Wong was *right*

[Kurgan]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/02 ... index.html

What more is there to say about this?

[Faram]

No suprise really.

After SP3 for w2k this is a list of os critical patches that I need to install on any w2k server:

IE and SQL not included...

Fucking nightmare to keep tabs on when you have 30+ servers

Q320206_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q321599_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
q323172_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q323255.exe
Q324096_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q324380_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q326830_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q326886_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q327696_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q328145_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q328310_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q329115_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q329170_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q329834_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe
Q810833_W2K_SP4_X86_EN.exe

[Vympel]

Looking at this title- let me be the first to say

OH DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Lord Wong is always right.

[Sir Sirius]

Naturligtvis. When was the last time Microsoft got something working right?

[Mr Bean]

Whats next Great Lord Wong?

Will you predicit what happens when one stands out in a rain storm with a Metal Hat?

Folks everyone here complains about MS security, Thats about as easy to predicit as the above example

[Wicked Pilot]

Will you predicit what happens when one stands out in a rain storm with a Metal Hat?

Watch Darkstar attempt just that, just to try and prove one of you Warsies wrong.

[Stormbringer]

Will you predicit what happens when one stands out in a rain storm with a Metal Hat?

Watch Darkstar attempt just that, just to try and prove one of you Warsies wrong.

No, let's have a prediction about peeing on the third rail instead. Something that'll get him for sure.

[aerius]

Will you predicit what happens when one stands out in a rain storm with a Metal Hat?

Watch Darkstar attempt just that, just to try and prove one of you Warsies wrong.

No, let's have a prediction about peeing on the third rail instead. Something that'll get him for sure.

Just so we leave nothing to chance, have him stand barefeet on the metal tracks while peeing on the 3rd rail while it's raining. His chances of surviving that are about the same as my chances of winning the lottery.

[Ghost Rider]

Then start buying...because I'm doubting he's going to die.

The only assured way of doing him in that situation is also having the train come barreling at him.

[Darth Wong]

Then start buying...because I'm doubting he's going to die.

The only assured way of doing him in that situation is also having the train come barreling at him.

Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability

[EmperorMing]

Then start buying...because I'm doubting he's going to die.

The only assured way of doing him in that situation is also having the train come barreling at him.

Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability

That is such a classy line to apply to him...

[Admiral Valdemar]

Then start buying...because I'm doubting he's going to die.

The only assured way of doing him in that situation is also having the train come barreling at him.

Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability

That is such a classy line to apply to him...

Well the usualy ASVS fare would be: "HARHAR, troll go squish now!"

[Peregrin Toker]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/02 ... index.html

What more is there to say about this?

It's Microsoft. What do you expect?? Microsoft, after all, seem to design products that are intentionally screwed-up, only so that they can get their customers to buy their next version hoping that it will be fixed. (Bizarre marketing tactic, isn't it??)

[Lord_Xerxes]

Then start buying...because I'm doubting he's going to die.

The only assured way of doing him in that situation is also having the train come barreling at him.

Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability

So good. Reprising my Matrix quoting mockery of RSA, Mike?

[Darth Yoshi]

(Bizarre marketing tactic, isn't it??)

Maybe, but the fact that Microsoft is still in business is proof that it works. For example, the X-box. *shudders*

[His Divine Shadow]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/02 ... index.html

What more is there to say about this?

It's Microsoft. What do you expect?? Microsoft, after all, seem to design products that are intentionally screwed-up, only so that they can get their customers to buy their next version hoping that it will be fixed. (Bizarre marketing tactic, isn't it??)

Hardly, the primary reasons for MS software being so exposed are:
1) Too easy, any schmoe can set up a web server or so whilst failing to properly secure the job, because it's not as easy as they might think.

2) Lots and lots of people dislike MS and are actively searching for exploits and such, MS is more unsafe by virtue of being a prime target, while the opposite is true to *nixes

[Shinova]

I think I'll takethis time to predict that Microsoft, in its patented arrogance, will seal its own fate with its next Windows release, finally making a product so privacy-intrusive that the courts finally decide to break up the company.

The Windows dynasty can finally be put to rest.

[Ghost Rider]

Pfft yeah, the time they start realizing what Microsoft is.

Honestly I just don't seeing it any time soon given the sheer hold they have.

[Durandal]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/02 ... index.html

What more is there to say about this?

It's Microsoft. What do you expect?? Microsoft, after all, seem to design products that are intentionally screwed-up, only so that they can get their customers to buy their next version hoping that it will be fixed. (Bizarre marketing tactic, isn't it??)

Hardly, the primary reasons for MS software being so exposed are:
1) Too easy, any schmoe can set up a web server or so whilst failing to properly secure the job, because it's not as easy as they might think.

I could set up a web server by clicking a button on my OS X box. That doesn't change the fact that it's more secure than IIS because it uses Apache. If software has security flaws and a company does everything it can to keep their customers uninformed about those flaws until a patch is available, it's their fault when the shit hits the fan.

2) Lots and lots of people dislike MS and are actively searching for exploits and such, MS is more unsafe by virtue of being a prime target, while the opposite is true to *nixes

Don't be ridiculous. Just because there aren't massive amounts of viruses for *nix doesn't mean that exploits don't exist. It also doesn't change the fact that Outlook Express has gone through numerous versions while still maintaining methods that have been demonstrated many times to be insecure.

The difference is that when an exploit is discovered in the *nix community, everyone knows about it and can take proper measures to secure against it until a patch is released, and installing those patches doesn't require a restart of the box, just the server process. Microsoft wants to hide the problem until they get around to fixing it in their own good time, and when that times comes, it's a patch that will require a reboot.

[His Divine Shadow]

I could set up a web server by clicking a button on my OS X box. That doesn't change the fact that it's more secure than IIS because it uses Apache.

I fail to see how it is more secure simply because it's using apache?
Maybe you mean that Apache does not have any ASP/PHP functions running?

If software has security flaws and a company does everything it can to keep their customers uninformed about those flaws until a patch is available, it's their fault when the shit hits the fan

I don't see how this is applicable now, a patch was aviable for the SQL worm before it struck.

Don't be ridiculous. Just because there aren't massive amounts of viruses for *nix doesn't mean that exploits don't exist

It's not ridiculous, it's quite true, *nix servers garner less attention than their windows cousins.
This in turn leads them to being safer.
Just because bugs and exploits exists for *nix does not invalidate this.

It also doesn't change the fact that Outlook Express has gone through numerous versions while still maintaining methods that have been demonstrated many times to be insecure

Thats because they insist on balancing on the line as to try and cater for both the end users at the same time as they want to give clueless newbies new features.

The difference is that when an exploit is discovered in the *nix community, everyone knows about it and can take proper measures to secure against it until a patch is released

Thats not a difference you know, *nix developers doesn't have some magical psychic link to it's customers. If a fault is found it depends entierly on the person who found it to report it, and not everyone checks the big lists, otherwise it can go undetected.

and installing those patches doesn't require a restart of the box, just the server process. Microsoft wants to hide the problem until they get around to fixing it in their own good time, and when that times comes, it's a patch that will require a reboot

It might be a patch, please refrain from assumptions and generalizations.