[News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows - Linux

This is a discussion on [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows - Linux ; dennis@home wrote: > > > "chrisv" wrote in message > news:47f44e49$0$9900$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > > DanS wrote: > >> > >> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and > >> the reason you pick this ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

  1. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "chrisv" wrote in message
    > news:47f44e49$0$9900$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > > DanS wrote:
    > >>
    > >> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and
    > >> the reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating
    > >> for Linux of any of them, that I have seen.

    > >
    > > Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration;
    > > actually, I question the .6% representing actual desktops
    > > _using_ linux. Maybe they're counting downloads whether they
    > > are being installed and used, or not.
    > >

    >
    > I would imagine linux.org would have a high percentage of linux
    > browsers.. pretty much meaningless if you choose your sites with
    > care. To stand any chance of being correct you need to use a site
    > like the bbc


    Interesting that you should mention BBC. Not so much, that you've
    once again kicked your own ass.

    It's ironic that bbc.co.uk sponsors a mailing list called
    "Backstage" which is intended for just such discussions. Even 12
    months ago they were reporting Linux "penetration" as high as 1.5%,
    and the figure has been steadily rising. FWIW, Mac users are at
    around 8% and rising last I checked. Only one "class" of users
    actually declined in spite of a steady rise in monthly hit averages,
    and that was... [drum roll]... Winblows users.








  2. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows



    "Anonymous" wrote in message
    news:2f0211e11536d06f4e2440b9d08013bc@hermetix.org ...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "chrisv" wrote in message
    >> news:47f44e49$0$9900$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> > DanS wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and
    >> >> the reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating
    >> >> for Linux of any of them, that I have seen.
    >> >
    >> > Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration;
    >> > actually, I question the .6% representing actual desktops
    >> > _using_ linux. Maybe they're counting downloads whether they
    >> > are being installed and used, or not.
    >> >

    >>
    >> I would imagine linux.org would have a high percentage of linux
    >> browsers.. pretty much meaningless if you choose your sites with
    >> care. To stand any chance of being correct you need to use a site
    >> like the bbc

    >
    > Interesting that you should mention BBC. Not so much, that you've
    > once again kicked your own ass.


    How?
    I don't give a toss what the percentage figures are.
    Its you that cares.
    Its always the linux advocates that jump up and down about beating M$.
    Windows users don't care about linux at all.
    They do get annoyed when linux users like you, alias and none stop rant and
    lie all over the windows support groups, some like Frank have even decided
    to retaliate in the ubuntu group as a result.
    It makes no difference to the majority of linux users what M$ does, linux
    does what they want.
    You should try it some time and then you can stop ranting and raving against
    M$ and live longer.

    >
    > It's ironic that bbc.co.uk sponsors a mailing list called
    > "Backstage" which is intended for just such discussions. Even 12
    > months ago they were reporting Linux "penetration" as high as 1.5%,
    > and the figure has been steadily rising. FWIW, Mac users are at
    > around 8% and rising last I checked. Only one "class" of users
    > actually declined in spite of a steady rise in monthly hit averages,
    > and that was... [drum roll]... Winblows users.


    See what I mean about it being you that cares and almost nobody else.


  3. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Anonymous" wrote in message
    > news:2f0211e11536d06f4e2440b9d08013bc@hermetix.org ...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "chrisv" wrote in message
    >>> news:47f44e49$0$9900$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>> > DanS wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and
    >>> >> the reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating
    >>> >> for Linux of any of them, that I have seen.
    >>> >
    >>> > Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration;
    >>> > actually, I question the .6% representing actual desktops
    >>> > _using_ linux. Maybe they're counting downloads whether they
    >>> > are being installed and used, or not.
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>> I would imagine linux.org would have a high percentage of linux
    >>> browsers.. pretty much meaningless if you choose your sites with
    >>> care. To stand any chance of being correct you need to use a site
    >>> like the bbc

    >>
    >> Interesting that you should mention BBC. Not so much, that you've
    >> once again kicked your own ass.

    >
    > How?
    > I don't give a toss what the percentage figures are.
    > Its you that cares.
    > Its always the linux advocates that jump up and down about beating M$.
    > Windows users don't care about linux at all.
    > They do get annoyed when linux users like you, alias and none stop rant
    > and lie all over the windows support groups, some like Frank have even
    > decided to retaliate in the ubuntu group as a result.
    > It makes no difference to the majority of linux users what M$ does,
    > linux does what they want.
    > You should try it some time and then you can stop ranting and raving
    > against M$ and live longer.
    >




    No but MS does.
    caver1

  4. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    dennis@home wrote:
    > Windows users don't care about linux at all.


    Hmmm, the trolls in this group are anecdotal evidence otherwise.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    ------
    "The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
    they know that most men can see better than they can think."
    -- James Dobson

  5. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows



    "Wes Groleau" wrote in message
    news:Ug9Kj.255$_I1.189@trnddc02...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >> Windows users don't care about linux at all.

    >
    > Hmmm, the trolls in this group are anecdotal evidence otherwise.


    Most of the windows trolls in a.o.l.u and a.o.w are there because linux
    trolls cross posted cr@p in the first place.

    AFAICS c.o.l.a is a joke group anyway.


  6. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Wes Groleau writes:

    > dennis@home wrote:
    >> Windows users don't care about linux at all.

    >
    > Hmmm, the trolls in this group are anecdotal evidence otherwise.


    Who are these people advocating Windows? I know DFS does it, but thats
    about it from what I can see. The others just want a more practical
    approach to Linux advocacy that doesn't have a "must hate ms"
    prerequisite.

    --
    ok, I will not marry Jo-Con-El's cow.

  7. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Hadron wrote:

    > Wes Groleau writes:
    >
    > > dennis@home wrote:
    > >> Windows users don't care about linux at all.

    > >
    > > Hmmm, the trolls in this group are anecdotal evidence otherwise.

    >
    > Who are these people advocating Windows?


    WTF are you blubbering about? Why are you trying to obfuscate with
    feeble attempts to draw parallels between fanaticism and advocacy.
    People like you are fanatics. You care for NOTHING but the
    delusions of significance your anti-Linux obsession gives you.


  8. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Anonymous writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Wes Groleau writes:
    >>
    >> > dennis@home wrote:
    >> >> Windows users don't care about linux at all.
    >> >
    >> > Hmmm, the trolls in this group are anecdotal evidence otherwise.

    >>
    >> Who are these people advocating Windows?

    >
    > WTF are you blubbering about? Why are you trying to obfuscate with
    > feeble attempts to draw parallels between fanaticism and advocacy.
    > People like you are fanatics. You care for NOTHING but the
    > delusions of significance your anti-Linux obsession gives you.
    >


    What anti linux obsession? What are you talking about?

    --
    I was attacked by dselect as a small child and have since avoided
    debian.
    -- Andrew Morton

  9. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    proven liar dumbass@home wrote:

    >Most of the windows trolls in a.o.l.u and a.o.w are there because linux
    >trolls cross posted cr@p in the first place.


    Lying again, dumbass?


  10. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows



    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:b06kv3t6opqgsmkgpk45p805d7q4g7ruhm@4ax.com...
    > proven liar dumbass@home wrote:
    >
    >>Most of the windows trolls in a.o.l.u and a.o.w are there because linux
    >>trolls cross posted cr@p in the first place.

    >
    > Lying again, dumbass?
    >


    Go on then produce the proof you cretin.


  11. Re: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Bernadette wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:19:24 +0000, Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >> NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows
    >>
    >>
    >> A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special
    >> access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been
    >> secretly built into Windows. The NSA access system is built into every
    >> version of the Windows operating system now in use, except early releases
    >> of Windows 95 (and its predecessors).

    >> http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1128.html
    >>
    >>
    >> "For non-American IT managers relying on Windows NT to operate highly
    >> secure data centres, this find is worrying", he added. "The US government
    >> is currently making it as difficult as possible for "strong" crypto to be
    >> used outside of the US. That they have also installed a cryptographic
    >> back-door in the world's most abundant operating system should send a
    >> strong message to foreign IT managers".
    >>
    >> "How is an IT manager to feel when they learn that in every copy of
    >> Windows sold, Microsoft has a 'back door' for NSA - making it orders of
    >> magnitude easier for the US government to access your computer?" he asked.
    >>

    >
    > It seems Microsoft isn't having a happy day at all. Apparently the
    > International Space Station has been hacked into as they are still using
    > Windows 3.1!
    > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vdunet/2008...s-6315470.html
    > http://tinyurl.com/25vyny
    >
    > Time to change to an open source system I feel.
    >


    Professor B Offin.

    Lol.

  12. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    dumbass@home wrote:

    > "chrisv" wrote:
    >>
    >> proven liar dumbass@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>Most of the windows trolls in a.o.l.u and a.o.w are there because linux
    >>>trolls cross posted cr@p in the first place.

    >>
    >> Lying again, dumbass?

    >
    > Go on then produce the proof you cretin.


    It's your claim, dumbass, you get to prove it.


  13. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >> In article , Linonut
    >> wrote:


    >>> This is a good thing. But how will we know there are no
    >>> back-doors? We can't vet the code (without a non-disclosure
    >>> agreement). And, when you read this:

    >>
    >> Same way we do with open source--ask third parties who have
    >> reviewed the code. The only difference is that with open source,
    >> we can do a review ourselves, if we are competent to do so, but
    >> most of us are not, so we have to rely on the third parties.

    >
    > You apparently missed the part about the non-disclosure agreement(s).


    I wonder how many of those third-parties, "privileged" enough to have
    access to the Windows source, have access to those parts of it related
    to cryptographic functions, rather than just those bits sanitised for
    third-party review?

    Well like the Windows source itself, most of us will never know for
    sure. But that's proprietary software in a nutshell: A black hole filled
    with dark secrets designed to protect others' interests ... against your
    own.

    No thanks.

    In this instance, the interests of American national security take
    precedence over my privacy ... at least as far as the NSA is concerned.
    I have a rather different opinion, especially as I am neither American
    nor in the least bit concerned with their hysterically paranoid
    fortification against largely fictional bogeymen, especially when said
    "fortification" is built on the premise of "security through obscurity".

    Yeah, that'll work. Well it's worked so well for Windows thus far,
    hasn't it?

    Erm...

    Ironically, and similarly to other misguided ideas such as DRM, the only
    people who are adversely affected by such measures are the ordinary;
    law-abiding citizens, whereas the /actual/ terrorist (or in the case of
    DRM - copyright violators) are unlikely to feel particularly challenged.

    Thankfully I don't have to worry about any of that, running Linux.
    Universal and unrestricted access to the source, and the freedom of the
    GPL, precludes the need for trust, which is probably just as well, given
    the track records of those we are expected to endow with that trust.

    As for this ridiculous notion that people should be denied access to the
    source because they "wouldn't understand it anyway" ... well one might
    easily say the same about libraries. Let's close 'em all - I mean most
    people wouldn't understand the intricacies of renaissance literature;
    quantum mechanics; psychoanalysis; law; medicine; etc. anyway, so why
    allow them to read such material?

    Knowledge is bad, ignorance is bliss ... so say those with something
    insidious to hide.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    00:37:56 up 110 days, 21:13, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.27, 0.33

  14. Re: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ignoramus25047
    > wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008
    > 10:54:12 -0500 :


    >> This is old news, though true.
    >>
    >> Relying on Windows for real security (like if you have something
    >> very serious to hide) is just insane.
    >>
    >> i

    >
    > Then don't. NAT firewalls, malware checkers, and procedural
    > implementations such as "don't open suspicious email" will reduce
    > one's exposure, though not totally eliminate it.


    That's like saying; if you're not going to use a properly constructed
    band-saw that has a guard, then at least make sure you have a first-aid
    kit with plenty of bandages. Personally I'd rather do it the /right/ way
    from the start, than risk bleeding to death from a severed artery.

    Windows security is little more than a poorly implemented afterthought.

    > Thus does the infrastructure compensate for Window's deficiencies.


    But it does so incompletely; inconsistently and ineffectively. It's
    little more than a token gesture for PR purposes only ... a spurious
    sales-pitch.

    > I would admittedly wish otherwise.


    Your wish was already granted 17 years ago. It's called Linux.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    09:42:46 up 111 days, 6:18, 2 users, load average: 0.48, 0.87, 0.61

  15. Re: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer

    wrote
    on Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:43:08 +0100
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ignoramus25047
    >> wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008
    >> 10:54:12 -0500 :

    >
    >>> This is old news, though true.
    >>>
    >>> Relying on Windows for real security (like if you have something
    >>> very serious to hide) is just insane.
    >>>
    >>> i

    >>
    >> Then don't. NAT firewalls, malware checkers, and procedural
    >> implementations such as "don't open suspicious email" will reduce
    >> one's exposure, though not totally eliminate it.

    >
    > That's like saying; if you're not going to use a properly constructed
    > band-saw that has a guard, then at least make sure you have a first-aid
    > kit with plenty of bandages. Personally I'd rather do it the /right/ way
    > from the start, than risk bleeding to death from a severed artery.


    Agreed. But many people won't see it in quite that depth.

    >
    > Windows security is little more than a poorly implemented afterthought.


    Windows multiuser capability is little more than a poorly
    implemented afterthought; Unix had multiuser from the
    word go. Linux, of course, inherited Unix's design flaws
    (there's probably a few in there) -- but also inherited
    Unix's successes.

    >
    >> Thus does the infrastructure compensate for Window's deficiencies.

    >
    > But it does so incompletely; inconsistently and ineffectively. It's
    > little more than a token gesture for PR purposes only ... a spurious
    > sales-pitch.


    I dunno....NAT does pretty darned well in packet blocking.
    But you're right; the infrastructure can't compensate for
    this as well as designing the product correctly in the
    first place.

    >
    >> I would admittedly wish otherwise.

    >
    > Your wish was already granted 17 years ago. It's called Linux.


    I think I've been using it since 1995, if not earlier.
    Certainly I was experimenting with it when the kernel
    was 0.99pl12, and I might have 0.99pl7 lying around somewhere.

    Of course, the "wish" I have is that *everyone* use it...or
    at least a significant plurality. But Linux meets most
    of my needs (there's a few work-related exceptions, such
    as Visual SourceSafe).

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
    class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3