So it isn't all M$'s fault...

"People are ignoring a free email application which could lessen the impact of viruses, according to Microsoft.
The company said that computer users could minimise the impact of viruses such as SirCam and Badtrans with its Outlook Email Security Update.
.....
However, although this downloadable update makes the Outlook program significantly more secure and has been available from Microsoft's website for more than a year, the company claims that fewer than one per cent of Outlook users have installed the patch."

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1128849

OK so M$ writes software that's hole-ier than god...but at least people could do is patch their systems...i'd say serves em right for whatever they get...except that they're making the whole net a more dangerous place...

:mad:

Just another reason not to use M$... Ahhh but as you said its not all M$'s fault.... if the people wont update how can MS force them to?

Quote:

---

Origanily posted by zigar
OK so M$ writes software that's hole-ier than god...but at least people could do is patch their systems...i'd say serves em right for whatever they get...except that they're making the whole net a more dangerous place...

---

Good point. If you're going to use that piece of crap named Outlook at least patch it. It beats me, in this day and age, why people persist in using Outlook. There are so many alternatives and alot of them are freeware...

Any half wit would have figured out now that probably about 90% of email viruses are directed at vulnerabilities associated with M$ Outlook.

Should someone tell these people that there are actually other software packages out there that can handle all of your email. Lotus Notes etc..(yes, made by comapnies OTHER than M$!!)

Hell, even hotmail would be less vulnerable than Outlook!!

It is relatively simple, if you are not one for regularly patching your applications, probably M$ products are not for you!!

I suppose that is my M$ flaming for the day!!

Quote:

---

if the people wont update how can MS force them to?

---

Because, MS, in all it's infinite wisdom, has made people that fscking stupid. It's like AOL's "browser" and MS' overall interface...nothing but point and click and the concept of updating means going to a newer version for new neato-gee-whiz-golly features that one probably won't ever use (Office 2k anyone?).

MS has always been pushing a glitzy glamorous front-end so that end-lusers who don't know better are WoWed by it and don't realize just how crappy the OS is, in both terms of efficiency, security, and stability... What then? Then the OS dies every day and people get used to saying "Well, it's windows and just crashes..oh well" while rebooting and waiting so they can "sign on" and "surf the net a bit" while "downloading those cool pics" off their digicam that they got with their 2000 buck POS-computer-in-a-box so that they can "show all their friends!"...

...
...
...

Excuse me while I go explosively vomit now...

How can anyone say it's not MS' fault when they PUT the people in that position? Security has NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER been on the forefront of their "mission statement". They can talk all they want but time after time after time, they release programs and operating systems (now one a year) with immediately found bugs, holes, and other exploits...

When will they get with the program? Never. I've seen NOTHING shown as a solid step in the right direction for security on anything MS related. UPNP exploit? A pretty badass exploit. Hotmail cookie-stealing which allows a "malicious user" to log in and steal account information? Wow, not another one!

Moral of the story: MS wants a pretty frontend so all the housewives with no jobs can surf the net and their husbands who're "at work" can look at porn easily enough (popup ads anyone) on their new eXPerience...meanwhile people out in the world are driving their phat T1's through the holes XP and other MS products have...

I don't see a problem with user friendly front ends in general. But at some some point there's a trade off between user friendliness and giving the user more control (this usually means a more complex UI). What I do have a problem with is software that is so buggy that it needs patching so often that people end up getting sick of it and just ignoring the patches. I don't think MS should blame users for not constantly patching the buggy OS that they wrote. That sounds a little unreasonable to me.

As much money as MS makes, you'd think they could auto-update themselves transparently like Panda antivirus and countless other progs (Trillian just joined that rank). It's not hard to do, and MS has never cared for individuals personal privacy before so why would they give the argument "Well, we don't want to intrude" or some shite...

"Security through obscurity"...that's the method of choice, as well as throwing around the FUD when a competitor comes through with a better product (not hard to do).

As much money as MS makes, you'd think they could auto-update themselves transparently like Panda antivirus and countless other progs (Trillian just joined that rank). It's not hard to do, and MS has never cared for individuals personal privacy before so why would they give the argument "Well, we don't want to intrude" or some shite...

"Security through obscurity"...that's the method of choice, as well as throwing around the FUD when a competitor comes through with a better product (not hard to do).

Vorlin - what can I say? you're right again. Smirc also makes a valid point. :(

I guess those in IT in mgmt should start pressuring m$ for such updates. At least SUN and some other ux makers attempt to hear their customers out.

Vorlin - what can I say? you're right again. Smirc also makes a valid point. :(

I guess those in IT in mgmt should start pressuring m$ for such updates. At least SUN and some other ux makers attempt to hear their customers out.

I believe the real problem is that people do not want to have to waste their time and effort fixing a product that never should have had the bug in the first place. Why doesnt microsoft release a new product with the bug fixed? It would be too easy.

I wish I had just $10.00 for evetime time the computer guru at one of the companys we outsource to or contract with. Said :
'Hotfix? Whats that?" or "What patch?" or "Huh?" (Followed by this shallow dumb look).

Thing is, I don't blame it on them. MS has a poor track record of notifying people of bugs or fixes. It's usualy after someone has exploited the bug or hole and let the news media know. Then to find out MS new about it. That's what gets me upset. They already know about the problem. Then they rant and rave saying people should keep it to themselves and nobody would find out. How nieve do they think we are. Everytime they release a windows candidate, beta, upgrade, or release. Every hacker and script kiddie in the world is looking for a hole. Since MS dominates over 90% of the work station and home computer in the world. I would rather them come right out and say oops. Look what we found, here is the fix.

Give us IT Admins a break MS.....PLEASE...............
:mad:

those consultants (gurus -?) that your company uses suck. but, actually, there are one or two that we use that aren't the brightest lights either.

I wonder if ao wants to start a poll memberwide on this issue and send the results to m$.

What do you think?

Well people are not aware of them coz the media "TV" havent told them.. so with in few mins.. I, s0nIc, will e-mail and msg all TV news stations here in australia about computer security.. bold step? probably .. but hey.. if the media manage to scare the hell out of normal users because of some VB script written worm.. why cant they influence users to download patches and install firewalls.. after all most ppl believe what they see on TV especially the news.. :)

This is a step in the right direction s0nIc, I hope someone decides to listen. You probably would recieve more attention with a threat of a virus or trojan though :)

then they'll label me as a cracker... :P

Quote:

---

I don't see a problem with user friendly front ends in general. But at some some point there's a trade off between user friendliness and giving the user more control (this usually means a more complex UI).

---

I agree completely with you, smirc. A front end is not a bad thing (although some unix admins will differ greatly...long live the CLI!) however, the minute you dedicate more resources towards making the front end a glitzy interface that allows them to do God-knows-what and stop actually making the code on the backend smaller and more efficient with bug fixes, that's where your problems arise with security, crashing, stability problems, memory problems, etc...

Sacrifice for security and stability should never be made for a better looking frontend. Get more people or spend more time...it's that easy.

I agree that microsoft has alot of holes but I have been running Windows for years and never had one virus on my systems. That is because I have my virus scanner up to date almost daily and i am not dumb enough to open email that looks suspicious.

I think that the biggest security hole is the user.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zigar
OK so M$ writes software that's hole-ier than god...but at least people could do is patch their systems...i'd say serves em right for whatever they get...except that they're making the whole net a more dangerous place...
:mad:

---

Right, but it still is MS' fault. Saying it's not is like blaming the families who died by driving SUVs with Firestone tires for driving those SUVs. Most people don't actually KNOW that using MS Outlook/MSOE is a dangerous proposition. It's not ignorance, it's simply lack of knowledge, and they are fundamentally different things.

Microsoft is still to blame, the word on patching systems just hasn't got far enough.

go sOnIc go. <drum rolling>.......

chsh is right, people dont think, they buy their nice computer, get the software that was recommended at the time, and thats it. Little realising that updating is a constant proposition. Just the other day I was chatting to a online friend and asked when she had last updated her virus software 'Oh its been a while, I dont have the time' was the answer, she has Norton Antivurus - all you need do is connect to the net and clik the Liveupdate button, simple. Wonder how long it will be before she gets a virus....
In M$'s defense they have made it easy to get updates and patches: START > SETTINGS > WINDOWS UPDATE, and once your at the update site you can always download Windows Critical Update Notification 3.0, which tells you when an update is released - it takes too long to download though - less than a minute.
The general opinion here seems to be its the users fault, I have to agree.

:)