Forums

Posted: 25-11-2002 06:38 Post subject: Can we trust MicroSoft?

I am not sure we can trust them and why should we, anyway?

It occured to me the other day while installing some "critical updates" on my computer, I may be recieving security packages that benifit Microsoft more than they benifit me.

Has anyone ever used SpyBot: Search and destroy?

Our machines are full of un-official and official spyware. Spyware are little blocks of program that monitor, report and compile information of your actions, tastes and views.

What about the stuff that MicroSoft has already installed on my computer? What about the critical security updates? The security of the world is at risk (again!) and it does not surprise me that I am recieving a few more "critical security update" prompts.

I think that these updates are spyware. Some, anyway!

It cant all be sweetness and roses with respect to my security. They would be mad not to exploit the window into common mans life.

Get "SpyBot:Search and destroy" and check it out.

Then tell yourself: I will not leave my microphone plugged in ever again! Surprised

P.S I have nothing juicy on my computer and never have. I do believe that it is a good thing that they are able to track and watch the terrorists and they would be silly to ignore such an obvious gateway into their homes.

Its just a thought...........

Does anyone else have a Micosoft conspiricy theory?

.....oh no....a black van has pulled up and my doors been.......

.....Only Jokin' Very Happy

Posted: 25-11-2002 07:15 Post subject: Well, no, of course not.

Honey,

Microsoft has never had the public's best interests in mind.

Posted: 25-11-2002 09:00 Post subject:

Here is a link to the downloadable free, unlimited, updatable and user friendly SpyBot:Search and Destroy

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,22262,00.asp

Do it! Surprised

Posted: 25-11-2002 10:17 Post subject:

I myself prefer Lavasoft's Adaware, combined with zonealarm and maybe a few of the others, like spider and spywareblaster. Still, it's not MS that's behind it, although 90% of the IT geeks in the world are pissed at their lacadasical approach to security, and reluctance to admit to the gaping holes they leave.
If you're really concerned, why not run a Linux/Unix box, at least as an alternate os? or (heaven forfend) get a Mac?

(I have nothing against macs, all disparaging remarks are merely cheap shots at Apple's expense, all in good fun, thanks very much)

Posted: 25-11-2002 17:54 Post subject:

Does anyone know of an Adaware-type prog that doesn't interfere with Kazaa?

Posted: 25-11-2002 18:07 Post subject:

Nope, as KaZaA has in-built spyware, you'd be best to use KaZaA Lite instead Surprised

- its kazaa but without the spyware

Posted: 25-11-2002 20:05 Post subject:

I wasn't going to post on this thread because Im trying to avoid turning into anymore of an OpenSource zealot than I've already become!

Then this Wired article turned up which details a new sercuity policy decision on Microsofts part (detailed below):

---

Be afraid. Microsoft thinks it knows what's best for you.

Microsoft Senior Vice President Craig Mundie recently suggested that in the name of security, it may be appropriate to force you to install Microsoft patches or updates, and if that breaks your existing applications, well, it's for your own good.

This cavalier and astoundingly risky attitude apparently springs from Microsoft's new homeland-security bandwagon -- what we used to call "national security," before political spin-meisters figured "homeland" would better inspire consumer spending for the new war on terror.

Microsoft, responsible for more security-bug-ridden software on desktop systems than any other company, says it's now got the security religion, and it wants you enlightened as well, whether you like it or not.

So-called security initiatives now seem to be pouring out of Redmond, Washington.

Mundie heads Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing initiative. The company's new federal director of homeland security, Thomas Richey, is stationed in Washington, assigned to make Microsoft a "strategic partner" with the government to foster domestic security.

With Bill Gates firmly grasping the homeland-security steering wheel, you're probably feeling better already.

Mundie appears concerned that too many people don't install the multitude of fixes and updates that Microsoft provides for its systems and applications, patches that often are directed at serious security flaws. He seems especially worried about older systems, which he says outnumber current versions by as much as 40-to-1.

He's right to be concerned about security. Massive numbers of vulnerable systems are out there. Of course, it's largely been Microsoft's rampant featuritis that turned so much of its software into security nightmares in the first place.

But there's a range of reasons why so many people shy away from Microsoft patches and other upgrades.

Some users just don't care. They may not understand security at all, their systems seem to work OK, and they don't want to bother changing anything. Are they at risk? Yep.

Other users (usually more experienced) have a different concern. They're the ones who have handled Microsoft updates and patches in the past, so now they're simply terrified at the thought of installing new ones. They've seen too many Microsoft updates that broke applications, opened up new security holes or totally hosed their systems.

Even relatively simple Microsoft patches -- many of which are impossible to undo effectively -- have been known to have major side effects and in some cases create catastrophic results on system stability. Users so burned are likely to view new Microsoft patches and service packs with the same enthusiasm they normally reserve for root canals.

Concerned persons running critical applications in businesses, hospitals and government agencies often think long and hard before installing Microsoft upgrades. They can't afford to have their production systems disrupted, even at the risk of some security exposure. After all, they're in the best positions to determine what's appropriate for their own operations.

This independent attitude doesn't mesh well with the new gung-ho Microsoft party line. Newly emboldened by the court-affirmed desktop OS near-monopoly, Mundie seems to suggest that Microsoft should take these security decisions out of users' hands entirely.

Forcing security upgrades to that vast installed base of "older systems," and implementing security fixes even if they do break existing applications, explicitly leaves users to untangle the mess and pick up the pieces afterward -- if they can.

Critical work interrupted or ruined in the process? Too bad.

If Microsoft is serious about this plan, its potential liability seems immense, the multitude of disclaimers and limitations in Microsoft license agreements notwithstanding.

Faced with the choice between Microsoft upgrades that could potentially cripple their operations on one hand and security flaws on the other, many users are likely to opt for the latter -- even if it means firewalling off Microsoft IP addresses to try to prevent the specter of forced upgrades.

Security problems in Microsoft software, or in any software for that matter, are critical issues. But it's crucial that computer users themselves have the final say over how security will be handled on their own systems.

If Microsoft appoints itself our security guardian, declaring that forced patches, broken applications and potentially trashed systems are acceptable, it will be the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.

By proceeding with such a plan, Microsoft would not only be shooting itself in the foot, but might well be shooting many of its customers' systems right between the eyes.

Posted: 25-11-2002 20:25 Post subject: NSA Keys?

I recall a subject on the abovetopsecret.com message board which dealt with a so-called "NSA Key" (alas, I fear it is long gone by now).

It was to do with certain "keys" which acted as sort of labels for different software when a computer is being built and tested, and which are subsequently removed before sale. However, in one instance, one of these "keys" was accidentally left on and it had the name "NSA", which many presumed to be some kind of surveillance device built into the computers sanctioned by the National Security Agency (and presumably with the knowledge and co-operation of Microsoft).

I'm not sure of the credence of this, and I have no idea whether "key" is the correct term for what I'm talking about confused

. Perhaps someone in the know could enlighten?

Posted: 25-11-2002 21:18 Post subject:

Feeling paranoid about Micro$oft? No? Read this and you will - http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/
and especially this -
http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/ms-hidden-files.shtml

Posted: 25-11-2002 21:24 Post subject:

Posted: 25-11-2002 21:54 Post subject:

Just uninstall KaZaA (start - settings - control panel - add remove programmes) and then manually delete your kazaa folder, and then install KaZaA lite, which installs in exactly the same way you would with kazaa Smile

To remove spyware, look at St.Clairs post or find and install AdAware Smile

Posted: 25-11-2002 22:10 Post subject:

Posted: 27-11-2002 19:36 Post subject:

mejane, try OmniWeb www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/ Wink

imo, a lot nicer than the majority of browsers (block ads, address short-cuts, e.t.c.)

for general system security, in OSX you can watch each process, and kill them at will

Posted: 27-11-2002 23:41 Post subject:

Hmmm!

I don't trust Micro$oft either...and what about their mates at Intel?
Remember back in 1999, when the pentium 3 chip came out? The early versions had a unique id number that a web server could read...enabling your machine to be associated with all-sorts of info. Like that from clickstreams and collaborative filters...
After a public expose, Intel 'disabled' the PSN(Processor Serial Number).
So, (excusing my computer ignorance), what's to stop this feature being re-activated?
And, are there any more 'features' like this yet to be found in the latest Pentium chips? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Posted: 27-11-2002 23:46 Post subject:

Has anyone heard of their massive search engine?

You type in "Bomb" and it searches the worlds computers for references to bombs.

We are all offered free romote viewing software that allows us to access our own coms from an outside computer. How do we know that when we install that software that it opens my hard drive up to people other than myself?