If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/03/2005 8:01:24 AM PDT by Swordmaker
New Intel CEO Paul Otellini has flashed a level of marketing savvy unseen with his predecessor by making the unusual suggestion that consumers buy Apple's Mac computers if they wish to avoid immediate security risks. Confused? You're not alone. Otellini had attendees of a Wall Street Journal technology conference in Carlsbad, California scratching their silicon this week, as they puzzled through his pro-Mac statements. The paper recounts the episode as follows;
Pressed about security by (a reporter), Mr Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
Apple advocates will, of course, declare that Otellini is speaking the gospel. Others will claim Otellini's statement is really a public flirtation for Apple Chief Steve "Bono" Jobs, who has been rumored to want a line of Intel-based PCs.
We suspect the truth is a little more prosaic.
Isn't Otellini, who this month took over the CEO post from Craig Barrett, simply laying the groundwork for a long, merciless marketing campaign? Your current computers are insecure. They're frightening. They're disasters. They are a risk to your business and your home. It's upgrade or die time, friends.
Or so the less subtle message goes.
Intel today, in fact, released a new desktop platform, which includes improved security tools for business customers such as being able to audit PCs and contain viruses. What a coincidence.
Intel has been trying to push this "platform" idea on customers now that it's unable to rely solely on improved GHz as the main sales point of new product. Changes in chip manufacturing mean that processors will arrive at close to the same speeds as their predecessors but with more tools for churning through different types of software better and for even more advanced functions such as running multiple operating systems on the same chip. A big chunk of the platform idea is better security for Intel. And it will roll out lots of jazzy things for keeping code under control. In a larger context, Otellini is clearly waving the flag now for this future product, saying the PCs you have really must be replaced if you want to operate a secure business. It's nice that Microsoft and Intel can benefit from the insecure world they've nurtured for so long.
Until Intel's goodies arrive, Apple may sell a couple more Macs because of Otellini's advertisement. But even Apple's best quarter is hardly noticed at Intel. Otellini clearly knows what he's doing. ®
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
I'd also say that Mr. Otellini needs to pay a little closer attention to his daughter's surfing habits. An hour a weekend removing spyware?
"I'd also say that Mr. Otellini needs to pay a little closer attention to his daughter's surfing habits. An hour a weekend removing spyware?"
Of course, but that would lead back to a simple solution that did not include buying a Mac.
Word I get is that Intel has future opportunity with Apple in terms of CPUs....this statement is no suprise :-)
Want security for non-mac pc's? Try "ZONE ALARM Security Suite" for your firewall/antivirus and "ALURIA Security Center" for your spyware.
http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/home.jsp
http://www.aluriasoftware.com/
Software firewalls are a joke. Get a real hardware firewall.
Oteillini is the head of Intel ... and yet he can't even manage to install a Limited User Account (LUA) for his daughter to prevent spyware infection. What a maroon. Takes 1 minute. Problem solved.
A lot of tech CEOs have are completely incompetent in tech themselves.
That sounds like another way to get viruses into a PC independent of user error and the OS. (?)
Bill Gates has gotten hit with spyware too - and he is the King of Low Quality Crap.
He's no authority, so the fact that he's the Intel boss should mean absolutely nothing. But what he has to say is valid in the sense that it's coming from the average non-expert user. It just takes more work to keep Windows secure and running, work that is often beyond their knowledge.
"Software firewalls are a joke. Get a real hardware firewall."
That is a myth. Unless you are running a server or multiple computers off the same HS line, hardware is unnecessary. Furthermore, hardware firewalls have their own inherent weaknesses that software can cover. The best scenario is to have both...but if you only have one home pc, firewall software like zone alarm security suite w/antivirus offers more comprehensive security for less.
Furthermore...I've had my ports scanned for leaks by "sheild up" and the only port not stealthed but closed is port 113. Here is what sheilds up was said about it.
One of the things that first caught my eye about the Zone Alarm personal firewall (aside from the fact that is was free) was that it has always been very clever about handling IDENT's port 113. I recall being impressed and thinking "these guys really know what they're doing". When Zone Alarm receives an inbound connection request for port 113, it checks to see whether the computer has recently initiated any outbound connections to the remote server sending the IDENT request. If not, the IDENT packet is simply dropped, stealthing the protected machine. But if the user does have an existing "relationship" with the sender of the IDENT request, the IDENT packet is allowed to pass through Zone Alarm's firewall protection so that the user's system can respond normally (which usually means immediately returning a closed status for the port). This means that Zone Alarm is a "stateful packet inspecting personal firewall", not just a simpler static packet filter.
At the time of this writing, Zone Alarm is still the only personal firewall to offer this sort of adaptive dynamic IDENT port handling. I hope that other firewalls will follow suit once the benefits are better understood.
The good news is that since IDENT is almost never used, simple "hard stealthing" of port 113, which is available from all personal firewalls, is probably sufficient. It will allow your system to remain completely invisible on the Internet and will almost certainly never cause any connection trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.