Nader joins anti-Microsoft push

[Kerouactivist]

Nader is the man, I think he would made a much better president, than George"where are all the adults at" Bush (only funny if you watch SNL)

 

[LaBang]

There are no more major holes in MS products than in any other OS. Windows just gets all the publicity. It is very misleading. The thing is though, if MS were to fix all their security holes, people would have inscentive to buy Windows even more than now, thus increasing Windows market share and creating more anti-trust problems. What to do about that?

Nonsense. If windows gained market share due to a superior product they would not be faced with anti-trust issues. The lawsuits aren't because microsoft has a large market share but they are because of the illegal anti-competitive practices that they use to cement their product.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: LaBang

There are no more major holes in MS products than in any other OS. Windows just gets all the publicity. It is very misleading. The thing is though, if MS were to fix all their security holes, people would have inscentive to buy Windows even more than now, thus increasing Windows market share and creating more anti-trust problems. What to do about that?

Nonsense. If windows gained market share due to a superior product they would not be faced with anti-trust issues. The lawsuits aren't because microsoft has a large market share but they are because of the illegal anti-competitive practices that they use to cement their product.

Yes, exactly. By patching security holes, more people will purchase Microsoft products, thus causing competitors to start squirming and complaining. Microsoft does nothing different from any other business out there. They all do it, but because Microsoft has such a large market share, they have been singled out. It has become[/b] illegal (what Microsoft did) because of their size. Linux still bundles tons of software with their OS, but no one complains. If Microsoft gets even larger, it will become even more illegal (if that's possible) and they will be persued even more.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no more major holes in MS products than in any other OS. Windows just gets all the publicity.

Incorrect. MS software is full of holes. Yes, the "other" OS'es have them too, but they are nowhere as severe or numerous as bugs in Windows. Bugs in Windows are usually of the type of "this bug gives the cracker complete access to your computer", whereas on the "other" OS'es they are usually something like "This hole gives the cracker local access to a directory-listing on your computer".

Do I need to remind you of Win XP's catastrophic Plug 'n Play bug?

Now, before someone points to the securityfocus-stats, may I remind that those stats are calculated using different technique when it comes to Windows (among other thing, holes in IE are not counted as holes in Windows).

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There are no more major holes in MS products than in any other OS. Windows just gets all the publicity.

Incorrect. MS software is full of holes. Yes, the "other" OS'es have them too, but they are nowhere as severe or numerous as bugs in Windows. Bugs in Windows are usually of the type of "this bug gives the cracker complete access to your computer", whereas on the "other" OS'es they are usually something like "This hole gives the cracker local access to a directory-listing on your computer".

Do I need to remind you of Win XP's catastrophic Plug 'n Play bug?

Now, before someone points to the securityfocus-stats, may I remind that those stats are calculated using different technique when it comes to Windows (among other thing, holes in IE are not counted as holes in Windows).

Name 2 other major bugs in Windows XP besides the PnP bug. I mean major ones. The ones that you say are so common ("Bugs in Windows are usually of the type...") and give hackers complete access to your computer. As for your last statement, what do you mean that holes in IE are not counted as holes in Windows? Is that the problem? Are you saying they should be? What technique would work?

 

[JellyBaby]

One wonders if Windows would be less full of holes and more secure had MS stuck with delivering a core OS instead of throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there?

Nader has some valid complaints about MS and other corporations but make no mistake he's a die-hard socialist and control freak.

 

[GermyBoy]

Originally posted by: LaBang

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: LaBang
first off, why are you linking to M$NBC for this article?

I think Nader is a very good man. He is the one politician that i have seen that actually stands up and supports what his judgement tells him to.

Why not? MSNBC is not biased and will not censor this material and take out anti-MS stuff. The media has put an anit-MS image in your head and now you are just their puppet. You think what they want to you to think. MSNBC is a pretty unbiased news site. That's why I read them because you get more of the picture than other places.

Good answer. Just realize that even MSNBC puts a "spin" (bias) on their reporting.

you are an odd one

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: XZeroII<brName 2 other major bugs in Windows XP besides the PnP bug.

here
here
here

IE is OS component, so those are OS holes. And don't even make me list all the IIS bugs and holes, my lifetime is not long enough... Same goes for Outlook (the single app we can thank for the virus-infestations!)

As for your last statement, what do you mean that holes in IE are not counted as holes in Windows? Is that the problem? Are you saying they should be?

I'm referring to a stat by securityfocus that seems to claim that Windows has about as much holes as UNIX does (pro-windows drones like to use that particular stat). But that study says that holes in IE (for example) are not counted as holes in Windows. And they should be (while holes in any optional app (IE is not optional) in Linux/UNIX ia automatically counted as a hole in Linux/UNIX). I mean, MS has for long time said that "IE is not a separate product! It's an "operating system component" and it's a central part of the OS!". So, by Microsofts own admission, holes in IE are holes in Windows.

 

[JellyBaby]

MS is reponding to pressure to beef up security and not all of that comes from its legal troubles. The market is deciding for itself where to spend dollars and it's leaning elsewhere.

This is MS's biggest goal in the next 5 years -- to make sure it's stuff is secure. Bill sent out a memo on this for god's sake.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: XZeroII<brName 2 other major bugs in Windows XP besides the PnP bug.

here
here
here

IE is OS component, so those are OS holes. And don't even make me list all the IIS bugs and holes, my lifetime is not long enough... Same goes for Outlook (the single app we can thank for the virus-infestations!)

As for your last statement, what do you mean that holes in IE are not counted as holes in Windows? Is that the problem? Are you saying they should be?

I'm referring to a stat by securityfocus that seems to claim that Windows has about as much holes as UNIX does (pro-windows drones like to use that particular stat). But that study says that holes in IE (for example) are not counted as holes in Windows. And they should be (while holes in any optional app (IE is not optional) in Linux/UNIX ia automatically counted as a hole in Linux/UNIX). I mean, MS has for long time said that "IE is not a separate product! It's an "operating system component" and it's a central part of the OS!". So, by Microsofts own admission, holes in IE are holes in Windows.

Very interesting, but those are minor security flaws. I'm talking about something major dealing with Windows. The PnP bug dealt directly with Windows. You can install and use Netscape and never use IE and avoid (almost) all IE security bugs. You don't have to use IIS because it's a separate plug-in that must be installed. I'll bet you that if I were to install Linux (I've hardly ever used it), it would be less secure than my WindowsXP machine. Is this not true? It is true because you have to configure Linux to actually be secure. If you know what you are doing, 95% of the bugs that are in Windows don't apply because you've checked your settings and set them correctly. Most bugs are a result of people not correctly configuring their machine, which goes the same for Linux or Unix. I'm not saying that Windows is perfect, but Linux and Unix are not either. Both require a smart admin to make them secure. You assume that there is a smart person using a Linux or Unix machine and a dumb person using a Windows machine. Your comparison is not equal. It's like testing a sports car with a hyperactive person who shakes like mad against a Buick that has a cautious driver in it, then draw conclusions on which is safer.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: XZeroIIVery interesting, but those are minor security flaws. I'm talking about something major dealing with Windows. The PnP bug dealt directly with Windows.

Those bugs deal directly with Windows. As MS has repeteatedly said, IE is an OS component and it's a central part of Windows OS. so holes in IE are holes in Windwows. There are also holes in MSN Messenger and since that app is part of Win XP they can be counted as holes in XP.

MS can't have it both ways. They can't say "No we can't separate IE from Windows because it's an OS component" and then say "No, IE-holes are not Windows-holes because IE is a separate application". Either IE is an OS component or it's a separate app. MS maintains that it's an OS component, therefore holes in IE are holes in Windows.

Also, there is a catastrophic bug in Message Que of Windows, but MS refuses to release more information on it.

I'll bet you that if I were to install Linux (I've hardly ever used it), it would be less secure than my WindowsXP machine. Is this not true? It is true because you have to configure Linux to actually be secure.

Huh? I can safely guesstimate that Linux is by default more secure than any Windows is, and it can be made ALOT more secure. Windows by default is NOT secure. MS wants to make things simple. Increased security make that more difficult.

If you know what you are doing, 95% of the bugs that are in Windows don't apply because you've checked your settings and set them correctly.

So you must configure Windows to be secure? And just few seconds ago you claimed that Windows is more secure than Linux because "Linux must be configured to be secure".

Most bugs are a result of people not correctly configuring their machine, which goes the same for Linux or Unix. I'm not saying that Windows is perfect, but Linux and Unix are not either.

I'm not saying that Linux (or UNIX) is perfect, I'm just saying that by default they are alot more secure than Windows is. Most distros (maybe excluding Mandrake) ships with unneeded ports closed so they are not vulnerable.

Both require a smart admin to make them secure. You assume that there is a smart person using a Linux or Unix machine and a dumb person using a Windows machine. Your comparison is not equal.

Well, that is usually the case . OK, seriously. Why are IIS and Windows-servers always victims of crackings and defacements? I mean, surely Windows ADMINS know their stuff? Why are those same things more rare when it comes to Apache and Linux?

It's getting late, gotta run for today.