The depths some people sink to...

[Hielor]

About an earlier post of you: I agreed to the rest of that post, but I'm having some trouble with this part:


Windows has been made increasingly secure, but its initial design (I mean windows 95) had no security at all. It's very hard to make a system really secure if it hasn't been designed to be secure from the beginning.

There are more secure systems than Windows, but Linux isn't the best example for this. The Linux/windows security discussion is too complicated for a simple "this is better than that".

And "security through obscurity" is more often used for windows than for anything else, as microsoft used to have a closed source policy, where it was hard for people outside m$ to find security flaws (both for good guys and for bad guys)

For a submarine or any other isolated critical system like MCC-H (where the critical systems aren't on Windows, they're on Linux), ironically, security on the computers doesn't matter. Security is done by restricting who can get to the computer. Since there's no way to remotely access them, that's not a worry.

Heck, while I was at USA last spring one of the testing scripts I wrote would probably best be described as a virus which took advantage of a giant security hole or two in the server software. But it was fine, since it wasn't actually going into the MCC-H computers, and it was a valid (and excellent) way to test a situation that had gone wrong in ops but was difficult to re-create manually in testing.

 

[Moonwalker]

Windows has been made increasingly secure, but its initial design (I mean windows 95) had no security at all. It's very hard to make a system really secure if it hasn't been designed to be secure from the beginning.

Windows 95 is not the initial Windows design. Windows exists since the mid 1980's. And it's also a myth that Windows 95 had no security at all.

There are more secure systems than Windows, but Linux isn't the best example for this. The Linux/windows security discussion is too complicated for a simple "this is better than that".

That's mostly fan boy discussions. In fact, no system, not Unix, Linux, Mac OS or Windows, is more secure on the whole than another one.

You'll find that Microsoft has spend the most money and most efforts than almost anybody else, to make its systems secure (which are by far the most used and so the most hacked ones), but which still are not secure on the whole. Each system can become rather unsecure if you get the right person to prove so.

And "security through obscurity" is more often used for windows than for anything else, as microsoft used to have a closed source policy, where it was hard for people outside m$ to find security flaws (both for good guys and for bad guys)

Badmouthing on the whole is more used for Windows, as it is the most used OS all over the world, while nobody is able to exactly tell which one is better to use and why. Those discussions are not about software and safety really, it's about image, originated by wide-spread user-inability.

 

[Urwumpe]

The biggest problem of Windows IMHO are two resonant phenomena:

A) It is sold to idiots and accessible for idiots.
B) It makes it harder to make it secure, than to make it insecure.

Windows can be as good (or even better) in many security aspects than Linux. You maybe need the will to work without the many badly programmed windows applications, as these expect often to have administrator rights for things, which are purely user space work,

Though the Windows latency is always pretty bad. You can make Linux react very fast to events, while Windows is not made for such applications.

The biggest advantage of Linux though, is also it's biggest disadvantage: It is so damn flexible, that you can ruin it easily.

 

[Usquanigo]

Though the Windows latency is always pretty bad. You can make Linux react very fast to events, while Windows is not made for such applications.

The kind of thing you're talking about is really only an issue in Real Time Computing. It's not really noticable, or a concern, on the desktop (which is where all the badmouthing stems from).

There are many flavors and varieties of Windows, and the company I work for has done some custom hardware design that was a real time system and it used Windows, just an embedded form, it was perfectly stable, easy to develop with, and every bit as fast as could be expected from any OS.

The real flaw here is that they are all called "Windows", when they are really many different beasts.

 

[Linguofreak]

Windows 95 is not the initial Windows design. Windows exists since the mid 1980's.

I think what he's talking about is the fact that, pre Win95, Windows was not a standalone OS. It was a multitasking GUI interface that ran on top of DOS. It didn't even need to be MS-DOS, although M$ did their best to try and make it incompatible with DR-DOS.

 

[agentgonzo]

The biggest problem of Windows IMHO are two resonant phenomena:

A) It is sold to idiots and accessible for idiots.

WTF? The same can be said for Bananas. Bananas are sold to idiots and accessible by idiots. I wouldn't say that it's a problem with bananas, nor is it a problem of Windows.

 

[Usquanigo]

I think what he's talking about is the fact that, pre Win95, Windows was not a standalone OS. It was a multitasking GUI interface that ran on top of DOS. It didn't even need to be MS-DOS, although M$ did their best to try and make it incompatible with DR-DOS.

Win95 was the same thing, 'cept with DOS integrated. It identified itself internally as DOS 7, and you didn't have to boot to the GUI, you could boot to the prompt and invoke Windows in the same way you would 3.1.

It really was just 3.1 with a new shell, some new features, and DOS fused internally.

 

[Urwumpe]

WTF? The same can be said for Bananas. Bananas are sold to idiots and accessible by idiots. I wouldn't say that it's a problem with bananas, nor is it a problem of Windows.

Most security issues related to Microsoft Windows are related to the user community. Linux is rarely used by idiots.

 

[Usquanigo]

Linux is rarely used by idiots.

Macs have that market cornered.

 

[Urwumpe]

Macs have that market cornered.

I doubt that. Macs are used by people who need the feeling of being something special. They for example like the thought, that the Mac Dealer in their town knows them personally and takes time for him.

 

[Usquanigo]

I doubt that. Macs are used by people who need the feeling of being something special. They for example like the thought, that the Mac Dealer in their town knows them personally and takes time for him.

Steve Jobs says to the world "I know you're an idiot, so here's a computer YOU can use". That's why there's only ever been 1 button on their mice, and now even that has become hidden - so they don't become confused or scared.

Also in the Mac, you pretty much have to do things THEIR way. There may be *some* flexibility, but very little. It makes it very easy to teach, unlike Windows, which has about a dozen different ways to do absolutely everything.

 

[Urwumpe]

Steve Jobs says to the world "I know you're an idiot, so here's a computer YOU can use". That's why there's only ever been 1 button on their mice, and now even that has become hidden - so they don't become confused or scared.

Steve has a reality distortion field, which radiates even from the inside of any Mac.

 

[Omhra]

WTF? The same can be said for Bananas. Bananas are sold to idiots and accessible by idiots. I wouldn't say that it's a problem with bananas, nor is it a problem of Windows.

seems like


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

please reconsider.


The problem I see with computers today is that less than apt people want to have them having no idea how they work.
They want to push a button and have their world turn pink.
And the few that do have have the aptitude must deal with the blankets of ID10-T friendly "features" that make our systems unstable and unsecure.
If you don't know how to deploy a network you shouldn't have one. If your OS crawls on your network listing and indexing files and machines; it takes little effort to exploit it and get beyond the intended purpose.

 

[Usquanigo]

seems like


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

please reconsider.


The problem I see with computers today is that less than apt people want to have them having no idea how they work.
They want to push a button and have their world turn pink.
And the few that do have have the aptitude must deal with the blankets of ID10-T friendly "features" that make our systems unstable and unsecure.
If you don't know how to deploy a network you shouldn't have one. If your OS crawls on your network listing and indexing files and machines; it takes little effort to exploit it and get beyond the intended purpose.

No, it's not a logical fallacy. Gonzo is right. Blaming the machine for something stupid that the user did (or didn't do) is like blaming guns for deaths, or blaming cars for accidents, or blaming your fork for making you fat.

As Chuck said "It's the man, not the machine". While he may have been an overblown egomaniac, he was right in that, and it applies to more things in life than you might expect.

Further, while I agree with your point that idiots who shouldn't have them, want them, and they in turn don't want to actually learn anything to use them (unlike any other machine in their lives), those features don't actually get in the way of anything. The GUI is technically a more powerful interface for any level user, not for absolutely everything, I grant you, but you can do certain things in a GUI that are simply impossible, or at least impractical in a command line only interface. Much as I resented the concept, it is actually a better way.

Anything else you might be referring to, is fully configurable, and more often than not, simply a more integrated, flexible, and powerful way of computing, but inherently secure by it's very nature (integration). Can't really have it both ways.

The problem isn't the OS or the hardware. The problem really isn't even the end user (though they GREATLY contribute to it). The problem is jackasses with nothing better to do than to try to crash or take over everyone's systems.

The criminal mind is the cause of the crime, not the tools or means used to perpetrate it.

 

[Omhra]

The criminal mind is the cause of the crime, not the tools or means used to perpetrate it.

Here you are correct, but lets take win2k as an example. Its networking is not "automated" in contrast with XP which looks for, calls out and indexes your machines in the network. This automation is liked by those who want to network without understanding IP or tcp. They want their printers to be shared and all the very cool things networks allow.
BUT if you leave the door open for machines to snoop in and sniff-out your networks you are asking for problems. XP does that... RPC as it has been mentioned is a system for just such activity.

But you are wrong as is Gonzo to asume that the machine is without the help of the man. The problem I see with MS is one of purpose. They are trying to remove most responsability from the user and take it for themselves.
And in the real world we have little option if we are to be part of the business world. For us is MS or countless issues of cross platform .
So the liability is monumental yet is done away by washing it with 1200 words in one ULA.

So the solution perhaps could be to have the user assume full responasbility for their systems and cease to open comunications ad nauseam to resolve other systems in the network. Sapi and ATAPI for example should be left for experienced technicians and their encryptions also left to be decided for the user. If the user can't handle this things then he needs to pay someone who can. I should not have to worry about that 16 year old little satan that releases the next worm.
Its a policy stance that creates this issues... not the machine.
Thus it isn't the availability of machines or bananas to idiots that is the problem.

 

[Usquanigo]

Here you are correct, but lets take win2k as an example. Its networking is not "automated" in contrast with XP which looks for, calls out and indexes your machines in the network. This automation is liked by those who want to network without understanding IP or tcp. They want their printers to be shared and all the very cool things networks allow.
BUT if you leave the door open for machines to snoop in and sniff-out your networks you are asking for problems. XP does that... RPC as it has been mentioned is a system for just such activity.

1, network browsing has nothing to do with knowledge of TCP/IP.
2, this stuff should all be behind the firewall. After that, it's physical security that you need to be concerned with. Again, it's how it's used, not how it's made. (the man, not the machine)

But you are wrong as is Gonzo to asume that the machine is without the help of the man.

I never actually said, nor in any way implied that. Read it again. The statement is that anything can be used properly, or imporperly; well or poorly; for good or evil; to comit a crime or prevent a crime. It's not the tool, it's how the person chooses to use it.

The problem I see with MS is one of purpose. They are trying to remove most responsability from the user and take it for themselves.

No, they aren't. They wanted to create a powerful and flexible architecture (which admittedly, they wanted to be able to take best advantage of - backdoor info sharing with the application dept. and making it tough for competitors to be as slick and easy, but that's a different story). I mis-typed in my post above, but I assume you could see what I meant - integration on that level IS powerful, and it IS flexible, however it IS also insecure, by it's very nature. But security wasn't a concern, the computing experience (everything from how it's used, to what it can do) was.

Now though, they are being FORCED, by people like you, to shove updates down people's throats because they are too feeble and stupid to do it for themselves. And so you have ancient worms still living and working because of old, un-updated, poorly configured systems.

If you flip this all around, it would be the same thing. If (insert praised OS of choice here) was the overwhelming number 1 used platform, every attacker out there would be hammering away at it to exploit every hole absolutely possible. Now with millions of lazy idiots out there not updating or properly configuring their systems, you have a heavenly playground for those bas-tards.

Trying to spin it any other way is just that - spin. It's not MS, and it's not their product, it's the fact that they are on top and the overwhelming majority of computer users use their products, AND they don't configure or update them. End of story.

And in the real world we have little option if we are to be part of the business world. For us is MS or countless issues of cross platform .
So the liability is monumental yet is done away by washing it with 1200 words in one ULA.

No cross-platform issues if you go exclusively with that platform, from stem to stern. Linux on the client and the server, and Linux apps all around. If M$ is so evil, go for it. Nothing's stopping you.

So the solution perhaps could be to have the user assume full responasbility for their systems and cease to open comunications ad nauseam to resolve other systems in the network. Sapi and ATAPI for example should be left for experienced technicians and their encryptions also left to be decided for the user. If the user can't handle this things then he needs to pay someone who can. I should not have to worry about that 16 year old little satan that releases the next worm.
Its a policy stance that creates this issues... not the machine.
Thus it isn't the availability of machines or bananas to idiots that is the problem.

You just proved my point in the last sentence. Cars can be used to kill people, and wreak absolute havoc. Yet they are available to everyone. It's hardly the cars fault though how it's used or why.

Unlike cars, here YOU can take care of your own, and you *won't* have to worry about that next worm that get's released. And by your own line of thinking, if you _do_, then it's your own damn fault.


-----Post Added-----


The Penalty Of Leadership - http://www.wcroberts.org/Paige_History/Images/1915-01-02 Cadillac.html

 

[Omhra]

"1, network browsing has nothing to do with knowledge of TCP/IP."

Yes it does... But not so much now since is all a sniffing service which can be exploited.

"2, this stuff should all be behind the firewall. After that, it's physical security that you need to be concerned with. Again, it's how it's used, not how it's made. (the man, not the machine)"

Wrong again... it is not impossible cut through a firewall...

"I never actually said, nor in any way implied that. Read it again. The statement is that anything can be used properly, or imporperly; well or poorly; for good or evil; to comit a crime or prevent a crime. It's not the tool, it's how the person chooses to use it."

This is where the fallacy comes in... It is The idiot with bananas... not the availability of bananas to the idiot... not the same thing.

"No, they aren't. They wanted to create a powerful and flexible architecture (which admittedly, they wanted to be able to take best advantage of - backdoor info sharing with the application dept. and making it tough for competitors to be as slick and easy, but that's a different story)."

Not a different story... is the meat of the argument... that MS is not secure!! And arguably more so than other systems specially in a weapon system.

"I mis-typed in my post above, but I assume you could see what I meant - integration on that level IS powerful, and it IS flexible, however it IS also insecure, by it's very nature. But security wasn't a concern, the computing experience (everything from how it's used, to what it can do) was."

Look at that, my point exactly... IN SUBS yeah...

"Now though, they are being FORCED, by people like you, to shove updates down people's throats because they are too feeble and stupid to do it for themselves. And so you have ancient worms still living and working because of old, un-updated, poorly configured systems."

Not so... And almost sounded there like you are calling me feeble and stupid... careful or ad hominem on you...
Systems are up to date, but again that is not the point... that is hyperbola.

"If you flip this all around, it would be the same thing. If (insert praised OS of choice here) was the overwhelming number 1 used platform, every attacker out there would be hammering away at it to exploit every hole absolutely possible. Now with millions of lazy idiots out there not updating or properly configuring their systems, you have a heavenly playground for those bas-tards."

Here you are correct, but just here... and only insomuch as you don't mention the open ports that MS has open for their own purposes on your machine, NATed THROUGH your firewall... which are not related to updates.
Just do a NETSTAT -a...

"Trying to spin it any other way is just that - spin. It's not MS, and it's not their product, it's the fact that they are on top and the overwhelming majority of computer users use their products, AND they don't configure or update them. End of story."

I disagree. THAT is the very start of the story.


"No cross-platform issues if you go exclusively with that platform,"

Circular and redundantly repetitive, eh?

"from stem to stern. Linux on the client and the server, and Linux apps all around. If M$ is so evil, go for it. Nothing's stopping you."

It has not.

"You just proved my point in the last sentence. Cars can be used to kill people, and wreak absolute havoc. Yet they are available to everyone. It's hardly the cars fault though how it's used or why.

Unlike cars, here YOU can take care of your own, and you *won't* have to worry about that next worm that get's released. And by your own line of thinking, if you _do_, then it's your own damn fault. "


Read again all of the above...

It is kind of like when someone gets mad because Orbiter is too hard a game and request things of geniuses like Gonzo to make a single push button to get them to mars...
Some people just cannot Fly this sim... is that simple... they lack the marbles...
Same should be with computers and advanced networking... on a LAN or a WAN... no matter.

 

[Moonwalker]

Network automation once was the future, which already has become present. You don't only have network automation in Windows, you also have it in Linux meanwhile. It is comfortable, but you can also configure, enable/disable all the stuff manually. Just as you can disable the user account control in Vista for example, which a lot of people complain about, while they don't know that this is the way you work with Linux too. And it's even more annyoing since you don't just click, you have to type in your password.

By the way, most people still rely on software firewalls, which is as useful as no firewall at all. It just makes people feel safe. A firewall only makes sense if it's a hardware firewall, and if it's in front of the system, instead on the system. I only use Antivir in Windows (+ the router firewall), while I don't use any kind of safety software in Linux. It doesn't make any difference not to use a software firewall. Not even in Windows, beside that all the security bundle crap slows down the system uselessly, and creates more problems instead to prevent such.

 

[Usquanigo]

To Omhra (since Moonwalker responded before me) : You are now arguing just to argue. But I tend to not like to let that type walk away with the last word.

"1, network browsing has nothing to do with knowledge of TCP/IP."

Yes it does... But not so much now since is all a sniffing service which can be exploited.

No, it doesn't. Where the hell do you even get something like that. WINS or DNS are going to be implemented on ANY real network, and that means that it's not actually necessary to browse the network. With DHCP and computer names alone, you really don't even need those to resovle a name, it's all automatic. No browsing needed, no advanced TCP/IP knowledge needed.

"2, this stuff should all be behind the firewall. After that, it's physical security that you need to be concerned with. Again, it's how it's used, not how it's made. (the man, not the machine)"

Wrong again... it is not impossible cut through a firewall...

It's far harder than you think it is. IF it's set up right.

"I never actually said, nor in any way implied that. Read it again. The statement is that anything can be used properly, or imporperly; well or poorly; for good or evil; to comit a crime or prevent a crime. It's not the tool, it's how the person chooses to use it."

This is where the fallacy comes in... It is The idiot with bananas... not the availability of bananas to the idiot... not the same thing.

This is where you losing the plot comes in. You blame the tools, BECAUSE idiots can get to them. Are you a democrat? That's the exact same BS the anti-gunners use.

"No, they aren't. They wanted to create a powerful and flexible architecture (which admittedly, they wanted to be able to take best advantage of - backdoor info sharing with the application dept. and making it tough for competitors to be as slick and easy, but that's a different story)."

Not a different story... is the meat of the argument... that MS is not secure!! And arguably more so than other systems specially in a weapon system.

It is a different story, you just want to pick something else to argue about to make your nonsense seem plausible. Unix was not inherently secure, nor was the internet (when they were first created). All for the same reason, it wasn't thinking about hackers and jackoffs, it was thinking about how reasonable people could get the most out of the wonderous new tools. Security became a problem MUCH later on, and by then it was a retro-fit. However for M$, it's a bit harder to do because of the backward compatibility they need to try to retain (just like how Intel is somewhat handcuffed to the x86 architecture)

"I mis-typed in my post above, but I assume you could see what I meant - integration on that level IS powerful, and it IS flexible, however it IS also insecure, by it's very nature. But security wasn't a concern, the computing experience (everything from how it's used, to what it can do) was."

Look at that, my point exactly... IN SUBS yeah...

Look at that, lost the plot again. Windows XP and Vista are not unsecurable, they are not used in full form for non-desktop applications, and, in all liklihood, that's either a custom variant tweak, or something altogether different (Windows comes in MANY forms, many more than your [apparent] limited experience would be able to see).

"Now though, they are being FORCED, by people like you, to shove updates down people's throats because they are too feeble and stupid to do it for themselves. And so you have ancient worms still living and working because of old, un-updated, poorly configured systems."

Not so... And almost sounded there like you are calling me feeble and stupid... careful or ad hominem on you...
Systems are up to date, but again that is not the point... that is hyperbola.

Not exaggeration in the slightest. People don't update their machines. Old worms that should have been wiped out in days linger on for years because of it. And it's not just the home user either, unfortunately. It's some of my fellow Network Admins who are party to that behavior as well.

"If you flip this all around, it would be the same thing. If (insert praised OS of choice here) was the overwhelming number 1 used platform, every attacker out there would be hammering away at it to exploit every hole absolutely possible. Now with millions of lazy idiots out there not updating or properly configuring their systems, you have a heavenly playground for those bas-tards."

Here you are correct, but just here... and only insomuch as you don't mention the open ports that MS has open for their own purposes on your machine, NATed THROUGH your firewall... which are not related to updates.
Just do a NETSTAT -a...

I have no open ports that I did not open. By default, my firewall is totally locked down and I have to manually open everything or nothing communicates. I can control who gets access to what, when, and how fast they can go, what content can flow into, OR OUT OF, my network, and I can see who goes where. Ports I don't have open are stealthed and do not even respond as being closed.

This is backed up with anti-virus/anti-malware software on EVERY PC and server, as well as attachment blocking and scanning. Nothing executable gets through. This has caused more than a bit of grief from users who wanted everything open. Why? Because security IS an obstacle to empowered, powerFUL, and flexible computing. But it's my job to make sure everyone is safe. (and I could do even more, but see the previous point) Not sure you really know who you are talking to....

"No cross-platform issues if you go exclusively with that platform,"

Circular and redundantly repetitive, eh?

Wrong. Open Office reads and writes MS Office formats, and you have mail servers, mail clients and web browsers, as well as file and print servers, DNS servers, DHCP servers, and domain controllers for any OS you choose. If you go 100%, then there is no "cross" platform to worry about, much less have issues with.

It is kind of like when someone gets mad because Orbiter is too hard a game and request things of geniuses like Gonzo to make a single push button to get them to mars...
Some people just cannot Fly this sim... is that simple... they lack the marbles...
Same should be with computers and advanced networking... on a LAN or a WAN... no matter.

You're an overblown elitist to boot. Nice. Harder is not better. Why do I write a script to check the free space on all my servers and tell me when they reach a threshold, or when their C drive loses space? Because it's EASIER than checking by hand. But that is beneath you and shouldn't be possible in your perfect world, eh?

Consider this - you are here BECAUSE of this "user friendliness" you hate so much. From the size of the PC market, to the power of the apps you use, to the very existance of the web itself. Are nuclear particle physicists "idiots" who shouldn't have an easy to use tool? If so, then hang Tim Berners-Lee in effigy, and never use the World Wide Web again, ok? (or for that matter, curse Vint Cerf and never use any network again) Hey, maybe you could even find an actual use for a MITS Altair.

 

[Omhra]

:rofl:

You think that Microsoft being accused of (falsely) advertising themselves as "best", "safest" and "fastest" is the opposite to guns being blamed for murders...
Well;
I love guns and gun rights...
Get the Logic?

But note that noone is blaming the hardware makers... so your point remains weak. Is the implementation of policy that creates these holes in security.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. I have not written books on the subject and do not claim to know as much as you... tho I probably do about winsockets and dns resolutions, but that is not the whole topic in security; altho it is the most visible by the plebes... ...Who hail every chip and OS as the greatest just for being the latest... ...well ok.

MS is after a "new world order" in computing... welcome to the future and deal with it as you see fit. On this we all share the same boat.


-----Post Added-----


Moonwalker,

You are correct.