Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can You Trust Microsoft On Security?

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the trust-to-do-what dept.

Security 189

simetra writes "Here's a shocker... This story on Yahoo! is pointing out the obvious. How many of these until the suits start believing us?" Maybe the article is just trying to stir up trouble, though: ladislavb points out that Windows XP is an Operating System you can trust. (The review is also available on mirror1, mirror2, mirror3, mirror4.)

cancel ×

189 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apr, 1st (5, Funny)

ceeam (39911) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637196)

I liked the "whitespace" joke better.

my joke is funnier (1)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637223)

here [osnippets.org] and here [frob.us]

Re:my joke is funnier (1)

datadictator (122615) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637386)

Parent funny :-)

Try this one as well [slashdot.org] cute.

Re:Apr, 1st (-1)

I Hate America (662232) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637258)

Oh spare me your bombastic pomposity, you knob-knuckled, change jingling, bulbous lipped, shulgus wearing, furled guinous. Just stop speaking. Nothing escapes your drooling, gaping maw but gibberish, you are unintelligible, your sense went swirling away with the rinse cycle.

You have no business interacting with the conscious, your very presence gives monkeys headaches. I can't believe that diminuitive, dried up peach pit that rattles around in the space where a normal human's brain should be is able to direct your palsied and wasted limbs to achieve locomotion.

Your very personage is abhorrent to see in daylight. You ears are blue-veined and freakish horrors of aerodynamics, your forehead has creases so deep they are a haven for unclassified flora and fauna of mysterious origin.

Each wheezing breath you take uses oxygen that by rights would be better utilized by an autistic chimpanzee, and each exhalation fouls the air with so vile a stench as to bring birds crashing down dead from defoliated trees.

You wompler, you fraldersnash, you eater of curried laundry lint. You have the audacity to daily inflict your existence on the innocent people of this planet. HOW can you stand to be you?

Bombastic pomposity? (0, Redundant)

McWilde (643703) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637362)

All he said was 'I liked the "whitespace" joke better.'

is this a joke ? (-1)

count_sporkula (446625) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637202)

i can't tell anymore ....

Umm... (4, Insightful)

evil_one (142582) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637203)

I don't think that the Yahoo! story is a Joke... it was posted 03/31 not 04/01... If it is, please correct me. I'd like to be wrong here.

Re:Umm... (4, Funny)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637222)

I don't think that the Yahoo! story is a Joke... it was posted 03/31 not 04/01... If it is, please correct me. I'd like to be wrong here.

Hey, april fools or not, trusting Microsoft with your security IS A JOKE ;-)

(and no, for once, I didn't bother reading the article. whats the use of having excellent Karma if you can't burn some every now and then?)

No worries. The next upgrade will fix it. (5, Funny)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637242)

No worries. The next upgrade will fix it.

Microsoft Corp. has announced that later this month Bill Gates will give a world-wide video conference to finally explain dot-Net. "It's time to ascend to the next level", Gates said, "we've cut elsewhere drastically in order to augment our sales staff in time for the event". Business leaders should expect calls, visits, and treats during the next month from Microsoft sales staff to ensure that all end users have installed the license for the current Windows Media Player and the licenses for the latest service packs. Calls will be followed by onsite visits. Microsoft sales staff, all licensed notary publics, and Business Software Alliance inspection teams to ensure that each and every the click-through agreement is followed up with a notarized contract.

As part of the treat, each site will receive packets of flavored drink mix for a special toast at the end of the teleconference. MSCEs will give instructions on the preparation of the mix and will assist the sales staff in dispensing to executive staff.

Re:No worries. The next upgrade will fix it. (1, Funny)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637298)

As part of the treat, each site will receive packets of flavored drink mix for a special toast at the end of the teleconference. MSCEs will give instructions on the preparation of the mix and will assist the sales staff in dispensing to executive staff.

Sadly, many will miss this Jonestown reference.

More sad is how accurate you are.

Re:Umm... (1)

FFtrDale (521701) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637481)

perhaps a decade or more before systems are trusted the way we envision," a Microsoft spokesman said [emphasis mine].

How many generations is that in Net years? And what's "the way we envision"? It sounds like they're working toward the day when they'll have the power to compel people to "tell everyone about your MS-patriotism or we'll send you to a reeducation camp." What's good for MS is good for North Kore^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ... oh, to hell with it.

Koetzle also said that IT professionals should work more closely with Microsoft and companies that write software for Windows to make sure computer systems are more secure, instead of blaming Microsoft for security breaches.
Wait - remind me: who's paying whom for software?

Re:Umm... (1)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637268)

No, the Yahoo! story isn't, but the distrowatch story is (obviously).

Quite hilarious, too...Particularly this screenshot [serve-you.net] of the Windows XP desktop. :)

Are we surprised? (4, Insightful)

rf0 (159958) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637208)

With the recent spate of MS problem such as the slammer worm, IIS vunrabilities etc their public image is tarnished at best. However I think what people realise is that most programs have potential security holes. What people want is a quick response to the problem.

Take the two recent sendmail issues. Two big holes were found but fixes were available straight away. What about MS? Well I believe the record is 6 months after an exploit is in the public domain. Now thats why I have trouble trusting MS

Rus

6 months? (2, Interesting)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637235)

They are ignoring an NT error that appeared before NT 4's EOL. IMHO, the clock started ticking then and won't stop until the bug is fixed.

There has to be an example more than 6 months!
There just has to be!

Proof that winshit isn't crap.
1. Take a pile of crap.
2. Put it on your desk.
3. See if it's exploited.
4. Realize that crap is the superior system.

Re:6 months? (0)

wheany (460585) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637341)

Is it really that hard to write Windows and Microsoft. Writing stuff like Winblows, Winshit and Micro$oft just make you seem immature.

Re:Are we surprised? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637253)

What people want is a quick response to the problem.

As MS are always saying - and the article admits it's true - they are actually pretty good at releasing patches for most (not all) vulnerabilities quickly.

The security problem is that admins don't apply these patches, because they too often break something that was working before. This is a result of either shoddy testing on MS's part, or unclear specifications and documentation encouraging third-party programmers to make use of facilities they're not supposed to know about.

Microsoft is suffering raging split personality. Part of it wants programmers to use every last nook and hook of the code to squeeze the best possible performance out of it; another part of it wants to control (limit) the features available to third-party programmers, so that it retains the freedom to change inner workings without breaking their code.

This is a major QA problem for MS, and I think - from the tone of their talk on "Trustworthy" computing - that at least some of them are aware of it.

Re:Are we surprised? (3, Informative)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637350)

How can you raise the slammer worm and then say that Microsoft doesn't respond quickly? The article makes clear that attacks on Microsoft products were an average of 305 days after Microsoft patched them, and this was famously the case with respect to slammer. People aren't applying the patches in spite of clear warnings.

Slammer (5, Insightful)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637559)

Security is the last nail in the coffin.
People aren't applying the patches in spite of clear warnings.
Even Microsoft's own servers got hit by Slammer. It has been quit common for Microsoft's security upgrades to break something else, fail to fix what they claim to fix, and/or introduce additional holes. The Slammer worm showed that even Microsoft knows that it's patches can be unhealthy for production systems. Other companies and software projects just don't have this kind of quality problem.

Even if the patches worked, and even if it had been an old-style, slow worm, you can't patch fast enough [gartner.com] . But it wasn't. Slammer reached saturation in 8.5 minutes [berkeley.edu] . Most likely this story was a tidbit to draw fire away from the quarterly financial statement or from the DRM/Palladium stealth payload in Windows Server 2003 + Office 2003.

Sure folks may wish to run Microsoft products for ideological reasons, but there aren't any technical ones and now the market is changing [zdnet.co.uk] . C*Os have figured out the OS X, RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, OpenBSD, etc. are much easier install and maintain than Windows Xp and far more flexible and secure -- both on the workstation and the server. Novell Netware should also be mentioned as excellent. C'mon when was the last time you heard of MS machine reaching an uptime of more than 200 days? That would be embarassingly short for QNX and Novell.

Microsoft has been to computing what Big Tobacco was to sports.

Re:Are we surprised? (1)

vsprintf (579676) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637571)

How can you raise the slammer worm and then say that Microsoft doesn't respond quickly? . . . People aren't applying the patches in spite of clear warnings.

Yeah, right. And the patches [computerworld.com] work so well, too.

Trust... security?? (4, Interesting)

fruey (563914) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637210)

You cannot trust anyone on security

Beware of the man behind the curtain

However, even the non paranoid don't trust Microsoft. The problem is evidently that the suits are going for Microsoft while the techies (the real ones, who didn't get the job by the list of MCSEs in their CVs) just get beaten into submission.

Re:Trust... security?? (1, Funny)

billybob2001 (234675) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637307)

Why don't Microsoft stick to what they Excel® at?

Anti-trust!

Re:Trust... security?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637314)

1. I agree that nobody should be trusted on Security. We all need to be educated on Security, and be able and willing to act on it. Even the most secure products can be defeated by ignorance.

2. As a Developer who has programmed with MS Access since 1.0 and VB since 3, I disagree with your notion that Techies do not like Microsoft. You might want to check out sites like "AngryCoder" ( http://www.angrycoder.com [angrycoder.com] ) run by people who are definitely pro-Microsoft, but also willing to criticize Microsoft where they deserve it.

Re:Trust... security?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637347)

real techies eh? why are all linux/unix fags so arrogant?

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637211)

Oh Yeah!

YOU FAIL IT! (-1)

YOU FAIL IT! (624257) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637316)

You are a FAILURE! And this isnt an April Fools Joke!

YOU FAIL IT!

MOD PARENT UP!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637334)

THIS IS THE MOST INFORMATIVE POST EVAR!!!!!1

I'm placing this in here because apparently if I use so many caps, I get hit by the lameness filter. C'mon, Taco... can't we at least have a little fun on April Fools?

"Can You Trust Microsoft On Security?" (1, Funny)

z01d (602442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637212)


No, I'll never trust Slashdot on anything today.
I mean, NEVER

Can You Trust Microsoft On Security? (4, Funny)

GMontag (42283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637213)

Is this rhetorical?

Re:Can You Trust Microsoft On Security? (1)

hype7 (239530) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637277)

Are you being sarcastic?

Re:Can You Trust Microsoft On Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637280)

Is this rhetorical?

Ditto

Use NSA Security Enhanced Linux (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637215)

Because if you can't trust the NSA, who can you trust?

"Can You Trust Microsoft On Security?" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637220)

No.

trust (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637221)

Can you trust me with your daughter?

Re:trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637318)

Can you trust me with your daughter?

Since you are posting on ./ then the answer is quite probably, Yes.

Again ? (3, Insightful)

Thanatiel (445743) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637224)

This one is not even funny ...
That's why I don't like 1st april : You can't really trust what you read on the news for a whole day. I mean you can trust the news even less than usual.

You got it all wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637304)

This one is not even funny ...

Certainly not.. The article is about Microsoft security.. and there is nothing to laugh or to smile about...

News can never be trusted... Why?

1) CNN has inacurate 3D models of battle cruisers
2) CNN refuses to report things that could harm U.S. soldiers but does show everything that could harm Iraqi soldiers (and civilians)
3) CNN stopped counting(!) the U.S. casualities right after there has been word that the U.S. soldiers were surprised by the resistance against the self declared Liberators of Iraq.
4) CNN does not report about terrorists who try to free the U.S. of texas
5) Profit!

Re:Again ? (1)

Biomechanoid (515993) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637323)

Pentagon: Inside sources confirmed saddam has been killed by a lucky bullet.

CNN: 'Allied' troops greeted with flowers.

Al Jazeera: Showing earlier pictures of soldiers handing flowers to civilians.

Bush: On to the next lot!

Pentagon: April fools!

New feature! (5, Funny)

Pilferer (311795) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637225)

The review is also available on mirror1, mirror2, mirror3, mirror4

Yay! Slashdot is finally going to mirror content!

Oh wait, what day is it?

Probably not a joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637226)

I dunno, I read this earlier today (right now being 9PM April 1st, JST), before it was April fools in the states.. and like it says on the article, it was posted Mar 31st, 6PM, eastern time..

To answer the question: (1)

haxor.dk (463614) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637229)

No.

Argumentation: WinNuke, the exploits in WinXX discovered on monthly basis, Microsoft's soddy handling of personal information, their suspected cooperation in handling email addresses to spammers, the suspicion of backdoors in Windows. etc.

Well slashdotters..... (2, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637231)


It's time to turn off the computer for a day. Go outside. Walk around a little bit. Look up to the sky and feel the wind and sun against your face. Try to become friends with a girl.

Re:Well slashdotters..... (4, Funny)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637240)

O..o..outside?! You mean where the pizza guy comes from?

Re:Well slashdotters..... (1)

boogy nightmare (207669) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637613)

NNNNNNNnn-not the mystical land of ham and anchovies....

i cant go out there, theres never a plug when you want one......

obvoiusly not. (4, Insightful)

ethelred (587527) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637233)

Trust is earned. You don't becone trustworthy, just by marketing. Ask yourself "Has Microsoft earned my trust?"

Re:obvoiusly not. (3, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637504)

Trust is truly the operative word here. As the article points out, patches were available for Slammer and other attacks, but admins didn't feel confident that installing these patches wouldn't cause further problems. The patch is worthless if people won't install it...

seriously... (3, Interesting)

newsdee (629448) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637237)

I sometimes wonder if the trust on MS is not on security but in responsibility.

In other words, companies would prefer to use MS products because they can lay the blame on it if something goes wrong, and shift responsibility for a solution to them.

OOS is either very distributed or you have to work it yourself, which presents an additional risk for your person. I have no doubt that many are willing to take the blame as trade-off for ditching MS, though.

Maybe if an insurance company were to offer "computer bug funds", things would change. :-) But they would be quickly overrun with requests...

Re:seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637383)

Given that when you apply an MS patch - you cannot reverse it when it goes wrong destroys that argument.

MS' s install software won't undo their own bloody patches.

It boils down to saying percieved functionality is more important than demonstratable security.

Re:seriously... (1)

chthon (580889) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637536)

Which company has ever sued Microsoft for things that went wrong ?

If no one ever sued Microsoft for this reason, does that mean that their products are good ?

'Why are you spraying this powder all around ? Cough, cough...'

'It's against pink elephants.'

'I do not see any pink elephants here !?'

'Good powder, ain't it ?'

April 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637238)

Let the games begin!!! :)

was on cnet yesterday (2, Informative)

mAineAc (580334) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637244)

was found here [com.com] yesterday. I don't think it is a joke.

The WinXP screenshot (2, Funny)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637246)

in the review is a BSOD [distrowatch.com] .

What's more, a fatal exception has occured at F0AD:42494C4C.

Re:The WinXP screenshot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637289)

What's more, a fatal exception has occured at F0AD:42494C4C.

Also, check the bytes:
0x42 = 'B'
0x49 = 'I'
0x4C = 'L'
0x4C = 'L'

Thanks :-) (1)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637302)


The two consecutive 4Cs should've given it away.

Re:Thanks :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637438)

what is this some kind of april fools joke?!? where can i find this language translator from 4C to L?

ASCII magic (4, Informative)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637540)


The "translation" is done using the ASCII charset which is used as a standard in computers, and the corresponding numbers are in hexadecimal form.

The whole message is F0AD:42494C4C. From this, we get "Fuck Off And Die: Bill". How, you ask?

F0AD == Fuck Off And Die [hacker slang]

42494C4C: break them into pairs, as we do with hex numbers. We get 42 49 4C 4C.

Now match the hex numbers with their corresponding values from the ASCII Table [mindprod.com] .

42 == B
49 == I
4C == L
4C == L

Poor Patches Screwing User Confidence? (4, Informative)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637247)

Koetzle noted that while Microsoft's patches for the last nine high-profile Windows security holes predated such attacks by an average of 305 days, too few customers applied the fixes because "administrators lacked both the confidence that a patch won't bring down a production system and the tools and time to validate Microsoft's avalanche of patches."

I know I have totally screwed at least one "critical" production server by installing a service pack. Granted, that was NT4, which on the whole is just an impossible architecture to patch...or so they say.

Lack of security from the ground up in their design is what I believe the problem really is. The lack of a simple "bring this server up to date" scheduler doesn't help either. Even if they had that, people wouldn't use it due to patches toasting systems in the past.

-Pete

Re:Poor Patches Screwing User Confidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637426)

They do have that. Windows 2000 SP3 and Windows XP SP1 both have the ability (optional and not enabled by default) to automatically find and download security patches on a timed basis. But Microsoft can't provide a feature without pissing off the children at slashdot.

..Why would you be using M$ (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637250)

I would avode using M$ software for this very reason and because Windows Server(s) get more unstable the longer they are running. With a Linux or BSD system you can have it running and very secure right out the box. I know that Linux has had a few security run-ins but at least when you apply a Linux patch it does bring down the entire system -

1999 - Applied cumalative security fix to IIS and ended-up having to completely re-install the entire server after it became unstable. The two things might not be linked but I don't think so.

Re:..Why would you be using M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637486)

"With a Linux or BSD system you can have it running and very secure right out the box."

I'd consider OpenBSD very secure right out of the box. I can't speak for the other BSDs. I can only laugh at the idea of Linux being secure out of the box.

"I know that Linux has had a few security run-ins but at least when you apply a Linux patch it does bring down the entire system"

A *few*? Linux has had more than a few. Of course, they're 'not all Linux!!!!', but if one plays that game, remember - IIS, Office, etc. aren't Windows, either.

And I assume you mean 'it doesn't' bring down the entire system ;) Frankly, I have yet to see a patch from MS that does that. However, I haven't seen any patches for Linux bring down the system either.

Linux wins on patches by merit of the fact that Microsoft's patches tend to force one to reboot a few dozen times. :P

What's with that photo? (2, Insightful)

the_pooh_experience (596177) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637252)

So it is an article that for the most part says nothing

For the /. laziody, the synopsys is as follows:

Microsoft, while maybe not the most secure operating system in the world, is

  1. trying, vis-a-vis the whole "trusted computer" thing
  2. not really to blame for many of the egregious stuff as of late, as they have issued many security patches that would take care of problems. They are blaming lazy sysadmins for not updating machines.

But the real story is... what is with that picture? It consists of two guys looking at a screen. I can understand the difficulty of coming up with a picture that has anything to do with this article, but maybe you can leave a picture off this article instead of putting random images in the article

The caption of the picture says:

CJ Saretto, left, lead program manager with Microsoft, and Eugene Mesgar, program engineer with Microsoft, demonstrate Microsoft's Threedegrees software in Seattle, Wednesday, March 19, 2003. The software is geared for teenagers that has instant messaging, group chat rooms, shared music and photos.

I wish I had more to say on the subject

Cat lethargy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637264)

Tiffy is 10 years old and lately had become very lazy and lethargic. She was acting as if she was ill, but the vet couldn't find anything wrong. He felt it was her food. I tried many different brands and of course, you know cats, she wouldn't touch them after one try. Besides her lazy condition, at night she always like to lay on our very expensive royal blue carpet and shed cat hair everywhere. Of course, every morning I would have to take a half hour or so to clean up the Tiffy's shedding and the coughed-up fur balls.

So I was just about to go nuts when a friend who had used your NZYMES [nzymes.com] for their cat suggested I give them a try. We followed your instructions and started giving her one NZYMES [nzymes.com] Antioxidant Treats tablet broken up and mixed with a little tuna in spring water everyday.

After 3 weeks Tiffy's like new cat. She has renewed energy and seems happy and playful again. What amazed me was that her shedding has stopped and she rarely gets hair balls anymore. Your product has given me back that half-hour a day I dreaded so much. I want you to know that, besides the improvement in Tiffy, I consider my life to have been improved too. You need to tell more cat owners about the NZYMES [nzymes.com] products.

Definitions of "trust" (4, Interesting)

abulafia (7826) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637271)

From the article:
While 77 percent of respondents in the information technology (IT) field said security was a top concern when using Windows, 89 percent still use the software for sensitive applications[...]

So, clearly people *do* trust Windows, in that they are using the software for "sensitive applications". Of course, they probably have very little choice in the matter, and hopefully they take my tack of firewalling it off from everything when forced to use it.

I was just getting at the obvious false statement in the teaser - the respondents *are* trusting Win, they just aren't *happy* about having to.

Re:Definitions of "trust" (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637324)

So, clearly people *do* trust Windows, in that they are using the software for "sensitive applications".

Actually, its doesn't prove that at all. Its partially a matter of who makes the decisions about applications (often clueless managers) and some may only run on windows. The other part is left over infrastructure from years past, like our office, where we still have programs we use left over from windows 3.0 days. yea, i know...

Re:Definitions of "trust" (1)

muffen (321442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637385)

Trust Windows for sensitive application.

I know that men think about sex all the time, but come one, this IS funny :)

Prolly because of all the coffee I drank today... and as another post above mine said, what't the point of having excellent karma if not to get rid of some every now and then :)

Re:Definitions of "trust" (1)

Bush_man10 (461952) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637552)

I trust my windows machines with sensitive applications. I switch between windows and linux when i'm doing development at work (most time in Linux) and I use windows at home. I never had a problem with hackers getting into my computer or anything along those lines.

Maybe it's because I have a Linux firewall protecting both networks? :)

how in the hell did that get slashdot worthy (0)

gumbysworld (470849) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637273)

how in the hell did that get slashdot worthy.
send it over to the enquire and post some real news.

Looking at the NT4 no-patch issue... (3, Insightful)

Lolaine (262966) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637278)

I cant trust a company that says they cannot patch their own enterprise-level Operating System (only to force customers to buy a new one, because, IMHO "technical" excuses like that are ridiculous).

If Microsoft says they cant patch, then open the source for us to patch it for free :)

Course of least resistance (2, Insightful)

krygny (473134) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637281)

The easiest thing to do, is to do what everybody else does and hope you're not a victim:

"I hope the hackers pick on some other company."
"I hope they lay off someone else in the next reorganization."
"I hope the terrorsts blow up the Holland Tunnel when I'm not in it."

ROFL (-1, Funny)

webmaker (635678) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637282)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha he used M$ and trust in the same sentence Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha *pees on self* *stops laughing*

Re:ROFL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637313)

do you like anal sex?

Re:ROFL (1)

webmaker (635678) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637589)

And another 12 year old graces our presents.... Get a life!

Please... (2, Insightful)

Tsunamio (465339) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637283)

Either post real news or post funny fakes, but don't combine the two, it just confuses people-which are real, which aren't? And that ruins the whole 'news for nerds' part. If you're bound and determined to do multiple April Fools stories, just give up April 1st for real news, it can wait a day.

And if this is just not funny, work on that too.

Re:Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637333)

it just confuses people-which are real, which aren't

Thats the whole point of April Fools. If you can't figure out which are real and which are jokes, then frankly you don't deserve to use a computer.

What do you think (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637284)

NO!

Oh I trust Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637292)

It's hackers, crackers and users I don't trust.

Most issues with MS software have been holes and badly coded stuff (buffer overflows anyone?). They per se aren't the people I distrust, but they inadvertently assist people who I do.

Microsoft's problem is that they create software that's great if it runs in a 100% MS environment and everyone's a 'good' user with no malicious intent. It's idealistic software.

Problem is, we live in the real world...

My Opinion (3, Funny)

nicotinix (648645) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637295)


Microsoft is as secure as a Ford Pinto is safe.

Re:My Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637369)

... as in:

"It is perfectly safe as long as it is not running."

In reality (2, Insightful)

KoolDude (614134) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637305)


Three-fourths of computer software security experts at major companies surveyed by Forrester Research Inc. do not think Microsoft Corp.'s products are secure


The other one-fourth use *nix and were unable to comment... ;)

Trusting OS's (4, Funny)

secondsun (195377) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637308)

I only trust an operating system as far as I can throw it. After comprehensive tests windows XP CD's fly 300 feet when launched from my skeet shooter and are still bootable. But most of my Linux CD's never survive the launch process so I there fore I can not trust Linux since I can't throw it.

In Other News (0, Offtopic)

dmarx (528279) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637311)

The sky is blue.
The language of England is English.
If you're out in the rain, you'll get wet.
Well...anyone have any more stories for the "Obvious News Network"?

Eh? (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637319)

From the article:

I would stay up all night consuming massive amounts of coffee, cola, and pizza. I lost weight, my skin became pale, I allowed my hair to grow long, gave up shaving, and never took a bath.

How can he eat massive amounts of pizza and loose weight?!

Re:Eh? (0)

ThatMadeNoSense (651445) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637367)

How can he eat massive amounts of pizza and loose weight?!

That made no sense.

Re:Eh? (1)

Pembers (250842) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637497)

How can he eat massive amounts of pizza and loose weight?!

He probably forgot to mention that along with the message from monique@bigboobies.com, there was one from super_diet_pills@getyourmedsnow.com, offering revolutionary new pills (developed by doctors, no less, and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine) that would indeed allow him to eat pizza and lose weight.

I've often wondered if you have to eat pizza while you're taking these pills, and if so, what happens if you don't...

Who said it is the 1st of April? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637320)

That accurate article is about Microsoft security.. and there is nothing to laugh or to smile about...

News can never be trusted... Why?

1) CNN has inacurate 3D models of battle cruisers
2) CNN refuses to report things that could harm U.S. soldiers but does show everything that could harm Iraqi soldiers (and civilians)
3) CNN stopped counting(!) the U.S. casualities right after there has been word that the U.S. soldiers were surprised by the resistance against the self declared Liberators of Iraq.
4) CNN does not report about terrorists who try to free the U.S. of texas
5) Profit!

ollow your geek instict (1)

Biomechanoid (515993) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637325)

About wether or not this story is true; follow your geek instict: Can You Trust Microsoft On Security?

Re:ollow your geek instict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637525)

Actually, don't ... go out and get a life instead.
it's easier.

Mixed up. (1)

comet_11 (611321) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637330)

Newsflash: Due to date errors, April Fools Day (The first of April) was confused with Captain Obvious Day (The fourth of January). Slashdot has risen to the challenge, howeever and you can expect to see posts about the sky being blue, the grass being green and admin not trusting Microsoft.

also making news... (0, Funny)

Unominous Coward (651680) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637331)


is sunlight really as bright as it looks?

do you get wet by standing in the rain?

is hotmail really secure? *
* Well, almost. But two of three ain't bad.

The next version of windows (1, Funny)

eap (91469) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637335)

will be distributed without binaries, which will improve security significantly and will remove the need for copy protection, service packs, and employees.

The EULA for this release is reported to read simply: "FSF Lawyers are weenies".

Hey..... (0, Funny)

tankdilla (652987) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637352)

Sure you can trust Microsoft. Why the other day a guy named Microsoft offered me candy and a ride home. He had a lot of money and a pretty car so I said sure. Now i'm locked in a smelly basement, sending this message by trained carrier pigeon (my pigeon has a /. account). I guess i'm safe...

BSOD Screenshot not really from XP (3, Insightful)

Ececheira (86172) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637354)

Granted, it's from an April Fools story, but couldn't they even try to get the BSOD screen shot right?

That BSOD version is from Win9x versions... the NT-based BSOD has the text at the upper left of the screen, and no CTRL-ALT-DEL message either.

Re:BSOD Screenshot not really from XP (1)

SN74S181 (581549) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637492)

The point being: so few people have seen a Windows XP BSOD that it was necessary to bring in one from the much, much less stable NT 4.0. And since the whole skit is playing to a Linux zealot audience, they wouldn't know as the last time they ran a Microsoft OS was when NT 4.0 was current.

.NET a way out for MS? (4, Interesting)

DrTentacle (469268) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637361)

Given that the Windows codebase has evolved over so many versions, it's hardly surprising that there are plenty of security holes. If the foundation is shakey, don't expect the building to stay up. Especially in a closed-source environment where the number of people scrutinising the code is minimal.

It seems to me that one potential benefit for MS from it's .Net products is the opportunity for them to start over with their security. The models in place for .Net apps are superior to what was previously on offer for Windows development. They even throw in stuff like run-time buffer overflow detection...if you turn it on.

Given that the number of .Net security problems so far appears to be minimal, MS could improve their image as being poor in security, provided they get sufficient take up...and don't screw it up this time around...

Bork Bork Bork (2, Informative)

Mintee (465975) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637388)

"Since "product activation" is necessary to get the system working, XP proceeded to dial my modem and register my personal data with Microsoft Passport, while at the same time signing me up for MSN and billing my credit card without asking. How convenient can you get?"

So So Terrible, Yet So So True!
All Hail APRFLS God. Mr. Gates!
And wasn't M$ founded on April 1st.

Sure,sure,sure. (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637601)

How did you credit card got into that computer?

Let's wait: Windows 2003 is out (3, Insightful)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637437)

It's all very easy to sit around and put each other on the back and say "yes, well, we've known this for years". We know that Bill made his big trustworthy computing announcement, and he said it was a forward looking initiative - they were going to focus on getting new products right rather than going back and re-architecting old products (a decision I agree with).

So, Windows Server 2003 was RTMed last week - the first OS released post-trustworthy computing. Let's wait and see the fruits of Bills initiative, rather than keep flogging that same dead horse. If windows 2003 has good security, well, maybe they have a chance. If it doesn't, forget it, game over.

Oh please, throw yourself to a tank full of sharks (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637619)

Here we will be, complaining about the same things when the next version of Windows is probed and tested, and then you will raise your karmaless self to say "let wait for the next version, if that suck then yeah, they will never learn".

The time is here and now, and the company has probed beyond doubt how they regard security in a networked world.

I'll diss it, but I don't touch it (1)

banzai51 (140396) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637507)

These experts seem to be commenting on implimentations, but they never have rolled it out. Unfortunately, most NT roll outs start with Bob in accounting in charge of the thing. By the time the NT network becomes important, it is fubared. Instead of blaming Bob's lack of IT skill, or questioning why they didn't hire an NT subject matter expert, they blame the product. Cleaned up after this mess many times. People are generally amazed at what happens when it is setup properly.

can you trust slashdot on Apr. 1st? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5637592)

can you trust slashdot on Apr. 1st?

Cooperation? Which cooperation? (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 11 years ago | (#5637629)

Koetzle also said that IT professionals should work more closely with Microsoft and companies that write software for Windows to make sure computer systems are more secure, instead of blaming Microsoft for security breaches.

The funny thing is that when I offered cooperation, in particular in the resolution process of a new vulnerability (which requires a certain amount of information sharing and therefore trust, admittedly), Microsoft engineers were just too eager to point out that this kind of cooperation was not acceptable according to their company policy.

I don't work at a billion dollar company, so this shouldn't surpirse me, but I'm told that this doesn't make much of a difference at all. As most companies nowadays do, Microsoft probably talks to company representatives about security issues, but only at a level in the hierarchy at which it's unlikely that the really pressing questions are asked (e.g. "how can I detect attacks on my infrastructure, exploiting that recent bug?").
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>