On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 12 of 35:
Next »
« Previous
Dogs and fleas
My daddy used to tell me, "when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas." It matters not whether it be the user or software developer, Microsoft's self serving agenda will ultimately cost either very dearly. This just goes to show that it is a foundational problem that haunts Windows. Even the most solid and trusted solution providers are being burned because Microsoft's products have become some of the most poorly written code on the market. We don't need more utilities in XP, we need the poorly written code to be fixed. Nearly all security issues in the news are not really security based. No amount of security measures can ever stop the problem. You simply cannot secure code that is flawed unless the code is fixed. SP2 for XP is including new utilities that are not needed and not the answer. Nearly all the current attacks don't even approach security weaknesses. They are exploiting the poorly written code in XP. We don't need utilities, we need a quality OS that does not endanger those that use it. When are the real issues going to be addressed so we can honestly fix what is wrong and then move on. The tech press is doing a horrible injustice to the public by not focusing on the real issues at hand.
Posted by: bjbrock   Posted on: 03/20/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

It figures  Squawkbox | 03/19/04
And want to come to a Linux box near you  FilledOut | 03/19/04
ActiveX was an exploit waiting to happen  Chad_z | 03/19/04
ActiveX exploits are why I'm using Firefox  jfrankcarr | 03/20/04
Don't assume you're safe ...  George Jay | 03/20/04
By you can assume your MUCH safer  David Mohring | 03/20/04
Well, now you're getting somewhere  jfrankcarr | 03/21/04
And people laughed...........  nite_w0lf | 03/19/04
Blame Norton  boxmonkey | 03/20/04
You have to use ActiveX in this case  jfrankcarr | 03/20/04
Active X for security?  michael-t | 03/20/04
Dogs and fleas  bjbrock | 03/20/04
Dogs and fleas  seosamh_z | 03/21/04
Re: Dogs & fleas  MammyNun | 03/23/04
But...  DragonBRockin | 03/20/04
Hey, where's No_Ax?  Chad_z | 03/20/04
Security Programs Becoming Major Infection Vector  Aphelion | 03/21/04
Re: Security Programs Becomming Major Infection Vector  GraysonPeddie | 03/22/04
virus authors  angrymuthu | 03/21/04
The .net Framework might be better...  GraysonPeddie | 03/21/04
The .net Framework might be better...  seosamh_z | 03/21/04
It's always the "next" version with MSFT  Chad_z | 03/21/04
It's always the "next" version with MSFT  seosamh_z | 03/22/04
.net is 10 years LATE  michael-t | 03/21/04
.net is 10 years LATE  seosamh_z | 03/22/04
MS and 'modern' technologies ....  michael-t | 03/22/04
Anybody notice...  Yen_z | 03/21/04
Substitute Java and ...  ShadeTree | 03/22/04
ActiveX is far more than scripting  jfrankcarr | 03/22/04
Mixing metaphors.  ShadeTree | 03/22/04
Sorry, but you are quite confused  jfrankcarr | 03/22/04
you mean jsp, lets be clear - not Sun Java  JWatson77 | 03/24/04
then again MS Java did have a few vulnerabilities  JWatson77 | 03/24/04
What Idiot Uses ActiveX for Security? Only Symantec...  brenthawkinsmd | 03/22/04
activex? lol  JWatson77 | 03/24/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement