On Apr 21, 1:04 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> __/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Saturday 21 April 2007 05:42 \__
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:48 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > \> The feds weigh in on Windows security
>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | "The benefits of this move are enormous: Common, secure configurations
> >> | can help slow botnet spreading, can radically reduce delays in patching,
> >> | can stop many attacks directly, and organizations that have made the
> >> | move report that it actually saves money rather than costs money,"
> >> | Paller wrote.
> >> `----
>
> >>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6172158.html
>
> > The headline is misleading. It turns out that the White House is
> > simply insisting that all PCs used by the Federal Government are
> > to be configured in "secure mode". Unfortunately, the only
> > true "Secure Mode" for Windows is unplugged from the network.
>
> > The directive essentially disables the most common features that
> > make Windows desirable. IE is essentially turned back into Mozilla.
> > Outlook is all but disabled. The firewall doesn't let you download
> > anything (exept security updates from Microsoft). The irony is
> > that this could prevent you from getting security updates that could
> > prevent you from getting frame-overrun implanted viruses and other
> > such nonsense.
>
> > Perhaps George is trying to buddy up to Bill one last time by sticking
> > with Windows, but issuing a directive that will make PCs utterly
> > useless,
> > resulting in a backlash that will trigger a stampede to Linux at about
> > same
> > time the Republicans are scrambling to win elections.
>
> Which headline is misleading? ZDNet's, I assume. The point to make here is
> that C|Net (?_ delivered a report about the government's dissatisfaction
> with its Windows PC in their present state. It could become yet another
> catalyt that supports the FSF's endeavours.
Yes. But it does look like the Die-hard Windows junkies in the Bush
Administration
are still trying for one last gasp effort to try and prove that
Windows/Office is "Good enough
for Government Work".
Microsoft's "Men in Black" at work.
Meanwhile - my other computer, which runs Windows, has firewall,
antivirus, and automated security audits weekly,
has an LUALL virus that pegs the CPU and all but stops Windows in it's
tracks. Sometimes I can't even get to Task manage
to kill the stupid process.
Called the help desk and they have no idea how to fix the problem.
When I tried to refresh the definitions manually by using the Live
Update Console, the antivirus software FINALLY figured out that there
was a little problem.
This one is suspicious. LUALL.EXE is the same program name that
Symantic uses for it's "Live Update" program that
updates the virus definitions. Could this be Microsoft trying to make
Symantic/Norton look so unreliable that people will be
forced to upgrade to Vista?
Maybe it came in with one of those mysterious Microsoft "Security
Updates". If so, there is legally nothing that any of the end users
can do about it. You can't sue Microsoft. You can't sue Symantic.
You can't even tell Microsoft to sue Symantic.
It's an amusing conspiracy theory, but like any really good conspiracy
- theory or reality, it's nearly impossible to prove or disprove.
> --
> ~~ With kind regards
>
> Roy S. Schestowitz | "How do I set my laser printer on stun?"http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> 6:00am up 6 days 5:28, 4 users, load average: 0.71, 0.73, 0.77
> http://iuron.com- help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
