Re: NSA,Windows, etc.
From: Tom St Denis (tom_at_securescience.net)
Date: 04/25/04
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Previous message: Darren New: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- In reply to: Jim Steuert: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Next in thread: Jim Steuert: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Reply: Jim Steuert: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:50:23 GMT
Jim Steuert wrote:
> Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Who controls the signing key of update files? Microsoft.
>>
>> So if you already trust your work to a Microsoft based OS why
>> shouldn't you also trust Microsoft to provide updates?
>>
>
> Good point. But I don't think "most" Microsoft's customers are aware
> of their lack of privacy.
What lack? The intent of MSFT's updates was to update the binaries not
snoop through directories.
So if you don't trust windowsupdate why would you run windows at all?
> I don't doubt for a minute that Microsoft regularly cooperates with
> government
> agencies. But there is a defacto constitutional right of privacy in the
> US Constitution.
Ok. So what? Handwaving and half-ass ranting won't make your
irrelevent moot points any more valid.
>> Don't confuse implementation errors with theoretical errors. In
>> theory remote updates can be done safely.
>
>
> True, with public key certificate systems. But safety isn't the issue,
> it is privacy. It is privacy which is "compromised". The effect is the
> same. Of course we all trust Microsoft.
Um, you may trust microsoft but I don't really. That's why I run Gentoo
Linux. However, the goal of windowsupdate is not to snoop your disk,
just update the binaries. So if you don't think Microsoft is a
secure-aware company I wouldn't bother running windows with or without
automatic updates turned on.
>> So, good try at bashing Microsoft but I'm afraid you fail. I will
>> give you a 2.5/10 as a score for good effort.
>>
>
> I wasn't trying to do Microsoft bashing. That's too easy. It's their
> PR practice of deliberately misleading their customers.
NEWSFLASH all PR is misleading. If not then you would see "be young and
fat, drink pepsi" or "this vehicle gets 8 less MPG than last years model
but look at the paint job!!!" or "The new Intel 2.8Ghz NetBurst super
architechture, actually just a 3.4Ghz core forced to 2.8Ghz" or "This
dish detergent is 100% more effective than H20 alone!"....
The point of PR is to make you fear not having the product. This is
usually attributable to a few key laws.
1. Big tits. Always big tits. Last I checked flat chested short
chicks don't endorse cars, soft drinks or sporting events.
2. Appearence of success. Hence the suits, driving down winding road
with nother better todo.
3. Misplaced statistics or facts. Confuse the viewer into believing
you. Usually the goal is to make them afraid. Bush uses this a lot
which is why the US has no industry any more [well as far as I can tell
from CNN].
Point being if you're gonna rant at least be original. Your pathetic
"ooh I don't trust Windows but I'll use it anyways" hypocracy just
smacks of "usenet-retardism".
Tom
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Previous message: Darren New: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- In reply to: Jim Steuert: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Next in thread: Jim Steuert: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Reply: Jim Steuert: "Re: NSA,Windows, etc."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|