Microsoft Patches 19 Flaws, 6 in Vista 307
Cheesy Balogna writes "Microsoft has just released seven advisories — all rated critical — with patches for at least 19 vulnerabilities affecting the Windows operating system, the widely deployed Office productivity suite and the dominant Internet Explorer browser. Six of the 19 vulnerabilities affect Windows Vista. 'There are patches for 7 different vulnerabilities that could lead to code execution attacks against Word, Excel and Office. Users of Microsoft Exchange are also urged to pay attention to one of the critical bulletins, which cover 4 different flaws. A cumulative IE update addresses six potentially dangerous bugs. There are the six that apply to IE 7 on Windows Vista. The last bulletin in this month's batch apples to CAPICOM (Cryptographic API Component Object Model) and could also put users at risk of complete system hijack attacks.'"
Linux patches? (Score:5, Insightful)
When are we going to start seeing regular Slashdot postings outlining Linux or other free software security patch releases in the same accusatory tone that the monthly Microsoft security bulletin releases bring? No, I'm not trolling, but I'm getting sick of the clear bias Slashdot editors (and most readers) have when it comes to matters of Microsoft.
(I can feel my karma slipping away, but I couldn't take it anymore).
Re:Linux patches? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right, Slashdot is biased against Microsoft. If you're looking for unbiased news stories, you've come to the wrong place.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you are showing your own bias?
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like going to the Catholic church saying: Why don't you tell me everytime anybody is proven the absence of God?!
Re:Linux patches? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm now getting tired of the number of posts with the same tone as yours. You lament losing Karma in a sea of angry "Linux-zealot" mods, but I would guess you will be modded up, not down. Enjoy the karma...
Is this even news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right there in the first sentences of that quote, that bias. Those are released patches, not "downplayed patches" or "ignored vulnerabilities". Those are actual fixes, released on a monthly basis.
If Microsoft would ignore it, we get "microsoft ignores it!" article on Slashdot. If they release a patch, we get "omg critical patch for Windows" article on Slashdot.
It's ridiculous.
Also how about claims of security and bending truth, just like you prove it yourself, Linux fanboys twist the truth about Linux far more often than Microsoft does with Windows. Anything goes.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has frequently been caught knowing about a bug for months before a patch is released.
When they get caught they claim they're doing QA, but past experience with Microsoft patches suggests that they are doing no valuable testing anyway.
If they had ever demonstrated trustworthiness, they might be trusted a bit. As it is, they have demonstrated time and again that they will fuck you over and lie about it.
If you appreciate the way Microsoft treats you, then you are free to sing their praises. But it doesn't make you right.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:3, Insightful)
What conclusion is the summary supposedly spoon-feeding me?
Why didn't they find these holes earlier? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if the rewritten portions of Vista removed 70% of the critical holes, that's pretty good. They might have been working on the right modules.
Re:Did they fix the cltreq.asp query nonsense? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any reason someone with Chilisoft ASP couldn't implement the same functionality?
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
When they get caught they claim they're doing QA, but past experience with Microsoft patches suggests that they are doing no valuable testing anyway.
If they had ever demonstrated trustworthiness, they might be trusted a bit. As it is, they have demonstrated time and again that they will fuck you over and lie about it.
If you appreciate the way Microsoft treats you, then you are free to sing their praises. But it doesn't make you right.
That's what pisses me off with fanboys: they don't get context at all. For them any article with "Microsoft" in it, is a reason enough to recycle the entire 30 years of Microsoft faults in a single post. Over and over.
Let's see what's the event at case: regular monthly patches for Windows. That's it.
I, and some other people just asked for objective opinions: there's no "ignored vulnerability" or "delayed responce" in THIS ONE CASE. There is NO reason to regurgitate past faults of Microsoft every single month, when completely predictably, the patches are released.
But all of those are treated as an excuse for doing just that.
So you response is that "I'm singing praises for Microsoft". There's basically no way to argue with you guys. Keep living in your imaginary world, I hope you're happy there.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:1, Insightful)
Stop for a second, and ask yourself: "why on earth I just recited my whole Microsoft bashing repertoire in response to a mere boring monthly patch release".
Think about it hard, and then consider again who's the ridiculous one in this discussion.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am the first to admit that Microsoft has problems with security, but it's a problem that plagues the entire industry. Linux, Unix, Windows, Mac, websites, forms, applications, EVERYTHING. It's a problem in how the industry approaches security. It goes far beyond Microsoft. The entire industry has this "Get it working now, patch it later" mentality. It's the "Default Allow" instead of "Default Deny" approach. There is NO reason Buffer Overflow attacks should work... EVER. Period. How hard is it to check your buffers, and make sure you're handling them properly? Very sloppy. Microsoft certainly isn't the best, but they're far from the worst. Don't believe me? Check that website, and all the security advisories for the past few years, and you will notice and interesting trend.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No flaws in Vista itself, all 6 in IE7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cure the disease and lose the patient (Score:3, Insightful)
During the OS install, you are specifically asked to configure automatic updates. Some of the service pack installs also ask you to do this. [...] If the user decides to just click away the dialog asking you to configure automatic updates (which many OEMs will leave for you) then that's their damage.
Hmmm.. like most people, windows was preinstalled on my machine. If enabling a feature can lose the vital work of the user, it should not be a default. Also, a clear warning of the consequences should be made. In actual fact, I intentionally enabled the automatic update and I still didn't know what I was letting myself in for. My bad, I guess, but I never thought for one moment that enabling it like this might just cause my machine to lose my work while I was sitting in front of it, never mind if I popped out for a coffee! It fails the principle of least surprise.
I think that for most people, computers are tools, not objects of intrinsic interest in themselves. Any boring software (ie - stuff that should just work and not get in the user's way unless absolutely necessary) should do just that: just work. If can't just work, at the very least it should not endanger the user's work if at all possible.
Funnily enough, the argument that linux is harder to configure than windows is often made, but in my recent experience, I have to tinker less with linux than I ever did with windows, and I feel much safer!
Re:Linux patches? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, they are regular monthly patches. That means that they are withholding completed patches until the chosen day comes.
Microsoft then rolled patches into a monthly patch. They got slated on Slashdot for it.
Microsoft released some important patches outside of the monthly cycle since they switched to it. They got slated on Slashdot for it.
Yeah, theres no pattern there at all.
With Linux, you can install patches immediately if there is a need, or later once they have had some good testing if there is not an immediate need. With Microsoft, you may install them when they say you may install them.
Re:Linux patches? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux patches? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they find these holes earlier? (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I really hope someone is not trying to run Exchange on Vista. *grins*