| 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 security service to ship in June | |
|
||
| Time: 00:59 EST/05:59 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft plans to ship a new security product in June, charging $49.95 a year to shield up to three PCs against viruses, spyware and other cyberthreats, the company said on Tuesday. As previously reported, Windows OneCare Live's June debut marks Microsoft's long-anticipated entry into the consumer antivirus market. That space has long been the domain of specialized vendors, led by Symantec and McAfee. Microsoft announced its intent to offer antivirus products in June 2003 when it bought Romanian antivirus software developer GeCad Software. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/8/2006 8:26:56 AM |
|
I know that I'll be first in line to trust Microsoft with all my security needs *cough*.
|
| #2 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 2/8/2006 12:25:26 PM |
|
I hope OneCare will be enough to help all those insecure Firefox users who were conned into thinking Firefox was safe ...
As small as the number of Firefox users are in my weblogs, well over half are still running 1.07 or earlier. I still get .9x Firefox users in the logs. The good news is the number of IE7 users is now beating Opera. The bad news is that there are more IE5 users than Firefox combined. Not good. This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 12:32. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 2/8/2006 4:23:47 PM |
| #1 I wouldn't be so sure about that... think about it, who better to know about all the holes and backdoors they've put into Windows! And it's the perfect set up... sell an insecure, unstable OS, for years encouraging users to log in and run as "root" (all in the name of making computing "easy" - i.e. easy to get viruses, trojans etc.) wait a few years for the melting pot to erupt and then start a new business to "fix" those issues - not once and for all, but a yearly fee! It's brilliant! |
| #4 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 2/8/2006 10:26:34 PM |
|
taint cheap, laddies to secure those windows boxes.
why is that do ya think? its a conspiracy i say. |
| #5 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 2/8/2006 10:56:36 PM |
|
I am sure you're right, Chris.
For all that is wrong with Windows, you say, on the web sites that I manage we do 1/2 billion hits a month and growing and 97%+ of the users use one Windows OS or another while Linux registers just .11% (Heck, Windows 95 beat out Linux with .14%!). IE gets 87%+ while Firefox gets 5% and Safari 1.9%. Yeah, you definitely nailed it this time, Chris - NOT! lol |
| #6 By 12071 (203.214.147.215) at 2/9/2006 6:08:47 AM |
|
#5 Are you retarded? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm serious.. are you retarded? What the hell do the number of hits on the "web sites you manage" have to do with anything? Is that your only come back to everything "yeah, well, umm... we have the greater market share... you suck!"? For all we know, and based on how close your lips are to Microsoft's behind I'd be suprised otherwise, you might "manage" Microsoft only sites in which case it will come as no suprise that the majority of your "clients" use Windows and IE. And good on them for doing so - I don't care what OS or browser you choose to use, it seems that it's only people like yourself that take everything to heart and can't stand anyone using any product that wasn't made by Microsoft!
You have been right about one thing though - I have not given enough credit where credit has been due and I have underestimated Microsoft. I applaud them, this was brilliant foresight on their part! Create a buggy, insecure, unstable OS... take months to fix problems... and then rather than fixing the root cause... offer a subscription based product to help ease the pain. It's like giving a patient medicine to help ease the pain instead of giving them the cure - after all, there's no money in cures right? They'll only ever need to come to you once - this way you ensure a lifetime of revenue. Having said all that, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, so I don't believe that any of it was planned by Microsoft, the same company that has underestimated the Internet in the past, but it sure got your panties in a knot didn't it! It must make your blood boil to think about all those people using non-Microsoft software! How dare they! Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror and try to determine why it makes your blood boil so much - after all, Microsoft isn't your family, you don't have to defend their honour to the death - they're big and ugly enough to do that themselves! |
| #7 By 3746 (216.16.225.210) at 2/9/2006 6:55:37 AM |
|
talking about security or lack their of of of Operating systems check out this little story on OS X. Looks like their facade of security by obscurity is starting to crack.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/08/apple_vulnerability/ |
| #8 By 12071 (203.214.147.215) at 2/9/2006 7:13:05 AM |
|
#7 hehehe.. now you've gone and done it.. jdhawk and Parkkker will now start spewing their Apple hate too :) We should try and stick to a single hate subject per story :)
As for Apple... at least you have to love their ads... apparently my intel processor has been stuck inside my dull little box for all these years... can't wait to set it free :) hehe |
| #9 By 3746 (216.16.225.210) at 2/9/2006 10:08:45 AM |
|
i don't hate apple - i just hate people who think that they would somehow be better off with one system or another. I mean people are morons and regardless on how fool proof something is they will find a way to screw it up.
But i swear i don't know how Jobs shovels all the BS he does with a straight face. |
| #10 By 9589 (71.71.38.66) at 2/9/2006 10:14:42 AM |
|
Yipes! Chris I apologize for posting any factual information that may point to the continued and overwhelming popularity of Microsoft's products versus the open sore crap that you constantly are cheerleading for.
By the way, even Tovalds has stated, on more than one occasion, that open sore doesn't measure up on the desktop. Why can't you? You know you want to! lol |
| #11 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/9/2006 10:25:54 AM |
|
"jdhawk and Parkkker will now start spewing their Apple hate too"
From the OSS Dictionary: "Spewing Hate = Pointing out vulnerabilities in software created or sold by anyone other than Microsoft" I guess SANS must be the master of "spewing hate" when they pointed out the *nix had way more security vulnerabilities than Windows software in 2005. |
| #12 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 2/9/2006 4:45:06 PM |
|
#10 Your "facts" are like Microsoft's "Get The Facts" and like Fox's "News".
By the way, it's Torvalds and he was talking about Linux not "open sore" and finally, as far as I'm aware I haven't mentioned anything about Linux measuring up on the desktop. I believe it does, I don't see Ubuntu as an example being any more difficult to use that any other OS available - but maybe you're not skilled enough, but I can't remember mentioning anything in the past about it. Finally, you keep fighting the good fight! Just becareful with the blood pressure of yours... it might burst if you keep reading that people are using non-Microsoft software! #11 Blah blah... we've already discussed this, you lost, go back to your OS with unpatched holes from 2002! |
| #13 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/9/2006 6:04:54 PM |
|
#12 "and like Fox's "News"
Many recent studies have admitted that most of the media is extremely left wing and only Fox news occupies the middle ground politically. Of course, once you join up with the leftist koolaid cult that hates jews, and wants Al Queda to have free access to call terrorists inside this country, anything approaching middle ground will appear "right wing". In the same vein, once you join the OSS koolaid cult, anything sane people say is disregarded as biased. "12 "we've already discussed this, you lost" Actually, you lose everytime because you are a hate monger who depises anyone who doesn't want to drink the left-wing, anti-amercian, anti-jewish, anti-Microsoft koolaid. |
| #14 By 2459 (24.175.147.11) at 2/9/2006 10:17:04 PM |
|
I don't care to get into another security discussion, so I won't :)
What I will say is that your generalities are false, and promoting Fox News as being moderate is just wrong on so many levels, and the studies must be from organizations like the Heritage Foundation. The notion that the majority of the media is left-wing is also another lie from the right-wing because they hate when those media organizations actually report factual information rather than talking poiints (as rare as this occurs) because the right-wing usually ends up looking bad when the truth is known. The Jew-hating, Al Queda loving, et al comments are also lies meant to distract from discussion of the actual issues at hand, and if anyone has done more to help Al Queda, it's this Administration. Their invasion of Iraq turned it into a terrorist training ground. "Kool-aid" drinkers usually do everything in virtual lockstep. The only people I see doing that in 99% of circumstances are the Republicans in Congress and in the media. Why is it so bad to have choice, to disagree with the Administration, to have oversight by Congress, to expect existing laws to be followed, to actually care about the rights of people other than those that buy into the party line? Why do we have oil execs writing energy policy, editing out any links between fossil fuels and global warming, and pressuring scientists to not even discuss the subject? Why does Bush proclaim we're "addicted to oil" and need alternative fuels (Dems have been calling for alt. energy since at least the 80's), yet he cuts funding from alternative energy research at the same time he makes the claim (and tells oil companies he didn't really mean what he said)? Why is it that we can't expect this president to give speeches (and answer questions) in front of real audiences instead of verified shills? Why does Bush always talk about the pre-9/11 mentality when he was in charge a long time before 9/11 and received a PDB entitled, Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US? How come there were no meetings about terrorism by this Administration until after 9/11? The questions are just and many, the dodges by the Administration are many, the factual answers from the Administration are miniscule to non-existant. An example of Fox New's "middle ground": They edit out applause from Rev. Lowery's speech, then they comment on the lack of applause. http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090006 This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 23:42. |
| #15 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/10/2006 1:32:18 AM |
|
"and the studies must be from organizations like the Heritage Foundation. "
Nope. UCLA. http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 "While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. Of course, being a member of the loony left, you will now accuse UCLA as being a front for the right ... and you'll get laughed out of town. |
| #16 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/10/2006 1:35:28 AM |
|
#14 "Their invasion of Iraq turned it into a terrorist training ground"
Iraq was a terrorist training ground before the invasion. "THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers 25,000 every time they tried to blow up jews in Israel. Saddam provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal. I know you are disappointed he can no longer launch Scuds at Israel or pay terrorists to kill jews. |
| #17 By 2459 (24.175.147.11) at 2/10/2006 6:09:09 AM |
|
Nope. UCLA.
... Of course, being a member of the loony left, you will now accuse UCLA as being a front for the right ... and you'll get laughed out of town. Sure, resort to cheap character attacks simply to try and fit me into your stereotypical world view. I disagree with you on an issue and don't fit the mold of your previous post aimed at Chris, so now I must be villified rather than just debating the merits of my assertions. I'll stick to facts. RE: "the study" "...the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV (pdf), received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997." http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003 Another take: "Others have also objected to the study's methodology. Here are the strongest portions of two critiques that have appeared in the last several days: Dow Jones & Co. in a letter to Romenesko responding to the study's classification of the Wall Street Journal news pages as liberal: "[T]he reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers' "study" of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is “studied” for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers." " http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html |
| #18 By 2459 (24.175.147.11) at 2/10/2006 6:09:43 AM |
|
Iraq was a terrorist training ground before the invasion.
Even if this is true, this is not and was not the justification for the invasion of Iraq, and there are plenty of other countries that were and are outposts for terrorists as well. Saddam provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal. And Saddam had him killed or he committed suicide (whichever story you want to believe) in 2002. Bush later falsely implicated Nidal in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer in 2004. I know you are disappointed he can no longer launch Scuds at Israel or pay terrorists to kill jews. I don't know how you'd know this since you don't know me. Did you ever think I may be Jewish? This is just another attack (and false logic) to distract from the actual issues of the discussion. Despite what the Administration "thinks", it's not a sign of weakness to listen to opposing views. On the issue of Israel: Israelis may regret Saddam ousting, says security chief http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1705572,00.html "Israel's Shin Bet security service chief has said his country may come to regret the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, because strong dictatorship is preferable to the present chaos in Iraq. Yuval Diskin, who was secretly recorded talking to teenage Jewish settlers preparing for military service, also said Israel's judicial system discriminates against Arabs. The recording was made public on Israeli television this week. Amid a barrage of questions, mainly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr Diskin was asked about Iraq. "When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos. You get what happened in Iraq. I'm not sure we won't miss Saddam," he said." |
| #19 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 2/10/2006 1:09:22 PM |
|
"Bush later falsely implicated Nidal in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer in 2004."
You are getting your Abu's mixed up. Abu Abbas masterminded the hijacking of the Achilles Lauro in 1985 which resulted in the death of Klinghoffer. Abbas also was given sanctuary by Saddam and died in US custody in Baghdad in 2004. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/TerrorismIntl_93/4463_93.htm Abu Nidal, also given sanctuary by Saddam, found the ANO: "The ANO international terrorist organization was founded by Sabri al-Banna (a.k.a. Abu Nidal) after splitting from the PLO in 1974. The group’s previous known structure consisted of various functional committees, including political, military, and financial. In November 2002 Abu Nidal died in Baghdad; the new leadership of the organization remains unclear. Activities The ANO has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna airports in 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi in 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in 1988. The ANO is suspected of assassinating PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul in Tunis in 1991. The ANO assassinated a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon in 1994 and has been linked to the killing of the PLO representative there." Don't worry, there were so many terrorists in Iraq its no surprise you decided to smear Bush in order to divert peoples attention from the fact that Iraq was a haven for jew killing terrorists. It makes me sick that you and you friends pine to have Saddam reinstated. This post was edited by NotParker on Friday, February 10, 2006 at 13:10. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/10/2006 2:30:47 PM |
|
#19: Wow, with your lips so firmly attached to Bill Gates' butt, I didn't think you'd have enough room to attach them to Bush's as well. Too bad for BushBots like you that today is a bad day:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/10/iraq.intelligence/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak/index.html http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=309940+09-Feb-2006+RTRS&srch=abramoff http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-02-10T202040Z_01_N10251600_RTRUKOC_0_US-HURRICANES-KATRINA-CONGRESS.xml http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-10T191821Z_01_N10274804_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING-POLL.xml |
| #21 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 2/10/2006 3:06:42 PM |
|
#20 So if I'm against the slaughter of Shiites, Kurds and Jews I'm an ass-kissing Bush supporter?
I'm guessing that you were in favor of the gassing of the Kurds and Shiites, the 25,000$ bounty Saddam paid to suicide bombers families for killing jews and in favor of Saddam providing a hideout for jew killing terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas? Thats what I thought. What is it about Bush deposing Saddam (one of the top 10 mass murderers of the 20th century) makes you guys so mental? Jew hatred? |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/10/2006 3:54:19 PM |
|
#21: You don't even believe the crap you spew. You oppose me, and I'm human, therefore you oppose humans. Why do you hate the human race so much? I'm against kiddie porn and you're against me, so that means you must be a pedophile...
It's hard enough trying to get through your thick skull, but having to deal with your faulty logic and ridiculous, baffling statements makes it even harder to show you the error of your ways. |
| #23 By 2459 (24.175.147.11) at 2/10/2006 6:38:06 PM |
|
You are getting your Abu's mixed up.
Wrong. Bush mixed them up and did so in several speeches. He didn't care if he got it right, he just needed it for the fear factor. Here's one instance where he screwed it up. "In his stump speech, which he repeats word for word across the country, Bush explains that he invaded Iraq because of "the lesson of September the 11th". WMD goes unmentioned; the only reason Bush offers is Saddam Hussein as an agent of terrorism. "He was a sworn enemy of the United States of America; he had ties to terrorist networks. Do you remember Abu Nidal? He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organisation." " http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1310773,00.html#article_continue Don't worry, there were so many terrorists in Iraq its no surprise you decided to smear Bush in order to divert peoples attention from the fact that Iraq was a haven for jew killing terrorists. You're the only one smearing. You've tried to smear me on several occassions now. Typical behavior mirroring the Administration -- attack the messenger because you can't attack the message. It makes me sick that you and you friends pine to have Saddam reinstated. I'm not the Israeli saying that Israel would likely be better off with Saddam in power because Bush screwed things up so badly. As for Saddam, you guys made him, but you never want to bring up the past. Reagan, Bush Sr., and current Administration cronies like Cheney and Rumsfeld were partners in crime and terror with Saddam not long ago. They screwed things up, now they get others to clean up their mess, while making another mess in the process. If you care so much about Jews (and people in general), why do you support someone whose actions have created so many splinter cells and is too inept to capture/kill the real terrorists that attacked us and many of our allies? |
| #24 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 2/10/2006 9:42:07 PM |
|
If Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were both given sanctuary by Saddam, and both were terrorists who liked to kill jews, why are so mad Saddam was deposed?
If Bush misspoke and mixed up the Abu's, but both were there plotting new attacks, maybe even helping plan 9/11, why are you so bitter about? The murderer of Leon Klinghoffer was in Bagdhad and was given sanctuary. Abu Nidal was in Iraq. Abu Abbas was in Iraq. Bush was right. Its pathetic you are so bitter about a mass murderer being deposed. What is it about Bush deposing Saddam (one of the top 10 mass murderers of the 20th century) makes you guys so mental? Jew hatred? |
| #25 By 2459 (24.175.147.11) at 2/10/2006 11:21:10 PM |
|
If Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were both given sanctuary by Saddam, and both were terrorists who liked to kill jews, why are so mad Saddam was deposed?
Why do you continue to inject feelings into the discussion that I have not exposed? Once again, the existance of one or even multiple terrorists in Iraq alone is not and was not the justification for invasion, and there are and were several other countries that pose greater threats. Bush did not misspeak, he outright lied on several occassions attributing Klinghoffer's murder to Nidal just like he lied about Niger uranium, nuclear capabilities, and many other things. What is it about Bush's perpetual screwups and disregard for laws that make people like you continue to think he's doing a good job? "Heckuva job" Brownie did better than Bush. Where Brownie screwed up a few cities, Bush screwed up and screwed over multiple countries. And are you a closet racist or something? You keep repeating the Jew hating line just because people disagree with you (typical race, or in this case, faith baiting). Anyone whose that hung up on one thing must have problems with the topic themself -- like the closet homosexual neocons (see Jeff Gannon) that go around trying to attribute homosexual tendencies to everyone else (especially those they perceive as threats) because they don't want people to find out they are what they purport to hate. Tell me, does the Israeli security service chief hate Jews simply because he believes Bush screwed up the situation for his people who are also Jews? What about Jewish people in the US and other countries that also believe Bush screwed up -- are they all self-hating Jews? Did Reagan, Rumsfeld, et al, hate Jews because they proped up Saddam in the first place? Your logic is as non-existant as the Administration's. And once again, you're just offering more distractions. This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, February 10, 2006 at 23:30. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
