Kyle: You are a ****ing idiot.



On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:06:00 -0800, Kyle Thomas Pope
<kurokyle@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:23:03 +1100, "The person you think"
><spamis@the****house.com> wrote:
>
>>> Not everyone who gets on a computer is a full-on techno-geek or wants
>>> to be.
>>
>>As stated above, they dont HAVE to be, personally.
>
>And they're not going to be. The ironic thing is that these people
>are going to be depending on Microsoft to update and patch their
>security problems provided they become aware of them.
>
>>Where in the hell you got that I look down on them, I dont know. There is a
>>HUGE amount of information available on TV and in newspapers to make people
>>AWARE that there are problems on Internet with security and that they should
>>get help with that. It is the user's choice whether or not to do something
>>about that, though. THIS is where the bungy rope scenario comes in.
>
>And as I said these people will be trusting Microsoft to deal with
>those problems as they come up. In fact Win XP will take it upon
>itself to look for and download patches and updates so the users won't
>even have to think about it. Which is just fine if you think
>Microsoft is a company you can trust.
>
>>Do you even BOTHER to use a packet sniffer or are you coming in here telling
>>everyone what is going on without proof? My computer receives pings
>>CONSTANTLY because of swen, etc and if I didnt have a firewall, it would be
>>sending out a response. Also, depending on your line quality, a dial up
>>modem retraining looks like lots of information going inwards or outwards
>>when, in fact, it is just trying to renegotiate a connection.
>
>Are you some sort of Microsoft shill? Have you not been paying
>attention? Microsoft security holes make headlines. We're not
>talking about pings here. We're talking about exploits of ActiveX,
>Universal Plug and Play, bypassing password files, complete takeovers
>of Windows machines, personal information being sent out to MS or
>other vendors, etc.
>
>
>http://www.infosatellite.com/news/20...ows_flaws.html
>
>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/artic...1262562,00.asp
>
>http://www.tecchannel.com/security/client/58/
>
>http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/1471/I...21mediaplayer/
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26517.html
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24815.html
>
>http://www.nipc.gov/warnings/advisor...ial7302003.htm
>
>http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=118572
>
>http://leo.typepad.com/tsn/2002/09/windows_securit.html
>
>http://www.grc.com/unpnp/unpnp.htm
>
>http://www.crn.com/sections/Breaking...rticleID=44741
>
>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1/b3834047.htm
>
>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...092302x,00.asp
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23090.html
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-275366...cnet&tag=mn_hd
>
>>Again, if you have a firewall that checks BOTH directions, you can remain
>>blissfully ignorant of most of that or if you are unsure but paranoid, you
>>can block anything you cant identify.
>
>My point is that Windows shouldn't be doing this in the first place.
>There is no legitimate reason for Windows to be taking private
>information from my computer and sending it out to unknown recipients
>without my knowledge or consent. Just because you've secured your
>premises against burglary doesn't mean that burglary has ceased being
>a crime.
>
>>So far as Win98 is concerned, you are less safe on it than XP. You seem only
>>to worry about certain things. Security isnt just one dimensional.
>
>Will you please clarify this assertion. Just exactly how is WinXP
>more secure than Win 98SE?
>
>>Sure. the RPC thing was a total disgusting mess that shouldnt have happened.
>>However, that wasnt the issue. You are saying Win98 is safer. It just isnt.
>
>What I'm saying is that it is easier to harden Win 98SE than it is to
>harden WinXP. Left alone all Windows OS's are open doors to your
>system.
>
>>Rubbish to that last sentence. If you are that paranoid, stay with Linux and
>>suffer IT'S security problems, only.
>
>You are a Microsoft shill. If you aren't familiar with the concerns
>about the capabilities of TCPA, Palladium and Longhorn and the
>controversies around its development and implementation then you
>aren't informed enough to be commenting on security issues. The idea
>of a hardware/software combination designed to lock you out of your
>own system at the behest of some vendor should scare the hell out of
>anyone.
>
>>You sound as if you think it cant be beaten.
>
>It shouldn't have to be. It represents the idea that the computer
>industry is starting to think of the PC as their property rather than
>that of the user. That should be unacceptable to anyone.
>
>-----
>Kyle Pope
>
>"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6
>
>Keeper of the Edit List -
>
>(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---