| 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 To Customers: Want Better Security? Upgrade | |
|
||
| Time: 09:43 EST/14:43 GMT | News Source: CMP | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft said customers need to upgrade to the latest versions of Windows to get stronger security. Customers' continued reliance on earlier versions of Windows, rather than the current Windows 2000 and Windows XP, is slowing down efforts to secure the global computing infrastructure, Craig Mundie, Microsoft chief technical officer, said in an address at the company's campus in Mountain View, Calif. He said it's impossible to retrofit earlier versions of Windows to make them secure. "We're dragging around behind us a giant tail of systems that were of course built and deployed a long time ago," Mundie said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:10:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9640 (195.92.168.164) at 11/15/2002 10:26:36 AM |
|
More please. Should put a smile on the face of every IT supplier and MS shareholder.
The flood gates are opening...upgrade now! Long live Windows 2000/XP http://lee.ic24.net/ |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/15/2002 1:22:17 PM |
|
What was the year 7 years ago? 1995. What operating system was released then? Windows 95. What operating systems have been released since then that are horribly insecure? Windows 98 (1998). Windows 98 SE (1999), Windows ME (2000).
Three operating systems from the 9x line are still being supported. One of them, Windows ME, is even newer than the much lauded Windows 2000. Microsoft produced the operating systems. It is their responsiblity to support them and write apps for them. All of this "it's time to upgrade" jargon is rediculous. I'm OK with dropping support for OSes after a while. 7 years is a long while. 4, 3, and 2 years? That's rather pathetic. Now, I'm not talking about new security features. Customers knew what they were getting into (or should have) when the bought 9x. I don't, though, think that tag lines of "it's time to upgrade" have any place for a product that has been so recently released. Yes, I think that Office 11 should at the very least run on Me and should run on 98 and 98 SE as well. Microsoft created the pigs trough and convinced their customers to buy it, they should live with that decision and continue to write software for it. This post was edited by BobSmith on Friday, November 15, 2002 at 13:22. |
| #3 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 11/15/2002 1:37:17 PM |
| Be reasonable here, the base for the 9x code was written without contemplating that all these machines would be connected to a world wide network. You can't possibly expect code that was written to work on small LANs to be secure in that kind of environment ... It just wasn't written for it. That isn't Microsofts fault, Bill doesn't have a crystal ball. |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 11/15/2002 4:05:31 PM |
|
<CAR ANALOGY>
What if every car today had to be based on the Model T frame? </CAR ANALOGY> Why do we expect software to remain archaic and consider upgrades evil? Americans are perfectly happy to buy a brand new automobile every 2 years, but somehow upgrading software every 2 years is extremely evil. |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 11/15/2002 4:08:44 PM |
|
Here's another:
Cars have shipped without car alarms up until just the past 3-4 years. Car theft and break-ins were very high over those years, yet no one held the auto manufacturers responsible, why not? Why didn't people expect the car makers to retrofit every automobile with car alarms? Why do they expect this with software? |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/15/2002 5:35:28 PM |
|
"Be reasonable here, the base for the 9x code was written without contemplating that all these machines would be connected to a world wide network."
Oh do give me a break. If Windows 2000 was designed by engineers who contemplated that it would be connected to a world wide network, then Windows ME was too. Where did I come up with that conclusion? Windows ME came out after Windows 2000. Microsoft was extremely irresponsible in releasing the 9x line. Let's remember that the 9x line began in '95 but it didn't end until August of '00. |
| #7 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 11/15/2002 5:40:04 PM |
|
"Oh do give me a break. If Windows 2000 was designed by engineers who contemplated that it would be connected to a world wide network, then Windows ME was too. Where did I come up with that conclusion? Windows ME came out after Windows 2000. Microsoft was extremely irresponsible in releasing the 9x line. Let's remember that the 9x line began in '95 but it didn't end until August of '00. "
I'm sorry... when was the base code for 9x written? And for Win 2000? Think about it, XP is the first MS OS written in the modern Internet era that has taken into consideration the Internet. You are only as safe as your foundation, the 9x foundation was never meant to hold that kind of wieght. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/15/2002 5:48:57 PM |
|
Pixel, when is the "modern Internet era" ? If I recall correctly at the Windows 2000 launch, Microsoft touted it as the OS for the business Internet. The were aware of the Internet in February of 2000. In August-ish of '99 Windows '98 SE was released with Internet Connection Sharing. Why would home users need ICS unless they were on the Internet? In March (maybe April) of '99 Internet Explorer 5 was touted as the browser to do stuff faster. In summer/fall of '98 Windows 98 was released with a bundled Internet Explorer 4, also the anti trust suit began over the issue of Internet software in the operating system.
Does anybody really want to claim that as many as four and a half (actually more if you count dev time for Windows 98) and three insecure operating systems ago that Microsoft had no idea that its 9x OSes would be used on the Internet? |
| #9 By 10022 (24.169.197.221) at 11/15/2002 5:49:54 PM |
|
just trick all the uneducated PC users by making all the antivirus software require 2000/XP- as far as they are think its all the protection thats needed anyway.
or MS could sucker them in with a really cheap version of XP (but of course that would piss off too many people) |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/15/2002 5:51:53 PM |
| Realist, while I agree with the your anger, your solution is insane. Microsoft's IP, copyrights, and patents shoiuld be protected. Court orders to have Microsoft secure their software is one thing, stripping them of their property is quite another. Your solution is anything but reasonable. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/15/2002 5:58:26 PM |
|
Pixel, I've gotta comment on your code base claims.
"I'm sorry... when was the base code for 9x written? And for Win 2000? Think about it, XP is the first MS OS written in the modern Internet era that has taken into consideration the Internet. You are only as safe as your foundation, the 9x foundation was never meant to hold that kind of wieght." Roughly speaking they both began around the same time. When Windows went 32 bit we saw Windows NT 4 (NT 3.51 was still 16 bit, I think). Perhpas WIndows XP is the first OS where Microsoft considered security on the Internet. No, I'd say Longhorn is the first OS to do that. IE 6 has some nice privacy features, but there is a lot missing. I don't see why any one is making excuses for Microsoft producing the 9x line. It was a horrible, horrible thing to do to their customers, but it worked. Hundreds of millions use PCs with 9x OSes. Now that they are hooked on the crap, Microsoft can sell them something better in the form of Windows XP and its successors. |
| #12 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 11/15/2002 6:13:22 PM |
|
Bob:
I think we can all agree that 9x and to some extent win 2K is in end all based around DOS, backward compatatbility was job #1 .... going with that idea DOS was never meant for what is was doing by 96. Trying to extend old technology that was never meant to used that way is great for the customer who wants more features, not so good for security. The basic principles of security are not built into the 9x code, it's beating a dead horse that will never be secure no matter how many programmer you throw at it. <Mob>We want it secure!!!</Mob> <Bill>We will make you a new OS, that from the ground up is built on security.</Bill> <Mob> Noooo!!! We want you to wave your magic wand and make technology 10+ years old be that secure! Oh, and we want it free!!!</Mob> <Bill>You are all on crack</Bill> |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.206.177) at 11/15/2002 6:38:57 PM |
|
Pixel, that is a pathetic excuse. DOS barely supported networking. It wan't till Windows 3.1 that TCP/IP was included. It wasn't till Windows 95 that there was a browser. It wasn't till...
Are you trying to tell me that the largest software company on earth, one with a market cap of a quarter trillion dollars, is so inept that it is bound by the design patterns of the 80's and early 90's ? Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. Microsoft was irresponsible. It's plain and simple. Using your analogy, we are doomed to never have an even close to secure OS from Microsoft. If Windows 2000 has the same roots as 9x, then Longhorn and Blackcomb will too. Why? Um, Microsoft isn't writing a brand new OS line. They are writing a new version of an existing line. You are just making excuses for Microsoft. That is wrong. The entire 9x line was intended to be used on networks and especially the Internet. If that weren't so, there never could have been an anti trust case. |
| #14 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 11/15/2002 8:27:18 PM |
|
A few things:
Windows 2000 does not come from the same roots as the 9x line. It is not based on DOS. DOS in NT is emulated. NT was built from the ground up with security in mind. That expanded over time as businesses went from LANs to WANs and the internet. With Win2k, the NT kernel received a rewrite, and it was further modified and improved with XP. The 9x line was single-user and built for ease of use. Because it sat upon the DOS kernel, there is only so much that could be done as far as security without sacrificing compatability. NT (and OS/2 before it) was planned as the upgrade path from DOS for a long time. The major problem was that NT required more resources, and lacked great compatability as far as many home user apps were concerned. This was a chief complaint about NT for years. As the system requirements started to level out, MS started to merge the codebase. Win2k was halfway there -- XP brought in greater ease of use and app compatability for home users. Sure, 9x and ME are not that old, but what can be done other than adding a firewall and a few other security items that won't adversely affect other apps or stability? The Mac and *nix users are in the same boat if they are running older software. At least .NET gives some benefit for new applications on 9x. Those applications just need to be written first, of course. :-) In a few years, people will be expected to upgrade to Palladium if they desire greater security than that offered under 2k/XP. Who knows, though, maybe since the spec will be open, someone can create Palladium for 9x. There are still many easy ways to secure a box (whatever the platform) without help from the vendor. Sometimes, the user also has to take the initiative. Even with NT and newer *nix variants' increased security, my firewall still gets hit by other people's computers daily. Exactly #20. This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, November 15, 2002 at 20:28. |
| #15 By 1643 (65.164.207.4) at 11/16/2002 2:23:42 AM |
|
Bob,
How could you argue that the demographic for 9x wanted security...it is completely ridiculous. MS has done a pretty darn good job at integrating security in XP for home users...and they should have to pay for upgrades period. Pixel, #18 had me LOL. Humor |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:10:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
