| 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 Warns of New Security Flaws | |
|
||
| Time: 06:16 EST/11:16 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
Microsoft Corp. warned users of three new security flaws in its software on Wednesday, including one critical defect that could be exploited to allow a hacker to gain control of a computer running its Windows operating system software. Those warnings took the total of such security bulletins issued by Microsoft this year to 30. The tally shows the company arguably has made slow progress in meeting its goal of making its software more secure, about half a year after making that a top priority. Microsoft released 60 security bulletins for all of 2001, David Gardner, security program manager for Microsoft's Security Response Center, said on Thursday. "The long-term goal is to get these down as low as we possibly can," he said. "It's a journey, not a destination." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:33:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 6/14/2002 11:08:10 AM |
|
That's ok... RedHat has still released more than 45 vulnerabilities. If the number of releases is a indicator of the security of software, this proves that Linux is worse than Windows.
|
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 6/14/2002 12:43:47 PM |
|
Realist - "Its not."
Ok, then we can assume this article we are discussing is crap. BTW, you might want to take the time to understand how Microsoft issues security bulletins, and what that number 30 really means. You'll quickly find that the rest of your argument is moot. I was making a point. In 1999 and prior years Microsoft had a larger number of security bulletins released than Redhat. At that time the Linux kiddies were claiming that was proof that Microsoft made less secure products. Through 2000, 2001 and now into 2002, Redhat is in the lead in terms of number of bulletins. Now the Linux kiddies are trying to claim that this is proof that Redhat is better at finding security problems than Microsoft, thus the higher number of bulletins. It makes it really hard to know who to listen to. But my gut instinct is never listen to a Linux kiddie because they've been so often wrong.[*cough* Mindcraft *cough*] |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/14/2002 1:29:49 PM |
|
#6, would you please just shut up....
The fact is if a Linux distro comes with these apps, then that distro is prone to it... it doesn't matter if it's still in development, or how many apps it is spread across.... it's STILL prone, which kind of makes your whole point moot. The article is saying that MS is slow at securing their products, because it has had 30 vulnerabilities already, but in order to secure them, you have to find them... not only that, but we are over half way through the year, and there are 30... what's 30 times 2? Well, golly, I think that's 60. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/14/2002 2:03:15 PM |
|
CPU, #6 is dead on right. Just because a CD comes with hundreds of apps from parties you can't even be responsible for and which generally are not all installed by users, doesn't make Linux less secure then Windows. All of the vulnerabilities coming out of Windows are generally to key apps and server products. The same cannot be said of Linux.
And soda has been harping on this same stupid argument that no one is buying--and he thinks that because he heard one argument from some source at some time, he thinks he can call everyone a hypocrite and discredit those who say it's a stupid argument... like you never hear a softy say, "It's easy to uninstall an app, just delete this this and this, and change this this and this in this dll, and your all set, it's easy," and then 10 minutes later you'll be faced with the same idiot saying, "I don't want AOL or Real installed, it's confusing, and I don't want to have to uninstall the apps, waah, waah, waah." How's that for insurmountable hypocrisy. |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/14/2002 3:13:55 PM |
|
No, he's not dead on... I didn't say Linux was vulnerable, I said that the distro is vulnerable.... and it is. I don't care WHAT you say.
Real, AOL, etc, is different from Windows apps. The Windows apps are used as API's, programmers know for a fact that those apps will be there, and thefore can use them in their own applications. AOL and Real installing stuff (like icons for free AOL, the message center, etc all over the place) is nothing like this at all. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 6/14/2002 3:56:17 PM |
|
#6 - But it's always the same products from Redhat... i.e. stuff included in the Linux distribution. Redhat is responsible for including it in the distro.
Jerky boy - Heh. But your arguments are always so easy to discredit. Buy an application servers lately? |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/14/2002 5:09:01 PM |
|
Gotta keep agreeing with you Anon. Let's see if we can't get soda to admit he is being a hypocritical idiot with his argument...
So, soda, if Acrobat Reader or some third party app shipped with a Microsoft CD, and it was found vulnerable, would you say Microsoft was responsible for the flaw? I know you wouldn't, but just try to say "yes," I dare you. If you say "no," shouldn't you admit that you are being a hypocrite about Red Hat being responsible for every package on a distro? Just because MS ships install CDs which will generally install all the components on the CD (sure, going forward it may be different, but I'm talking up to the present) doesn't mean that you can argue that everything on a Red Hat CD is going to be installed and result in a flawed installation. When it comes to security that's all that matters--the number of systems actually affected. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/14/2002 8:40:11 PM |
|
Jagged, that's both idiotic and wrong. MS doesn't ship Flash players and Acrobat with their OS? Are you kidding or just trying to beat out soda for the dumbass award.
And, so what's your point? You say justified or not, which suggest to me that you do not think it's appropriate to find a company responsible for a third party app, but you don't want to admit it. |
| #9 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/14/2002 9:34:26 PM |
|
Ok, all the apps that come with Windows are not part of the core either... what's your point?
Microsoft decides what goes into their product just as Redhat decides what goes into theirs. So, yes, it is the fault of the company who distributes the product, because they CHOOSE what is put into it. If there is a security flaw in Acrobat, and Acrobat came with Windows, then Windows has the flaw as well, even if not everybody installs it, although, it's not Microsoft's responsibility to fix it themselves, they push Adobe to put out the fix, and then it is the responsibility of Microsoft to get that patch out to it's user base. So if Bind comes with RedHat, another security flaw is found in Bind, then RedHat Linux is vulnerable, it's not RedHat's responsibility to make the fix, but it is Redhat's responsibility to get it out there to it's user base. jerk: No, Microsoft doesn't ship Flash players or Acrobat with their OS. This post was edited by CPUGuy on Saturday, June 15, 2002 at 11:17. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 6/15/2002 12:48:20 AM |
|
Jerky boy - "So, soda, if Acrobat Reader or some third party app shipped with a Microsoft CD, and it was found vulnerable, would you say Microsoft was responsible for the flaw? '
Actually what's important in this particular argument is what you would say. I think we can all agreed that based upon your posting patterns here, you would definately say that Microsoft was responsible. And so there you have it... I find this discussion interesting. Either you disagree with my initial question, which makes this article crap... or you agree with my initial question which makes Redhat crap. Rock and a hard place. Which anti-MS position are you going to take? |
| #11 By 3339 (64.175.41.238) at 6/16/2002 5:01:13 PM |
|
soda, a ton of presumptions on your part again... Jesus.
1. "what's important ... is what you would say. I think WE ALL AGREED that ... you would definitely say that Microsoft was responsible." What the hell are you reading? I'm saying Linux isn't responsible for every app on a distro, that a distributor isn't responsible for third party software. I obviously don't think MS is responsible for Adobe software. It's your idiot ass who thinks I can't be objective about MS. It's clear that you are avoiding my question, and are unable to accept that if you do not hold MS responsible for 3rd party software, the same must be true for RedHat. 2. "Either you disagree with my initial question, which makes this article crap... or you agree with my initial question which makes Redhat crap." I see no reason why thinking your initial question is crap excludes the validity of this article, nor do I see how agreeing or disagreeing with you makes RedHat crap. But you think you are a logical brilliant person. Oh well. You certainly don't speak for WE ALL even if I am outside of WE ALL, I think it's clear enough that I am able to say that. 3. "Which anti-MS position are you going to take?" I believe the only position I have taken is that your "yardstick" for a secure OS is completely inappropriate. Is that inherently anti-Microsoft? Are you the voice of Microsoft now, soda? I think it could be refined to be much more appropriate, and I wouldn't mind pursuing that. In some respects, I think any such "benchmark" may potentially be a victim of subjectively manipulating the results to yield what you desire, however. This post was edited by sodajerk on Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 17:02. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:33:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
