Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by David Mohri » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:40:16



So worth posting in full.

Java flaws burn Internet Explorer
By James Middleton [10-09-2002]
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931
+
+Microsoft browser riddled with JVM vulnerabilities
+
+Security experts have issued warnings about vulnerabilities in the
+Java Virtual Machine (JVM) contained in the latest versions of
+Internet Explorer (IE).
+
+The flaws allow an attacker to deliver and execute arbitrary code
+on a victim's system when a hostile website or message is viewed
+in either IE or Outlook.
+
+Finnish security firm Online Solutions claims that it has found 10
+different vulnerabilities in the JVM which it has reported to
+Microsoft.
+
+Through a combination of holes that give malicious Java applets
+file access on the viewer's system, as well as other resources
+that allow the delivery of code, a malicious applet could be
+engineered to upload and execute code on a victim's machine.
+
+Such code could perform actions such as reading or modifying
+files, and installing or removing programs.
+
+Typically, Java applets run in what is known as a 'sandbox', a
+security measure designed to protect the underlying operating
+system.
+
+But if an untrusted Java applet can invoke a piece of machine
+language code known as a 'native method' which itself contains a
+security flaw, it may be able to escape its sandbox and compromise
+the system.
+
+Fine details of the flaws have been omitted so as not to give the
+script kiddies a leg up in developing exploits.
+
+Jouko Pynnonen, a researcher at Online Solutions, said that,
+although the vulnerabilities were found in the Java environment,
+"they do not seem to originate from the original Sun Microsystems
+code, but in the modifications or additions made by Microsoft".
+
+He confirmed that, during testing, Sun's Java plug-in showed no
+known vulnerabilities.
+
+Microsoft has acknowledged most of the vulnerabilities and is
+currently working on a patch. In the meantime, users can disable
+Java applets until the patch is released.

Microsoft could solve this problem by just accepting Sun's offer
to distribute Sun's own browser instead of Microsoft own older and
vulnerable JVM.
http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0208/29/technology-572594.htm

David Mohring - Trustworthy Microsoft? Not by their actions.

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Super Spinne » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:46:06



Quote:> So worth posting in full.

> Java flaws burn Internet Explorer
> By James Middleton [10-09-2002]
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931
> +
> +Microsoft browser riddled with JVM vulnerabilities
> +
> +Security experts have issued warnings about vulnerabilities in the
> +Java Virtual Machine (JVM) contained in the latest versions of
> +Internet Explorer (IE).
> +
> +The flaws allow an attacker to deliver and execute arbitrary code
> +on a victim's system when a hostile website or message is viewed
> +in either IE or Outlook.
> +
> +Finnish security firm Online Solutions claims that it has found 10
> +different vulnerabilities in the JVM which it has reported to
> +Microsoft.
> +
> +Through a combination of holes that give malicious Java applets
> +file access on the viewer's system, as well as other resources
> +that allow the delivery of code, a malicious applet could be
> +engineered to upload and execute code on a victim's machine.
> +
> +Such code could perform actions such as reading or modifying
> +files, and installing or removing programs.
> +
> +Typically, Java applets run in what is known as a 'sandbox', a
> +security measure designed to protect the underlying operating
> +system.
> +
> +But if an untrusted Java applet can invoke a piece of machine
> +language code known as a 'native method' which itself contains a
> +security flaw, it may be able to escape its sandbox and compromise
> +the system.
> +
> +Fine details of the flaws have been omitted so as not to give the
> +script kiddies a leg up in developing exploits.
> +
> +Jouko Pynnonen, a researcher at Online Solutions, said that,
> +although the vulnerabilities were found in the Java environment,
> +"they do not seem to originate from the original Sun Microsystems
> +code, but in the modifications or additions made by Microsoft".
> +
> +He confirmed that, during testing, Sun's Java plug-in showed no
> +known vulnerabilities.
> +
> +Microsoft has acknowledged most of the vulnerabilities and is
> +currently working on a patch. In the meantime, users can disable
> +Java applets until the patch is released.

> Microsoft could solve this problem by just accepting Sun's offer
> to distribute Sun's own browser instead of Microsoft own older and
> vulnerable JVM.
> http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0208/29/technology-572594.htm

> David Mohring - Trustworthy Microsoft? Not by their actions.

They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to distribute
Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeed.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by David Mohri » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:10:39


On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:46:06 -0700,



>> So worth posting in full.

>> Java flaws burn Internet Explorer
>> By James Middleton [10-09-2002]
>> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931
>> +
>> +Microsoft browser riddled with JVM vulnerabilities
>> +
>> +Security experts have issued warnings about vulnerabilities in the
>> +Java Virtual Machine (JVM) contained in the latest versions of
>> +Internet Explorer (IE).
>> +
>> +The flaws allow an attacker to deliver and execute arbitrary code
>> +on a victim's system when a hostile website or message is viewed
>> +in either IE or Outlook.
>> +
>> +Finnish security firm Online Solutions claims that it has found 10
>> +different vulnerabilities in the JVM which it has reported to
>> +Microsoft.
>> +
>> +Through a combination of holes that give malicious Java applets
>> +file access on the viewer's system, as well as other resources
>> +that allow the delivery of code, a malicious applet could be
>> +engineered to upload and execute code on a victim's machine.
>> +
>> +Such code could perform actions such as reading or modifying
>> +files, and installing or removing programs.
>> +
>> +Typically, Java applets run in what is known as a 'sandbox', a
>> +security measure designed to protect the underlying operating
>> +system.
>> +
>> +But if an untrusted Java applet can invoke a piece of machine
>> +language code known as a 'native method' which itself contains a
>> +security flaw, it may be able to escape its sandbox and compromise
>> +the system.
>> +
>> +Fine details of the flaws have been omitted so as not to give the
>> +script kiddies a leg up in developing exploits.
>> +
>> +Jouko Pynnonen, a researcher at Online Solutions, said that,
>> +although the vulnerabilities were found in the Java environment,
>> +"they do not seem to originate from the original Sun Microsystems
>> +code, but in the modifications or additions made by Microsoft".
>> +
>> +He confirmed that, during testing, Sun's Java plug-in showed no
>> +known vulnerabilities.
>> +
>> +Microsoft has acknowledged most of the vulnerabilities and is
>> +currently working on a patch. In the meantime, users can disable
>> +Java applets until the patch is released.

>> Microsoft could solve this problem by just accepting Sun's offer
>> to distribute Sun's own browser instead of Microsoft own older and
>> vulnerable JVM.
>> http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0208/29/technology-572594.htm

>> David Mohring - Trustworthy Microsoft? Not by their actions.

>They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
>And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to distribute
>Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

You might as well ask, why does Microsoft ship with Macromedia's
FLASH viewer? Because Microsoft came to a legal arrangement with
Macromedia to ship flash with Internet Explorer.

McNealy and Sun acted in good faith when they licensed the source
code to their JVM to Microsoft, it was clearly stated that Microsoft
JVMs and Visual Java Toolset was to remain fully compatable with
Sun's own - Bill Gates and CO Screwed them.

MS Killed Java: Time for Justice
A Commentary on Sun's Injunction Request Against Microsoft
http://www.sys-con.com/java/article.cfm?id=1597
+Five years ago, almost to the day, Microsoft shipped IE4 with a
+JVM that was intentionally engineered to provide leverage to
+corrupt and pollute Java compatibility standards. The US District
+Court clearly found Microsoft guilty of illegal anticompetitive
+behavior with respect to Java, and that court's findings were
+upheld and clarified by the US Court of Appeals. Nonetheless,
+Microsoft has continued to benefit from having used its monopoly
+power illegally to suppress the emerging success of Java. They
+have been as free during these past five years as Michael Skakel
+was since he committed his crime. It is time for justice to be
+done, and justice demands that Java get the chance to succeed that
+Microsoft intentionally and illegally took away.
+
+It doesn't matter that Microsoft committed the illegal acts a long
+time ago, they are no less culpable. I support Sun's motion and
+hope that the judge who hears this case will understand that
+Microsoft's illegal acts were made even more severe by the fact
+that Microsoft committed them early enough to kill Java on the
+client before it had a reasonable chance to succeed. In the famous
+words of Barney Fife, they "nipped it in the bud!" It is
+representative of the worst and most calculated forms of illegal
+use of monopoly power.

But then, you should have read and understood the above by now

David Mohring - .

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by GreyClou » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:34:26





> > So worth posting in full.

> > Java flaws burn Internet Explorer
> > By James Middleton [10-09-2002]
> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931
> > +
> > +Microsoft browser riddled with JVM vulnerabilities
> > +
> > +Security experts have issued warnings about vulnerabilities in the
> > +Java Virtual Machine (JVM) contained in the latest versions of
> > +Internet Explorer (IE).
> > +
> > +The flaws allow an attacker to deliver and execute arbitrary code
> > +on a victim's system when a hostile website or message is viewed
> > +in either IE or Outlook.
> > +
> > +Finnish security firm Online Solutions claims that it has found 10
> > +different vulnerabilities in the JVM which it has reported to
> > +Microsoft.
> > +
> > +Through a combination of holes that give malicious Java applets
> > +file access on the viewer's system, as well as other resources
> > +that allow the delivery of code, a malicious applet could be
> > +engineered to upload and execute code on a victim's machine.
> > +
> > +Such code could perform actions such as reading or modifying
> > +files, and installing or removing programs.
> > +
> > +Typically, Java applets run in what is known as a 'sandbox', a
> > +security measure designed to protect the underlying operating
> > +system.
> > +
> > +But if an untrusted Java applet can invoke a piece of machine
> > +language code known as a 'native method' which itself contains a
> > +security flaw, it may be able to escape its sandbox and compromise
> > +the system.
> > +
> > +Fine details of the flaws have been omitted so as not to give the
> > +script kiddies a leg up in developing exploits.
> > +
> > +Jouko Pynnonen, a researcher at Online Solutions, said that,
> > +although the vulnerabilities were found in the Java environment,
> > +"they do not seem to originate from the original Sun Microsystems
> > +code, but in the modifications or additions made by Microsoft".
> > +
> > +He confirmed that, during testing, Sun's Java plug-in showed no
> > +known vulnerabilities.
> > +
> > +Microsoft has acknowledged most of the vulnerabilities and is
> > +currently working on a patch. In the meantime, users can disable
> > +Java applets until the patch is released.

> > Microsoft could solve this problem by just accepting Sun's offer
> > to distribute Sun's own browser instead of Microsoft own older and
> > vulnerable JVM.
> > http://www.detnews.com/2002/technology/0208/29/technology-572594.htm

> > David Mohring - Trustworthy Microsoft? Not by their actions.

> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to distribute
> Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

Why, when you can get it for free??
 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Linonu » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 01:29:01


After takin' a swig o' grog, Super Spinner belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Quote:> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to distribute
> Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

If MS wants OEMs to distribute MS's product, MS should pay OEMs to do so.
 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Jim Richardso » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 02:23:59


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:46:06 -0700,

Quote:

> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to distribute
> Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

How much should Micros~1 pay Dell to ship MS-Windows on Dell boxen?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9f96fd90bcYOAWPYRAr89AKCHcDalCzwvjGV7je7IWo/BRCAn5ACfXaNt
ctmKTtos6WJINPKE0iRlaHY=
=Q3HA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, from watches to supercomputers, for grandmas and geeks.

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Stephen Edward » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 03:33:44



> +Microsoft browser riddled with JVM vulnerabilities

8< snippage >8

Golly.  What - a - surprise.
--
if (strcmp(Microsoft, "alive") == 0) && (strcmp(you, "PC monkey") == 0) {
strcpy(username, "01100001 01101110 01100001 01101101"); // Decode binary
strcat(username, " 01101111 01110010 01110000 01101000"); // to contact me.

Quote:} // % set HOST="extremezone.com"; cat whining | apathy > /dev/null; logout

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Robt. Mille » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:18:43



> After takin' a swig o' grog, Super Spinner belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
>> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to distribute
>> Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

> If MS wants OEMs to distribute MS's product, MS should pay OEMs to do so.

 Now don't go getting logical on him..

--

(o<    
//\   Powered by SuSE Linux  
V_/_  Virusproof. Crashproof.
 10:18pm  up  9:09, 23 users,  load average: 1.17, 1.11, 1.09
processes 43184

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:44:35



>> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
>> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to
>> distribute Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

> You might as well ask, why does Microsoft ship with Macromedia's
> FLASH viewer? Because Microsoft came to a legal arrangement with
> Macromedia to ship flash with Internet Explorer.

Or, more likely, Macromedia paid MS to include it.

Quote:> McNealy and Sun acted in good faith when they licensed the source
> code to their JVM to Microsoft, it was clearly stated that Microsoft
> JVMs and Visual Java Toolset was to remain fully compatable with
> Sun's own - Bill Gates and CO Screwed them.

Are you aware that Sun withheld the Java 1.1 test suite from MS?  It was
impossible for MS to test their JVM against Sun's test suite prior to its
release because Sun deliberately withheld it, clearly hoping that this would
improve the odds that MS violated the test suite.

This is documented in the trial proceedings:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/java2.asp

5.21 The TLDA provides that Sun must deliver Test Suites to Microsoft.
Pursuant to sections 1.13, 1.15, 2.6(a)(ii) and section 2.6(b)(ii), Sun is
to deliver to Microsoft Test Suites that are publicly available. Publicly
available Test Suites are the only Test Suites that can be used to determine
the rights of the parties under the TLDA. Among other things, this provision
protects Microsoft from any attempt by Sun to impose secret requirements on
Microsoft. Sun has never delivered any publicly available Test Suites to
Microsoft. At no time has Sun tested any Microsoft Product with a publicly
available Test Suite. Without having ever made a proper test and knowing the
public would be unable to judge for itself because of Sun's willful breaches
of contract, Sun made false public statements that Microsoft's Products have
failed to pass Java Test Suites under the TLDA.

What's more, according to MS's contract with Sun, MS has 6 months to correct
any problems found, yet Sun filed suit almost immediately after MS released
their 1.1 JVM.

Sun engineered the situation in order to nearly guarantee a failure on the
part of MS, and had prepared a lawsuit ahead of time expecting such to
happen.

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by David Mohri » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:46:50


On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:44:35 -0500,
                 Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:

>David Mohring wrote:
>>> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
>>> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous.  If Sun wants MS to
>>> distribute Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.

>> You might as well ask, why does Microsoft ship with Macromedia's
>> FLASH viewer? Because Microsoft came to a legal arrangement with
>> Macromedia to ship flash with Internet Explorer.

>Or, more likely, Macromedia paid MS to include it.

Payment is a non-issue since, it still represents a legal contract
what would you expect Macromedia to do if Microsoft breached that
contract?

>> McNealy and Sun acted in good faith when they licensed the source
>> code to their JVM to Microsoft, it was clearly stated that Microsoft
>> JVMs and Visual Java Toolset was to remain fully compatable with
>> Sun's own - Bill Gates and CO Screwed them.

>Are you aware that Sun withheld the Java 1.1 test suite from MS?  It was
>impossible for MS to test their JVM against Sun's test suite prior to its
>release because Sun deliberately withheld it, clearly hoping that this would
>improve the odds that MS violated the test suite.

Microsoft was well in breach of the contract with Sun before that
date.

Microsoft released, as part of Internet Explorer, a "Java" which
flunked the specific test suite specified in its contract with
Sun. A "Java" based on Sun's design - but modified so that
programs written in real Java, as designed by Sun, would
malfunction under "Microsoft Java", while programs written for
"Microsoft Java" would not run correctly under Sun's original
design. This in direct abrogation of the terms of the license
Microsoft had signed to use Sun's property. This is very
similar behavour to what Microsoft used against DR-DOS.
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm

Note that, until the October 1997 release of Internet Explorer,
Microsoft's modifications of Java caused a bug which could be
used, either by malicious website material or inadvertently, to
destroy files on the user's hard disk by over-writing them with
garbage. This bug was completely silent and ran easily in the
background as soon as a web page finished loading, without the
user ever suspecting a thing until it was too late. See
the Internet Explorer File Corruption Bug page from the people
who discovered it.
http://www.twmacinta.com/expbug2/
History repeats, 2002 ...
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931
+Jouko Pynnonen, a researcher at Online Solutions, said that,
+although the vulnerabilities were found in the Java environment,
+"they do not seem to originate from the original Sun Microsystems
+code, but in the modifications or additions made by Microsoft". He
+confirmed that, during testing, Sun's Java plug-in showed no known
+vulnerabilities."

Lets have a look at the announcement from Sun on why they brought
the lawsuit...

http://java.sun.com/pr/1997/oct/transcript.html
+October 7, 1997 -- Alan Baratz, president of the JavaSoft business
+unit of Sun Microsystems:
+
+Good morning everyone. As you know if you've seen our press
+release this morning, we have filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in
+a United States District Court today. We have taken this action
+because we believe it is necessary to preserve the value of the
+Java technology and the value that the Java brand represents to an
+entire industry.
+
+For the past more than six months, Microsoft, one of our 117
+licensees of the Java technology, has publicly disputed its
+obligation to abide by the contract requiring it to implement the
+full Java Developer Kit 1.1. That dispute reached beyond the
+"spirit" of the law and into the "letter" of the law last Tuesday,
+when Microsoft began shipping a final version of Internet Explorer
+4.0. By not shipping the complete JDK 1.1 in the final version of
+IE 4.0, Microsoft has deliberately breached its contractual
+obligation.
+
+Now, you might ask why we weren't able to settle this issue with
+Microsoft out of court. The fact is, we worked very diligently
+over the past six months to resolve these issues. We have offered
+numerous solutions. Each time we came close to an agreement,
+Microsoft went in another direction.
+
+What became abundantly clear in our negotiations is that Microsoft
+has no intention of honoring the contract. They have stated so
+publicly and have proven this based on their actions. Rather than
+comply with its obligations under the contract, what Microsoft has
+done is embarked on a deliberate course of conduct to fragment the
+interfaces to Java, to break cross- platform compatibility and to
+deliver a technology which some might think is Java but only works
+on Microsoft products.
+
+As a result, we have filed suit today citing Microsoft with
+trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract and
+unfair competition. We are seeking an injunction against
+Microsoft, preventing them from using the Java Compatible logo,
+from issuing misleading statements proclaiming to be fully
+compatible with JDK 1.1, from delivering anything but fully
+compatible Java technology implementations and seeking damages for
+their efforts to undermine the value of Java and the Java brand.
+But let me be clear, our goal is to get Microsoft back into
+compliance.
+
+Now let me give you a bit of background.
+
+As I said, we have spent more than six months in discussion with
+Microsoft over its statements of intent not to remain compatible
+with Java. The contract specifically requires that by the time
+they ship a finished product that uses Java, they must be fully
+compatible. Microsoft has steadfastly and very publicly refused to
+ship two key pieces of the Java platform, the JDK. The first of
+these is JNI, a virtual machine interface for invoking native
+programming code. And the second is RMI which stands for remote
+method invocation which enables programs written in the Java
+programming environment to communicate between different computers.
+
+Without these key interfaces, Microsoft is unable to pass the Java
+Compatible test suites that they are contractually obligated to
+pass as a part of the contract. Immediately after downloading IE
+4.0 last Tuesday we began testing it for compatibility. Those
+tests concluded this past weekend, and as you would expect the
+tests failed.
+
+These deliberate violations, especially in conjunction with
+Microsoft's concerted PR and marketing campaigns to "FUD" the Java
+technology, would be egregious enough. But what we have found in
+our testing of Microsoft's implementation of Java is far, far worse.
+
+Microsoft deceptively altered key class libraries to Java and then
+inserted this altered version in their "SDK" development kit.
+Developers who invoke these Java classes will believe they are
+writing cross-platform Java applications, when in fact they will
+be writing Windows. Java developers using the altered portions of
+the SDK will find those applications run only on Internet Explorer
+4.0.
+
+While doing this, Microsoft has publicly stated on its web site
+and elsewhere that the SDK and Internet Explorer are fully
+compatible with JDK 1.1.
+
+Now I would expect Microsoft to say that they have no obligation
+to do what we contend they must do as a part of the contract. But
+the fact is they have exactly that obligation.
+
+Microsoft will also likely claim that all they were attempting to
+do in changing the libraries was to make Java run well on Windows.
+First, we encourage all our licensees to incorporate Java on their
+platforms. But they must clearly delineate between Java and their
+platform. There can be no confusion. My second point is that all
+licensees are also encouraged to offer improvements to the APIs
+and class libraries. This is done as a part of the Java community,
+however, not unilaterally and not secretly. Suggestions for
+changes within the Java API may be offered for incorporation
+within the core platform. This is a well established process which
+the entire Java community uses. Microsoft, of course, knows this
+very well.
+
+They also know that by causing confusion in the market, they have
+a better chance of impeding or co-opting Java. We will not stand
+by and let that happen.

And the lawsuit carries on today ...
Sun Files Suit Against Microsoft for Anti-Trust Violations
http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/
+Sun Microsystems announced it has filed a private antitrust
+lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. The suit, filed March 8,
+2002 in the United States District Court in San Jose, CA., seeks
+remedies for the harm inflicted by Microsoft's anticompetitive
+behavior with respect to the Java[tm] platform and for damages
+resulting from Microsoft's illegal efforts to maintain and expand
+its monopoly power. In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals
+found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power
+with respect to Sun and the Java platform. Sun's suit seeks to
+redress the competitive and economic harm caused by Microsoft's
+illegal acts.

>This is documented in the trial proceedings:

>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/java2.asp

>5.21 The TLDA provides that Sun must deliver Test Suites to Microsoft.
>Pursuant to sections 1.13, 1.15, 2.6(a)(ii) and section 2.6(b)(ii), Sun is
>to deliver to Microsoft Test Suites that are publicly available. Publicly
>available Test Suites are the only Test Suites that can be used to determine
>the rights of the parties under the TLDA. Among other things, this provision
>protects Microsoft from any attempt by Sun to impose secret requirements on
>Microsoft. Sun has never delivered any publicly available Test Suites to
>Microsoft. At no time has Sun tested any Microsoft Product with a publicly
>available Test Suite. Without having ever made a proper test and knowing the
>public would be unable to judge for itself because of Sun's willful breaches
>of contract, Sun made false public statements

...

read more »

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Jerry Na » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:22:08



>Are you aware that Sun withheld the Java 1.1 test suite from MS?  It was
>impossible for MS to test their JVM against Sun's test suite prior to its
>release because Sun deliberately withheld it, clearly hoping that this would
>improve the odds that MS violated the test suite.

>This is documented in the trial proceedings:

>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/java2.asp

snip
>Sun engineered the situation in order to nearly guarantee a failure on the
>part of MS, and had prepared a lawsuit ahead of time expecting such to
>happen.

You do realize you're just spouting Microsoft propaganda regarding this
trial, don't you?:

http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/

+Microsoft Agrees to Settlement that Protects Future Integrity
+of the JavaTM Platform
+
+On January 23, 2001, Sun Microsystems announced that Microsoft
+Corporation had agreed to settle Sun's lawsuit regarding the
+JavaTM technology. The settlement protects the future integrity
+of the Java platform. As part of the agreement Microsoft has
+agreed to pay Sun $20 million, to accept Sun's termination of
+the prior license agreement, and to a permanent injunction against
+unauthorized use of Sun's JAVA COMPATIBLE trademark.
+
+To protect developers and consumers using Microsoft's outdated
+version of Java technology, Sun has agreed to grant Microsoft a
+limited license to continue to distribute its current version of
+the software, provided that all future versions of such products
+pass Sun's compatibility tests. This part of the agreement lasts
+seven years. Beyond that date, Microsoft can not distribute Java
+technology or use any of Sun's intellectual property.
+
+"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and
+consumers," said Sun's chairman and CEO Scott McNealy. "The community
+wants one Java technology: one brand, one process, and one great
+platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further
+protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."
+
+Sun freely distributes and actively supports the latest, most highly
+optimized version of Java technology (JDKTM 1.3 release) for Microsoft
+Windows. Further, Sun would be open to the possibility of having
+Microsoft distribute compliant versions of the latest, most robust
+Java technology.
+
+This year, Sun's partners will deliver millions of devices, all
+powered by Java technology, including more than 250 million
+smartcards, according to Rich Green, Sun's vice president and general
+manager of Java Software, Software Systems Group. Ninety percent of
+all application server companies have adopted J2EETM technology as
+the de facto standard.
+
+"Perhaps, in time, Microsoft will realize the benefits of joining
+the Java community," said Patricia Sueltz, Sun's executive vice
+president, Software Systems Group.
+
+For more information on the settlement, please see the settlement
+press release.
+
+Case History
+------------
+
+On October 7, 1997, Sun Microsystems Inc. sued Microsoft Corp in
+US District Court for breaching its contractual obligation to deliver
+products that compatibly implement Sun's JavaTM technology.
+
+Sun does not undertake lawsuits lightly, particularly such a
+significant one as this. After months of serious negotiations with
+Microsoft it became clear that we had no choice but to take this step.
+The ability to maximize compatibility and minimize porting is the
+central value of the Java platform, and that value is worth fighting
+for, even if it requires litigation.
+
+Developers by the hundreds of thousands are drawn to the Java platform
+for the opportunities it provides. The Java platform is a great business
+for Sun, for our licensees and especially for developers. Sun's not
+undertaking this lawsuit altruistically. There's a strong, new market
+with enormous growth potential at stake here -- for Sun and for hundreds
+of other established and fledgling companies.
+
+Achieving the full potential of the Java platform requires industry-
+wide cooperation and compatible implementation. Sun's contracts are
+designed to ensure that our licensees maintain that compatibility.
+
+When properly implemented, the Java platform turns the network into a
+full-fledged computing environment, for consumers with networked
+gadgets; for businesses who want to make networked data available
+universally; and for developers who want to build applications that will
+run on the broadest range of machines possible.
+
+Sun is absolutely focused on our goal -- to maintain the value and the
+promise of the Java platform and the new market it creates. We'll
+continue to take whatever steps we must to defend it.

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:37:19





>> Are you aware that Sun withheld the Java 1.1 test suite from MS?  It
>> was impossible for MS to test their JVM against Sun's test suite
>> prior to its release because Sun deliberately withheld it, clearly
>> hoping that this would improve the odds that MS violated the test
>> suite.

>> This is documented in the trial proceedings:

>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/java2.asp

> snip
>> Sun engineered the situation in order to nearly guarantee a failure
>> on the part of MS, and had prepared a lawsuit ahead of time
>> expecting such to happen.

> You do realize you're just spouting Microsoft propaganda regarding
> this trial, don't you?:

Sun never disputed MS's claims that they never gave them the Java Test
Suite.

As such, it's not propaganda.

 
 
 

Microsoft's Java flaws burn Internet Explorer Users

Post by Jerry Na » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:22:10






>>> Are you aware that Sun withheld the Java 1.1 test suite from MS?  It
>>> was impossible for MS to test their JVM against Sun's test suite
>>> prior to its release because Sun deliberately withheld it, clearly
>>> hoping that this would improve the odds that MS violated the test
>>> suite.

>>> This is documented in the trial proceedings:

>>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/java2.asp

>> snip
>>> Sun engineered the situation in order to nearly guarantee a failure
>>> on the part of MS, and had prepared a lawsuit ahead of time
>>> expecting such to happen.

>> You do realize you're just spouting Microsoft propaganda regarding
>> this trial, don't you?:

>Sun never disputed MS's claims that they never gave them the Java Test
>Suite.

>As such, it's not propaganda.

Facts told by themselves along with the intentional exclusion of other
pertinent facts can be an effective form of propaganda. As such, you
are just spouting Microsoft propaganda, from www.microsoft.com even.

Propaganda:
-----------
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of
helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's
cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such
an effect

 
 
 

1. Internet Explorer - Microsoft's Pathological Liars

How many people remember from just 3 years ago when Microsoft swore in a
U.S. court that you could not unbundle Internet Explorer from the OS.

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/31/1650206.shtml?tid=113&tid=126&t...

I am shocked that our judicial system doesn't order Microsoft Executives
to face contempt of court proceedings and jailing for this one.

Could you or I get away with this kind of lying in a court of law?  Nope!

But if your Microsoft, you can appearently.

2. minicom

3. Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.x over Apache Proxy

4. Using APOP with Red Hat?

5. Can I use Microsoft Internet Explorer on OpenBSD?

6. Assembly language programming in Linux

7. Internet Explorer for Solaris (java not working)

8. DNS MS records -- need help!

9. Microsoft Internet Explorer for Solaris

10. Is Microsoft's Internet plan more about its love of power than about users?

11. Microsoft Golf installation changed explorer's settings, the nerve!!!

12. Internet Explorer can't display any webpages but Lynx can

13. internet explorer - I've looked elsewhere...