 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's just a lame excuse. |
It's a "lame excuse"? The more complicated a program is, the more widespread the types of environments its in, the more diverse the users using it, and the frequency and verocity of attacks against it all determine how many security vulnerabilities it has. Considering that MS and its products gets the worst case out of all of the above, I hardly consider it a lame excuse.
Anyone who expects perfect software is either a troll or incredibly naive, or both in your case.
quote:
Whatever happened to "Trustworthy Computing?" |
The products affected by these warnings were released prior to "Trustworthy Computing". I don't know what you think it does, but it doesn't magically make all programs secure, especially without a patch... 
quote:
That's backwards. MS has always been hostile to the hacker community, even during its early days. |
Yes, they should've thrown money at them...
quote:
[You write bad HTML code, BTW] |
No, I do not. You don't seem to comprehend there is a difference between adding the < ul > before the list and if you don't -- the UL puts annoying extra padding around the list which I do not want, so I do not put it in. If you'd also care to read the W3C spec, you'd see what I wrote is perfectly valid HTML, and once again you're just speaking out of your ass.
So suck it down.
How am I misrepresenting things? Win32 is deprecated and obsolete, hell it's nearly 11 years old now. KDE and Gnome also don't do message authentication for Windows, how nice of you to misrepresent things.
As far as I know, the only GUIs that authenticate messages are Aqua/Quartz and .NET.
That last statement of yours in particular confuses me. I mention how few security vulnerabilities there have been, you accuse me of "misrepresenting" it and show a link to a "vulnerability" that has been used in exactly 0 known cases, in a part of Windows that has been deprecrated and made obsolete. To make matters worse, Linux has the same "flaw".
I'm the one misrepresenting things, UR?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
No, no and no. As Asher pointed out, other OS'es have just as many flaws. They just don't have as many users, so it doesn't get as much publicity. |
That's definitely not true. Look at OpenBSD, for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
As for expecting a program with 40 million lines of code to be flawless. It just can't be done. No way. |
Again, this is not true. It would be true if all 40 million lines are in one big single module, but they are not. In fact, many if not most of the flaws lie with sloppy software engineering, most of the rest with sloppy coding.
quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
Especially a program like Windows. There are a gazillion ways to use Windows. In a gazillion different environments, with a gazillion different configurations. No amount, repeat, no amount of testing can foresee all cases. |
Testing is - or rather, should be - a minor part. The main thing is careful software design.
quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
No amount of carefull thinking can foresee all the possible ways hackers will attempt to break the security of Windows. |
Sure can. The designers can certainly limit what parts of the system are to be exposed to the outside.
quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
That people don't understand this is simply beyond me. |
That people got brainwashed into thinking software has to be inherently buggy is simply beyond me.
quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
Common sense is not always enough for inexperienced computer users, when determinating is an operation is safe to perform on his/her PC. |
There is a difference between operator errors and flawed designs. Cars, for example, do not have design flaws that would be an equivalent of BSoD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soul Survivor
|
|
UChicago
May 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
I'm sure Apple has just as many security flaws, its only because Microsoft is so popular anyone who wants to do some damage will look for these flaws. Why would ANYONE look for flaws to exploit in Apple's software when they can affect 10 times as many people by looking for flaws in Microsoft.
So blaming so vehemently for everything isn't necessarily warented, after all they have put out patches and offer regular updates whenever they discover any of these flaws. Not to say that Microsoft is strapped for cash, and could not afford to improve its software. But if it wishes to maintain its monopoly it must find a happy medium between getting over priced products on the market faster and making them nearly impossible to exploit.
What I'm saying is, the most popular operating system will always be the one with the most 'flaws'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's definitely not true. Look at OpenBSD, for example. |
This is just facetious -- OpenBSD is an exception. I do like how you use it as an example, since OpenBSD is based in Calgary and chock full of University of Calgary grads (though you imply it's a bad school)...
OpenBSD is overly anal about security. If you've ever had to use it, you'd realize just how much of a pain in the ass it is. Of course, this isn't a problem with the market it's aimed for, but to compare it with Windows or even Linux is downright dishonest.
quote:
Again, this is not true. It would be true if all 40 million lines are in one big single module, but they are not. In fact, many if not most of the flaws lie with sloppy software engineering, most of the rest with sloppy coding. |
Again, this is rhetoric -- you've not seen the code, yet you say it's sloppy coding. You've not seen the design, yet you say it's software engineering. Such blatantly obvious bullshit from somebody known for rabid anti-MS opinions doesn't take you very far, boy.
quote:
That people got brainwashed into thinking software has to be inherently buggy is simply beyond me. |
Software is not inherently "buggy", but it inherently will contain bugs. How you think software can be bug-free shows me just how little programming you have done, or ever will do. What are you, a networking peon?
quote:
Cars, for example, do not have design flaws that would be an equivalent of BSoD. |
I suppose you're not familiar with BMW's fiascos in their new SUVs and sedans, which require updates to prevent the cars from ceasing to work (equivalent to a BSOD). Not to mention the Isuzu rollovers, the Ford Explorer/Firestone explosions, the Focus' engine fires, Toyota's aluminum engines clogging up due to the materials used, etc.
A car is also a LOT more restricted in use than something like an operating system is. It performs one simple task, one that they've finetuned and worked with for decades upon decades.
Another fundamentally dishonest example from UR, surprise surprise.
You know what your problem is, UR? You assume everyone is a dumbass that'll eat up every word you say. When every word you say is easily debunked mostly by common sense, and if not that, elementary computer science...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
And I'll also idly point out that time and time again on Apolyton, you've shown remarkable ignorance about Windows. The latest was in the DirectX thread in the Other Games forum, where you basically said DirectX sucked because it forced you to write code for every individual piece of hardware.
That is just such a basic fundamentally wrong statement, that it single handedly tears down any words you'll ever say about Windows, ESPECIALLY about its design and implementation.
It also explains why you ignored the thread, despite constant reminders in active threads you posted in and even posted in threads surrounding it. 
UR: You don't have a clue how Windows works, you constantly provide bullshit, dishonest examples and endless streams of rhetoric, and you're also incredibly naive. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're a high school student at best.
Which is why I want to know what your alma mater was, though for whatever reason you refuse to tell me that, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
OpenBSD is overly anal about security. If you've ever had to use it, you'd realize just how much of a pain in the ass it is. Of course, this isn't a problem with the market it's aimed for, but to compare it with Windows or even Linux is downright dishonest.
|
Yeah, OpenBSD is pretty much in a field of its own, its not right to use it as a basis for comparison. Thats nothing against OpenBSD, in terms of achieving its design goals, its gotta be on a par with Windows.
But fundamentally people.. these are operating systems!!! We're not talking about deep philosophy, important politics or life and death! That is, after all, what the OT is all about! Me thinks drugs are in order here!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
you know, i have agree, sometimes software designers make really odd decisions. like, we can't figure out how to assign all authenticated users in our domain power user rights on every workstation using a group policy set from the server.
but really, all this flak microsoft's getting... yes, poor decisions were made. it's the case with virtually all software. but really? half of microsoft's problem is stupid users.
these are the same people who will complain about how windows crashes, and then ask if we've heard about this linux thing, and whether we're going to upgrade to linux--without having the foggiest clue what gnu/linux really is. and since they're so frustrated with windows, they hate microsoft for "making a bad program".
'course, when it turns out the system's unstable because they have three viruses, adware up the wazoo, and 5 installations of acrobat reader (five entries in the registry, anyway), it's not their fault. it's microsoft's.
microsoft windows is only a target because it is the most widely used os. you can bet if macs had won the day, we'd be hearing about the latest security flaw in shiny new panther.
and on a final note, there's a tradeoff between utility and security. you can have the most secure server in the world, invulnerable to being cracked. of course, then it wouldn't be on a network, period, and locked away behind six-feet-wide steel doors.
it's the same way with software. your average idio--um, user, doesn't know the difference between: a backup user, a remote connection user, an administrator, a user, and a power user. for a long time, microsoft's policy has been to open up everything, allowing users to do anything they wanted, and if they wanted to close the doors, they'd have to do it themselves.
they're starting to change that now, with trustworthy computing, but that's why you have all these issues. win32 api was initially designed before the internet was big.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2003 21:15
I'm sure you understand), 
|