Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FBI, Pentagon Quiz Microsoft on XP
dailynews.yahoo.com ^

Posted on 12/23/2001 6:55:43 AM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!

FBI, Pentagon Quiz Microsoft on XP

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI (news - web sites)'s top cyber-security unit warned consumers and corporations Friday night to take new steps beyond those recommended by Microsoft Corp. to protect against hackers who might try to attack major flaws discovered in the newest version of Windows software.

The FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center said that, in addition to installing a free software fix offered by Microsoft on the company's Web site, consumers and corporations using Windows XP (news - web sites) should disable the product's ``universal plug and play'' features affected by the glitches.

The FBI did not provide detailed instructions how to do this. Microsoft considers disabling the ``plug and play'' features unnecessary.

The company acknowledged this week that Windows XP suffers from serious problems that allow hackers to steal or destroy a victim's data files across the Internet or implant rogue computer software. The glitches were unusually serious because they allow hackers to seize control of all Windows XP operating system software without requiring a computer user to do anything except connect to the Internet.

Outside experts cautioned that disabling the affected Windows XP features threatens to render unusable an entire category of high-tech devices about to go on the market, such as a new class of computer printers that are easier to set up. But they also acknowledged that disabling it could afford some protection against similar flaws discovered in the future.

The FBI, in a bulletin released at 8 p.m. at the start of a long holiday weekend, also warned professional computer administrators to actively monitor for specific types of Internet traffic that might indicate an attack was in progress.

A top Microsoft security official, Steve Lipner, sought to reassure consumers and companies that installing the free fix was the best course of action to protect their systems.

Friday's warning from the FBI's cyber-protection unit came after FBI and Defense Department officials and some top industry experts sought reassurance from Microsoft that the free software fix it offered effectively stops hackers from attacking the Windows XP flaws.

The government's rare interest in the problems with Windows XP software, which is expected to be widely adopted by consumers, illustrates U.S. concerns about risks to the Internet. Friday's discussions came during a private conference call organized by the National Infrastructure Protection Center.

During the call, Microsoft's experts acknowledged the threats posed by the Windows XP problems, but they assured federal officials and industry experts that its fix - if installed by consumers - resolves the issues.

Microsoft declined to tell U.S. officials how many consumers downloaded and installed its fix during the first 24 hours it was available. Experts from Internet providers, including AT&T Corp., argued that information was vital to determine the scope of the threat.

Microsoft also indicated it would not send e-mail reminders to Windows XP customers to remind them of the importance of installing the patch.

Microsoft explained that a new feature of Windows XP can automatically download the free fix, which takes several minutes, and prompt consumers to install it.

``The patch is effective,'' said Lipner, Microsoft's director of security assurance, in an interview with The Associated Press.

Officials expressed fears to Microsoft about possible electronic attacks targeting Web sites and federal agencies during next week's Christmas holidays from computers running still-vulnerable versions of Windows, participants said.

Several experts said they had already managed to duplicate within their research labs so-called ``denial of service'' attacks made possible by the Windows XP flaws. Such attacks can overwhelm Web sites and prevent their use by legitimate visitors.

Another risk, that hackers can implant rogue software on vulnerable computers, was considered more remote because of the technical sophistication needed.

The FBI's cyber-security unit has been concerned about the threat and warned again Thursday that the potential of ``denial of service'' attacks is high. The agency said people unhappy with U.S. policy have indicated they plan to target the Defense Department's Web sites, as well as other organizations that support the nation's most important networks.

-

On the Net:

NIPC.gov

Microsoft Security


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-247 next last
To: Dominic Harr
Yes, I did read the legal posts that were posted. The thing is, the feature works; it allows network devices to be configured by the system without user interaction. Is it MS fault that the person using the system does not have enough knowledge or skill to make proper use of it? Just because I was stupid and didn't close the window on my house, doesn't mean that I can sue the builder for water damage resulting from the rain pouring through it. Like wise, if a user leaves the back-door open on their computer...
161 posted on 12/23/2001 3:05:43 PM PST by Brad C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Brad C.
Is it MS fault that the person using the system does not have enough knowledge or skill to make proper use of it?

One last time, I'll try honest reason:

The law clearly states they HAVE to disclose the defect. They did not disclose the defect. Therefore they comitted fraud.

This is as open-and-shut a case as you can get! What is it in that simple, straight-forward reasoning that you disgree with?

162 posted on 12/23/2001 3:09:59 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
There is no reason to shout here, I thought we were discussing an issue. My point is:

There is no defect. The feature does what it is suppossed to do. It configures network devices.

163 posted on 12/23/2001 3:15:20 PM PST by Brad C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Brad C.

A merchant is obligated under the law to disclose any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer not to enter into the transaction to start with.

I'm sorry for 'shouting', but it seems you missed this the first 2 times I posted it.

This 'defect' (and the fact that others can take control of a machine *is* a defect) would certainly have influenced buyers.

MS was legally obligated to inform consumers of the defect.

164 posted on 12/23/2001 3:20:50 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Zeidenberg tried to make it a copyright issue, because the product had aggregated non-copyrightable material. But the circuit court saw through that charade. The ruling is clear. There WAS an agreement and Zeidenberg unwittingly violated it. Read the case. It's there.
165 posted on 12/23/2001 3:29:03 PM PST by TechJunkYard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Brad C.
On reflection, I *am* sorry for shouting.

It just gets frustrating, like dealing with Clintonistas. This defense of MS is like saying, "it depends on what 'is' means".

166 posted on 12/23/2001 3:30:24 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: TechJunkYard
I read the case, which is how I realized that the case didn't apply to product liability.

There is no law stating that copywrite has to be on the cover. He was trying to apply 'product liability' law to a copywrite case, and rightfully lost. His case didn't have anything to do with the 'EULA' but with the copywrite protections.

You would *win* in this case. The EULA doesn't protect a thing.

167 posted on 12/23/2001 3:32:38 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Brad C.
Yes but there is I am sure a privacy act issue involved and prior knowledge of a serious glitch in a product.
168 posted on 12/23/2001 3:38:52 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I was just responding to your point that the EULA was worthless if not disclosed before the sale.

I have no position on the product liability issue. Based on past history, XP users should have known there would be problems with this software release, as with past releases. They pays their money, they makes their choice.

My opinion: Wrong Choice.

169 posted on 12/23/2001 3:44:53 PM PST by TechJunkYard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
12. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied or Statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Product or otherwise arising out of the use of the Product. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.

Please note that as part of the EULA, there is a "As is and with all faults" phrase. I did not capitalize it, it came that way from a previous poster.

170 posted on 12/23/2001 3:50:15 PM PST by Brad C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
13. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE PRODUCT, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE PRODUCT OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE PRODUCT, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Please note that in this article of the ELUA, disclaiming the "loss of privacy" as well as any number of other things.

171 posted on 12/23/2001 3:55:23 PM PST by Brad C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: supercat
... if the retailer refuses to accept a return on the opened software package?

Quote from an old girlfriend: become familiar with the store's return policy before making a purchase.

Females are born shoppers... they know these things. ;-)

172 posted on 12/23/2001 3:55:32 PM PST by TechJunkYard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
--probably the worst one from a causal users reference might be to have your machine taken over and used as a zombie in an attack. And these days it might just not be some kiddies attacking and fooling around, it could be very serious, as in national security serious. And the average schmoo wouldn't even know it was happening until the infrastructure started to shut down maybe.
173 posted on 12/23/2001 4:02:47 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: TechJunkYard
I was just responding to your point that the EULA was worthless if not disclosed before the sale.

That case had nothing to do with the EULA. That was about the copyright.

The defendant *tried* to claim that since the EULA was unenforcable, the copyright didn't apply to him.

A demonstrably silly point, in my opinion, and he lost.

174 posted on 12/23/2001 4:09:11 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Consumer protection laws do apply to MS, don't they?

NOPE, just the poor people have laws to obey.

175 posted on 12/23/2001 4:12:33 PM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brad C.

A merchant is obligated under the law to disclose any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer not to enter into the transaction to start with.

From the EULA:

11. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Product will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety days from the date of receipt.

If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you.

Let me guess -- you're an employee of the company?

You're excusing obvious illegality, looking desperately for a loophole to let MS get away with violating product liability laws.

That's why so many of us appear to be 'MS-haters'. We have the *nerve* to suggest the law should apply to MS, while ya'll try and excuse any lawbreaking MS engages in.

176 posted on 12/23/2001 4:13:39 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
NOPE, just the poor people have laws to obey.

That is the claim of several here.

They're down to trying to claim that the clear and concise laws don't mean what they clearly say.

What is the meaning of 'is'?

177 posted on 12/23/2001 4:14:37 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Brad C.
It is obvious it means that if you buy a computer using Microsoft Windows and go on AOL and give your password to a hacker tricking you-or all other scenerios similiar-THEN they are not responsible.But when there software causes the security breech it is a different ball game.
178 posted on 12/23/2001 4:14:57 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Uh-huh... roger... 73... out.
179 posted on 12/23/2001 4:15:31 PM PST by TechJunkYard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: TechJunkYard
Sorry if I've been a bit shrill.

It's dealing with the MS version of 'Clintonistas' that does it to me. Not you.

Have you ever tried to discuss Clinton's criminality with a 'Clintonista'? Did it make you frustrated?

I'm there, with this.

Again, forgive me.

180 posted on 12/23/2001 4:20:17 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-247 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson