Robert Gentel and Microsoft and hurting my feelings

Uh oh, I'll probably get kicked off now ...

Bill do you know that this site runs on Linux? Do you know that I operate a web development company that works exclusively on Linux?

You can find better Microsoft fanboys Bill. I just don't share your irrational paranoia about them and think one-size-fits-all folk in technology are ideologues who don't provide useful advice. I have run public servers now for years, and security is something I have to deal with in practical, not theoretical, terms (I bet a2k has has a couple dozen automated hacking attempts on it since I started writing, as the logs of attempted attacks run into the thousands a day sometimes). I know that any of the major operating system can be secure or insecure and it's your own security practices that make the biggest difference.



I'm sorry, that wasn't what I had intended and I know I can come across pretty strong, especially when in a hurry. A business partner of mine told me recently that my recent working schedule (been in a huge rush doing long hours) has made me curt and abrasive, and I know that when I am at this pace that is a frequent result. But I still disagree with you Bill, and where I fail to express it tactfully I hope you accept my apologies.

You'd said that Mac and Linux users don't need to be worried about security, and this is dangerous advice. In fact, the thread was about forums being hacked and I'll bet good money that each and every one of them were running Linux, not Windows. Should they not have worried either? Hell, the only time a computer I manage has ever been compromised it was a Linux and it was a forum hack here on able2know as well. It's a false sense of security to think that any particular platform is invulnerable. I work with Linux almost exclusively and see it rooted all the time. In fact last week one of my clients running Linux called me about being hacked (thankfully we are not in the IT business and aren't responsible for their security). There is no silver bullet Bill. Hating Microsoft isn't going to get you anywhere. And the worst part is that with all your irrational hatred of them, you still stay on their product, albeit an old antiquated one while refusing the use the newer one that you yourself admit is more secure.

You just don't make sense Bill, and I mean you no personal slight by saying so and wouldn't bother to even say so if you didn't spend so much time trying to convince others to follow suit.

An operating system can't bring you security. The biggest variable in computing security is the user. A user can be about as secure on any of the major operating systems and can also be about as insecure on them all. For this reason, tech ideologues are dangerous folk. They can't get past their hatred or love for particular companies enough to give sound advice and start portraying computer security as a simple matter of chosign between the rival ideologies.

Now you may feel insulted because I think you are misguided when it comes to computer security and have irrational phobias about Microsoft, but it's no different a charge than the converse one you repeatedly make about me saying I have financial or emotional interest in Microsoft.

I don't feel insulted by you claiming that I am an irrational Microsoft fanboy (I think it's kinda funny) and you shouldn't take it too personally that I think you are the opposite, the irrational Microsoft-hater.

So I can apologize for any insult I may have caused, and I can try to couch my opinion more tactfully, but at its core it's not going to change and I am going to dissent with your strongly-held opinions. So here I'll argue with them again, but please don't take it personally.



Have you ever heard of the concept "security through obscurity"? This is a famously flawed security strategy that is essentially what you are saying is the Mac security advantage: that they are too obscure to be targeted for attack.

You are correct that their small market share means that most malware will first target more popular platforms but this simply does not mean that their software is invulnerable, and as I've shown you in the last few years their software has been some of the easiest to hack in annual hacking competitions.

For this reason, telling people that merely getting off Windows means they no longer have to worry about security is wrongheaded. Your reasoning is merely that Macs have a smaller market share, but this is not security. This is obscurity.



This is just plain wrong. If you unpatch the Mac I can hack it myself. There are published exploits that patches fix just like for Windows. Unpatch either and you have easy hacks that are public knowledge already.



I've never once had any of my Windows systems compromised (without intentionally doing so for curiosity and study) and I just don't do all the stuff you do. That's why I think it's so paranoid. I'm very security-conscious and I don't have any security problems on Windows without all the fear and work that you seem to have to endure.

And Vista is secure enough to run out-of-box for most people. I'm running an out-of-box install right now and as far as I know you can't root me even if I don't lift a finger for security without a zero-day exploit and those kinds of exploits can get through any operating system and any false sense of security you have by not using any particular operating system.

The same wasn't true for XP by the way, but that's another one of your irrational soap boxes, how you prefer the less secure XP to Vista, claim Microsoft is "forcing" it on you and then also deride them for not being secure. All while admitting that Vista is, in fact, more secure.

I like Linux a lot, but it's not helped by ideologues spouting misinformation about it. And that's why I speak out against the mindless ideology and fanboys in technology. I've helped people with their computers (linux, PC and Macs) here for years now, and I've heard so many fanboys just pop in to say "get a Mac" or some random anti-Microsoft nonsense instead of giving real help that I resent their mindless ideology a great deal. It's simple and mindless while doing something helpful is actually a lot of work and requries a lot more understanding.

There is a time and a place for everything. These are just tools, and the answer to "my car is broken" is not always "buy a different brand". I have no particular attachment to Microsoft, but the solution to everything is not a the same damn hammer. I prefer Linux from an ideological standpoint as well, but purely ideological advice is not practically useful.

Not a raw nerve so much as a discussion we've been having over several threads now. That wasn't the beginning of the discussion. But yes, computer security is something that I am passionate about.

He was on a thread where someone is asking about hacking that I am certain happened on Linux and telling people that if they use Linux they shouldn't worry about security.

This is a soapbox he has been on for a while and it is not sound advice.



Are you saying that you aren't going to stop beating your wife?

You are putting words in my mouth that I've never expressed or implied.



Nobody has ever been kicked off the site for disagreeing with me.

Robert, my quotes and question was directed at msolga's reply not putting words in your mouth..
But I see you were gracious enough to explain to Bill about your curt reply.
As you say you have been working long hours and under pressure, so it is completely understandable. Now we know.
Cheers Deckland.

Windows itself was the main problem until recently (XP Service Pack 2). Back when this site started we used to get tons of people in here for adware fixes before Bill Gates launched the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative".

Prior to XP Service Pack 2, Microsoft security was an absolute joke. I posted a funny example of it here: http://able2know.org/topic/123334-1



It's very true that the fundamental structures of the internet (what they are talking about specifically are the protocols that drive the internet) were not built with security in mind but the trade off is openness and freedom really. What is not true is that the threats can't be defended against without changing them.

It sure would be easier, but the threats can currently be defended against and this is really a bigger political conflict of authority versus anonymity more than a technological one. The internet was made to be decentralized and this means it can't easily be centrally controlled and that it allows for a lot of anonymity.

The protocols have been improved upon and we'll continue to see them evolve slowly, but the core of that argument (if I remember the topic you are talking about correctly) really is the age-old security vs. freedom debate in technology.

This is a bit of a mangled message. Operating systems can easily be secured against the majority of the net's real threats. But the internet's anonymity and fundamental structure allow for things like phishing where a central, more authoritative internet would make it more difficult.

They are really separate things, Bill is right that Windows was not built with networking in mind initially, so security was basically "scan the floppy". Windows 98 on the internet was asking for trouble, and it only got marginally better till XP Service Pack 2.

The internet has security issues of its own that are entirely separate from securing an operating system, but obviously losing anonymity on the net will make it harder to attack operating systems with impunity.



Hackers have won, thousands of times. Each time they do they reveal how to fix a hole. Then the hole is fixed and the hackers look for the next hole.

The rate at which these things happen changes, but you shouldn't expect this fundamental pattern to change. There isn't going to be one day where the hackers just win the whole game. There are big exploits and small exploits but ultimately exploits are bugs, and they get fixed. So a big win for hackers would translate into a big security leap for everyone else and then the cycle goes on.




Bill isn't blaming Microsoft for anything that the internet structure is responsible for though.



It doesn't surprise me, but I'm passionate about technology and a pedantic bastard. When it crosses the line into advice I tend to wax loquacious in my dissent.

Just one of the things I'm very interested in, and have strong opinions about I guess.

I know it was about Bill, Deckland. That's why I posted to Bill. He said in his thread title that his feelings were hurt. I responded to that.
Would you do me a favour & reread my post?

Vista 64 for example will not allow you to run sandboxies because of it great patchgurard that you are not allow to tell to allow sandboxie to install.

It nice that microsoft had root protection now build in but it would also be nice if it did not stop you from running other major security software now would it not!

My third party root protection allow me to disable it if I wish to install such programs and that how it should be. You are less secure not more secure because of it.

Vista 64 will not allow you to place drivers on your own system unless the software developer had spend thousand of dollars to have the drivers sign.
Kind of hurt/destroy the free software market for that platform.

What added security Microsoft is now placing in windows is more harmful then otherwise.

Robert no one is attacking Macs on the net and that is a fact and that fact make Mac a far far safer OS to run on the net for now.

Now could they start doing so hell yes. Is it likely they will start doing so in the near future hell no.

I did not said anything concerning Linux in my postings because linux run servers on the net and therefore they are attack on the net.

Mac do not normally run servers and therefore are not a target of attacks for that reason.

Bullshit.

Then why does Mac offer security patches if there is no danger?
Do you keep your Mac OS updated Bill? Do you bother to see what those updates do?

I work on Mac, Windows and Linux. Every one provides security updates as problems are found.

Mac OSX is linux based so it is often subject to the same attacks as linux machines are.

As for Mac's not being servers on the internet, did you not realize that Apache is standard in OSX and a lot of Mac users run web pages from their Mac. It is very simple and easy to do. After all it IS a Mac.

Just in case you thought you WERE safe bill -
Zombie Macs launch DoS attack

Bill this is not a fact. It's much less prevalent, but there are people out there attacking Macs.

Mac Security Exploits Don't Shake Up Apple VARs



Trojans exploit Mac OS X ARDAgent flaw



Exploit code targets Mac OS X, iTunes, Java, Winzip...



Root exploit for Mac OS X





Bill, have you ever heard of "Mac OS X Server"?

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/

I did read your post msolga and what I was referring to was this ...

I thought you were suggesting It wasn't necessarily about Bill.
Anyway. it's water under the bridge now.
Cheers Deckland

Yep. He was using Microsoft's Flight Simulator program on a Mac at the time of the splash down.

Oh at cnn I ran into an amusing story that the windows laptops on the space station are constantly being foound to contain malware and that in spite of no direct connection to the internet from orbit and having them check before they leave the ground.

Odd to say the least given the no connection to internet and normal checking of them before hand.

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Testimonium_of_Josephus.html