| 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, IBM, Offer Security | |
|
||
| Time: 12:42 EST/17:42 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp., IBM and VeriSign are spearheading an effort to create a security standard for Web-based services, something each company admits is desperately needed if their future plans are to thrive. "What we've been hearing from our customers is, 'We love Web services, but you guys need to go and figure out the security stuff,'" said Adam Sohn, a Microsoft program manager in platform strategy. The announcement comes shortly after Redmond-based Microsoft announced a patch to fix 10 security vulnerabilities in its Web server software, and several months after the software giant announced a companywide focus on making its products more secure. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:49:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/11/2002 4:33:14 PM |
|
I see a lot of people complaining about security, but I don't see any details as to what exactly they think is a problem.
|
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 6:11:44 PM |
| Even MS's Lucovsky said it yesterday, isn't that enough to understand that MS hasn't done enough on this issue. Why do you have to defend any potential issue? Are you saying then, conversely, that .Net and web services specs are alrady secure enough? |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/11/2002 9:23:12 PM |
|
Exactly how am I defending anything? I just think it would be nice if the people complaining would offer some constructive advice. Why would you not agree with that?
|
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/11/2002 9:27:29 PM |
| You asked for what the problem was though, not what people would do about it. Isn't it obvious that web services right now are even less secure then our existing internet infrastructure? |
| #5 By 3339 (64.175.43.4) at 4/11/2002 10:38:40 PM |
|
No, I didn't and again, why do you care? Why are you trying to start an argument with me because of my question to soda? Why don't you say something relevent yourself.
What I was saying is that if you are talking abou network traffic between more devices and that traffic isn't just data but is also methods, etc... you've made a riskier situation, obviously. Then there is also the issue of exposing data, methds, etc... to the cloud, obvious. Most of these new protocols do not yet have encrytion or other security measures, obvious. That is why web services are not ready, ready for deploymnt yet and why this has to be worked on. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/11/2002 11:20:24 PM |
|
jerk - "Isn't it obvious that web services right now are even less secure then our existing internet infrastructure? "
Exactly how are web services less secure than our existing internet infrastructure? I find this statement vague because web services uses the existing internet infrastructure, so how can they be less secure? Also how does this apply to most corporate situations? My web servers need to retrieve data from my mainframe. Since all the traffic is on my internal LAN, why is this less secure than existing CORBA, MQSeries or Java infrastructures? Or how about my web servers wanting to pull credit reports from Equifax over a leased line. The present method probably involves RPC of some sort, so how are web services less secure than that? Lot's of questions... I'm just not seeing answers. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.175.41.24) at 4/12/2002 2:53:41 AM |
|
Sounds like somebody forgets that web services are supposed to be for all devices. Did you forget about WiFi (how notorious insecure it is), Bluetooth, cellphones? Standards that don't have the level of encryption of SSL.
soda--I'm saying it's more insecure because the number of devices, access points, and transportability mulitply expontentially. I'm talking about WDSL broadcasting to the world everything about your corporation. I'm talking about potentially disparate authentication systems swapping your info back and forth. etc, etc... I guess you are all forgetting what the real vision of web services is--but I guess it's still a long way off as I said. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/12/2002 11:50:42 AM |
|
sodajerk - Looks like you don't understand the OSI model.
|
| #9 By 3339 (64.175.42.36) at 4/12/2002 10:13:22 PM |
| How do you know what my point was, #20? I specifically told you were neglecting the new array of devices that use different transport than the internet. If we aren't talking about including other devices, just PCs, what's the point? How do you plan to secure your cellphone? Do you intend to have any wireless devices receiving services (Wi-Fi or Bluetooth)? Are you going to secure them with SSL? That was my point. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:49:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
