Microsoft is coming under increasing fire over the security of its Windows software.
While criticims of Windows security vulnerabilities are nothing new, Microsoft plans to take control of security on Windows Vista, their next release.
This means that third-party software vendors could be prevented from protecting Windows Vista.
This comes after a series of serious security flaws were found in Windows applications, with Powerpoint, Word, and Internet Explorer all vulnerable - and still unpatched.
It remains an issue of acute embarrassment for Microsoft - that a billion-dollar multinational software development company which receives extensive revenues from licence fees - not simply allows the security exploits to go unnoticed until third-parties notify of them, but also leaves user machines vulnerable while third-party security companies are able to roll out fixes to the public.
Additionally, third party security development companies have already released a patch for the flaw - weeks before Microsoft plans to release their own version.
View: Full Article @ Platinax
While criticims of Windows security vulnerabilities are nothing new, Microsoft plans to take control of security on Windows Vista, their next release.
This means that third-party software vendors could be prevented from protecting Windows Vista.
This comes after a series of serious security flaws were found in Windows applications, with Powerpoint, Word, and Internet Explorer all vulnerable - and still unpatched.
It remains an issue of acute embarrassment for Microsoft - that a billion-dollar multinational software development company which receives extensive revenues from licence fees - not simply allows the security exploits to go unnoticed until third-parties notify of them, but also leaves user machines vulnerable while third-party security companies are able to roll out fixes to the public.
Additionally, third party security development companies have already released a patch for the flaw - weeks before Microsoft plans to release their own version.
View: Full Article @ Platinax
I'm sure they're going to try and turn this on its head with XP and say "Look how bad this is.. you need SHINY NEW Windows Vista which doesn't have this problem" rather than accepting responsibility for how badly they deal with some current security holes.
It is pretty outrageous.. this isn't some small, independent Linux distro or something - this is the largest software company in the world. Sort it out!!
it's not like you have to deal with quality checking on the changed code, check for problems causedin other parts of the system from the change code and all that... no... changign internal code is a pieceof cake and youd ont' need to do any of this so quality quality checking on it...
Try to realize the difference between actually fixing a patch and just slappignon an external firewalls "patch"
Vista is just XP with ****ty transparency
XP is just 2000 with ****ty themes
2000 is just ME with some some ****ty bloated NTFS
ME is just 98 with a pair of useless apps and a thousand of useful bugs.
98 is just 95 with web view in folders.
95 is just 3.11 with maximize and minimize buttons on the window frame.
3.11 is just 3.1 withsome ****ty "multimedia"
3.1 is just 2 without multi-colored windows
2 is just 1 with windows that can intercept
1 is just DOS.... well, but much worse and with RedGreenBlue windows.
DOS is just Linux, but not so bloated.
What's easier to sort out? Small Linux distro, or large OS.
Don't forget about exponentiality. It may happen that there is not enough programmers in the whole world to code something as big as Windows in a way small linux distros devs do.
Vista is just XP with ****ty transparency
XP is just 2000 with ****ty themes
2000 is just ME with some some ****ty bloated NTFS
ME is just 98 with a pair of useless apps and a thousand of useful bugs.
98 is just 95 with web view in folders.
95 is just 3.11 with maximize and minimize buttons on the window frame.
3.11 is just 3.1 withsome ****ty "multimedia"
3.1 is just 2 without multi-colored windows
2 is just 1 with windows that can intercept
1 is just DOS.... well, but much worse and with RedGreenBlue windows.
DOS is just Linux, but not so bloated.
What's easier to sort out? Small Linux distro, or large OS.
Don't forget about exponentiality. It may happen that there is not enough programmers in the whole world to code something as big as Windows in a way small linux distros devs do.
Hahaha.. Ingenious
Vista is just XP with ****ty transparency
XP is just 2000 with ****ty themes
2000 is just ME with some some ****ty bloated NTFS
ME is just 98 with a pair of useless apps and a thousand of useful bugs.
98 is just 95 with web view in folders.
95 is just 3.11 with maximize and minimize buttons on the window frame.
3.11 is just 3.1 withsome ****ty "multimedia"
3.1 is just 2 without multi-colored windows
2 is just 1 with windows that can intercept
1 is just DOS.... well, but much worse and with RedGreenBlue windows.
DOS is just Linux, but not so bloated.
What's easier to sort out? Small Linux distro, or large OS.
Don't forget about exponentiality. It may happen that there is not enough programmers in the whole world to code something as big as Windows in a way small linux distros devs do.
95 intro'd the taskbar, user file naming, and other things we take for granted nowadays.
How can you even talk about 2000? 2000 is a continuation of the NT line, so saying it's just ME with NTFS is just plain ignorant.
XP would be just that - hence the version "5.1", not "6.0" unlike Vista which is said to be the most expensive software project ever, making it a massive step up. The basic code has been re-written.
And the Linux comment, WTF? Are you saying that Linux is far less complex than Windows or something?
MS should be able to get those things going, seeing how big they are. And Linux isn't without faults...
Mac: Hey, I'm a Mac
PC: Hello, I'm a PC
Linux: Hi, I'm a Linux
Mac: Well, I'm out of the box, and now I'm off to do some blogs and such
PC: Whoa, well first I gotta install drivers and plug in all the necessary equipment. This could take a while...
Linux: I feel ya, PC. But I've also got to ask the user completely obscure questions, refer the user to a Terminal for everything, and make them feel as if they shouldn't be here. Mwahahaha!
Mac: Dude, you're just pure evil!
PC: Yeah, even I rarely have to use a Terminal
Linux: But...but...OURS IS CHEAPER
Ok.
2000 is just NT with DirectX
NT is just 98 without DirectX (useful DirectX)
Are you satisfied?
As for XP I agree that changes between 2000 and XP are not as huge as with NT&98->2000 and XP->Vista, but I think that XP is not about themes like Vista is not about Glass.
Everyone get off Microsofts case. If they aren't patching it then it's not a pressing issue... they wouldn't leave lethal flaws in Windows because that could make them look bad.
wich was worse because back then we never bothered with AV, and everyone that had AV was horribly out of date with floppy by mal distribution of new virus signatures
+ a pair of time-bombs in the OS.
+ really working Y2K
P.S. maybe they installed some "software" in our heads? :p
Wake up, Symantec.
Wake up, Mcaffe.
Your products are no longer needed. Thanks for playing, See you next time.
My guess is though, that these third party companies will complain to the EU and they will force microsoft to do something about it (e.g. take out some of thier security features) and that would SUCK.
Back up and look at the whole of this site's articles. So many about, holes and other problems with Microsoft products.
Anyone that can think for himself should be looking for ann alternitive. [Apple, Linux, Solaris, etc.]
Now, some fool is going to say that any of these alternatives have holes etc. True, but usually to a negligable degree when compared with those aeen in Microsoft products.
You guys are just numb to the problems that you deal with on a day to day basis. Too Bad for you!
MS patches are probably more stable and better quality-checked than third-party releases.
Nah. Thats impossible. Is the most secure OS of the history.
And security warnings from m$?. Nah. Thats a lie
"Thats impossible" <=/= "Is the most secure OS of the history"
"Is the most secure OS of the history" =/=> "It's secure"
"Is the most secure OS of the history" == "Future OSes won't be more secure"
Me myself and I, dont trust MS security firewall os AVīs, so sort it out MS, im not the only saying this, EU is demanding too, you wanna play here (EU), play with decent rules!!
Time will tell if MS's strategy will work. Until then, I won't let some whining pompous assholes get all ****y for the fact that they are less needed anymore.
Want me to spread some issues about you?
Last edited by RealFduch on 02 Oct 2006 - 22:22
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.