| 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 Messenger for Mac 6.0 | |
|
||
| Time: 14:47 EST/19:47 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Messenger for Mac 6.0 makes it easy to take advantage of the full power of instant messaging, and it is a Universal application built to run on both PowerPC-based and Intel-based Macs. This update allows Messenger for Mac users to:
By using Messenger for Mac, you can see when your friends, family, coworkers, and associates at other companies are online and then communicate with them instantly. Messenger for Mac offers two types of communication services — a personal account and a corporate account. Check out Messenger: haves and hA/Ve nots for details on upcoming features. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:53:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3 (62.253.128.15) at 9/29/2006 3:03:10 PM |
| Not a bad little update, still a shame there isn't any camera support for those of us with isight |
| #2 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 9/29/2006 7:35:15 PM |
|
in other mac news... another service pack went out today. i was half-kidding when i said they were releasing bug fixes weekly, but this makes 3 in a row that i've noticed. i'm counting the SEVEN released two weeks ago, and then there's the THREE wifi bugs that apple denied existed, and then there was the... oh i digress.
who needs QA. think different. ps... how many flaws will os x 10.4.8 make the world aware of? seriously, try to find a COUNT somewhere at apple.com |
| #3 By 3 (62.253.128.15) at 9/30/2006 6:13:42 AM |
| Try one day to actually comment on the story! Anyway, no different to the 10 or so security fixes monthly from Microsoft is it? MS are better at detailing them though I'll give them that. |
| #4 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 9/30/2006 11:04:43 AM |
|
Byron - "no different to the 10 or so security fixes monthly from Microsoft is it"
Surely you didnt just say that. let's compare. Apple has 5% of less of the pc market, while windows has ~90%. Yet, with a straight face you you compare as "no different" the "10 or so" monthly windows fixes with the 110 (7, then 3, then ?100?) I demonstrated from apple in the past 3 weeks alone. let's not forget that microsoft's monthly updates also take into account the most-used office suite on the planet. we're not just comparing OS to OS. To summarize... a company with one-eighteenth of the market share, is putting out eleven X as many fixes. jeez. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at 11:06. |
| #5 By 11888 (70.48.55.6) at 9/30/2006 6:46:49 PM |
| these windows users have such penis envy |
| #6 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 10/1/2006 10:31:59 PM |
| waiting for intelligent rebuttal just SEEMS like eternity |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 10/1/2006 10:47:48 PM |
|
#2 Firefox is feeling left out.
http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-6121608.html "The open-source Firefox Web browser is critically flawed in the way it handles JavaScript, two hackers said Saturday afternoon. An attacker could commandeer a computer running the browser simply by crafting a Web page that contains some malicious JavaScript code, Mischa Spiegelmock and Andrew Wbeelsoi said in a presentation at the ToorCon hacker conference here. The flaw affects Firefox on Windows, Apple Computer's Mac OS X and Linux, they said. ... The hackers claim they know of about 30 unpatched Firefox flaws. They don't plan to disclose them, instead holding on to the bugs. " |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/2/2006 1:32:43 AM |
|
#7, Similar flaws exist in implementations for all browsers - IE 6.0, MAC, etc...
However, it has been stated by the same group you sight, that The flaw is specific to Firefox's implementation of JavaScript, a 10-year-old scripting language widely used on the Web. In particular, various programming tricks can cause a stack overflow error, Spiegelmock said. The implementation is a "complete mess," he said. "It is impossible to patch." This is far more significant than any other part of the warning. So far, the press all over the world has listed the alert in ways similar to, "Zero day vulnerability in IE....." then further down they'll state it impact Firefox as well... What they fail to post is what I have quoted above - about the real threat being in how Firefox implements support for Javascript! Window Snyder, who recently left Microsoft to go to Mozilla, stated that the vulnerability appears to be real [in Firefox], and that it might not be easy for them to fix. So there are differences and people are going to have to resist simply pointing fingers and see if they can work together to solve this one - first for all browsers and then address what may be larger issues impacting browsers based upon Mozilla. What they also do not say is that IE 7 RC-1 for Windows and IE 7 in Vista, are not known to be vulnerable. The press only suggests that IE 7 BETA2, which is no longer available, may be vulnerable. Home users do need to consider using IE 7 RC-1 - it is very stable and it may not be vulnerable. What I do hope comes out of this is perhaps the first of many "JOINT" operations that combine devs from all browsers into a joint response unit which shares all information and resoruces needed to protect people. If Microsoft and Mozilla/Firefox do this, they will each show great leadership and be able to publicly state what each already knows - there is no browser war and that what browser people use no longer matters. What matters now is what they all do together to protect their customers and the wellbeing of the net. |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 10/2/2006 2:26:56 AM |
|
A year ago (or so) I was attacked over and over again by the OSS crowd for pointing out that Firefox was just a new skin on old, old code. They kept saying "No, Firefox is new code ... blah blah blah."
Chickens are coming home to roost. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/2/2006 1:22:03 PM |
|
#10, Actually, a great deal... Mooresa56 is referring to IC, or incidence of coincidence.
Mathematical models for IC, of observed, random, etc... are very valid means to determine frequency. Essentially, he is saying that given the very large number of IE/Windows installs opposite a very aggressive effort by much greater numbers of professional security firms and criminal organizations, that IE/Windows is actually very secure - as compared to products with a lower IC. As compared to other products, Microsoft SW has an extremely low IC for flaws and vulnerabilities. This is even more significant when then size of the code is factored in - more doors and windows so to speak - therefore, more opportunities to be flawed. #9, Yes, it is a big problem - it is the implementation within FF that is the issue in this case - harder to solve. There is an opportunity here - for all of them - I hope they take it. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/2/2006 1:35:25 PM |
|
#9, The terrifying reality [for people that care more for the country's security and economic health], is the naivite afforded MAC OS X, OSS/*Nix based upon the Linuces.
As I have so often shared, there are so many ways in - so many that it makes Windows look like a fortress [which in reality, it is by comparison]. I am sharing this again, not as some foolish, unhelpful "I told you so..." - that helps no one. What I am saying again, is do not be naive about it. There are many, very decent people, who know - it either was, or is still, their job to find and exploit these often ancient flaws in a model that was never designed to exist on the networks they now do. Obviously, it would be terribly irresponsible to share exactly what, or why, but please do trust that there is nothing that these communities can do about it and nothing they can do to stop it in practical terms. Please, if you care about such things, at least listen to what I have shared in the past - stop placing tools on your production OSS systems. Stop using the "stack" and use commercial tools outside of the production systems. Do learn how to harden OSS and please use the freely distributed version that was made as hard as one might - the government made it for a reason and it was not because it had an opinion, or liked Windows better - it was made because the people there cared about much larger security issues. Remember, you are swimming with real sharks, with real teeth and you have to stop putting blood in the water. It is a fact, that opposite even mid-level engineers trained in these sciences, that they can own any such machine in less than 10 minutes and there would not be the slightest hint that it was owned. Nothing short of new drives would help and in some cases, not even that can help. Believe what you want, and hate what you want, just remember, it will not help. I do hope that MS does reach out to that community - it would be kind and the right thing to do. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/2/2006 3:55:13 PM |
|
I#13, I assess Mooresa was - if indirectly. First, the way Windows is shipped and runs is quite differently from any *Nix - it is much more compact, but in fact, much larger than OSX.
The logic I presented is entirely sound - OSX has a tiny presence, by comparison. You do not know how the *Nix have been exploited and that is exactly my point. Most in fact, are rooted to their ears. Precious few commercial installations are configured properly - so go ahead, keep running tools on Internet facing *nix boxes and continue to let people who do know own the very heart of those systems. Keep using OpenSSH and invite in a lot of very skilled people who are at this time, laughing at you as they "sip" at such machines. They sip so gently, too - they'll even insert their packets in ways that are so hard to detect that even if you do capture and analyze out-bound traffic, you had better be very skilled and have years of training and perhaps millions in systems and software to analyze the take. I'm not trying to exhange barbs here.... I am trying to help and it has to begin with an open and honest approach this problem. You cannot continue to believe largely marketing press and assume that OSX, or any *nix is safe out of the box. On the contrary, it takes very skilled people to properly secure such systems. If you do not, then count on any such system becoming a resource for very bad people who do know what I am saying. |
| #13 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 10/2/2006 5:26:10 PM |
|
Caliminius, congrats on knowing my mind better than I do myself.
lketchum elaborated on my point, more poetically than I could ever hope to. |
| #14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/3/2006 7:45:08 PM |
|
#16, Ok, how deep do you want to go here.... I mean we can move through so many metrics - do you want to go at this from Logical SLOC [as in statements], or some less relevant number, like counting the comments in OSX, which make up more than 20% - or how about its white/blanks space... nearly 25%. Let me know and we can get as deep into the science as you wish. Bottom line for me is that SLOC is less relevant in the context of security, when taken in isolation opposite so many related variables. The truth is, Windows is very tidy, clean, and downright pretty [less some hacks that many a dev still weep over].
For the moment.... let's stick to IC, I mean, for example, Windows GUI is really something - it GENERATES SLOC on the fly! Vista in this context is even more amazing. - just wish it was not sooooo SWEET. Let me know and can explore any method you wish. Once we've whipped that, we'll get into counting methods and I assure you, I can demonstrate how and why Windows is simultaneously SMALLER and BIGGER and at the same time, both simpler, and more sophisticated - you see where I am going, here - very deep into the science of how an OS is built. Then we can hammer around what one uses to actually count logical and physical SLOC, but it will not matter a great deal. The IC for Windows is very much greater than that of any OS. The number of people working to exploit it is far greater - so any "Phi" of, is going to carry a greater IC [at least outside of any distortion field one chooses to enter, willingly]. |
| #15 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 10/4/2006 3:11:14 PM |
| p0wnd |
| #16 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2006 2:35:37 PM |
|
#7: Nice proof that IE is better than Firefox. You quote an article that was written about a presentation 2 people gave, which they have since recanted, saying that the exploit code doesn't actually work, and that they have not actually been able to cause the claimed exploit, and know of no one who has. They admitted that the whole presentation was a joke, including the statement about the 30 known Firefox exploits.
So, using the same sort of logic as Parker, Mini-Parker (mooresa56) and others like to use, this proves that Firefox is solid, and IE is crap, because security professionals have to make stuff up and pretend there are flaws in Firefox, just to have something different to present than the usual IE exploits of the day. |
| #17 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 10/7/2006 12:42:43 AM |
|
Caliminius, in case you are still following this thread... I thought this link might be interesting to you...
http://www.techworld.com/security/features/index.cfm?featureID=2856&pagtype=all |
| #18 By 316510 (78.26.187.215) at 2/27/2010 3:31:48 AM |
|
Successfully I was surfing the internet today and I totally freaked out. I absolutely develop my <a href=http://www.herselfpics.com.com>ex-girlfriend</a> pictures on the internet. I have no idea when she did this but my <b>ex-girlfriend </b>was making out with some other teen.
Does anyone have any info on this <a href=http://www.herselfpics.com.com>ex-girlfriend</a> site? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:53:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
