| 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 |
 |
What You Should Know About Download.Ject | |
|
||
| Time: 00:06 EST/05:06 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft teams have confirmed a report of a security issue known as Download.Ject affecting customers using Microsoft Internet Information Services 5.0 (IIS) and Microsoft Internet Explorer, components of Windows. (Download.Ject is also known as: JS.Scob.Trojan, Scob, and JS.Toofeer.) | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:06:33 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 6/30/2004 8:49:37 AM |
|
This was fixed on the server side (IIS) with MS04-011 two months ago.
Why can't administrators get it through their head that they have a limited window to test and deploy a patch? Is that difficult? We do that with the servers here and the workstations. It's not rocket science, people. Get on the ball. |
| #2 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 6/30/2004 9:56:47 AM |
|
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3374931
"The U.S. government's Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) is warning Web surfers to stop using Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) browser." Fixed server side moths ago doesn't help the user who browses to an infected site and gets his system messed up although he is fully patched because of some flaw in IE that has been known for months and not yet fixed. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 6/30/2004 11:10:44 AM |
| Hi, I think #1's point was [and is valid] that had web server admins [all admins for that matter], maintained their patch levels, that there would be no infected sites for people to visit - regardless of browser. While end users have a responsibility to operate their systems [just as they would cars or boats], safely and mindful of others, admins have a special responsibility to get it right and keep it right all the time. The bottom line is that if anyone is to have a publicly facing server of any kind, it has to be operated more like an airplane - against well established procedures for running it responsibly. There is too much at stake and too many dependencies within the global economy for people to be allowed to do otherwise. The truly sad part is, there is so little ability to establish, much less benefit from distinction between those doing it right and those who can't or won't. On one hand it is terribly costly to do it right, little reward for it, and no lasting penalty for doing it wrong. On the other are under-educated business and personal users who have little cnsistent information or resources available to make effective decisions about technology providers - can we rightfully expect that....? I mean a car at 120 KPH that is out of control hurts perhaps a few, or a dozen or so....a PC at the speed of light can hurt millions. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 6/30/2004 12:00:13 PM |
|
" Hi, I think #1's point was [and is valid] that had web server admins [all admins for that matter], maintained their patch levels, that there would be no infected sites for people to visit"
This would be a good point in a perfect world. But as you and I know the world isn't perfect and Admins are sometimes slow to patch. And who can blame them this patch had cause some people several pretty severe problems when it was released. "admins have a special responsibility to get it right and keep it right all the time." What about Microsof'ts responsibility to make a secure product in the first place that doesnt have to be patched every month for years on end. Impossible you say? Well you're right, but they could certainly do a better job. XP SP2 is a small step in the right direction but far from where they have to be. My point is that while you're completely correct that both user's AND admin's have responsibility, Microsoft does too. When microsoft decided to make a server os that can be administered by an idiot they have to also create a way to keep that machine secure, even if its administered by an idiot. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:06:33 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
