• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If MICROSOFT admitted that their past products are insecure should people slam them for previosuly selling secure O/S?

MadRat

MadRat

Lifer
If MICROSOFT admitted that their past products are insecure should people slam them for previosuly selling secure O/S?

The latest pitch to consumers is that they need to upgrade to the newer products on the horizon because they are more secure. Seems to me an admittance of insecurity means they've sold product in the past as something it wasn't. Isn't this admitting negligence??

Edit: I tried to make a poll. New forum software didn't make one 🙁
 
No, not necessarily. You can't make things "forward compliant". I'll be the first one to admit that MS has sold some crappy OSes to the public WAY to early *cough*Windows 95*cough*.... but there's no way they could have expected the explosion of broadband (because, face it, constant connect for thousands of computer semi-illiterates leads to a LOT of hacker problems). Now, a knowledgeable user can make most of their OSes much more secure--as simple SonicWall firewall makes a world of difference (its not invincible, but its not bad).

And as far as MS promoting their new software, what do you expect? They're going to make a play on "security" since its a huge buzzword. And nothing scares Joe Blow like the thought of some hacker looking through his pr0n collection. 🙂

 
Originally posted by: HokieESM
No, not necessarily. I'll be the first one to admit that MS has sold some crappy OSes to the public WAY to early *cough*Windows 95*cough
Click to expand...

nah i wouldnt call windows 95 crappy. win95 was a siginificant release and brought internet and pc's in generall to joe sixpacks home. win95 was if anything one of the most important software releases during the 90's and the timing of it was perfect in that respect.

as far as security goes: Groucho said it best (hacker dude from another forum) "Security is a ongoing process" 😀
 
But if they admit they were not as secure as they could have been by default then they lied in their advertisements, no?
 
They're a multibillion dollar corporation. What they say doesn't even really matter, because it's all pathetic drivel written up by marketing robots to maximize profits/minimize loss.
 
The latest pitch to consumers is that they need to upgrade to the newer products on the horizon because they are more secure. Seems to me an admittance of insecurity means they've sold product in the past as something it wasn't. Isn't this admitting negligence??
Click to expand...

I can some this up in one actual event: During the lauch of XP Microsoft ran ads showing two page Windows 9x blue screens and bragged about how robust XP was. This would be like Ford running Mustang ads that said 'this version doesn't blow up like our old Pinto line'.

Bill
 
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
They're a multibillion dollar corporation. What they say doesn't even really matter, because it's all pathetic drivel written up by marketing robots to maximize profits/minimize loss.
Click to expand...
Hey that's the American Business Model!
 
Originally posted by: bsobel

I can some this up in one actual event: During the lauch of XP Microsoft ran ads showing two page Windows 9x blue screens and bragged about how robust XP was. This would be like Ford running Mustang ads that said 'this version doesn't blow up like our old Pinto line'.

Bill
Click to expand...
LOL, just like the old Windows 2000 (or NT4?) ad campaigns where they boasted "crashes one third as often as Windows 98!!" 😀

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
They're a multibillion dollar corporation. What they say doesn't even really matter, because it's all pathetic drivel written up by marketing robots to maximize profits/minimize loss.
Click to expand...
Hey that's the American Business Model!
Click to expand...

Yep. 🙂 Money talks. :disgust:
 
Originally posted by: Windogg
Originally posted by: her209
All software have bugs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's just that MS is a nicer target for the hackers and crackers...

If you see the weekly advisory list for security patches, Linux has 10x as many "security flaws" (given all the flavors too).
 
Originally posted by: MadRat
But if they admit they were not as secure as they could have been by default then they lied in their advertisements, no?
Click to expand...

And if cars aren't as fast as the designers could have made them, does that make liars out of the car advertisers?

Granted, Windows has its share of security flaws, and yes, could have been made stronger. But before the internet explosion, computers were largely standalone machines and there were no hackers on the internet trying to get into your box. Functionality and ease of use were higher priorities than security.

That's changing now, of course.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII

Even Linux has tons of security flaws.

BTW: Most of the security 'flaws' in MS products came from administrators not knowing how to properly secure the OS.
Click to expand...

Big differences,

1. the Linux products are obtained free
2. the MS products were insecured by default while they were advertised as "secure"

The reality of the situation is that Microsoft has genuinely lied to its customer base.
 
Every OS has it's security problems. To me, it matters the most HOW they handle the security holes like, knowing the security hole for a couple months and don't release a patch, etc.
 
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: XZeroII

Even Linux has tons of security flaws.

BTW: Most of the security 'flaws' in MS products came from administrators not knowing how to properly secure the OS.
Click to expand...

Big differences,

1. the Linux products are obtained free
2. the MS products were insecured by default while they were advertised as "secure"

The reality of the situation is that Microsoft has genuinely lied to its customer base.
Click to expand...

1.) It doesn't matter that linux products are obtained free. That has nothing to do with security.
2.) I don't understand how that is lying. MS teaches it's admins how to properly secure Windows. They've had the info on their web site for years. It's up to the admin to actually do it though. It's the admin's own fault if they didn't pay attention when learning about security and it's the company that hires that admin's fault for hiring an incompetent admin. Most Linux admins tend to know more about linux and how to properly secure them, not to mention that Linux comes with nothing installed by default. Microsoft has now learned it's lesson and realized that admins can't be trusted with making sure that xxx service is disabled, so now it all comes off by default in Windows Server 2003. I don't see how this is lying. Maybe to an uninformed person who doesn't understand the issue it may seem like Microsoft is lying to it's customers, but they did not. When it comes to bugs, every single piece of software ever released is full of bugs and it touted as bug free. That's because it's as bug free as it can be made at the time of release. Even Linux is chock full of bugs, but I don't hear you complaining about RedHat lying to it's customers. Maybe if you understood the issue a bit more than what you read at Slashdot or in the general news (get some real facts from real sources) you would be able to make an informed oppinion on the subject.
 
1. Linux is not necessarily a commercial property, absolving the authors of liability for its use

2. Even if you did follow Microsoft recommendations then your system was not secure due to various default settings.
 
The free unices (linux is not the *only* other OS out there) have probably more bugs and exploits found than windows software. The difference is that no one tries to hide them. They are found by anyone who is capable of examining source code and that is a good thing. When you get down to it, in the real world, neither are more secure because an idiot admin can make anything insecure. The difference is that in the unix world, you have (nearly) full disclosure and prompt fixes. In the MS world, you have coverups, delays, and a single source for fixes. Most security advisories are the result of someone else finding the flaw. In my opinion, security and profits are two conflicting interests. Exactly which one is more important to a multi billion dollar corporation is up to everyone's imagination, I suppose.

I guess it boils down to this: Authors volunteering their time to create a good piece of software will acknowledge and fix problems. Corporations will do whatever is necessary to maximize profits, the intricacies of the products are an afterthought. The main goal is to make products that create profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top