atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- From: Peter Sanders <psanders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:54:11 +0800
Hi Brian
Not knowing the reference to which the original email referred, it is
blatently obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the computer industry that the
implied "message" ie the inability of MS to provide suitably sound OS
software is quite true.
Microsoft has always and continous to provide an OS that is full of
security holes. It was not designed from the gound up to be a secure multi-
user AND multi-tasking system. Each version has been a build up from the
previous version and in many cases carried forward the legacy of bugs from
one version to the next.
This idea of pre-emptive multitasking is pathetic in some cases. How come
if I start one app and they decide _I_ want to do something else, surely
the pre-empting should see that I choose to do something else and provide
MY choice with the processor time NOT what MS Windoze _thinks_ it should
do.
Anyway I digressed, much of the limits of Windoze has come about (IMHO)
because of MS desire to control every part of the OS with every other part
of the OS, hence vba for almost everything. Combine this with the ABYSMAL
lack of security and you have many ways of accessing areas that should NOT
be accessed without security controls.
Take for example the ability of MS Word to delete files from the file open
dialog - how secure is that (NOT!)
So whether or not the journalist in question quotes names of authors or
not, or whether there is testable data or not does NOT change the fact that
...
> that computers and critical technological infrastructure worldwide >are
> increasingly vulnerable to attack
> because of the security practices >and dominance of Microsoft software in
> desktop computing.
This IS SO! This is also unlikely to change because of MS practices alluded
to previously.
If MS OS's were as good as MS say they are, they we would not have had the
blaster virus that ONLY affected XP machines - supposedly much more secure
than Win98. Hah! Yes, it is more secure in some respects however as is well
known now, after the blaster virus, that there are security holes.
So what Michael has stated is correct, and I have previously advanced these
thoughts myself to the list.
There are far too many people that give MS far too much leeway in what they
(MS) manufacture. They continually sell what is in some ways a dud product
and yet the unknowing new users or less computer literate amongst the user
base have grown up with MS and its foibles (to put it mildy) and have now
come to accept this as the norm!
This should not have been nor should it now be the case, however MS being
almost omnipresent in pc's can get away with it because of MS's dominance
and this "blue screen of death" acceptance.
Linux is gaining ground be it ever so slowly. No doubt there would be (are)
Linux viruses. However because of the inbuilt (from the gorund up) security
such virus problems would always be minimal.
In short - It is NOT a load of old cobblers!!!!!!
Regards
Peter
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:54:44 +1000, Brian Clarke
<brianclarke01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael,
> What a load of old cobblers!
> The journalist only quotes the names of authors as though this is some
> kind of shibboleth. There is not one skerrick of testable data in the
> whole piece.
> Just journalistic fop. If we were professionals we would test data before
> passing it off as valuable.
> Brian.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Edward Granat To:
> austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:51 PM
> Subject: atw: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
>
> As I have said many times over to this list, as consulting professionals
> we have a duty of care to challenge the MS status quo where it creates
> problems for ourselves and our customers.
> From the Sydney Morning Herald.
>
> >A number of leading corporate technology officers and researchers have
> >warned that computers and critical technological infrastructure
> worldwide >are increasingly vulnerable to attack because of the security
> practices >and dominance of Microsoft software in desktop computing.
> <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/25/1064083097573.html>
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
- References:
- atw: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- From: Michael Edward Granat
- atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- From: Brian Clarke
Other related posts:
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- » atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- atw: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- From: Michael Edward Granat
- atw: Re: O.T. "Reliance on Microsoft a threat to security: experts"
- From: Brian Clarke