SuperSite Blog

It is quite possible here that we are looking at the statistics Microsoft released from the Malicious Software Removal Tool in 2006, where they announced that 60% of computers contained a trojan. But thats 2006.

I couldn't find the 1% statistic. The circular graphs download.microsoft.com/.../KeyFindings_MS_Security_Report_Jul-Dec07.pdf do show about 7.2% of Windows XP computers require cleaning (but the lower number of Vista users is shown. This quite possibly is due to the fact that there are more XP users than Vista ones sadly).

That article does mention a 40% of XP users being cleaned from a certain virus which is another possibility of the source for this statistic.

At the end of the day though I think that viruses will be moving towards rootkits which means that these statistics may become irrelevant soon. But regardless, its good to see a decline in the amount of infections.

On the note of the actions of the mac user in that text, I think it was quite stupid not to be able to source it, and I am a Mac user for the record.

What's 1% of the total Windows install base? Please give us that number so we know how many machines are infected with malware.

We have a group of 27 docs and 9 have already admitted to having a virus, worm, trojan or malware and the poll is not over. Small group but statistically valid. Out IT guy states that he has considerably more than a 1%, which he believes is a lie. He does state, and I have a similar experience, that infections seem to be decreasing with public awareness for the need of anti-virus and malware tools. Hopefully Vista's improved security will also help, but the quoted guy is in wonderland, or the quoted company polled Fort Knox's mortuary. So this is as far from the truth is anything can be. Sorry.

If people dont  pay attention to what they are doing, I dont see, whatever the number is, why it is Microsoft's fault that you get infected with anything, or why anyone there need be embarassed.

And maybe the people that want to bash MS because Malware exist, should instead focus their scorn on the people that make them?

The guys in the Army Coffee shop (and I work with the Techs remember).  They broadly fit into 2 groups.  Those on the Mac and Linux side who live a fairly carefree existence malware wise and those on the Windows side who seemed plagued by them.  Admittedly there are about twice as many Windows users but there seems to be a lot of bad stuff going around and it seems to be getting worse.

The latest news does not bode well for Vista.

www.scmagazineus.com/.../113577

I have a friend who surfs using the Wii because he is so afraid of virus and malware attacks.

He'd give his right arm to be ambidextrous.

"We have a group of 27 docs and 9 have already admitted to having a virus, worm, trojan or malware and the poll is not over. "

At that moment or at some point in time?

"The latest news does not bode well for Vista."

It actually sounds better than it was made out to be. The answer to this might be a "no", but I wonder if UAC is effective in preventing this or if this requires user intervention.

@Avro

And it keeps going back to the same thing.

Opening stuff when you have no idea where it came from. Going to sites looking for "free" software, Porn or opening attachments from unknown senders.

That Vista story, which has already been gone over, is basically the same thing.

And even the guy who discoverd this says it can be applied to any platform.

And I hope those techs in the army coffee shop that are that smug and lax about supposed security with Macs and Linux are not reponsible for anything important.

Shark, over the past year, but they all have XP, not Vista. Yes it's not MS fault, IMO, but 1% is pure baloney. That's what I would call an MS lie, giving us customers a false sense of security. The Virtumonde trojan that I had last month was all my fault, but I downloaded a free utilityto try to revive my 3 dead drives. I DL'ed on a MMac, just in case it was malware, then put it on a flash drive, connected to my PC [XP] and scanned it. Since there was nothing detected, I loaded/installed it and got something like 32 variants of the Virtumonde virus/trojan. Of course, my friends with teenagers that will DL anything, especially pirated music, just get malware frequently. Kids will play, and good luck stopping them. Each time that I need to reinstall XP for them, I try to show them how to do it so that they can just do it themselves. A backup copy may not work for them as they will most likely backup the virus before scanning for it, but reinstallation is not always needed of course. After an update two weeks ago, my AV found another variant still left over I suppose as I rarely use the PC and have not installed anything but the AV app since.

Wow a link from Microsoft, and Ford says Quality is Job #1.  Hah, Hah, Hah.

Impressive journalism.

drylight,

1% of the Windows installed base is a pretty small number. Figure (back of the hand) at about 10M machines or a little less than 1/3rd of all the Macs or about the same as all the Linux desktops.

www.scansafe.com/.../global_threat_reports2

Annual Global Threat Report 2007 - Published 2008

Key findings in this year’s report include:

   * There was a 61% increase in malware during the second half of 2007.

   * 21% of all the malware blocked by ScanSafe in 2007 was zero-day malware—new malware for which there is no existing patch or anti-virus signature—leaving businesses relying on signature updates vulnerable to exposure.

   * Password-stealing Trojans and backdoors were the most frequent final stage infectors – exposing corporations to information leaks and data compromise.

   * Online gaming while at work, once thought to be just a productivity drain, is now a significant security risk.

Does Paul write for Windows IT Pro?

windowsitpro.com/.../increased-spread-of-malware-is-due-to-sql-injection-attacks.html

You must remember that hackers can make a living at this stuff and for some, that's their job. It's a little hard to protect a vulnerability if you don't know about it until after it's been hacked. Security must be a tough line of work, given all those zillions of lines of code. And I feel, IMO, that a Mac attack just wouldn't be very profitable to them, so why bother. But that's how I feel, and I'm not one of them. But if you think about it, what kind of person would try to harm someone in such a way such identity theft and fraud? Yeh, I know. They're called criminals. But some people just need their a$$ kicked or belong in jail.

"Nothing shuts down these clowns bal faster than the truth."

Has "iCabal" been replaced with "clowns bal"?  ;-)

bettieblu

Yes, he does.

BTW: SQL Injection attacks are a type of attack that works against websites with a database back end that were written VERY badly and apply equally to any platform. (Although, with modern Windows web development tools you really have to work hard to do that bad a job)

The flaw is inherent to the SQL query language itself, the workaround is about 2 lines of code and any company whose site that still suffers from that vulnerability after this many years of it being common knowledge is, frankly, mind numbingly incompetent and demonstrates a need for a change in CIO.

bettieblu

FYI: Zero day attacks are why modern anti-virus systems have dynamic update schedules and heuristics analysis rather than just relying on signatures.

@ Mike

Your numbers are a bit dubious.  Macs tend to stay in service longer and with sales at about 10 million a year I reckon there would be about 100 million in service at the moment.

@Master 3

So the Mac and Linux guys should huddle around and talk about what malware they might get Next year?  Next decade?  Next Millennium?

:-)) Very Drole

DRWAM

You should also be aware that this isn't the days of attacks coming from some kid in his parents' basement. This is now a BIG part of organized crime activity and lately the province of national intelligence agencies. So, yeah, doing security for a living is hard. (I did it for a year and while it was fun, the stress is there, too)

As for the Mac staying immune, with successful attacks against Windows machines dropping fast (the report showed HUGE drops with XP SP2 and HUGE drops from that with Vista) the attacks are moving toward phishing and server based vulnerabilities and those don't care what platform you're on. In fact, the hubris of Mac users makes them more likely to fall for these attacks. Add in Apple corporate arroagance with things like Safari being the only browser that doesn't even bother with an anti-phishing filter and you have a real time bomb in the Mac community.

Avro

To paraphrase Paul's quote: 100 Million is a pretty high number, what source did you hear that from?

Avro

Just again doing back of the napkin...

Apple sold roughly 10M Macs this year

That was a higher share than in the past

The overall market was higher than in the past

Therefore 10M per year is way above the historical average.

Figure, then that 100M would be the total production of Macs for, what, let's say about 15 years.

Are you saying that every Mac made since 1993 is still in use? That would be every Intel Mac, every PowerPC based Mac and thousands of Motorola 680x0 Macs. Do you really think there are still thousands of Motorola 680x0 Macs running?

If we assume that some were retired or died (and I don't think even you are saying that isn't the case) then you're saying, what? That most Macs built since they were introduced in 1984 are still running?

Seriously, there's no way a 100M figure passes even the slightest attempt at scrutiny.

Why did you suggest it?

DRWAM has it right.  There is no possible way only 1% of Windows machines are infected with malware.  I get a lot of "my computer has problems" questions, and at its worst I would have guessed the malware infection rate of home PCs approached 50%.  (Corporate PC infections are much, much lower).

I do believe that Vista machines are substantially less infected with malware.  I also believe that the Windows XP infection rate is decreasing as people learn (sometimes the hard way) about malware.  Obviously, this is based on my anecdotal experience, but there is no way in the world the malware infection rate of Windows is only 1%.

Two other things:

1. Paul Thurrott puts the Windows user base at 600 million plus, here: www.winsupersite.com/.../vista.asp

1% of that is 6 million PCs, which is not a small number.  

2.  For 10,000th time, Apple has nothing to do with this discussion.

Mike, I agree. Attacks may be up, but successful attackes is a factual number that should be posted. It just may be very difficult, if not impossible to tally. The 1% could be an infection at any1 second in time, but computers are in use a lot longer. Annual numbers would be more appropriate. Then, separating XP from Vista would be a great idea. Can you imagine a campaign/ad showing that buying Vista decreases your chances of malware substantially? Or Vista plus OneCare? I think that was the intent of HP's Smartsoft ad, which sounds more like FUD to me. I haven't heard it lately but it gives you the idea if you don't but the product, your Windows based office will be instantly and ubiquitously infected. If I were Ballmer, I would give HP a very strong personal  phone call.

BrightrevCarl

1) Current estimate of Windows computers in use is slightly over 1 Billion (Paul's FAQ is 600M+ and is getting a little old)

2) How does Apple have nothing to do with a topic named "Microsoft Security guys have fun at Mac loyalist’s expense"? This time, unlike many others, it IS exactly on topic.

DRWAM

I haven't seen the HP ad but I'm pretty sure that if Ballmer were to give HP a sufficiently strong personal phone call he'd be in front of the DOJ for attempting to restrict a customer in violation of the antitrust rules.

As for the 1% number, remember that a lot of Windows machines are behind corporate firewalls and behind corporate AV systems.

Add to that the prevalence of XPSP2 and Vista.

Add to that the common use of Antivirus and Antimalware software.

Add to that the Windows machines in offices that don't allow access outside the firewall for their office workers' computers.

Add to that the Windows machines that are used for dedicated purposes (cash registers, ATMs, process control computers, etc) that are never connected to the Internet.

The 1% figure doesn't seem unreasonable once all the rest is considered especially since this isn't "ever infected" but seems to be "infected at any given time"

Since people brought it up, here's one (two, if you include the Arstechnica article)  response to the news about Vista's security being rendered useless:

blogs.zdnet.com/Bott

Looks like the sky is not falling after all.

Shark

Excellent article by Ed Bott. This is a must read for anybody who saw the hysterical posts about this spammed onto every thread here over the last couple of days and thought there was anything to them.

BrightrevCarl most intelligent post in this thread.

XP even with SP2 can be broken is seconds by a un-aware home user.  Vista is tougher and I have seen fewer Vista PC's that are malware infested.  I think this is do to way better protection, way fewer Vista PC's in consumer hands, and years of trouble for users have taught many to stop idiotic behavior.  

Corporations spends large sums of money on Anti-Sapm, Anti-Virus, products like WSUS/SMS/Alieta for updating mass clients, Active Directory GPO's that limit user behavior, expensive hardware firewalls, expensive software firewalls (ISA server) and use proxie software like surfcontrol or many others to stop users from being idiotic.  In fact the selling point of better Vista security for corporations is almost a non-point after spending so much money and time fortifying against Microsoft's lack of security that Vista's improvements are not really needed.

From the Ars article:

>>Stories suggesting that Vista's security is now irredeemably broken are far off the mark; the truth is merely that some of its automatic security protection is less effective than it was before.<<

Thats a relief.

Here's an interesting note in the discussion thread for that article (from the author of that article):

>>I also understand both what MS was attempting to achieve with ASLR (etc.)--raise the bar to make it harder to convert buffer overflows into arbitrary code execution--and what the paper means. The paper lowers the bar to around the same level as other OSes; the other protections in Vista mean that the bar is still higher than those other OSes.<<

The real way of finally killing off buffer overrun attacks is actually pretty simple

1) Stop using C or any C derived language that uses variable length buffers with the concept of a string terminator character. (Most .NET languages and almost all languages not related to C written since the mid 1960s qualify.)

1A) If that's too hard and you can't live with any language but C, stop using the "standard libraries" and switch to the "safe" versions that don't allow the bizarre C buffer and string concepts.

2) Remember that all input is potentially evil. Always validate all inputs before letting the program use them.

That's it. Problem solved (well, actually solved before most people here were probably born and certainly before almost any had access to a computer)

And, for the last hour+

h8ers:  <crickets chirping in the silence>

The part that I think is disingenuous of the MSFT guy is that his statement implies that my or any Joe user has a  chance of only 1% of getting a virus or malware. For a company to count computers that are on store shelves or not connected to the internet as 'potential' for infection is like counting the incidence of airplane crashes, including those parked in museums. I have never seen a single 'real' study on the incidence of virus/malware infections, but have seen such quotes which were just multiple times higher. I am  not quite sure what the number is, but it must be high enough for almost daily AV def updates. However, you must admit the even if it were 40%, you must still practice a good defense. That being said, this would make most Mac users a sitting duck. You can bet that at some point in the near future that a Mac viral/security breach Tsunami may come. I kinda like the small market share to help keep this in the distant future. Also, these auto-updating active AV /malware apps are making life much easier to defend our computers when compared to the past. OK, I don't mean McAfe;)

Troll.

>>h8ers:  <crickets chirping in the silence>.<<

@mike:  easy way to prevent malicious code in ActiveX, Java, and .NET Framework objects:

Require digital signatures (it requires extra money to buy digital code-signing certificates).

They said that Office macro viruses couldn't be stopped, but when was the last time you know of when someone actually got one, and their settings for Office 2003/7 were set to the defaults (disallowing unsigned code)?

The presumption of the security people that wrote this paper is that Microsoft wouldn't require digital code-signing for browser-based objects.  That will likely change, just as it did with Office code-signing, as it also did with drivers on 64-bit.

Java is still the big hole here though.  Java code-signing is especially weak, as is the security of the default option to allow recurring publishers' creations to be launched automatically.  By reproducing and modifying signed-code for Java, a person can easily mimic a given publisher (such as Sun itself), and since Java allows publishers to be automatically trusted in the future by default, it's just a bad situation security-wise.  Sun should have that option unchecked by default.

ActiveX code-signing isn't nearly as easy to break, and ActiveX won't allow a publisher to be automatically trusted by default, so it's inherently more secure as a result, especially since XP SP2 added additional prompting to the end-user.  The end-user is still the weakest link in the chain though.

As it stands, Vista is still by far the OS with the least number of attack vectors.

DRWAM

I'd say it's at least as disingenuous for people to extrapolate from personal experience to the entire installed base which does include huge numbers of computers that are protected.

Is it safe to run a Windows Vista computer connected with an always on connection to the Internet with no Antivirus? Probably not.

But. Considering the default is a non-Administrator account with a two-way firewall, anti-malware (Defender) and anti-phishing in the system along with all the other protections, it's not that risky.

Think about it. An Antivirus program (at least the one I use) will let you know if it detects something. If you've been running and never had an alert from your Antivirus that it found something, you wouldn't have been infected without it.

Personally, I think that's a foolish risk. But, it isn't as though the average user's computer is under a constant barrage of attacks that will leave their system a quivering mass of molten silicon in minutes otherwise. And I've seen that presented as the reality often enough to think that fearmongers own the zeitgeist.

As some (purely anecdotal) data. Based on my Antivirus' monthly report...

My A/V scanned roughly 1.5M files on my system and found 0 that needed cleaning. It also has found 0 suspicious files since I've had it installed. It updated 323 definitions it its signature files this month.

So, had I not had it installed, I'd still have had no successful attacks against my system. Would I take that chance? No way. Would my computer be a molten heap of silicon if I had? No.

As for McAfee, I won't comment. I was a Program Manager on a team that developed one of their competitors and I don't think it's right for me to comment.

.

Waethorn

Requiring digital signatures (from a reputable signing authority) does a good job of determining that the code is authentic and is something every developer should do.

It will seriously cut down on intentional attacks but a big part of the problem is careless coding by people who should know better that leaves their code open to attack. At that point, all a signature tells you is who wrote the code that was vulnerable but not who exploited that vulnerability.

Luckily there are some VERY good tools out there to write good, secure code. Anybody here who does dev for Windows should spend time on http://www.microsoft.com/sdl and read a copy of the latest edition of Writing Secure Code.

As long as I'm doing computer security book recommendations, I can't leave out Joel McNamara's Secrets of Computer Espionage: Tactics and Countermeasures

This looks at security from the espionage and information security point of view. It's a fascinating read and, for the most part, is still current despite it being about four years old now.

(Required disclaimer: I worked with Joel for a few years)

Mike, I had an old professor that once said that when some one states 'from my experience' that he's full of baloney. But there are legit polls that can accurately yield statistically valid results, and just don't believe, and would wonder who would, that the incidence of infections is as low as 1%. In fact, the above quote could have only resulted in a poll as no one counted every PC in the world. I certainly don't believe that a hacker attack is eminent as soon as you're on the internet, but Joe user just does the wrong stuff by DLing pirated stuff, porn and opening suspicious email [my wife thought she won a $500 Walmart gift card last month], yielding the infection. Even as careful as I am, I got a few Trojans. Will that stop me from using my PC? Not at all, but I am a lot wiser. However, my friends kids still DL junk all the time, and never learn. You will see this in Macs as more people go to web sites set up to trap them. Wasn't there a big Mac virus in the 80's or early 90's, sometime when the market share was bigger?

DRWAM

Which is why I called out that it was only anecdotal info.

My point is that you often hear that "If you put a Windows computer on the Internet without an antivirus it'll be pwned by multiple nefarious types and turned into a zombie within x minutes without even logging on." and such. Obviously, that's not the case but these urban legends take hold faster than reality.

As I said, I'd never recommend anybody run without a decent security suite (Firewall/AntiMalware/AntiVirus) no matter what the platform. I'm just pointing out that while the Internet's not that safe an neighborhood to walk around, it's not exactly a free-fire zone, either.

DRWAM

I'd also add "Everybody knows..." and "Well, it's a given that..." to your old professor's list.

Also, the more important statistic would be the incidence of infection in any reasonably protected computer with internet access. I would bet that the number is very, very low if you don't have teenagers.

"And, for the last hour+

h8ers:  <crickets chirping in the silence>"

????  Mike you some kind of debater?  Is "h8ers" someone your replying too or a childish baiting technique used at this site?

Man this edit window is featureless and small.

"Wasn't there a big Mac virus in the 80's or early 90's, sometime when the market share was bigger?"

The only one I ever had problems with was the WDEF virus back in the system 6/7 days; it was easily disabled by rebuilding the desktop file (something that was SOP back then anyway). After we got it once from a service bureau, we ran the free "Disinfectant" A/V software, and it always caught it. It would pop up again periodically, usually in floppies that came in from various printers.

The only other stuff that every came across were Word Macro viruses, which didn't affect the Mac at all, but could be passed along to PC users if we didn't get rid of them (which we always did).

I run A/V software now on the Mac, but it's never found a thing.

"My point is that you often hear that "If you put a Windows computer on the Internet without an antivirus it'll be pwned by multiple nefarious types and turned into a zombie within x minutes without even logging on." and such. Obviously, that's not the case but these urban legends take hold faster than reality."

Well if you're not being so overly dramatic:

blogs.chron.com/.../average_time_to_infection_4_minutes_1.html

"lotsa":

The link you provided talks about an unpatched system running Windows XP.

Here's a response: www.edbott.com/weblog

@"lotsamystuff" -

I am not trying to pick a Mac vs Windows fight...but what AV software do you run on your Mac(s) and why?

Also, do you agree or disagree with the line of thought that says that the black hats do not find it profitable to delve into the malware coding on the Mac because the ROI would be so small? Don't you think that if so inclined that a person could code malware to target unpatched Macs that are not behind a correctly configured firewall? I certainly think that it could be done, and probably would be done if the ROI was there.

--tayme

@mike:  your comment about Windows not becoming zombies is only true when they are patched.  An RTM install can be infected in as little as 30 minutes just be being connected to an always-on service.  Windows 98 is even worse - even when fully patched as far as it can be.

Now as far as your statement about it being safe on a patched Vista machine to be connected without antivirus, that's true, assuming the user isn't browsing to untrusted websites.  Viruses attack security holes first and foremost.  Trusted sites can be perfectly safe.  It's about as safe as taking a DC and only browsing to sites in the Trusted Sites zone (which consists of Windows Update, and a few other Microsoft sites that don't require active scripting).  Normally you wouldn't be using a server as a workstation, but in single server setups on a clean install, it's sometimes necessary to browse the odd Microsoft site to download updates or addons for the OS.

@tayme:  Since the client that I had previously mentioned lost a vital customer database from their Mac LAN (not my responsibility - I look after their segregated Windows network) which included information that could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability, I would say that the hacker that broke in found the ROI inversely proportional to what the client now feels it was on their purchase of Mac gear.

Wae, thank god you posted. I was afraid to admit that I am only running Windows Defender in Vista Ultimate because I only go to a few trusted sites, such as work, Comcast, Winsupersite, and Macsurfer sometimes. So the only program that I installed was Office 2007. I have no personal data or even any email client setup. I just use it for work but occasionally browse the above sites when I'm waiting for  cloud connection. Still can't get my VPN working again after SP1, but that's why I pay IT. But the poor guys are kinda stressed with all the network upgrades and changes, which causes several problems daily.

O/T: We've been able to get @rocketmail.com email addresses for probably a couple of months now. Apparently, some 'Nigerian scammers' are using it too:

"I have a new email address!

You can now email me at: lawrenceddo11@rocketmail.com

- Dear Friend,I Am Mr.Lawrence Donnell the Manager, Bills And Exchange at the Foreign Remittance Department in a Bank. Actually, I have a very urgent & confidential Business Proposition for you & for our overall mutual interest.On the 6th of March 2001, our Customer, an American National, late Douglas J. Stone, an Oil Merchant / Contractor with the Federal Government of Nigeria, deposited, a valued amount of US$32Million in my branch. .."

I wonder how many people fall for such scams. The rate at which I receive such emails,  the number must be pretty high. Interestingly, this mail was actually delivered to my Hotmail inbox.

Note:I didn't hide the email address of the sender. I don't think it matters.

@Doc:  By "trusted", I mean basically hardware vendor sites, and Microsoft.  (Sorry, Paul)  Blog sites, and sites with advertising of any kind can be considered "untrustworthy", since even the page author has no control over the ads.  

@sharky:

So when can I expect my cut?  :P

When are they going to bring back the Blue Frog?

DRWAM

Really, you should have an Antivirus installed. It's just not worth taking the risk. Contact me offline at the rather blatantly obvious email address.

bettieblue

Re the chirping crickets...

Did you even read the tiny post at the top of this thread?

First off, thanks to shark47 for the article by Ed Bott that clarifies the nature of this new exploit. The bottom line is that if Vista users keep everything updated, the likelyhood of such an exploit to succeed is very low. The architecture in Vista when maintained, will buy time while Microsoft patches or updates Vista's architecture. This completely smashes the completely useless arguments by many in here ranting about it. This is another bone I have to pick with respondents in here. Its this tiring and boring "knee jerk reaction" to anything negative about Microsoft/Windows thats getting old and we constantly debunk in here every other week.

Some of the Vista/Microsoft bashers act like an "animal" who stampedes at the sound of a gun going off or like an ostrich who sticks their hand and doesn't listen while hoping the bad things goes away. Many of the more veteran XP/Vista users stayed cool and waited until all the information is available. Now we can plan our update and maintenance strategies so that we are safe, secure, and continue our business. Eventually Microsoft will fix this and Vista will still be more secure than any OS on the market.

Yet were is Apple on the issues with Safari? Nothing but silence. So the Vista users aren't going anywhere. Nice try guys, but no cigar.

Peace.

subzero

Actually, the reports say Vista is still more secure than any OS on the market, just not quite as secure as it had been if anybody even bothers exploiting this.

I run Vista at work and XP at home. I used to run them both without anti-virus, but decided to put AVG on the home (XP) one a while ago.

Never had a virus, never had malware. Never had anything. Some of the people I work with are idiots and open each and every attachment they get, but even then, I only have to "cure" about 1 system per year.

What a wonderful advertisement for the Wow! www.smh.com.au/.../1218306871673.html

"It's Windows XP operating system was chosen to run on all PCs used by the organisers a well as being the operating system installed on PCs supplied by Lenovo Group, the computer maker than is one of the major sponsors of the 2008 Olympics.

Microsoft's newer operating system, Vista, was not chosen."

#1 you used the marketing slogan for Vista when the story was about a some system using XP

#2 BSoD happens because of bad drivers, so why is this a poor reflection on MS?

That's right, because MS bashers have nothing else better to do.

Gee I wonder if there will be a blog post for all of the systems that went 100% without a hitch.

I can assume their will be no postings in praise of them nor will there be one showing how the olympics rejected using Apple in its systems.

Now that just wouldnt fit the media template, would it?

"Yet where is Apple on the issues with Safari?"

....or iTunes, or Quicktime, or MobileMe....

<crickets chirping in the silence>

"BSoD happens because of bad drivers"

Yes, but knowing China, who'd like to bet that it wasn't a legal copy either?

Here's a nice little tidbit to make the Mackie's bite their tongue:

"The team....discovered that many iPhone users were getting “owned” as soon as they walked onto the [Defcon] convention floor because most users unknowingly have their phones set to automatically connect to available wireless networks.  Of course this is a horrible feature to leave enabled at Defcon because the wireless network is considered to be the most hostile in the world.  By the second day of the convention, the Wall of Sheep screen displayed a helpful reminder to iPhone users – “You don’t want your phone auto-connecting to *anything*”"

Enjoy.

Masters3, it is odd that Vista is not running on these PC's.  I mean NBC is in the pocket of MS or the other way around.  So one would imagine that MS should have some say over this.  We are past SP1, or 1.5 years into Vista, and only 1.5 years away from Windows 7 (per recent announcements it will ship in Jan 2010)

Lenovo was one of the first companies to offer XP rollback with the purchase of a new PC.  It would seen they dont have a lot of trust in Vista.

Why would anyone post an article about Apple being rejected?  Did Apple ever bid for the chance?  Did the article mention Apple?  

The Olympics is big news and a lot of people saw that BSOD.

"I mean NBC is in the pocket of MS or the other way around.  So one would imagine that MS should have some say over this."

NBC isn't the one putting on the Olympics.  Sorry.

bettieblu.....reallly?

NBC is a broadcaster of the Olympics, not the people putting it on.

"Lenovo was one of the first companies to offer XP rollback with the purchase of a new PC.  It would seen they dont have a lot of trust in Vista."

Huh? What is your point?

Maybe the specialized software for this was written years agao, and their wasnt enough time nor money to rewrite it just for the sake of a new OS.

"Why would anyone post an article about Apple being rejected?  Did Apple ever bid for the chance?  Did the article mention Apple?  "

I was making a point as how there are no breathless blog posts about how, other than this one display screen, which no one really even knew about, MS powered displays worked flawlessly. And since the obvious desire of the people pushing this story is to just once again go after MS, lacking anthing better to do, why not start a blog post about how MS, for how stupid these people think they are, won out over the media darling Apple or even Linux.

Somehow I doubt that post will ever make the "news".

"The Olympics is big news and a lot of people saw that BSOD."

oooooooh the BSod! Ooooooh. That little war in Georgia has nothing on a glitch of a video screen. Double when we can mock Microsoft in the process!

"The link you provided talks about an unpatched system running Windows XP."

Yes, that's because "mikegalos" started his hypothetical rant (the one I was responding to) with: "If you put a Windows computer on the Internet without an antivirus ".

lotsa

So, of course, your response to an accurate statement of life today was an ancient article talking about life without features that became standard about five years ago.

Maybe next you'll post an article about Windows 3.0 multitasking. Or MS-DOS memory management.

Or maybe one about how Intel chips are dead and PowerPC is the future.

@Avro

"with sales at about 10 million a year I reckon there would be about 100 million in service at the moment"

There are plenty of people around that like to misinterpret stats .... so let's at least try and give them some more accurate figures to start with.

Apple has NOT sold even 100 million Macs since 1984, least of all having them all still "in service". They have never sold 10 million Macs in a year, although they may do this year. Apple's estimated user base is approaching 30 million.

@bettieblu - "The Olympics is big news and a lot of people saw that BSOD."

You know...I watched the entire opening ceremony and did not notice that...my guess is that of the millions or maybe even billions of people that were watching that very few people saw it or even knew what it was or would care. Just the anti-MS crowd will jump on it.

In fact, has it been verified that the picture in that article is even authentic and un-doctored?

--tayme

@mikegalos@msn.com stated:

subzero

Actually, the reports say Vista is still more secure than any OS on the market, just not quite as secure as it had been if anybody even bothers exploiting this.

My Comments:

Mike, I said Vista WILL STILL be the most secure os on the market. I wouldn't be still using Vista if I did not believe wholeheartedly in the products efficiency and effectiveness. Infact, our household is planning the puchase of two additional Vista notebook. It will bring the total Vista machines in our house to five. There is one XP desktop but that will probably be upgraded to Vista when my father gets around to it. I've been a Microsoft customer since 1996, a user of MIcrosoft products since 1993 in school.

I appreciate your thoroughness with your knowledge of MIcrosoft history and personal experiences. But I have to admit there are times when you go overboard. I appreciate your enthuiasm about Microsoft and its history but it isn't necessary to attack each and every incorrect statement on this board. Some of the guys in here make themselves look like fools.

These guys in here aren't going to change people's minds about Vista, Microsoft, or Apple for that matter. Its that presumptive arrogance that will be their folly.

Peace.

FYI: For those of you who believed the "Windows Security is Doomed!!!" scare headlines, Ed Bott has a followup to yesterday's post where he interviews one of the articles of the paper.

Here's a quote from one of the authors: "Thanks for your blog post about our research. I was horrified by the lack of understanding displayed by the tech press when they covered the paper Mark and I presented at BlackHat. You rightly point out that the sky is not falling and the flaws are not unfixable."

Full article at blogs.zdnet.com/Bott

subzero

I'm not worried about changing people's minds. A certain percent of the population are immune to facts. I just don't like misinformation or opinions passed off as unchallengable truths.

When did this BSOD occur?  I was glued to the ceremonies, and I didn't notice it.

Anyway, as we all know, the planning for the olympics happen many years before they actually occur.  And when you pull off an incredibly intricate opening ceremony like we saw, the development started long enough ago that Vista was not even available yet, or it was just out, and it would be difficult to just switch to the new OS while you are in the middle of development of this huge event.  So this nonsense of why they aren't using Vista is just that, nonsense.  This is something that I'm sure John will actually agree with me on given his experience in the industry.

Irregardless, the opening ceremony was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.

"In fact, has it been verified that the picture in that article is even authentic and un-doctored?"

Well, apparently the young girl singi