources on security when you can release the product sooner and at a lower cost? This decision is no different than those of auto makers who look at the cost of correcting a puncture-prone gas tank on every car on the road versus the cost of the handful of lawsuits from incinerated occupants. Now, MS is being held accountable for security flaws. I think this suit sends the signal that even more time and energy should be spent in securing software. Hopefully, all software makers will pay attention. I know MS can produce more secure software--they have the talent and the money, so let's see it happen making this type of suit irrelevant. |
| #12 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 10/3/2003 6:47:50 PM |
|
ch - "But why should MS be any less liable for damages inflicted upon users of its software? "
It seems to me that the answer to that question is really quite simple. Because Microsoft didn't cause the damage inflicted upon users of its software. "I think this suit sends the signal that even more time and energy should be spent in securing software." I think this suit sends the message that users aren't responsible for due diligence in maintaining secure computer environments in an interconnected world. i.e. this lawsuit is all about shirking personal responsibility and blaming someone else with a lot of money for the actions of a handful of criminals. |
| #13 By 8589 (66.169.175.16) at 10/4/2003 9:25:46 PM |
|
If there isn't something in the License agreement concerning this, there should be.
However, I wonder what is taking the good folks at Microsoft so long at hiring some good help, to make these kind of people just disappear? I know Al Capone who had much less money and influence would have never stood for this. What happened to the good old days, when business was business? LOL TIC AIYDK LOL |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:39:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
