| Author |
Microsoft Windows xp SP2 (Review) |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
I have tried, sorry I thought I mentioned that, but it was the first obvious thing to do of course 
| |
|
Ayush
Joined: Sep 12, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Hyderabad, india
PM |
Ok ok!
This message was posted from a T610 |
Jools
Joined: May 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Interesting new review of SP2 is available at the link below from The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/02/winxpsp2_security_review/
Pretty scary stuff for a supposed Security update. No wonder Windows is so plagued by viruses and malware!
After reading that, it makes me even more happy to be a Mac user!
Conclusions
Microsoft declined many opportunities to harden Windows XP in a meaningful way; that is, by disabling unnecessary services, enforcing the multiuser environment, setting sensible user and file permissions, and installing a fully-functional packet filter. The roster of missing security utilities, such as PGP, SSH, a proper wipe utility, etc., is immense.
The home user is the one most in need of good security configurations and tools, yet the one least served by SP2. Windows may be easy to use, but it is extremely complicated and difficult to administer, especially for security, with a tremendous number of hidden functions and many complex configuration interfaces. It should be left to the professional admin to enable services and understand their dependencies, not left to the home user to figure out which ones are risky, and which ones can safely be disabled.
The Security Center is a good idea, but as it's been implemented, it's little more than a gimmick that will lead to a false sense of security. Our test system remained vulnerable to a vast host of online threats, especially those involving user interaction. And that's a pity, because a Windows system can be hardened significantly so that even careless users will have trouble infecting it - so long as one knows how to go about it. The idea behind SP2 was to apply the kind of security know-how that users aren't expected to have via a major system update, so that people can venture onto the Internet without worry.
Unfortunately, Windows remains a quite dangerous system to connect to the Internet, and users are still very much on their own in terms of security solutions.
[ This Message was edited by: JoolsG3 on 2004-09-02 12:18 ] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
And a related story.....
Microsoft security chief uses Firefox
MICROSOFT'S head of security, Stephen Toulouse, has accidentally revealed that he uses Firefox.
In an interview with Wired, Toulouse was chatting about how security was an industry wide problem and not Internet Explorer specific.
Then he mentioned that only that morning he had to download an upgrade to Firefox to block a flaw that would've allowed an attacker to run a program on his system.
While he meant to point out how other browsers have the same problems as IE, he just happened to reveal that he surfs using the rival browser.
Of course it is unlikely that he does not find IE a particularly secure proposition and there must be a really good reason he has Firefox on his computer. Here are a possible list of excuses:
1. His secretary downloaded it and he can’t work out how to uninstall it. He has to keep updating to prevent from being a hole in his system.
2. He finds the orange and blue colour scheme calming.
3. He ritually has to swear at it as part of a Vole management rite.
4. He uses it to see if it can’t download the same pages that IE can and then laugh if it can’t.
5. He is trying to know the enemy by using it.
Via:theinquirer
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-09-02 09:02
