Don said:LOL, what gibberish.
kurttrail said:Yeah, and the overrun has been in 4 NT OSs since 1996! If time alone
is a measure of negligence, MS is the winner in a first-round KO!
Yeah, but do they guarantee that it won't screw up something else,
like 811493 did!
Ok, that covers about 1% of computer users, what about the 99% that
aren't "reasonably knowledgable" about computing?!
Kevin Davis³ said:Well, duh - turn on the firewall. Use your computer normally.
Install the patch when you can connect to MS's server. Problem solved
with a *little* bit of thought..
But actually, you lost all credibility when you said "[Y]ou can't get
the virus by just turning on your computer. It gets transmitted on
kazza file sharing servers." What actually happens with the
vulnerability in question is that a malformed RPC message is sent to
the target machine. It has nothing to do with Kazaa. It *does*
happen just by being online.
But not if you have a firewall on, which if you had any brains you
would.
Kevin Davis³ said:What if some frickin' meteor landed on your house and smashed you?
Quit coming up with lame excuses. If ZoneAlarm crashes on you,
restart your system and scream at ZoneLabs for their crappy software.
If the firewall was "accidentally" misconfigured or whatever - that is
YOUR fault.
Mike said:x-no-archive: yes
kurttrail said:Yeah, and the overrun has been in 4 NT OSs since 1996! If time alone
is a measure of negligence, MS is the winner in a first-round KO!
Yeah, but do they guarantee that it won't screw up something else,
like 811493 did!
Ok, that covers about 1% of computer users, what about the 99% that
aren't "reasonably knowledgable" about computing?!
You mean like Bruce Schneier's own mother?
[T]o expect home users to keep their systems current is unreasonable,
said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer with Counterpane
Internet
Security Inc. He blames software developers for writing bad software
that constantly need "critical" patches.
"My mother will never install the patch until I come visit," he said.
"I
couldn't even call her and walk her through it. The industry is wrong
to
expect her to do it. The fact that she sends me e-mail is incredible
enough."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030813/ap_on_hi_te/internet_attack
Of course, the nitwits who are defending Microsoft here *surely* know
more about security than Bruce Schneier. [uncontrolled laughter]
Sometimes life sucks. Any strong person just deals with it and moves on.Mike Terenni said:x-no-archive: yes
Hah--as if I should HAVE TO wait while my system was held hostage by a
huge Microsoft security flaw?
purplehaz said:Sometimes life sucks. Any strong person just deals with it and moves on.
Everything has flaws and they will always exist, why cause we are human. We
are not perfect, machines are not perfect, software is not perfect and never
will be, at least not in our lifetime. So big deal you don't have the net
for a day or so. You can still use the computer. Yes it's ms fault, but the
user is equally to blame as well as the scum that writes malicious code.
kurttrail said:"Microsoft spokesman Sean Sundwall acknowledged that the blame does not
really lie with customers."
"'Ultimately, it's a flaw in our software,' he said."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0030813/ap_on_hi_te/internet_attack&sid=95573
No Excuses!
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5063035.html
purplehaz said:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0030813/ap_on_hi_te/internet_attack&sid=95573
Like I said before ms, consumers, and the scumbags are to blame. All
three.
So what you said is very true....... but......... consumers should be
blamed
for not knowing how to keep there computer updated. It's a fact of
computing. Everyone who drives a car knows how to put gas in it.
Everyone
owning a computer should know how to use windows update.
Put the
blame where
it should be. Blame ms for the shotty programming, blame consumers
for not
using there expensive tools(computer) correctly, and blame the scums
for
writing malicios code. All three are equally to blame, IMHO.
purplehaz said:Full service gas stations? What's that? I think I remeber one when I
was
like 5 or 10, way before my driving time. I can't go on how it used
to be, I
can only go on how it is now. You have to know how to pump the gas to
drive(unless your rich and the driver does it for you) ;o)
Well ok maybe that wasn't the best analogy.. well actually
maybe....... I'm
no ms lover that's for sure, but not an ms hater either, and well
without
the patches the os would probably die, so maybe the patches to the os
is
like gas to a car. Without it, it won't work for long.
Exactly my point. If you want to own a computer learn to use it
correctly.
Updates and security are essential. They must learn(imho). It's a
tool, not
a toy.
Kurt, I'm in the states. The cars they make here do need patches every
week - lol. It's the norm to get recalls all the time. I drive a Ford
Mustang, I love it and would never drive anything else, but it ain't
a BMW.
breakdowns so far)
I do agree with all that you say about if we could have an os that
didn't
need patches and if ms would spend more time with "stuff" and not
"fluff" we
all be better off. I agree whole heartedly, but (back to reality),
that's
just not gonna happen and probably not even in our lifetime. When that
happens the programming languages we use today will be long gone. The
languages/technology themselves are flawed, no way around it. So since
there's nothing you or I or any consumer can do about it(except get a
job at
ms or develop linux) it would be in the best interest of consumers to
learn
how to keep the computer running correctly or at least pay someone to
do it
for them weekly.
kurttrail said:I lived in NJ for most of my life, and self-serve stations took a lot
longer than most places to take hold.
Recalls are normal, but the frequency of them is not.
And I agree that people need to learn more about computing, and this
worm is a practical lesson for a lot of the neophytes. I'm sure most
people that have gotten this are beating themselves up inside, and we
really need to show guidance & understanding at this particular point
in time, not value judgements.
Probably any MS Office app that can publish HTML docs to the web.
http://www.microsoft.com/com/tech/DCOM.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/com/wpaper/dcomfw.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/techresources/appserv/COM/DCOM/1_Introduction.asp
John said:Don Burnette, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the
Well, at least you've answered my question to you from another
post, and the answer sure as hell ain't 'or what'.
John
Actually, that "duh" is on you. If you are running a system that you
know not to be patched, and you can't get the patch, you should shut it
down or disconnect it, not simply hope that a firewall will work and be
properly configured.
I do. I have not complained that I suffer from the latest worm. I am
complaining that Microsoft puts out such buggy software. Is this
sinking in?
x-no-archive: yes
Lame excuses? That's what you shills are offering up on behalf of
Microsoft. So if a user misconfigures their firewall, and they fall
victim to this worm, then THE USER is solely responsible, and Microsoft
is NOT responsible at all? Does YOUR mother, uncle, sister know how to
configure a firewall? Does the average Windoze user? Yes, that's
right, I have you by the nuts.
And it seems you disagree with the Microsoft spokesman. A quote
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030813/ap_on_hi_te/
internet_attack):
Microsoft spokesman Sean Sundwall acknowledged that the blame does not
really lie with customers.
"Ultimately, it's a flaw in our software," he said.
Well, Kurt and Mike (and those like them) do serve a purpose - they makeAnd I have to ask myself what kind of person complains like this.
Certainly one with an agenda/axe to grind. It's like buying a Ford
and having nothing go wrong with it and still complain what crappy
products Ford makes.
Kevin said:So if this such a blatant issue since 1996, don't you think the
hackers would have hammered on it immediately? Fact is, MS put out a
patch well before the hackers had anything out that would exploit it.
That's about all you can reasonably ask for. Other OS's have
vulnerbilities too and handle it much the same way.
Like I said, the patch had been out a month before the exploit. You'd
screaming banshees complaining about the patch if it was bad within 24
hours of it's release.
Wait a few days, maybe a week, you hear
nothing, the patch is very likely OK. This would have had your patch
installed about 3 weeks before the worm was released.
They should have the automatic updates turned on.
EGMcCann said:Except that he was told something about "root," and didn't see any
growing out of the bottom of the CD.
Face it, Kurt, Mike, and who is it that's joined 'em now, John
something? don't want to admit that Microsoft *did* take the
responsible action when they learned of the vulnerability and put out
a patch... a month ago. I think Mike was the one coming up with
"What if I was in europe for a month? What if I just bought a PC
today! What if I were stuck in space with my head up my...." They
don't want anyone other than Microsoft to be blamed. That's their
agenda.
And to get them thoroughly confused, here's what "trustworthy"
computing (as mentioned in the subject line) is:
You're getting a taste of it with digitally signed drivers. An
application gets a certificate or signature that allows it to run at
a higher "trust" level inside the system. That means that the system
itself "trusts" the application not to get screwed up.
An "untrusted" application would be much more restricted in what it
could do.
It has *nothing* to do with how stable, virus-free, useful, fun,
productive, or cute the application is. Yes, a virus writer could
probably forge a "trusted" certificate and enable their virus to
screw over any system it touched.
And no, this was *not* dreamed up by Microsoft. Used by them? Yes.
It's also a part of the domain model (in trusted / trusting domains
when you set up sharing privileges between the two.) But it's not
their creation.