XP Raw Sockets: addendum to forum post
Whoa!!! If this is Microsoft's intention then THAT is very scary. Because if all MS computers can ONLY run TCP/MS then any of us running Linux which wouldn't be able to use TCP/MS quite as easily would be... in trouble.
He is wrong. XP is shipped with a firewall application.
But you must understand that Microsoft limits its investments to things that will enhance a product's market share. Every feature in Windows had to pass the litmus test, "Does it increase market share?" Putting security safeguards in their products evidently failed the litmus test, and therefore weren't added.
He also says this:
What an idiotic thing to say. Ther version of XP that is released to date is not a HOME version...it is Professional with NT workstation security and features. What he is really mad about is that XP now has builtin features only previously available with Unix, that being RAW socket support.
As I detailed two weeks ago, XP is the first home version of Windows to allow complete access to TCP/IP sockets, which can be exploited by viruses to do all sorts of damage. Windows XP uses essentially the same TCP/IP software as Windows 2000, except that XP lacks 2000's higher-level security features.
So let me get this straight...If MS includes anything Unix has, MS is eveil...but if Unix were to go mainstream on new PC's...he would not fault it?
Still sounds like over-reaction whinning to discredit the successful manufacturer because he is secretly jealous of anything that is successful...sounds like HE has an insecurity issue.
So what are you saying? Including all TCP tools in XP/2K was a BAD thing? Why? Unix has had it all along you know, and when you install Unix...you are the root account...so there is really no big difference here, just people who don't like MS are blowing steam.
A built in FireWall is NOT the end all to security needs for a P.C. It is only a first line of defense. Trojan's and Virus's still get through FireWalls.
But the root user ID in Unix does not have full, unrestricted access to RAW sockets. Only system accounts do. User's can't use these accounts. Meanwhile WinXP does allow the administrator user ID to have full, unrestricted access to RAW sockets.
THAT is the problem. Not the fact that full RAW sockets are in XP, but the access levels for them are not as secure and restictive as all Unix versions.
Well I can tell ya I've have 2 buddies trying to hack my XP machines and they have yet to be able to do it.....Why...Becuase I configured it correctly...
Which btw. One of my buds was able to hack my Linux machine....Why? ...becuase I didnt know how to configure it correctly.
Whats the difference? Bottom line Nothing as I see it.... PEOPLE and their level of experiance are the determining factor when it comes to system security. The reason MS is the target of more system hacks is due to the fact that they have more out there. When and IF Linux gets to that level of installed systems I'm sure we will start to see even more security flaws and hacks.
New Security Features Planned for Firefox 4
Another Laptop Theft Exposes 21K Patients' Data
Oracle Hits to Road to Pitch Data Center Plans
Microsoft Preps Array of Windows Patches
Microsoft Nears IE9 Beta With Final Preview
Simplified Analytics Improve CRM, BI Tools
Android Passes RIM as Top Mobile OS in 2Q
VMware Updates Hyperic System Management
File Monitoring Key to Enterprise Security
LinkedIn Snaps Up SaaS Player mSpoke