Microsoft patches new Windows flaw

TalkBack 22 of 35:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

That author of that 'article' was so blantantly clueless...

...I simple HAD to respond. Here iit is. Flame on.


Hidden Connections Microsoft Windows XP connects with other computers, or expects to be allowed through the user's network protection firewall, in more than 16 ways. Network security is something the computer user and the operating system supplier need to do together, but Microsoft seems to show little sensitivity to the user's security needs.



The issue is not that the connections are always bad for the user. The issue is that Microsoft has moved from making operating systems that are independent to making operating systems that try to connect to Microsoft's own computers, and are somewhat dependent on new ways of having access through the software firewall. Windows XP is the first Microsoft operating system to challenge whether the user can have control over his or her own compu..




Sounds like good old fashioned paranoia to me. If you are that concerned, run a third party firewall or don't run Windows. Most users could give a rats behind if their Windows box connects back to Microsoft or anywhere at all. They want something that just works, and that's what Microsoft *attempts* to deliver.



Your list of services that allow connections is rather amusing to me. They can all be controlled and/or disabled. Furthermore reporting back to home makes perfect business sense.



Tivo's (which run Linux by the way) report back everything you watch on TV to the company.



My ISP, sends an install disk that installs software that reports statisitcs on your connection back home. I use a BSD box as a router/firewall for my dsl modem, so this software doesn't apply to me, but alas, even the modem itself has limited reporting features built into it too.



Home routers are pre-programmed to sychronize their time with internet time servers.



Symantec has been making software that reports places for years now.



The fact is you are going to be hard pressed to find a business that sells internet enabled products (software or hardware) that don't try and connect back home, or somewhere else.




For example, on December 9, 2002, there were 19 security vulnerabilities [pivx.com] in Microsoft's internet browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer. Some of these defects allow a malicious web site designer to "execute arbitrary commands, read local files, and do anything the user can ... do to his machine". These defects allowed an attacker to take control even if the user had a perfect software firewall and a perfect hardware firewall. The attack could use the HTTP protocol which all firewalls allow. This extreme exposure existed for years.




The wording of that statement leads me to beleive that either have no understanding of how firewalls/networking work, or you intentionally wrote it in a way to sound like all the user has to do is turn on their computer to be exploited by these IE vulnerabilites.



I've been running a Windows NT/2000 domain with 2k and XP clients for over 5 years now, and we've not had problems with security. Yes patching can be a pain with Windows but Microsoft provides PLENTY of tools to keep systems patched.





There is a solution to problems with network security of Microsoft software that involves using two computers for each user. Use an old computer to connect to the Internet; it does not matter if it is slow. Run the Linux operating system and the Mozilla browser and email client on the old computer.



Use a new computer for all other tasks. Use a KVM switch to connect one Keyboard, Video monitor, and Mouse to both computers. Run both computers simultaneously. Remove the TCP/IP protocol software from the new computer running the new Microsoft operating system, so that it cannot possibly connect to the Internet. For file sharing, network the computers together using a protocol like NETBEUI or IPX, or other means. IOGear makes KVM switches that have no video degradation at high resolution.




The solution you point further leads me to beleive that you have no clue about computer security. This rediculouly expensive non-solution would only create two more boxes that would need securing. NETBUI is an absolutely horrid (Microsoft) protocol that should have never been released to the world and IPX for multiplayer games under DOS. All I can say is make sure you put a firewall in front of those Linux boxs too - and good luck effectively communicating between your IPX/NETBUI connected computers.





Technical Support is sometimes not available from Microsoft. When there is an extremely technical problem with a Microsoft product, it is often difficult to get help. A common problem with technical support staff in general, not just with Microsoft technical support, is that they tend to work for themselves, not for the customer. Technical support people have greater job security if they give less help. If they are very efficient in reducing problems, it is likely that the company will reduce its staff. Also, there is an enormous conflict of interest: Companies pay their technical support staff less than $20 per hour, and they usually charge an average of $120 per hour or more to provide help. Having software defects is extremely profitable.





Microsoft charges $245 *flat fee* per incedent for their products. That means you pay $245 and they will work *as long as it takes* to fix whatever issue you have - even if it takes months. I don't knwo where you got your $120.00 per hour numbers, but they have nothing do with Microsoft's support policies.




A friend of the author was the chief computer support person for a company with an annual gross income of $300 million. The company had purchased the most expensive technical support available from Microsoft, but Microsoft was unable to fix a problem in their SQL Server product for many months. SQL Server would become unusable and only re-booting the server would cure the problem.




Let me guess - $245? Well I think there are more expensive options, but the problem was probably fixable via simply restaring the service and/or configuring the server properly. I've seem a similar problem with one of my SQL server - afetr awhile the servedr would become useless, and restarting the service was the only thing that would fix it. It turned out to be a simple configuration change.





Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME (all closely related to each other) were designed in such a way that it was inevitable that they would crash. Windows 95 was originally designed with a 64 kilobyte limitation on some resources that would have caused it to crash sooner than it does. Protests by knowledgeable people at that time caused Microsoft to increase that artificial limit to 128 kilobytes. At that time, memory was very expensive. When memory became cheaper, and it became common that people would run more than one big program at the same time, crashing became extremely common.



Microsoft did nothing to solve the problem. It might not have been possible to fix the problem in an elegant way, but it was, and is, possible to fix the problem. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that the crashing is deliberate Microsoft policy. The crashing is often given as the biggest problem users have with Windows 98 SE (Second Edition); if it were fixed with a simple patch, many people would not buy Windows XP.




Win9x family of OS's were lost causes and Microsoft knew it. Dumping development on them and moving on was the smart thing to do.



Microsoft probbaly could have fixed this 'bug' you refer to, but it wouldn't have done a damn thing to stop them from crashing all the time.



I'll give you the manin reasons why



* The Win9x family were 16bit operating systems (DOS) that pretended to be 32bit



* Applications that ran in Win9x had direct access to the computers harware. This is a BIG no-no in a 32bit eviroment.



The fact is there is nothing Microsoft could ahve done to make the Win9x family stable. As I said above, they were lost causes.







Windows XP, and all modern operating systems, have a feature called virtual memory that is supposed to put programs on the hard disk that are loaded but not being currently used. However, this feature does not work well in Windows XP. When the memory limit is reached, a Windows XP system takes a long time to respond and does a lot of disk access. Sometimes the disk access, called "thrashing" because it indicates something is not working properly, continues for 45 seconds or 90 seconds or more after clicking on a loaded program to bring it to the top of the desktop. The result is that Windows XP becomes less usable and eventually must be rebooted.



In contrast, the virtual memory feature in the Linux operating system works extremely well. There is disk access, of course, but only what would be expected.




Linux/BSD is no more responsive than Windows when running fully graphical enviroments. Install Linux/BSD, and KDE3.2 and the performance will be roughly the same as Windows XP. I play the Game Americas Army under FreeBSD. It performs well, but not any better than under Windows. When I ahve multiople applications open on my K Deskltop, sluggishness and hard disk thrashing occurs just the same as When I'm in XP.



This is besides the point anyway, as it's really difficult to compare the performance of a Unix X envioromentx to the Windows XP enviroment.



I played around with a Dual Mac G5 with 1GB RAM the other day in the graphics department at work. I found it no more 'responsive' than my home computer which is an AthlonXP 2800 with 512MB ram. Go figure.




Windows XP may provide no local security. Managers are being allowed to believe that Windows XP is secure under conditions in which it isn't secure. Since it is necessary to supply a password, the impression is created that there is no other way of gaining access. That is not true. Neither Windows XP nor any other operating system provides security against an attacker who has physical access to a computer and can start the computer with another operating system.




What "managers" are these, and who exactly is tellng them these things? Was there a point to that statement. It's common knowledge that *any* operating system can be had fi there is physical access to the machine.




You cannot know now to what contract provisions you will be held in the future. Microsoft has changed the terms of the contract to which users are bound by including the new contract with some security and other defect fixes.




Go anywhere, and sing up for anything (a credit card, web hosting, internet service), and read the Terms of Service agreement. At the bottom it will say that they ahve the right to change the agreement at any time. Get used to it. This type of provision has been a part of license agreements for ages.




Microsoft Keeps Control: Microsoft has abandoned its earlier successful business model. Previously, Microsoft did not write its software in such a way as to keep control after the software was sold. This was an extremely successful way to do business. Microsoft made hundreds of billions of dollars and became the largest software company in the world. In recent years, however, Microsoft has invented numerous ways of keeping control:



You must have permission from Microsoft to install software you own. In Windows XP there is a system called Windows Product Activation (WPA) that requires users to get permission from Microsoft when first installing its software and every time the user's hardware changes significant




"Product activation" is not something Microsoft came up with. Other software companies were doing it long before they were.




Microsoft pretends that software dies. Microsoft has recently been saying that its products have a limited life. For example, see Microsoft's October 15, 2002 revisions of the June 3, 2002 articles, Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for Businesses and Windows Desktop Product Life-Cycle Guidelines for Consumers [microsoft.com]. Microsoft calls these guidelines, but, for customers, they are rules.




HP, IBM, Sun - all companies do this. Microsoft tried to do this with NT4, but extended the support life due to customer demand. Imagine that - Microsoft caving into the demands of their customers. HP also tried to do this with one of their mainframe systems several time and was forced to continue support due to customer pressure.




Windows 98 dies on January 16, 2005.




Can I get an AMEN!




c) In some ways, even Windows 95 is better. In some ways, Windows XP has less functionality than even Windows 95. For example, the command line interface (CLI, also called DOS) in Windows 95 is more responsive to shortcut keys. Sometimes when the user presses a shortcut key in Windows XP, the system does not respond for 20 seconds. Windows 95 responds immediately, Windows 98 is sometimes slow, but the shortcut facility in Windows XP is unusably slow




Serously you need to get off of the Win9x nipple. I supposed you are making these comparisons of Win95 and WinXP on the same hardware?





Microsoft restricts your software options. When you use Microsoft Windows XP, you are prevented by the license from using valuable software that competes with Microsoft's. See Brian Livingston's column [infoworld.com] in which this is discussed, beginning in the fifth paragraph. The license says:



"Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."



Although this restriction is probably illegal even in the United States where it was written, a large company might not feel that it could risk legal involvement with a rich company like Microsoft, even if it knew it would win.




Illegal? I would suggest reading up on copyright law and contract law. Microsoft can put whatever draconian restrictions on their software they want, because it's *their* software. People are accepting the agreements when they buy Windows. If they disagree with the licensing terms, then perhaps they shouldn't buy Windows?





Backup Problems: Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files. Windows XP cannot make functional backups of the Windows operating system or of the installations and settings of the applications.



Microsoft Windows 98 can copy all of its own files. Using a program called xcopy32.exe, which is supplied, Windows 98 can copy all of its files to another, blank hard drive to make a fully working copy of all of the operating system and applications.



Microsoft Windows XP is crippled. It is designed to be unable to copy some of its own operating system files. This article from Microsoft discusses the policy of not supporting the making of functional complete backups under Windows XP: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation [microsoft.com]. See the section, Microsoft Policy Statement, that says,



"Microsoft does not provide support for computers on which Windows XP is installed by duplication of fully installed copies of Windows XP. Microsoft does support computers on which Windows XP is installed by use of disk-duplication software and the System Preparation tool (Sysprep.exe)."




The statement - "Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files" it completely false. Do a full system backup of using the built in backup tool, and you will have a full backup of your system. I've had a few servers go down due to catastrophic disk failures, and have allways been able to completely restore them using backups created by the built in backup utility.



On disk cloning - we deploy every computer in my organization using cloning software and sysprep? Whats so wrong with that? It works perfectly and Microsoft fully supports it.



The issue with not being able to move a hard drive from one computer to another with a different motherboard without a blue screen of death is annoying, but the problem can be worked around.





Reduced Functionality in Windows XP In some areas, Microsoft Windows XP has reduced functionality. For example, the command line interface does less in some ways than the CLI in Windows 98 SE (Second Edition). The CLI is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt [cmd.exe and command.com], and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not fully documented.)




DOS is old news. You need to get over it. The vast majority of the world had moved on from the DOS world and I suggest you do to. If you still want to use the DOS shell it is fairly powerfull for what it is in the 32bit versuions of Windows. The batch language is still supported under a WinNT/2k/XP DOS box. I even use it from time to time to automate simple tasks.





Where is Microsoft taking us? There are many other indications of where Microsoft is taking its customers. People who buy Microsoft mice don't get the full functionality until they let the mouse software (!) connect to Microsoft's computers.




Microsoft mice are rebranded logitech mice. Perhaps you should set up a logitech hate page too? I'm curious as to what 'functionality' I am missing from my Logitech mouse when I boot up into *BSD as opposed to Windows. The wheel works, all of the buttons work...what's missing? It's just a damn mouse!




Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author so that he can correct them.




Gladly. Now please get to work in correcting these errors and shortcomings. It should take awhile.

Posted by: toadlife   Posted on: 05/12/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Server Consolidation and Containment With Virtual Infrastructure VMware To meet the constant demand to deploy, maintain and grow a broad array of ... Download Now