WP7 most vulnerable mobile OS
Hardon
Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
hear.
Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
Homer
Oh well, so much for the Microsoft "evangelists'" theory that Windows is
only more insecure because it has a larger user base.
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 81 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that Hardon spake thusly:
>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>
>> He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
>> hear.
>>
>> Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
>
> Oh well, so much for the Microsoft "evangelists'" theory that Windows is
> only more insecure because it has a larger user base.
That's not what we say.....
We say it's ATTACKED more because the user base is larger.
Why attack desktop Linux?
There aren't enough users to make it worthwhile.
As for WP7 being insecure, how does he arrive at that conclusion?
Has it been attacked?
Of is he talking in theory?
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Chris
> Why attack
> desktop Linux?
> There aren't enough users to make it worthwhile.
Are you sure?
How many Desktop PCs are out there? Are even 0.5% of them really not many?
flatfish+++
Nope.
These losers look for bang for the buck....
Homer
>
> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
> worthwhile.
Then why do you keep doing it then?
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>
>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>> worthwhile.
>
> Then why do you keep doing it then?
I'm talking about virus, trojans etc.
Not making fun of a bunch of loser like you who still think Linux
desktop is going some place other than the trash can.
Hardon
> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>
>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>> worthwhile.
>
> Then why do you keep doing it then?
Because he's mentally ill? Posts here 7x24. When he's not posting his
infantile crap he's stalking Roy Schestowitz. When he's not doing that
he's impersonating others posting his homophobic fantasies. In his
free time he posts using an incredible number of socks. He's been
doing this for 15 years or more!
Because he's mentally ill? A rhetorical question of course. He's as
mad as a hatter.
Homer
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 10:17:36 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Then why do you keep doing it then?
> A rhetorical question of course.
Ditto.
> He's as mad as a hatter.
Or maybe just very, very lonely.
Whioh might amount to the same thing.
William Poaster
> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>
>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>> worthwhile.
>
> Then why do you keep doing it then?
Heh, ya gotta laugh. The trolls trotting out the same tired old
discredited "There aren't enough users to make it worthwhile." crap.
--
The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
DFS
How is it possible the BBC would say something anti-Microsoft,
considering the moronic cola "advocates" insist the MSBBC is a
mouthpiece for the Microsoft "gangsters and racketeers"?
Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
Tom Shelton
Vulnerable to what? I don't see many stories about apps being pulled
from the Windows Phone Market Place because they are filled with
viruses and trojans... In fact, the only smart phone I've heard of
lately that has issues are android phones. I just read an article
about a major vulnerabliity that affects every android device up to 2.2
- which basically is the majority of devices since hardley any normal
consumer ever actually gets an update...
Android - the swiss cheese smart phone os.
Andorid - the os that makes making a phone call dangerous
LOL
--
Tom Shelton
bbgruff
> On 5/7/2011 1:59 AM, Hardon wrote:
>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>
>> He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
>> hear.
>>
>> Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
>
>
> How is it possible the BBC would say something anti-Microsoft,
> considering the moronic cola "advocates" insist the MSBBC is a
> mouthpiece for the Microsoft "gangsters and racketeers"?
It wasn't said by the BBC. It was said by Eugene Kaspersky, who I
understand know something about security.....
> Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
Well, possibly somebody is a blithering idiot, but when it comes to matters
of security, who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be the
"blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs, or an Internet troll
from Georgia who calls himself DFS?
Chris
> who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be
> the "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs,
who sells a "security suite" for the windows phone 7.
I don't want to say that he is lying. But he does have an interest in
users being convinced they need anti-malware programs.
So unless you have some actual numbers to compare you are free to draw
your own conclusions.
TomB
Also a very good point of course.
--
The pleasure we obtain from music comes from counting, but counting
unconsciously. Music is nothing but unconscious arithmetic.
~ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Saturday 07 May 2011 16:21 DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2011 1:59 AM, Hardon wrote:
>>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>>
>> How is it possible the BBC would say something anti-Microsoft,
>> considering the moronic cola "advocates" insist the MSBBC is a
>> mouthpiece for the Microsoft "gangsters and racketeers"?
>
> It wasn't said by the BBC. It was said by Eugene Kaspersky, who I
> understand know something about security.....
>
>> Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
>
> Well, possibly somebody is a blithering idiot, but when it comes to matters
> of security, who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be the
> "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs, or an Internet troll
> from Georgia who calls himself DFS?
Bingo. The strong suit of DFS is sneering, insult, and stalking, not logic.
Heh, good sigmonster.
--
Brisk talkers are usually slow thinkers. There is, indeed, no wild beast
more to be dreaded than a communicative man having nothing to communicate.
If you are civil to the voluble, they will abuse your patience; if
brusque, your character.
-- Jonathan Swift
amicus_curious
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:92l9ij...@mid.individual.net...
> On Saturday 07 May 2011 16:21 DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2011 1:59 AM, Hardon wrote:
>>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>>
>>> He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
>>> hear.
>>>
>>> Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
>>
>>
>> How is it possible the BBC would say something anti-Microsoft,
>> considering the moronic cola "advocates" insist the MSBBC is a
>> mouthpiece for the Microsoft "gangsters and racketeers"?
>
> It wasn't said by the BBC. It was said by Eugene Kaspersky, who I
> understand know something about security.....
>
That's the danger in following the lead of some of these COLA mavens, bb.
It wasn't said at all. If you listen to the clip at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9476073.stm
it sounds like Kaspersky said that the most likely offender was Android.
WP7, as an OS, was not mentioned at all and Kaspersky's comment was that the
most hacked OS would be the one that became most popular, just as it has
been Windows in the PC space.
>> Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
>
> Well, possibly somebody is a blithering idiot, but when it comes to
> matters
> of security, who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be the
> "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs, or an Internet
> troll
> from Georgia who calls himself DFS?
>
Well, you could probably believe Kaspersky on credentials, but don't take
Hardon's word for it! LOL!
>
Hadron
> bbgruff wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Saturday 07 May 2011 16:21 DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2011 1:59 AM, Hardon wrote:
>>>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>>>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>>>
>>> How is it possible the BBC would say something anti-Microsoft,
>>> considering the moronic cola "advocates" insist the MSBBC is a
>>> mouthpiece for the Microsoft "gangsters and racketeers"?
>>
>> It wasn't said by the BBC. It was said by Eugene Kaspersky, who I
>> understand know something about security.....
>>
>>> Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
>>
>> Well, possibly somebody is a blithering idiot, but when it comes to matters
>> of security, who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be the
>> "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs, or an Internet troll
>> from Georgia who calls himself DFS?
>
> Bingo. The strong suit of DFS is sneering, insult, and stalking, not logic.
>
> Heh, good sigmonster.
Wasnt it you calling people "cunts", "fuckheads" and "shitheads" amongst
other things?
flatfish+++
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Then why do you keep doing it then?
>
> Heh, ya gotta laugh. The trolls trotting out the same tired old
> discredited "There aren't enough users to make it worthwhile." crap.
That's because it's true.
20 years of Linux failing proves that.
That's a tough record to break.
amicus_curious
"Hardon" <hardon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd5xp.1598$bc4....@news.usenetserver.com...
I think that you must have shit in your ears, Hardon. See the clip at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9476073.stm
flatfish+++
Kaspersky said it but of course he sells anti-virus software so what do
you expect?
Tom Shelton
> Am Sat, 07 May 2011 17:16:22 +0100 schrieb bbgruff:
>
>> who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be
>> the "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs,
>
> who sells a "security suite" for the windows phone 7.
>
Actually, no one does. Only, for windows mobile - which is a differnt
os. People are constantly making that mistake.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
If the link posted by americus is accurate, then you are simply full of
crap.
Kaspersky said that
1) Windows (desktop os) is NOT any less secure by design then linux or
mac os - it just is attacked more because, wait for it - it's the most
popular.
2) He said the same thing would happen with mobiles - the attacks would
follow the most popular system, which was - again, wait for it -
android.
If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
porkies.
--
Tom Shelton
Chris Ahlstrom
> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
> porkies.
Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
--
Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!
flatfish+++
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>> porkies.
>
> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
Having trouble providing an accurate link Liarmutt?
Yea, that's what I figured.
Run along now and fetch.....
Heel Liarmutt!!
Heel I say!!!
Tom Shelton
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>> porkies.
>
> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
Well, Chris - go listen to that clip. It says exactly what I said, and
dosen't mention Windows Phone at all, it only mentions windows in the
context I summarized. So, if that is what is being refered to then, I
can come to no conclusion other then Hardon is either an idiot or
lieing. And, to be honest if you can defend that, then it certainly
lowers my opinion of you.
If it's not the clip - then, Hardon can post a link to the real clip,
and the matter will be cleared up.
--
Tom Shelton
flatfish+++
Chris Ahlstrom doesn't have the time to listen to clips.
Oddly enough he also doesn't seem to have the time to deal with facts
instead of bull shit.
Like most COLA Linux "advocates", facts scare the life out of him.
He certainly does seem to have the time to LIE for LIEnux though.
What a little shit he is.
bbgruff
>
>
> "bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:92l9ij...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Saturday 07 May 2011 16:21 DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2011 1:59 AM, Hardon wrote:
>>>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>>>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>>>
>>>> He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
>>>> hear.
>>>>
>>>> Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
>>>
>>>
>>> How is it possible the BBC would say something anti-Microsoft,
>>> considering the moronic cola "advocates" insist the MSBBC is a
>>> mouthpiece for the Microsoft "gangsters and racketeers"?
>>
>> It wasn't said by the BBC. It was said by Eugene Kaspersky, who I
>> understand know something about security.....
>>
> That's the danger in following the lead of some of these COLA mavens, bb.
> It wasn't said at all. If you listen to the clip at
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9476073.stm
>
> it sounds like Kaspersky said that the most likely offender was Android.
> WP7, as an OS, was not mentioned at all and Kaspersky's comment was that
the
> most hacked OS would be the one that became most popular, just as it has
> been Windows in the PC space.
Yes, you are quite right. In effect, he seems to be saying that just as
Windows was/is the most-attacked desktop OS because it is widest used, the
same principle will apply to mobile OSs - and that Android is likely to see
the greatest effort against it for two reasons:-
- it is the widest used mobile OS
- it is open.
He goes on to point out that iOS is protected/isolated to some extent, in
that it is very "closed", but that that is also a double-edged sword It is
easy to apply security S/W (anti-malware) to Android (demonstrated, in
fact?), but more difficult re. iOS.
>
>>> Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
>>
>> Well, possibly somebody is a blithering idiot, but when it comes to
>> matters
>> of security, who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be the
>> "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs, or an Internet
>> troll
>> from Georgia who calls himself DFS?
>>
> Well, you could probably believe Kaspersky on credentials, but don't take
> Hardon's word for it! LOL!
We can at least agree then that the remarks came from Kaspersky, and not the
BBC? :-)
bbgruff
In Hardon's defence, I must admit that the first time I listened to this (a
day or two ago), I heard it as him saying Windows in relation to mobile OSs.
That struck me as strange, considering the current WP7 user share!
Listening to it again (and on a_c's prompting), it now makes more sense, in
effect "Just as Windows is attacked most on the desktop because it is the
most popular...", and *exactly* as your summary above.
In watching it again, I also now realise that this is where I heard two
other significant things. He says:-
- Home users don't need a desktop *unless* they need to run MS Office.
Everything else that they do now, and much more, can be done on tablets etc.
- By 2014, there will be more web accesses from mobile devices than
"desktops".
Hadron
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>> porkies.
>
> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
Try reading the source material you nasty little hypocrite. The claims
are not borne out by the material.
If Tom is morphing into me then good on him : the more people we have to
point the lies and boasts from you and your ilk the better.
The real Q is why YOU are not correcting the OP. As if we didn't know.
Tom Shelton
> On Saturday 07 May 2011 19:07 Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> Hardon used his keyboard to write :
>>> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
>>> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>>>
>>> He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
>>> hear.
>>>
>>> Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
>>
>> If the link posted by americus is accurate, then you are simply full of
>> crap.
>>
>> Kaspersky said that
>>
>> 1) Windows (desktop os) is NOT any less secure by design then linux or
>> mac os - it just is attacked more because, wait for it - it's the most
>> popular.
>>
>> 2) He said the same thing would happen with mobiles - the attacks would
>> follow the most popular system, which was - again, wait for it -
>> android.
>>
>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>> porkies.
>
> In Hardon's defence, I must admit that the first time I listened to this (a
> day or two ago), I heard it as him saying Windows in relation to mobile OSs.
> That struck me as strange, considering the current WP7 user share!
Sure, still small - about 4.5% world wide. But, I expect that to get a
small boost when the Verizon devices are released, along with the
several other handsets in the works. I also, expect to see much
stronger push from MS once the Mango update (WP7.5) is released latter
this year.
Remember, several analysts put Windows Phone to be the #2 smart phone
os by 2015. I'm not saying I agree with that - I personally find it
folly to try and project that far, especially since they are saying
WP7. And I can pretty much guarentee that WP7 will no longer be around
in 4 years - it will have long morphed into Windows Phone 8 (which will
probably just be the same as Windows 8).
> Listening to it again (and on a_c's prompting), it now makes more sense, in
> effect "Just as Windows is attacked most on the desktop because it is the
> most popular...", and *exactly* as your summary above.
>
I am willing to except mistaken - and maybe my words were to harsh.
> In watching it again, I also now realise that this is where I heard two
> other significant things. He says:-
>
> - Home users don't need a desktop *unless* they need to run MS Office.
> Everything else that they do now, and much more, can be done on tablets etc.
>
> - By 2014, there will be more web accesses from mobile devices than
> "desktops".
Yes, he did say that... But, I didn't feel the need to sumarize that,
as it wasn't relavant to the OP's comments.
And for those statements, I agree - though, it is still an emerging
market, and there is no way anyone can predict who will be the major
players are going to be in say 5 years.
--
Tom Shelton
Chris
> Chris formulated on Saturday :
>> who sells a "security suite" for the windows phone 7.
> Actually, no one does. Only, for windows mobile - which is a differnt
> os. People are constantly making that mistake.
Damn, I didn't read my google results well enaugh.
I'm not really up to date. Still using a Nokia 3510. :)
Tom Shelton
It's ok :) There are some under dev - I know symantec is working on
somthing, but I don't believe there will be any until after WP7.5 -
latter this year.
--
Tom Shelton
amicus_curious
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:92ll3c...@mid.individual.net...
>
> In watching it again, I also now realise that this is where I heard two
> other significant things. He says:-
>
> - Home users don't need a desktop *unless* they need to run MS Office.
> Everything else that they do now, and much more, can be done on tablets
> etc.
>
My granddaughter has an iPad 2 and I had an opportunity to play around with
it at some length the other day. I'm not so sure that it has that much
appeal. It is kind of difficult to use, I think. You have to hold it with
one hand and peck with the other to enter information. It is pretty nice
for displaying pre-canned info such as web browsing or watching a video, but
it really sucks when you have to enter much data as you might if you were a
long winded responder to a UseNet group or even sending email. The thing is
not so big, but it starts to bother my hand holding it on the edge so that
you can see it as well as access any keyboard or game surface. You almost
have to lay it on a table to use it for mail or forms entry. Then you have
to sort of hunch over it to see what is on the screen. Cumbersome, in my
opinion.
Double ditto for the phone devices. They have the same entry problems with
the added disadvantage of a very small display. I think that a lot of
people will buy the phones and I have a couple myself. But they will also
buy a computer to use for more detailed work.
> - By 2014, there will be more web accesses from mobile devices than
> "desktops".
>
Not if the current trend holds, I think. In any case, the opportunity to
show the commercials and such that are a part of PC accesses are lost on the
little screens of the phones. What will that do to the internet ecosystem
where a lot of the cost of the content is born by advertisers? Will be be
sent back in time to the sort of text based internet that existed before the
Mosaic browser?
>
bbgruff
I hear what you say (should that be "read what you write"?!), but just on
that last point, can you explain to me why Google is spending so much time,
effort, and *money* on Android? :-)
( - and don't you *dare* knock Mosaic - that's where I came on to the
Internet, and I remember it fondly! :-) )
William Poaster
Err...no.
<Quote>
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
"We've all heard it many times when a new Microsoft virus comes out. In
fact, I've heard it a couple of times this week already. Someone on a
mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long
line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider
Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response,
another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How
ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many
viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was
as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for
those platforms!"
Of course, it's not just "regular folks" on mailing lists who share this opinion.
Businesspeople have expressed similar attitudes ... including ones who
work for anti-virus companies. Jack Clarke, European product manager at
McAfee, said, "So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS
becomes more common and popular."
Mr. Clarke is wrong.
....even if Linux becomes the dominant desktop computing platform, and
Mac OS X continues its growth in businesses and homes, these Unix-based
OS's will never experience all of the problems we're seeing now with
email-borne viruses and worms in the Microsoft world.
Why are Linux and Mac OS X safer?
First, look at the two factors that cause email viruses and worms to
propagate: social engineering, and poorly designed software. Social
engineering is the art of conning someone into doing something they
shouldn't do, or revealing something that should be kept secret. Virus
writers use social engineering to convince people to do stupid things,
like open attachments that carry viruses and worms. Poorly designed
software makes it easier for social engineering to take place, but such
software can also subvert the efforts of a knowledgable,
security-minded individual or organization. Together, the two factors
can turn a single virus incident into a widespread disaster.
Etc..etc..
<unquote>
Scott Granneman
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188
--
A bad random number generator: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4.33e+67, 1, 1, 1
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
William Poaster
Ok, so as more servers run Linux how come they're not attacked as much
as the lesser number of M$ servers?
"Forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux,"
Steve Ballmer -
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151568/ballmer_still_searching_for_an_answer_to_google.html
Linux employs a much more rigorous security model than any version
of windows and now that more and more Linux distro's use the SE-Linux
system (security enhanced system developed for the US government) it
makes Linux way ahead of the field.
And don't forget that Linux desktops or servers are *highly* prized by
blackhats, as cracking one gives that person bragging rights. They can
do *far* more damage using a cracked Linux desktop/server than a Windows
one.
"So the "Windows was/is the most-attacked desktop OS because it is
widest used" statement doesn't stand up.
>>>> Oh that's right... cola "advocates" are blithering idiots.
>>>
>>> Well, possibly somebody is a blithering idiot, but when it comes to
>>> matters
>>> of security, who am I to believe, and who is more likely to be the
>>> "blithering idiot", Eugene Kaspersky of Kaspersky labs, or an Internet
>>> troll
>>> from Georgia who calls himself DFS?
>>>
>> Well, you could probably believe Kaspersky on credentials, but don't take
>> Hardon's word for it! LOL!
>
> We can at least agree then that the remarks came from Kaspersky, and not the
> BBC? :-)
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
Big Steel
> Listening to Click on the BBC, Eugene Kaspersky (Co-Founder Kaspersky
> Labs), stated WP7 is the most at risk mobile OS.
>
> He was stating the obvious but its nice to hear it spoken for all to
> hear.
>
> Luckily, very few people are buying WP7 phones.
There is nothing special about the Droid I am using, and it's leaking
like a siv.
Big Steel
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Then why do you keep doing it then?
>
> Heh, ya gotta laugh. The trolls trotting out the same tired old
> discredited "There aren't enough users to make it worthwhile." crap.
>
I guess the truth hurts. Why the clown comment on it of he was not
concerned? But on the other hand, it could just be another big butt kiss.
Snit
4dc5b8c8$0$10313$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/7/11 2:22 PM:
...
>> - Home users don't need a desktop *unless* they need to run MS Office.
>> Everything else that they do now, and much more, can be done on tablets
>> etc.
>>
> My granddaughter has an iPad 2 and I had an opportunity to play around with
> it at some length the other day. I'm not so sure that it has that much
> appeal.
You might not find it appealing, but the public in general is loving them.
They are doing very well and get great reviews. I know several people who
have them and they all rave about them.
> It is kind of difficult to use, I think.
I do not doubt that you find it difficult to use, but most people do not.
> You have to hold it with one hand and peck with the other to enter
> information.
Nope. Actually was with someone today (until just a few minutes ago) and
that does not describe her use at all.
> It is pretty nice for displaying pre-canned info such as web browsing or
> watching a video, but it really sucks when you have to enter much data as you
> might if you were a long winded responder to a UseNet group or even sending
> email. The thing is not so big, but it starts to bother my hand holding it on
> the edge so that you can see it as well as access any keyboard or game
> surface. You almost have to lay it on a table to use it for mail or forms
> entry. Then you have to sort of hunch over it to see what is on the screen.
> Cumbersome, in my opinion.
Whew... glad your opinion means so little.
> Double ditto for the phone devices. They have the same entry problems with
> the added disadvantage of a very small display. I think that a lot of
> people will buy the phones and I have a couple myself. But they will also
> buy a computer to use for more detailed work.
Oh, sure: iOS devices are not meant as computer replacements... though not
everyone who has a computer needs what they do. So in that way they might
serve people as well or better (though some weaknesses will need to be
handled, first - so be it).
>> - By 2014, there will be more web accesses from mobile devices than
>> "desktops".
>>
> Not if the current trend holds, I think. In any case, the opportunity to
> show the commercials and such that are a part of PC accesses are lost on the
> little screens of the phones. What will that do to the internet ecosystem
> where a lot of the cost of the content is born by advertisers? Will be be
> sent back in time to the sort of text based internet that existed before the
> Mosaic browser?
>>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tom Shelton
I was simply quoting what Kaspersky said. Agree or not - I don't care.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that flatty spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Why attack desktop Linux? There aren't enough users to make it
>>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Then why do you keep doing it then?
>
> Heh, ya gotta laugh. The trolls trotting out the same tired old
> discredited "There aren't enough users to make it worthwhile." crap.
That was almost a direct quote from kaspersky, not a statement of fact
by a "troll". Why don't you actually listen to the clip?
--
Tom Shelton
amicus_curious
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:92lt58...@mid.individual.net...
I do not claim to have any insight at all into Google's strategies or how
they have managed to succeed so well. It is a sort of "build it and they
will come" that worked. My emotional belief is that Facebook, Twitter, and
Google itself are a sort of consolidated .COM phenomenon that could go away
just like .COM, but I am too much of a techie to understand what the fuss is
all about. I buy the $100 per year package from T-Mobil and only have to
add $20 at the end of the year, too.
Google seems to be able to control the app store for Droid traffic although
they don't seem to charge developers, at least the last time I looked. So I
don't have any idea how they hope to monetize Android and get any payback.
I have asked the question myself around here and all I get is snit snot,
which leads me to believe no one else knows either.
Snit
4dc5e1f7$0$10260$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 5/7/11 5:18 PM:
...
>> I hear what you say (should that be "read what you write"?!), but just on
>> that last point, can you explain to me why Google is spending so much
>> time,
>> effort, and *money* on Android? :-)
>>
> I do not claim to have any insight at all into Google's strategies or how they
> have managed to succeed so well. It is a sort of "build it and they will
> come" that worked. My emotional belief is that Facebook, Twitter, and Google
> itself are a sort of consolidated .COM phenomenon that could go away just like
> .COM, but I am too much of a techie to understand what the fuss is all about.
Too much of a techy to understand such major things in the tech industry...
um, what?
> I buy the $100 per year package from T-Mobil and only have to add $20 at the
> end of the year, too.
>
> Google seems to be able to control the app store for Droid traffic although
> they don't seem to charge developers, at least the last time I looked. So I
> don't have any idea how they hope to monetize Android and get any payback. I
> have asked the question myself around here and all I get is snit snot, which
> leads me to believe no one else knows either.
My guess: advertising. It is what they do. Get a kazillion people using
Android devices and then have add-on values that include ads. An example
service: amazing location based info (hence why the collect so much location
based data).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom brought next idea :
>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
>>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>>> porkies.
>>
>> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
>
> Well, Chris - go listen to that clip.
<snipped>
Whatever, Tom. My point was simply that you picked up on one of
"Hadron"'s oft-used words for "lies".
I thought you for sure would be able to grok that.
--
The big cities of America are becoming Third World countries.
-- Nora Ephron
flatfish+++
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom brought next idea :
>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so far
>>>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>>>> porkies.
>>>
>>> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
>>
>> Well, Chris - go listen to that clip.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Whatever, Tom. My point was simply that you picked up on one of
> "Hadron"'s oft-used words for "lies".
>
> I thought you for sure would be able to grok that.
It's all very simple Chris, listen to the clip and you will know your
boy tried to LIE for LIEnux and got caught.
And you are just making it worse for yourself.
You really are an ass hole Chris Ahlstrom.
You guys are caught dead wrong and even STILL you won't admit it.
You continue to tow the COLA propaganda line because you are afraid of
telling the truth and being ostracized by the rest of the COLA cabal.
What a real chicken shit you are turning into.
Homer
> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so
>> far it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right
>> telling porkies.
>
> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
I think the OP misinterpreted Kaspersky, but I wouldn't assume it was an
outright lie.
Here's what was actually said:
[transcript]
Timestamp: 2:56.
Spencer Kelly: Which mobile operating system is most at risk in the
future?
Eugene Kaspersky: I think that cybercriminals will follow the most
popular system, ah, same as your - what you have - as
Microsoft Windows. Ah, Microsoft Windows is not less
secure by design, ah, comparing to Linux systems or
Mac OS, but criminals they follow crowds. That's why
most of attacks they are for Microsoft Windows.
Ah, The next most popular system, I think it's
a Google Android, because, ah, this system is a very
flexible; it's a much easier to develop any kind of
software for this system; they don't need to have a
permission from Google to develop that.
[/transcript]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9476073.stm
If Kaspersky meant Microsoft Windows Phone 7, or was including Phone 7,
then the OP's assumption is correct. Personally I don't know, but given
that he compares it to Mac OS then maybe not, unless he's talking about
Apple's OSs in general (as with Windows). Of course he's talking about
the most popular systems, and Phone 7 is very far from that, so maybe
that confirms he's not talking about mobile Windows, unless he's
mistaken into believing it's popular. It's a bit vague.
I think he's wrong anyway. Yes, criminals follow the crowds, but the
most popular systems aren't necessarily just compromised proportionate
to their popularity, they're also compromised proportionate to their
security. That should be obvious. For example, Phone 7 has a tiny market
share, and yet it has already been compromised recently. Meanwhile Linux
is used in billions of devices, not just the desktop, and yet it's very
rarely compromised - and when it is, it usually turns out to be because
the system's security was inadequately configured, more than as a result
of any intrinsic flaw in security design. Linux (and BSD) is /certainly/
more secure than other systems in that respect. Kaspersky is dead wrong
there.
As for Android, there's more going on there than just Linux, and the
fact that Google allows and encourages proprietary applications means
that ultimately some of them are going to turn out to be rogue, and
nobody but the (potentially criminal) developer will know. That's what
you get with proprietary software - a big mystery bag. Kaspersky's
assertions WRT the inherent vulnerability of "flexible" (i.e. Free
Software) systems is dead wrong there too. Having a locked down and
proprietary system only obfuscates it from the user. Criminal hackers
will carry on regardless of the availability of sources.
The Microsoft shill (and now Microsoft employee) Ashley Highfield,
former Director of the MSBBC's Future Media and Technology, made the
same brainless claim three years ago:
[quote]
Ashley asks "How can you have DRM if it's open source?" continuing that
"open source people would be able to know how it works and get around
it."
Ashers is betraying is fundamental misunderstanding of cypher
technology. If someone is this ignorant of the area that he heads up,
should he really be heading up the Future Media & Technology wing of the
BBC?
[/quote]
http://digital-lifestyles.info/2007/11/06/ashley-highfield-the-bbc-iplayer-pr-offensive/
Now he heads up Windows mobile and Bing, amongst others.
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 82 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission
Tom Shelton
It not even close to vauge. I'm willing to accept that it was not an
intentional lie from the OP - but, reading the above it's very clear
that he is talking about Windows desktops and not windows mobile or
wp7.
> I think he's wrong anyway. Yes, criminals follow the crowds, but the
> most popular systems aren't necessarily just compromised proportionate
> to their popularity, they're also compromised proportionate to their
> security. That should be obvious. For example, Phone 7 has a tiny market
> share, and yet it has already been compromised recently.
There has been no real attack on win phone 7 that I'm aware of - and I
read about it almost every day. About the closest that has been done
is that the Dark Force Team managed to hack the htc mozart boot loader
so that it could dual boot with android.
Or maybe you are refering to the revoked comodo certificate issue -
which was not wp7 specific - that could have been a potential problem I
guess, but afik, wasn't. Already patched - I got my update for that
days ago.
> Meanwhile Linux
> is used in billions of devices, not just the desktop, and yet it's very
> rarely compromised - and when it is, it usually turns out to be because
> the system's security was inadequately configured, more than as a result
> of any intrinsic flaw in security design. Linux (and BSD) is /certainly/
> more secure than other systems in that respect. Kaspersky is dead wrong
> there.
>
> As for Android, there's more going on there than just Linux, and the
> fact that Google allows and encourages proprietary applications means
> that ultimately some of them are going to turn out to be rogue, and
> nobody but the (potentially criminal) developer will know. That's what
> you get with proprietary software - a big mystery bag. Kaspersky's
> assertions WRT the inherent vulnerability of "flexible" (i.e. Free
> Software) systems is dead wrong there too. Having a locked down and
> proprietary system only obfuscates it from the user. Criminal hackers
> will carry on regardless of the availability of sources.
>
Ummm... Apple manages to keep trojans and viruses out of their app
store for the most part. And they are all native apps.
MS has managed to do the same so far for WP7..
Only android phones have really had any significant issues with this
sort of thing. This has nothing to do with "proprietary" applications,
this has to do with the wild west environment of the google market
place.
--
Tom Shelton
amicus_curious
"Tom Shelton" <tom_s...@comcast.invalid> wrote in message
news:iq5bqt$fgn$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> It not even close to vauge. I'm willing to accept that it was not an
> intentional lie from the OP - but, reading the above it's very clear that
> he is talking about Windows desktops and not windows mobile or wp7.
>
Of course it was not an intentional lie. It was just a common mistake of a
willing victim to believe the worst news about Microsoft. COLA is hardly a
place to advocate Linux or anything else. Rather it is a place to complain
about Microsoft. Advocates here seem to hold to a hopeless cause since
Microsoft has grown substantially year after year while the COLA folk
continue to hope and pray for them to stumble and fall. It must be very
frustrating.
Big Steel
You are posting the truth about worthless COLA. This NG advocating
Linux is a total joke. This NG is not advocating anything but noise.
It's just lip-service from the same old few Linux using clowns that use
MS. :)
Ezekiel
"flatfish+++" <flat...@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
news:1ctn4gmv5npmh.b...@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 7 May 2011 20:37:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom brought next idea :
>>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so
>>>>> far
>>>>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>>>>> porkies.
>>>>
>>>> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
>>>
>>> Well, Chris - go listen to that clip.
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> Whatever, Tom. My point was simply that you picked up on one of
>> "Hadron"'s oft-used words for "lies".
>>
>> I thought you for sure would be able to grok that.
>
> It's all very simple Chris, listen to the clip and you will know your
> boy tried to LIE for LIEnux and got caught.
>
He's not interested in the facts. The post was made by an "advocate" and
that's good enough for him.
> And you are just making it worse for yourself.
>
> You really are an ass hole Chris Ahlstrom.
> You guys are caught dead wrong and even STILL you won't admit it.
> You continue to tow the COLA propaganda line because you are afraid of
> telling the truth and being ostracized by the rest of the COLA cabal.
>
> What a real chicken shit you are turning into.
>
Turning into? He's the most gutless, spineless coward I've encountered in a
very long time. He's too scared to have an original thought of his own in
case it happens to contradict something that Dumb Willy, 7 or chrisv said.
His only function here is to simply suck up to and "me too" the other
advocates.
Example - Look at the "Ubuntu Natty release notes" thread where he
completely abandons his original position and does a full-180 turn around
the minute another "advocate" posted something that told him "what to
think." A cowardly pathetic gutless, spineless pussy is probably giving him
far more credit than he deserves.
flatfish+++
> Ummm... Apple manages to keep trojans and viruses out of their app
> store for the most part. And they are all native apps.
>
> MS has managed to do the same so far for WP7..
>
> Only android phones have really had any significant issues with this
> sort of thing. This has nothing to do with "proprietary" applications,
> this has to do with the wild west environment of the google market
> place.
That's it in a nutshell.
Android and iPhone *ARE* being attacked because of their market share.
iPhone manages to fight it off due to superior design of the OS.
Android does not because it's design is full of holes.
I'm sure this will change over time, at least I hope it does.
flatfish+++
> "flatfish+++" <flat...@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
> news:1ctn4gmv5npmh.b...@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 7 May 2011 20:37:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom brought next idea :
>>>>> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If that was not the clip - can you please post a link? Because, so
>>>>>> far
>>>>>> it does look like you are not only mistaken, but down right telling
>>>>>> porkies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you morphing into "Hadron"?
>>>>
>>>> Well, Chris - go listen to that clip.
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> Whatever, Tom. My point was simply that you picked up on one of
>>> "Hadron"'s oft-used words for "lies".
>>>
>>> I thought you for sure would be able to grok that.
>>
>> It's all very simple Chris, listen to the clip and you will know your
>> boy tried to LIE for LIEnux and got caught.
>>
>
> He's not interested in the facts. The post was made by an "advocate" and
> that's good enough for him.
Sad isn't it?
That's why he rarely if ever corrects the gibberish from 7, Rex and some
others.
>
>> And you are just making it worse for yourself.
>>
>> You really are an ass hole Chris Ahlstrom.
>> You guys are caught dead wrong and even STILL you won't admit it.
>> You continue to tow the COLA propaganda line because you are afraid of
>> telling the truth and being ostracized by the rest of the COLA cabal.
>>
>> What a real chicken shit you are turning into.
>>
>
> Turning into? He's the most gutless, spineless coward I've encountered in a
> very long time. He's too scared to have an original thought of his own in
> case it happens to contradict something that Dumb Willy, 7 or chrisv said.
> His only function here is to simply suck up to and "me too" the other
> advocates.
He's been getting worse lately.
If that's possible.
> Example - Look at the "Ubuntu Natty release notes" thread where he
> completely abandons his original position and does a full-180 turn around
> the minute another "advocate" posted something that told him "what to
> think." A cowardly pathetic gutless, spineless pussy is probably giving him
> far more credit than he deserves.
Honestly I've never seen anything like it in any group.
I don't know what his problem is but it's obviously serious enough for
others to notice it based upon his behavior.
Hadron
Yow. He won't like that. He was recently trying to suck up to you.
Eric Pozharski
*SKIP*
> It wasn't said by the BBC. It was said by Eugene Kaspersky, who I
> understand know something about security.....
Who knows. His facilities were hacked. Twice.
http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/08/kaspersky-lab-hacked-another-sign-of-the-losing-war-against-hackers/
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Kasperskys-Download-Site-Hacked-Directs-Users-to-Fake-AntiVirus-336193/
Those are different issues. And the latter exposes this bit of wisdom:
Various Kaspersky international sites have been defaced at least
36 times since 2000, according to ZDNet's Zero Day security
blog.
*CUT*
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom