Comments on: The feds weigh in on Windows security
A White House directive could have ripple effects well beyond Washington in the fight against cybercrime.
A White House directive could have ripple effects well beyond Washington in the fight against cybercrime.
December 28, 2009 6:10 PM PST
December 28, 2009 6:00 PM PST
December 28, 2009 2:39 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
secure. That way, we can require them to buy it. Next year, we'll
require them to install Service Pack 1. The year after that, Service
Pack 2. They'll never catch on.
<sarcasm>Way to go CNET! Publish the press release with no
thought or research. Another stellar reporting job.</sarcasm>
My rule is always wait for the first MSFT Service Pack a.k.a "what we should have done in the first place" pack. Macs need security updates too, as I am always updating my G4 and Brand New MacBook (Black) which I love btw. I am just wondering what Apple will do when MSFT goes down the toilet? Then they will be the main target of attacks. Because, as some of Linux/Mac fanboys seem to forget, there were hackers before Windows.
"Use a Mac, Use a PC, use what you like, and use what works. It's really not a religion..."
Our new is near the top 10% percentile when it comes to security. And we have not had many issues over the past 4 years. All told 99.9% of our issues were internal discruntal employees.
That said, even simple changes in security, often is washed down, with impact assesments, to verify enduser functionality, performace...and so on.
Even Patch tuesday patch's even when a know exploit is running can take 30-90 days some times 1/2 a year to get permission to impliment. Dependent on a variety of circumstances.
A push from the top is what is needed to make people react.
It does not matter if its Windows, Vista, OSX, Linux...etc.
The fight first starts at policy.
That said my Linux desktop that I use, is down again, as once again a patch came through that destroyed my FGLRX drivers. So another hour down the drain to recomplie the dam drivers, and reedit xorg. So frustating to apply a needed patch reboot, to a flashing _ ....
Hopefully now that AMD, whos been a longtime supporter of linux, owns ATI they'll eventually change thier ways and start offering drivers that arent a major pain to get to work with Xorg.
See also this link:
http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig/
Vista prolly won't be written yet.
/P
is so incredibly limited?! Its bad enough I've got to deal with
Windblows XP at work (USAF). I can't believe ANYONE likes XP or
vista or any Windows product period. Why would you want to give
up half the things that your computer can do? This is stupid! Get a
real computer like a Mac where you don't have to give up a damn
thing for security. Wake up people, wake up!
What really needs to happen is for Microsoft to lose its ill-gotten iron grip on the desktop PC market. I think a lot of people have been bullied into using Windows by Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmer's illegal behaviour.
http://en.ecomstation.ru/solutions/?action=solutions
Commander_Spock!
And even if it was possible to make Windows secure, Federal users appear just as clueless as most others.
It was just reported that the White House Travel Office sent out birthdates, social security numbers, and passport numbers of some reporters to a ton of news bureaus.
Sounds to me like it's a case of the blind leading the blind.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-251927.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/070401/an_identity_theft_waiting_to_h.htm
Of course you could put a thermite charge on the harddrive & arrange for it to burn the computer if the case is damaged or an incorrect password entered. Of course this solution is OS independent.
Still not clear why Microsoft is responsible for people mislaying computers, selling off equipment with sensitive information, leaving laptops where thieves can pick them up & other assorted methods of losing secret files that predate the use of computers of any kind.
it doesn't matter of the U.S government use Linux or Windows, there are super powers with the investment to counter-strike that investment and break into government networks.
i've said before and i'll say again, there is no I.T security without intelligence.
if you don't have the intelligence on potential threats and plots and know your enemy, then you can spend as much money as you like on hardware or software, its going to end in thesame story where your critical national data is compromised.
information intelligence is the real key to securing your networks... the money, the investment should be spent on investigating and spying on external powers who have the funding and ability to break your defenses no matter how much physical precautions are implemented.
if you get lone hackers breaking your security, lock them up, investigate them, they aren't the critical enemy here, its world governments and state funded terrorism is the real threat, because those guys will break your security and genuinely won't be tracable with the best forensics in your grasp.
I don't use administrator's privileges on Windows for anything but system maintenance that requires them (such as Windows update, software instalation, scaning for malware). I have not been infected with any virus for years. (in addition I use a hardware Linux firewall - Smoothwall Express on a separate old PC - and I have email scanned for viruses using ClamAV on the server by my email provider.)
I have known people that were getting viruses every now and then and those that stopped working in an admin account also stopped getting infected.
Or simply configure the box to spec that should have been adopted years ago.
Talk about a waste of money. You would spend billions to save hundreds
ALL unnecessary protocols stopped.
ALL unnecessary DLL's, Programs, Drivers, etc. uninstalled.
etc. etc. etc.
No need in creating a new specification!
FWIW
- Why put national security at the mercy of Windows?
- by angelsfreeek April 5, 2007 11:52 AM PDT
- As soon as I read up on Mac OS X (thus dispelling any misinformation I had previously had as a result of not actually KNOWING anything about Macs), and years of experience with Windows (enough said), I couldn't help but wonder why the US Government would trust their national and international issues/secrets to an OS so easily exploited. I could not imagine how disastrous it would be if extra-sensitive information were ever to be hacked out of a government PC.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)Notice that I never said OS X is not exploitable (because it is), but it's not nearly as easily exploited as Windows, and that's a fact, not a fanboy-opinionated statement. Most of today's hackers are in it for the money, correct? Hacking Windows is easy, takes a short time, and gets them $$$.
Take this scenario: $10,000 on the inside of what appears to be a well-secured house, and $500 inside an extremely intricate, smash-proof puzzle box. Hackers know how to get into that house, while they don't know how to get into the puzzle box. It IS possible to open the puzzle box, but why bother when you could just get more money for less effort? Unless you're willing to spend the time and effort to get through that puzzle box just for the satisfaction of doing so and for being the first person to do so, who would want to spend the time, effort, and money to get the $500, when $10,000 can be had much more easily?
Now if the gov't used OS X, a much more robust OS, it would make much more sense, as this IS national security we're dealing with here. Yes, OS X COULD be hacked as well, but there's no such thing as an impenetrable OS. All that matters is how robust it is against such attacks.
Now, if you have no REAL long-term experience with Macs this millenium, then don't bother replying with your "oh but ur wrong you mac fan boi" comments. It's amazing how people who don't have, or have never used OS X, "know" every reason why nobody should use them. You have the Internet, is it that hard to do a little research?