| 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 faces critical vulnerability boom | |
|
||
| Time: 00:37 EST/05:37 GMT | News Source: VNUNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft is confronted with an increased number of critical vulnerabilities in its software. According to data collected by security vendor McAfee, Microsoft in the first five months of 2006 has patched 36 critical holes in its products, marking a 70 per cent increase over the same period last year. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:32:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2006 8:31:15 AM |
|
I predict Parkkker and a mittfull of irrelevant Mozilla/Firefox stats.
|
| #2 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/20/2006 10:21:06 AM |
|
I see Latch already understands how close Firefox is to 36 critical vulnerabilities in just one product vs. 36 in all of Microsofts products over the same time period.
Ooops. My mistake. I decided to check up on McAfee. According to Microsoft, there are are only 19 critical vulnerabilities this year and 17 important. Which McAfee counted as 36. Firefox 1.5.x as 20 critical vulnerabilities. Firefox wins! |
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/20/2006 10:29:59 AM |
| And I'm pretty sure Apple had more critical vulnerabilities in one day than Microsoft has had all year. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2006 10:55:05 AM |
|
#2: Are you sure MS isn't doing its little trick where it rolls up several criticals into one? Optics, don't you know.
|
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/20/2006 11:26:20 AM |
|
Many of the patches are for the same vulnerability in multiple products.
Of course, I didn't add up SeaMonkey, Thunderbird or Mozilla's vulnerabilities since most are identical to the ones in Firefox. |
| #6 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 6/20/2006 12:07:02 PM |
|
Ok, stats are fine. Now let's look at reality...
1. I get NO calls for FireFox Spyware Infestations. 2. I get NO calls for Mac Virus Infestations. 3. 30% of my service time is removing Spyware and Trojans from Windows Systems. Stats are stats. Reality is reality. TL |
| #7 By 8273 (131.107.0.82) at 6/20/2006 12:32:35 PM |
|
#6: Perhaps this is a signal of your administration skills, or lack thereof.
I visit my parents twice a year. A few years ago, just after I left from visiting, their computer died and so they went out and bought a new one. Of course, this was one of those store bought ones that had all kinds of junk that the manufacturer thought you would need, but never do. They had a virus within a few weeks from opening up an exe that somebody had sent to them. The next time I was there for a visit, I went through and locked down the computer, and they have never had a virus since. If it is your job to do this type of thing, why don't you perform it properly? |
| #8 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 6/20/2006 12:39:52 PM |
| #7: Typewriters will give your users a comparable level of locked-down functionality at a much lower cost. |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/20/2006 1:30:06 PM |
|
#6 Maybe you could tell us the ratio of Firefox / Mac / Windows users in your organization so we can decide how likely it is to run into trouble on a non-Windows system.
#7 Locking down Windows isn't hard or expensive for home users. There are several free anti-virus's for home users (such as Avast: http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html which even has an x64 and Vista edition), and Windows Defender for spyware. If you want you can lock down an XP box by using the Shared Computer Toolkit: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sharedaccess/default.mspx A simple solution is to run IE and Outlook without Admin privledges. One option is the SAFER policies: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dncode/html/secure01182005.asp psexec from Sysinternals also works: http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2006/03/running-as-limited-user-easy-way.html Not terribly difficult. Both Firefox and Safari have had many serious security holes. It would be smart to run Firefox on Windows with reduced privledges as well. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 6/20/2006 2:02:09 PM |
|
we get zero calls for infestations of any type for any system on any network we manage, or PC we sell - fully ready for first use by that user. It is so very easy to manage Windows PC's - that is part of what makes Microsoft's Platform so good.
If one is not using the platform - local, or Domain, then one is not doing one's job as well as it can be done. It isn't even close to challenging to do it well and in a way that balances user needs with effective policies. Even opposite the worst of the worst apps, one may easily set parameters on an individual basis for the context in which that app may be allowed to run. Tracking and managing all of this is just as easy and may be done from one's workstaion in moments - snap ins, admin pak, etc... It is simply really naive to present otherwise. |
| #11 By 10022 (69.204.110.203) at 6/20/2006 7:20:54 PM |
|
The problem is, the attackers are going after new ground- Word, Excel, even WordPad last year. But with all that, there hasnt really been a big one like blaster or sasser for some time now.
with a couple of changes to the default XP sp2 policy, the average user could become much more secure (Software Restriction Policies, better use of block all add-on manager, not being admin) And while a lot of these issues effected XP SP2, how many of them actually INFECTED XP SP2 and caused damage- thats really the key here- that was the point of all the pre-emptive stuff they put in. Plus, the average Windows user is still not a security guru- they are still on the Internet as administrator, so untill that fundimental shift takes place everything else is irrelevant because they are using there computer in an insecure manner. |
| #12 By 17996 (131.107.0.82) at 6/21/2006 7:06:29 PM |
|
As several posters have remarked, it is important to look at the severity rating of the vulnerabilities. You will notice that many of them have a lower severity rating on the newer OS's/service packs. It's misleading when you read a news story that says "Microsoft patches 12 bugs, 8 critical", when for example one of them is only critical on Windows 2000 and lower (or nonexistant) in newer versions.
Apple, on the other hand, doesn't rate its vulnerabilities (to my knowledge), so you can't do a comparison with them very well. Also, it's interesting how this article specifically mentions the ART image bug, since the relevant file is actually created and owned by AOL, not Microsoft. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:32:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
