| 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 funding of security report decried | |
|
||
| Time: 06:25 EST/11:25 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Finding that system is superior to Linux is biased, critics say Two researchers surprised the audience at a computer-security convention last month with their finding that a version of Microsoft Windows was more secure than a competing Linux operating system. This week, the researchers released their finished report, and it included another surprise: Microsoft was funding the project all along. The researchers, from the Florida Institute of Technology and Boston-based Security Innovation Inc., defend their process and conclusions as valid. They say they had "complete editorial control over all research and analysis" involved in the project. Their report details their methods, and they invite other experts to examine and duplicate their work. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:08:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 3/25/2005 9:18:45 AM |
| Why am I not the least bit surprised? |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/25/2005 1:25:29 PM |
|
-X- - is claiming the whole study is bogus because the guy wrote November instead of October... when the point was the problem was identified in June.
Wow, you sound like the right-wing nuts attacking that churchill idiot at the university of colorado. It's not enough that you disagree... you're going to comb every word this guy says looking for one or two examples of a misstatement and then extend this into an argument that everything he says is wrong? Yeah 5 months isn't as bad as 4 months of vulnerability. But 4 months is still disasterous and his point about management of patches of third party software as a difficult challenge, is accurate and most certainly legitimate. Incredible |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/25/2005 2:51:02 PM |
|
Sodablue... hey, where ya been--seems like you haven't been posting near as much lately.
I always appreciate your informed comments, but honestly, it seems like every post that you make lately, you must find a way to slide in some none-too-subtle jab at those that don't share your political views, especially extremist conservatives (which you often seem to lump together in one group with all conservatives). I know there are others on here (Parkker comes to mind) that sometimes babble some "right-wing nut" garbage in their posts, but... well, if you consider how you react (I'm guessing) to those posts, your posts have the same effect, which is a shame for what are otherwise excellent comments. |
| #4 By 19992 (164.214.4.31) at 3/25/2005 3:04:18 PM |
|
#6 Assuming that -X- is correct and they have misrepresented dates, I'm not sure how quickly I would be to trust the accuracy of the report.
Wow, you sound like the right-wing nuts attacking that churchill idiot at the university of colorado. What right-wing nuts? I don't think I've seen anything about Ward on here before.. The only stuff I've seen on him (elsewhere) indicates that he is a plagarist and a fraud. Apparantly the admin at UC think there is something to these allegations as they are launching a more in depth investigation of this. #11 What we need is to find a relatively unbiased source we can live with. Fat chance of that ever happening. One side is always going to disagree with a report/study of this nature no matter the results and the source of the report. This post was edited by happyguy on Friday, March 25, 2005 at 15:04. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/25/2005 5:14:24 PM |
|
-X- - My theory... Ford cars suck. As proof of this, I had a Mustang and the radiator had problems. These were documented by TSB #203-41 released for 2001 and older cars showing a flaw in the radiator.
Your argument: Since TSB #203-41 related to 2002 and older cars, clearly your argument is misleading and wrong and quite obviously then Ford cars do not suck! bluvg - Extremist conservatives are empowered by moderate conservatives playing them for votes. That is not my problem, that's yours. If you don't like the fact that the Republican party now stands against science, personal liberty, and reason. Well, do something about it. But my goal is life is to combat stupidity, and I will call out stupidity whenever I see it. Notice that i also called that churchill guy an idiot? I have equal disdain for all idiots... but only one side of idiots is threatening my freedom by passing laws. happyguy - There is an old saying in Russia. In Pravda there is no news. In the news there is no pravda (pravda means truth). You might want to keep that in mind as you read your wing-nut sites. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/25/2005 7:03:11 PM |
|
Sodablue... Extremist conservatives are empowered by moderate conservatives playing them for votes.
Your point being? We've got a two-party system, so what else did you expect? You really think the same doesn't apply on the left? (Your logic is akin to saying that Teresa Heinz-Kerry "empowered" al Qaeda by "playing" the Tides Foundation....) Regardless, the views of the extremists have little bearing on the views of the moderates. That is not my problem, that's yours. I'm not responsible for any extremist conservative viewpoints, just as I don't hold you responsible for any extreme leftist viewpoints. If you don't like the fact that the Republican party now stands against science, personal liberty, and reason. Hmmm... any more blanket statements you'd like to make? The Republican party stands wholesale against science? Nah, I don't think so. One could make the same flawed statement about the left, saying that "they're against science" because "the Republicans are for the drug companies," whose scientific advances in medicine have improved the lives of countless people, but that's not accurate, either. You really think they stand wholesale against personal liberty and reason? Perhaps you should live in China for awhile. but only one side of idiots is threatening my freedom by passing laws. Both the left and the right push for laws that "limit freedom" in some way or another. Freedom without boundary was not the vision of this country, and it defeats the purpose of having a government. But my goal is life is to combat stupidity ...as you see it. But you're not going to combat much "stupidity" if all you show is disdain for anyone that doesn't share your same viewpoints. Yes, fully 51% of this country's people are "idiots." Are the Democrats truly interested in reuniting the country (as Kerry said), or only if they won? Regardless of how the "other side" is perceived to act, it shouldn't really affect this goal. Yet, after the election, all I heard were crass remarks about how stupid the rest of the country is. Nice tactic. How about calling hypocrisy when you see it, as well? |
| #7 By 1401 (69.40.52.152) at 3/25/2005 9:54:35 PM |
| hahahahaha! The arabs on the virge of wiping us out!!! hahahahaha |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 3/26/2005 1:04:39 PM |
|
I suspected that many people who post here might not have ever been exposed to an environment that required third party audits as part of their normal business operations.
First, it is very common for companies, big and small, to either request the results of, or pay for many types of third party evaluations. Second, many new forms of regulation and other legal considerations require that companies hire external testing and evaluation sources to examine and report on their technology. Third, it is a very costly process, but a good one that results in better products and safer environments. Microsoft, like many companies and even my own, "must" pay external parties to perform these tasks. The tested party, never has any say about what is reported, or how. Most often, the evaluators seem to really want to tear into what they test - they like to find bugs, weaknesses and they love to hold these out. Rather than try and debate this, we look at it as a way to improve - if weaknesses are found. I reason MS has a similar position. Just don't be surprised that MS paid for it - testing like this costs a bundle and someone does have to pay. It is unlikely that many will share these costs with Microsoft and it in no way makes the tests less valid. Such tests are tough, but they benefit all. |
| #9 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 3/26/2005 10:42:33 PM |
|
bluvg - I think the "they do it too" argument just went out the window this week. Nice try, buddy... But it's pretty clear to most of America based on the polling I've seen.
Regardless of how the "other side" is perceived to act, it shouldn't really affect this goal. Yet, after the election, all I heard were crass remarks about how stupid the rest of the country is. Nice tactic. How about calling hypocrisy when you see it, as well? Idiots on the left make me laugh. Idiots on the right make me cry. Your moral relativism just makes me sick. If it's wrong... it's wrong. Don't try to justify abuse of power by claiming someone else might do it too if they had power. They don't, so your point is moot. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 3/26/2005 11:16:13 PM |
|
Testing methods, areas of examination and sometimes techniques are disclosed.
Most often, multiple and very long filings are jointly executed and then teams from all sides meet and examine responses and findings. Recommendations are made, procedures and code altered and re-testing is performed and evaluations performed again. It's a very interesting and even fun process - though it is very costly and time consuming - that is, the parties involved are not able to address much else during these periods. I've participated in many of these for various clients and my own company and it is a very good thing. This entire debate over who did what when and how is mute - both sides tested would have agreed and known well in advance who was going to do what. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 3/27/2005 1:34:18 AM |
|
#50, Simply, despite every effort to communicate with you, or extract something of value from your posts, I for one, have failed. I suspect your post was censored based upon similar reasons.
Like a persistently disruptive child, you were likely removed from the class - so to speak. BTW, I'm not trying to enervate you with this. You might take something from it however, and recognize that you'll get out of anything exactly what you put into it. Based upon your participation here, you shouldn't expect much. |
| #12 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 3/27/2005 11:39:11 PM |
|
Your moral relativism just makes me sick.
My comments had nothing to do with moral relativism. The comment you referenced specifically was looking at the actions from the left--and the mainstream left at that--and comparing them with their stated goals. Based on the response I've seen post-election, they really were only interested in "reuniting the country" as long as they won. I've seen enough state maps cross-referenced against "average IQ scores" of each state email messages to make me think that the party that claims to represent the interests of "the little guy" actually tends to resent many of the little guys, wishing his vote was taken away and given to the, um, smart people. And these aren't extremists... they're the rank and file. My point in that comment was not to develop a "they did it too" argument, but was to say that if a party and its supporters says they stand for something, they should continue to stand for that regardless of the outcome of the election. (And as for the extremist conservatives comment, I was simply saying that, in a two-party system, even the extremists have to vote for one side or the other... and if you're an extremist conservative, that's probably not going to be a vote for the left.) Now, I totally agree with you about there being idiots on the left and right (and in the middle, for that matter). But it is a big problem for me to see a party that supposedly stands firmly against hatred in society to develop nearly an entire campaign on it (though I should say that I thought Kerry was quite positive in the debates, but unfortunately this didn't seem to represent the mindset of his supporters) ...and what bothers me perhaps even more is to see that precious few have re-evaluated that hatred. For most, if anything it seems only to have combined with bitterness. Yet, this is still a great democracy, and the presidential election--or any other election--is far from the only way to get involved to change the country for the better. We're not going to do it by beating each other over the heads with our anger, bitterness, and agendas--left, right, or other--however. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:08:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
