MS Says Unix better than W2K

MS Says Unix better than W2K

Post by Jim » Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:26:29



Take a look at /. this morning (http://slashdot.org)

First, read:

"BSD:Why Unix is better than Windows ... by Microsoft"
(also links to a Register article)

then read:

"Another Critical Microsoft Hole".

Yeah, I know, the second one is almost a daily
feature, but this one claims MS is saying you
can't trust ActiveX controls signed by MS.

The first one is utterly hilarious and is a
perfect final chapter to the debates about
FreeBSD vs. W2K on hotmail that have gone on
here sporadically. Lots of stuff on why the
CLI is better than a GUI for server admin too,
all written by MS'ers.

I expect I'll be smiling all day - funniest
stuff I've read in a long time.

Jim

 
 
 

MS Says Unix better than W2K

Post by D. C. Session » Sat, 23 Nov 2002 05:11:56



> "Another Critical Microsoft Hole".

> Yeah, I know, the second one is almost a daily
> feature, but this one claims MS is saying you
> can't trust ActiveX controls signed by MS.

I wonder if any MS Spokesheads will ever again be able
to defend "code signing" as a security mechanism?

--
|      In the course of every project there comes a time        |
|         when the best de* is a can of gasoline.          |

 
 
 

MS Says Unix better than W2K

Post by The Ghost In The Machin » Sat, 23 Nov 2002 23:02:45


In comp.os.linux.advocacy, D. C. Sessions

 wrote
on Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:11:56 -0700


>> "Another Critical Microsoft Hole".

>> Yeah, I know, the second one is almost a daily
>> feature, but this one claims MS is saying you
>> can't trust ActiveX controls signed by MS.

> I wonder if any MS Spokesheads will ever again be able
> to defend "code signing" as a security mechanism?

Oh, it's a security mechanism all right -- about the
equivalent of putting a cheap bike lock around the steering
wheel of one's car.  (Even the ignition switch doesn't
give good thieves too much work -- one pop, fiddle around,
and they're gone.  At least, such is my understanding.
Fortunately, the steering wheel interlock gives the more
amateurish variants some pause.)

And the best private/public system in the world won't
do one much good if one writes the private key in
a world-readable file. :-)

And then there's the signing authority.  I'm assuming
official Microsoft certificates would be signed by
"Microsoft, Inc.".  But there are an awful lot of
variants:

"Microsoft, Inc."
"Microsoft Inc"
"Microsoft Ltd" (for those in Britain that may be duped :-) )
"Microsoft"
"Micro Soft"
"Micr0S0ft"
"Micr?s?ft" (Germans?)
"Micrsft" (Poland?  Mordor? :-) )
"Micr?s?ft" (Sweden?)
"Mircosoft" (for those on the planet Ypto?)

etc.  I certainly hope that people read that dialog box carefully! :-)
And that's assuming the signing authority doesn't make a
clerical error and issue a second certificate for "Microsoft, Inc.".

(I'd have to look at the other fields in a standard certificate;
there are a few.  This is only one of them, and the one that's
usually shown on that requester asking one to trust the ActiveX
applet just prior to its download.)

--

It's still legal to go .sigless.

 
 
 

1. MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
Shame on you MS!!!

James

2. persistent core in /var/spool/mqueue

3. IE for Unix - MS says they brought the web to Unix

4. Parallel Port

5. flock() emulation problem

6. Sun Blade 100, Sol 8, and WindowMaker

7. Archival Concerns (was Re: IE for Unix - MS says they brought

8. Win2k better than other MS OSes, but worse than Unix - report

9. Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away

10. Is Windows NT a better VMS or a better Unix ?

11. Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)