| 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 |
 |
Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk | |
|
||
| Time: 10:52 EST/15:52 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
A computer industry group critical of Microsoft plans to release a report on Wednesday arguing that the software giant's dominance in key technologies threatens national infrastructure. The report, issued by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, argues that the reliance on a single technology such as the Windows operating system for such an overwhelming majority of computer systems threatens the security of the U.S. economy and critical infrastructure, according to a draft seen by CNET News.com. The paper, written by three security experts, also warns that many security improvements planned by Microsoft are likely designed to raise the barrier that deters customers from switching to another operating system. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 450 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
4:56:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/25/2003 1:19:51 PM |
| I don't know what any of you think you've proven or what you think I've gotten wrong, but I actually added viruses to bluvg's list and not a single one of these viruses affects OS 9 or OS X. |
| #27 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/25/2003 2:26:47 PM |
|
dkg, you've paraphrased quite a bit here:
yes, I said Mac OS is currently not vulnerable to any viruses. I did not say Mac OS was susceptible to 30 viruses -- I said twelve years ago Apple System Software 7.0 was susceptible to 30 viruses. It was 12 years ago. Let's repeat -- twelve F'ING years ago. Since then we've had system 7,8,9, and 10. Yes, I did say there are no viruses that affect the CURRENT Mac OS. You WERE using sources OVER a DECADE old. I did say that OS 9 (as it is supported) is free of viruses. I never said there were OS 9 viruses but they've been patched. I said there are no viruses that can infect a current Mac OS -- either 9 or X. Please point out which of these viruses would affect an OS 9 system. Please. There are no viruses that affect OS 9. The closest thing to a threat was the AppleScript flaw, but this actually REQUIRES Microsoft applications. And this was repaired from the AppleScript end almost immediately--two years ago. All of the others are from 1998. 5 YEARS AGO! System 9 CAME OUT 4 YEARS AGO. System 9.2 and Mac OS 10.2.6 are the current supported systems. All of the current antivirus software available for the Mac require 9.2--I don't see why I need to go back to system 8 five years ago. As I said, a vague comment that doesn't directly indicate which virus affects OS 9 and what the exploit is is simply a vague statement that Symantec would like to use to promote the need for virus software. Didn't you notice the huge disconnect from his vague quote from a cheesy newbie book writer and his "compiled" list of FOUR viruses that haven't been an issue for years? I'm not suggesting virus software is unnecessary, but there is no virus that can affect OS 9 or OS X now. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 25, 2003 at 14:39. |
| #28 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/25/2003 3:05:23 PM |
|
I don't see what you are saying is inconsistent. (Why the fsck do you keep bringing up the 1991 stat? Do you really find that's fckin relevent to or inconsistent with what I have said? If so, whatever...) I haven't at any point said: there has never been a virus for the Mac. I have never said there has never been a virus for OS 9. I have said there is currently no virus which can affect OS 9 and OS X.
You still haven't named one virus which currently affects either of these systems. This is all I have asked for a day and a half. Name one virus which currently affects OS 9 or OS X. Please. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 25, 2003 at 15:06. |
| #29 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/25/2003 5:12:14 PM |
|
sodajerk wrote:
Bill: "Over dependence on MS creates a security risk." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you represent Oracle and other competitors to MS." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Actually Dave would answer at this point by saying "You've given no arguments, you are debating by assertion and I am simply pointing out to those listening that your assertions are based upon a biased position." |
| #30 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/25/2003 6:07:33 PM |
|
"I have never said there has never been a virus for OS 9. I have said there is currently no virus which can affect OS 9...."
So those viruses have been eradicated from the planet, or what? If there HAS been a virus for OS 9, then THERE IS a virus that can attack OS 9. OS 9 does NOT imply OS 9.2.2 (or any other version level) exlusively; it IS inclusive of OS 9.0. I really don't care about the viruses, anyhow... what is so amusing and sad about this is that you will NEVER admit you're wrong... you will always try to wriggle your way out with some poor excuse and subtle revision of your claims (you're not fooling anyone, as more than one has pointed out), and usually then claim some different subject or question is really the subject of discussion. Nonetheless, I still welcome your presence on Activewin. :) |
| #31 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/25/2003 7:07:03 PM |
|
bluvg, it certainly is valid: 9.2 is the supported version, all Mac software for two years has required 9.2, most software developers cite it as the minimum requirement. 9.0 is four years old. Every update after 9.0 is free.
Do you really think I was proven wrong in someway? That I had no clue that viruses were crated on Apples first? That the Mac was the source of much early hacker development and viruses? That there were viruses in the late nineties that have since been wiped out? All of this I was perfectly aware of... You made bad assumptions about what I was saying or suggesting. And as I said: name one virus that is known to infect OS 9? You can't. Or you would have by now. I find it ridiculous that you are claiming I've made all these mistakes when dkg thought the Mac was the dominant platform at one time, didn't understand the difference between Apples and Macs, uses 12 year old evidence; parker thought the OpenSSH exploit was a big deal, didn't know it was patched, and didn't understand Mac defaults; soda made ridiculous claims about bias being a valid argument, claiming he wasn't making ad hominem; you acted as if I contraverted myself because I acknowledged that the Mac had 30 viruses in 91 but stated they have none now; dkg still not understanding ad hominem, thinking all insults are ad hominem... and now soda coming back with this retarded: "you are debating by assertion and I am simply pointing out to those listening that your assertions are based upon a biased position..." Huh? Again, ad hominem. The position of the arguer doesn't matter, the argument does. Arguing by assertion--what the fuck does that mean? All arguments are assertions. Diversity, complexity are fundamental principles of many practices and philosophies and theories... The value is rather self-evident. (I would love to know if it is really his position that a Microsoft monoculture is not detrimental to the security of computer systems. Hmm, soda?) But, anyway... you're right: I was wriggling... More like explaining to each of you fools what's what and taking the discussions to new places along the way or it would have remained mired in: "thisn't isn't true because I don't like who funds the organization." Again, name a virus that affects Mac OS 9 or OS X? Please. |
| #32 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/25/2003 10:15:36 PM |
|
Since you insist that there are no viruses as long as there has been a patch/update, I guess there was never any Code Red, Nimda, Blaster, Slammer, etc., either.
Since you don't afford that position to Windows, it would be a double-standard to take it with the Mac OS. Therefore, yes, there ARE VIRUSES for OS 9, and YES, you are wrong sometimes. Will we hear that from you? I'm not hopeful. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 450 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
4:56:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
