Navigation

You are here: Home › Microsoft

Archive | Microsoft

Plays for Sure Fails for Sure

By on February 13, 2006 in Microsoft, Security, Technology

Ed Foster’s Gripelog posts Plays For Sure, Unless It Doesn’t. “A big headache for customers in the era of convergence is that it’s very hard…”

I’ve been looking at the iRiver products, and will still consider them, as I’m interested in unrestricted audiocasts, my own ripped music and OGG file capability. The Microsoft “Plays for Sure” appears to be yet another empty promise, and it’s no surprise. Digital Restriction Management restricts everyone from using their purchased music as they’d like, with the flimsy hope that it will deter piracy. Would you buy a book that could only be read under a “Reads for Sure” lightbulb?

Microsoft dropping their use of .NET in Vista

By on February 8, 2006 in Microsoft

Interesting article on “Analysis of .NET Use in Longhorn and Vista” Author Richard Grimes, a Microsoft MVP, concludes:

My conclusion is that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET. They implement very little of their own code using .NET. The framework is provided as part of the operating system, but this is so that code written by third party developers can run on Vista without the large download of the framework. Supplying the .NET runtime for third party developers in this way is similar to Microsoft supplying msvbvm60.dll as part of XP.

Sounds like Microsoft needs to go back on a diet of their own dog food. No one else is going to believe that DotNet is ready for enterprise applications if Microsoft doesn’t.

Another quarter-million Windows machines exploited

By on January 31, 2006 in Microsoft, Security

InfoWorld: Top News reports Microsoft warns of file-trashing worm.

(InfoWorld) – “Microsoft has published a security advisory warning Windows users of a file-trashing worm that has been circulating via e-mail for several weeks. The worm, which is programmed to destroy a wide variety of files on the third day of every month, has been circulating since mid-January, and is estimated to have infected between 250,000 and 300,000 systems worldwide.”

Almost missed the monthly warning: DO NOT open files or click links from untrusted sources. THERE ARE NO TRUSTED SOURCES. Verify the sender really sent you the file. Scan it with a virus checker. Don’t use it if you don’t trust it.

Microsoft Patch Tuesday, January 2006

By on January 11, 2006 in Microsoft, Security

Despite releasing it last week, MS06-001, the WMF flaw, was also released as one of three Critical, Remote Code Execution possible patches that comprised the January 2006 Microsoft security bulletin. As is typical, the patches seem to affect every supported version from Windows 2000 on up. However, earlier versions of Windows are provided with a link which seems to say “you’re on your own.” Here are the patches:

MS06-001 – Vulnerability in Graphics Rendering Engine Could Allow
Remote Code Execution (912919)

MS06-002 – Vulnerability in Embedded Web Fonts Could Allow Remote
Code Execution (908519)

MS06-003 – Vulnerability in TNEF Decoding in Microsoft Outlook and
Microsoft Exchange Could Allow Remote Code Execution (902412)

So, Microsoft graphics, Microsoft Fonts, Microsoft Office and Microsoft Outlook all have serious flaws. Get patching!

It is the second week of 2006.

‘Numbers of flaws’ is a flawed measure of security

By on January 11, 2006 in Linux, Microsoft, Security

Garrett Fitzgerald’s Blogs Apples and Oranges. “In a recent post, Craig Berntson trumpets about a recent CERT report that “proves” that Windows is more secure than Linux. What he doesn’t mention is that the “Linux/Unix” list lumps together the Linux kernel, Mac OSX, HPUX, SCO Unixware, and others. So, when comparing 1 OS against 6 or more OSs, the 1 OS comes out ahead. What a surprise.”

Over at Groklaw, the poster does a fine job of pointing out the problems with just quoting the gross numbers from this survey. It would be far better to identify how many security flaws led to major exploits and the costs of the cleanup. Trivial items are counted one-for-one with items that cost millions to clean up, exploits are listed multiple times (on both Windows and non-Windows platforms).

Bottom line: security is a process, not a feature. Millions more computers were turned into spam-sending zombies, and not just because they are running a more commonly-available operating system. They were exploited because the OS runs as an administrator with the rights to alter anything on the machine. Only one OS manufacturer shipped software that has that fatal flaw.

Windows XP ‘runs’ as well as new Linux distros on old hardware

By on January 9, 2006 in Linux, Microsoft, Technology

Ars Technica post: Microsoft study finds Linux to have no advantage on older hardware. “Microsoft has published a new study that attempts to refute the claims that Linux runs better than Windows on older hardware. Do they have a point, or are they just blowing smoke?” By jeremy@arstechnica.com (Jeremy Reimer).

“Curiously, if you look at these results closely, they seem to confirm the idea that Linux will run on older hardware, at least if you are talking about Slackware and Knoppix specifically. However, overall the two operating systems ended up about the same. While this does tend to discredit the idea that “Linux runs faster on older hardware,” at the very least, it runs no worse.”

“The other point that the study brings up is that some distributions fared significantly better than others. This leads into the third major benefit that Linux fans like to tout, the diversity and customization available with Linux that is not available with Windows.”

It’s good to hear that Microsoft is working to make their software work on existing hardware, rather than expecting customers to buy new. But the comparison still misses the choice factor: you’re more likely to want to run a 5-year-old machine as a file server in the back room, or a utility kiosk with very limited functionality. With Linux, you can run the machine without a GUI only (just text-mode) or with a minimal window manager. With WinXP, you’re pretty much stuck with what Microsoft provides you.

Older posts Newer posts

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes

This work by Ted Roche is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States.