Skip to comments.
Microsoft Outlines Security Plan
Washington Post ^
| 10/10/03
| Mike Musgrove
Posted on 10/10/2003 4:48:49 PM PDT by Salo
Edited on 10/10/2003 5:22:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
Microsoft chief executive Steven A. Ballmer said yesterday that there is "much, much, much" left to do to protect computer users from viruses, worms and other malicious software.
He outlined new steps the company plans to take to address this problem -- while acknowledging that these changes can't solve it.
"There is no silver bullet," Ballmer said in a speech at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans. "Even if all the vulnerabilities were fixed tomorrow morning in all of the products, there's still 600 million computers . . . that wouldn't have all of these vulnerabilities patched."
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Technical
KEYWORDS: computersecurity; microsoft; security
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Glad to see they mean it this time. Yawn.
1
posted on
10/10/2003 4:48:50 PM PDT
by
Salo
To: Admin Moderator
Not sure how to handle this: it's Washington Post, but it is c+ped from yahoo.
2
posted on
10/10/2003 4:49:43 PM PDT
by
Salo
To: All
GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY THANK A VET! MAKE A DONATION TODAY
|
|
Keep Our Republic Free
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR Thanks |
3
posted on
10/10/2003 4:50:23 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: rdb3; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Bush2000; Dominic Harr
Interested parties, take your weapons and commence to fightin'! :-)
4
posted on
10/10/2003 4:51:02 PM PDT
by
Salo
To: Salo
Here is an idea...ship it with display of file extensions turned on. It's the first thing I do with any machine I use. This way you can tell immediately between a file called 'virus.txt' and 'virus.txt.exe'.
Why in the world do they allow multiple extensions in a file is beyond them. Maybe there is a reason..I don't know what it is.
I have been on the internet for 10 years, and using common sense I have never enabled a virus, athough I have received hundreds of them, but I have rescued many friends with infected systems.
It appears few people have the self control to avoid opening attachments..
5
posted on
10/10/2003 4:54:27 PM PDT
by
Voltage
To: Salo
Ken Dunham, director of malicious code at iDefense IncI want this guy's title!
6
posted on
10/10/2003 4:55:16 PM PDT
by
irv
To: Salo
"I think people are taking computer security a bit more seriously; some of our clients are still cleaning up from the Blaster virus," said Josh Pennell, chief executive and founder of computer security firm IOActive Inc. "Computer security is almost like car insurance. Nobody wants it until their car gets totaled."
Are there firms out there specializing in computer security insurance? That'll be a growing field.
I think the best way to stop the spread of viruses is to sue those that try and give them to you. So what if you're innocent, you should of patched your machines.
7
posted on
10/10/2003 5:01:31 PM PDT
by
lelio
To: John Robinson; B Knotts; stainlessbanner; TechJunkYard; ShadowAce; Knitebane; AppyPappy; jae471; ...
The Penguin Ping.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?
8
posted on
10/10/2003 5:05:09 PM PDT
by
rdb3
(Whoever said progress is a slow process wasn't talking about me. I'm an N-U-P-E.)
To: lelio
Are there firms out there specializing in computer security insurance?Some business insurance companies have special riders for computer damage, hacker damage, things like that. I seem to recall reading a while back that one company was offering reduced rates for customers using Linux instead of Windows.
9
posted on
10/10/2003 5:09:39 PM PDT
by
irv
To: Salo; All
I already brought up one of my favorite weapons. (Song Parodies-Updates on the "backboards") here:
Coral Snake Tech Song: The Battle Cry of Freedom (The Linux Cry of Freedom)
Some new ones about Bill Gates's source code piracy and Darl McBrides pump 'n' dump may be going up tonight. ;c)
(As you will see in this one there are still a few mistakes despite the fact that "coral snale" thingy is gone this time but I am still somewhat of a rookey at posting here.)
Guns, Linux and Liberty. ;c)
10
posted on
10/10/2003 5:37:18 PM PDT
by
Coral Snake
(Why do we allow a purjuring, software pirate traitor to continue to run our computers?)
To: Salo
I don't think we'll be seeing too much of Golden Eagle however. I think he feels that Micro$oft betrayed him when they did the same thing that he constantly accused the Linux coders of doing (giving their source codes to Communist China) and no longer feels like continuing to post for them anymore.
11
posted on
10/10/2003 5:42:55 PM PDT
by
Coral Snake
(Why do we allow a purjuring, software pirate traitor to continue to run our computers?)
To: rdb3
How about a MAN's OS instead of a script kiddie's OS:
12
posted on
10/10/2003 5:48:15 PM PDT
by
xrp
To: xrp
How about a MAN's OS instead of a script kiddie's OSNo matter. I run rings around 'em all.

13
posted on
10/10/2003 5:50:06 PM PDT
by
rdb3
(Whoever said progress is a slow process wasn't talking about me. I'm an N-U-P-E.)
To: lelio
| Are there firms out there specializing in computer security insurance? That'll be a growing field. That's actually a very good idea, because it would narrow and concentrate a financial interest in stopping this stuff. Insurance companies tend to become very smart on loss prevention. Some of the best fire-prevention experts in the world work for insurance companies, and they are out there every day inspecting things and showing their clients how not to have fires.
One of the problems with computer security is that there's never been a constituency for it. It's sort of like backups -- everybody knows they have to do some of it, but it's really one of the last things companies want to spend money on. "Monetizing the risk" via insurance puts a number on the potential loss, and also creates incentives for doing things that lower the rates. It helps the IT manager justify better security if he can say, "If we put this in, the insurance will go down by X and so it will pay for itself in two years." That's more persuasive to a bean-counter than threatening doom if you don't buy it. |
14
posted on
10/10/2003 6:12:43 PM PDT
by
Nick Danger
(The Wright Brothers were not the first to fly. They were the first to LAND.)
To: Salo

Microsoft security system that works!
To: rdb3
;-)
16
posted on
10/10/2003 6:27:51 PM PDT
by
xrp
To: Salo
In the future, MS will be using the current security problems to draw
attention to their digital-rights-management offerings.
(formerly known a palladium)
To: xrp
Ok, how come that's not a link? :)
18
posted on
10/10/2003 11:57:14 PM PDT
by
yhwhsman
("Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small..." -Sir Winston Churchill)
To: Voltage
Why in the world do they allow multiple extensions in a file is beyond them. Maybe there is a reason..I don't know what it is. File extensions were a way for early DOS to tell the system what type of file it was particularly exectuables.
DOS was not too sophisticated in that regard, whereas UNIX/Linux have always had the ability to assign/restrict - executable, read & write permissions on any file, for any/all users/groups.
Because of the need for extensions, the (.) was used as a special character and could only be used to seperate the 8 character(max) file name from the 3 character (max) extension.
UNIX/Linux could have longer filenames and the (.) could be used freely. Example: "this.is.my.file" rather than "thisismyfile" or in DOS' case: "thisismy.fil"
DOS, err... Windoze is just catching up with the long filename idea, but still clinging to extensions to identify executable filetypes.
19
posted on
10/11/2003 9:17:18 AM PDT
by
AFreeBird
(your mileage may vary)
To: AFreeBird
Example: "this.is.my.file" rather than "thisismyfile" or in DOS' case: "thisismy.fil"This is easily resolved with the underscore: "this_is_my.exe". There is no need to allow multiple '.'s. Allowing multiple '.'s has only contributed to ambiquity and has been very helpful to the virus creators.
20
posted on
10/11/2003 9:42:12 AM PDT
by
Voltage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson