 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Browser rivals to register official complaints about Microsoft's ballot screen proposal | |
|
||
| Time: 23:39 EST/04:39 GMT | News Source: | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The deadline for official comment on Microsoft’s latest rendition of the browser-ballot — the screen the company has proposed to download to PC users in order to appease antitrust regulators handling the Opera vs. Microsoft antitrust case — is next week. (It should be November 10, if the one-month comment deadline the European Commission set for itself is still in place.) |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 20 of 20 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at Friday, November 06, 2009 08:05:27 AM |
|
The competition wants a forced solution on Microsoft. It doesn't matter what Micrososft does it will always be wrong in the eyes of these "competitors".
What really cracks me up is the very first browser was Mosaic and it was free. The fact is Marc Andreessen was on the Mosaic team and decided to sell a browser, Netscape. Just because you could download it and run it without paying did not mean it was free. Then Microsoft comes along and liberates the browser and the whole world goes nuts! Unbelievable... These competitors should be thanking Microsoft for opening the web up to people who may not have experienced it at all if they had not included a browser with the OS. |
| #2 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Friday, November 06, 2009 08:39:30 AM |
| I still say, If opera, Google, and Mozilla don't like MS's ballot , they can pay an OEM to preinstall their software. They are getting a free ride; they should be happy with whatever order they appear in on the ballot screen (naturally, IE should be on top). |
| #3 By 2960 (68.100.201.101) at Friday, November 06, 2009 09:05:24 AM |
|
Ok, it's no secret that I am not an IE fan. But for cripes sake. You got your damned ballot window.
It's time to STFU! |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, November 06, 2009 11:26:14 AM |
|
#1: That's an interesting take on reality you've got there. The part that I think is especially hilarious is how you talk about MS liberating the web. The web was always free, but MS worked very, very hard to make it a proprietary web with technologies like ActiveX that locked you into their browser, with a big helping of security bugs as an added bonus.
#3: Um, what ballot window? I installed Win7 two weeks ago and I don't remember seeing a ballot window. I doubt any of the PCs out there in retail bigbox land show a ballot window. As much as I agree with anything to help untie IE from the OS, this just smacks of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. |
| #5 By 2960 (68.100.201.101) at Friday, November 06, 2009 11:58:50 AM |
|
It's not for US systems Latch :)
This is an EU thing. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Friday, November 06, 2009 12:25:56 PM |
|
#4, Latch... Latch... Latch....
The web was always free, but MS worked very, very hard to make it a proprietary web with technologies like ActiveX that locked you into their browser, with a big helping of security bugs as an added bonus. For the last time, ActiveX is COM/DCOM and NOT/NOT the only running or potentially dangerous form of Remote Method Invocation (RMI). Java RMI, FLASH Remoting, Corba are only a few others and ALL ARE seen in IE as an ActiveX control, contributing to confusion about the matter. Also, ActiveX was designed specifically to be more secure/signed and managed - where by policy, systems could/can be easily controlled as to which they will support, or install. That is as true of Windows XP and IE 6 as it is today. For the nth time, NO, the web was not always free, it was a research and defense network we used and developed for decades before many of us voted on how to release its technologies through the US National Science Foundation for commercial exploitation. Most of the things people do on the web today, including mark up languages that made so many so famous for "inventing" them, were based upon man-machine readable messaging and technical formats that... wait for it.... WERE BASED ON TAGS. Microsoft indeed did do a great deal to liberate and advance the web. IE 4 w/SP1 smoked all others and its capabilities and developer tools and broad support beat Netscape's head in - not bundling as has been asserted. The war had been won before Windows 98 shipped and Netscape failed to answer IE 4 sufficiently. Both devs and regular users preferred over other browsers. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, November 06, 2009 01:03:10 PM |
|
#5: Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten it was an EU-only thing. But even still, my point applies. Win7 was released a couple of weeks ago and yet they're still arguing over the particulars of a ballot screen that decreases in effectiveness for every day it's delayed. The more the players continue to argue about the details, the more MS smiles.
#6: For the last time, ActiveX is COM/DCOM and NOT/NOT the only running or potentially dangerous form of Remote Method Invocation (RMI). You appear to be answering something that wasn't asked. I said that ActiveX was an attempt to tie web content to IE, and it had a terrible security model. I never said it was the only insecure thing running on Windows. You appear to be employing the Parkkker(tm) Deflect-O-Matic. For the nth time, NO, the web was not always free, it was a research and defense network Yes we all know that. I'm talking about the birth of the public web and how it was a total free-for-all. It was the ultimate in freedom. You and others seem to think the web was in some kind of bondage until MS showed up and saved the day a la Moses. Very self-serving statements on MS's behalf, but entirely untrue. Microsoft indeed did do a great deal to liberate and advance the web. Well, you're half-right. Like I said before, MS did nothing to liberate the web - whatever that truly means as the web was not being oppressed or anything. MS did advance the web, but it was for reasons of control as per their long history of doing these exact kinds of things. You make it sound like they were being altruistic when that was the farthest thing from their minds. Create technological advances that only their software could take advantage of, tie the browser to the OS so that everyone has your browser and then you have de facto control. The only reason we have advanced from that place is that users got fed up with the inadequacies of IE and wanted something more than MS was prepared to give. Everyone, microbots included, should give thanks to Firefox and Opera or you'd all still be stuck with that fetid steaming pile known as IE6. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Friday, November 06, 2009 01:19:55 PM |
|
You and others seem to think the web was in some kind of bondage until MS showed up and saved the day a la Moses
ActiveX had a terrible security model? WHAT? it was the only invocation method at the time that had a means to secure it at all - and manage that centrally. Lord... securing remote methoding was one of its design goals and driven by the lack of it in other models. Hardly, I voted for more controlled release and remember very well how professional Microsoft was about the whole matter. Others were not at all. Microsoft's red badged engineers were humble and very kind - many of which we already knew. It was frankly, refreshing as compared to how some others acted. Even the privatized Mitre was shocked at how some of the elites from the universities and private sector acted. I remember, too that it was not until late 1995 that any browser was as good as what we have been using by way of a directory browser on a windowing system since 1988 and that was quite old in and of itself. Dual screens? 1967! There are so many examples, it's just hard to even read some of things people believe are true. NUMA/Atomicity? 1961! It just saddens and insults. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, November 06, 2009 02:44:32 PM |
|
#8: ActiveX had a terrible security model? WHAT? it was the only invocation method at the time that had a means to secure it at all - and manage that centrally.
Funny. I remember ActiveX for IE's ability to silently download, install and run ActiveX objects without any user intervention whatsoever. Didn't they come up with the killbits stuff to blacklist known bad objects, but it was simple to just change your object's CLSID? Awesome security model. Tell me, is it part of your astroturf contract with MS that you are obligated to defend every single thing MS has ever done or made? Or does it just seem that way? |
| #10 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Friday, November 06, 2009 03:55:27 PM |
|
#9, Latch, you're not being accurate - it is not a defense of Microsoft, per se, but rather the a matter of the truth.
The truth is, that IE and RMI were/are able to be managed and at the object level - a far more granular level of security and as design, MS's joint development of COM/DCOM as marketed under the name ActiveX was specifically designed to be secure and exposed to centralized management. It still is. The issue is that far too many people and administrators never took advantage of that aspect of its design - most especially developers. UAC, ironically, allows such people to continue to be naive, yet still protect the user and their named space - denying access by default, beyond that when set to its higest level (recommended). No matter how you spin it, it will not change the facts and if they speak to Microsoft's favor, so be it. There is plenty to be critical of the company about - or any company, it just needs to be balanced by the truth. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, November 09, 2009 08:09:33 AM |
|
#10: The issue is that far too many people and administrators never took advantage of that aspect of its design - most especially developers.
With you, it's always everyone's fault except Microsoft, eh? UAC, ironically, allows such people to continue to be naive, yet still protect the user and their named space - denying access by default, beyond that when set to its higest level (recommended). Wasn't it just last week that Sophos showed how 8 out of 10 new malware samples they checked blew right through UAC? No matter how you spin it, it will not change the facts and if they speak to Microsoft's favor, so be it. The facts don't speak to Microsoft's favour, but then with you around they don't have to. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Monday, November 09, 2009 08:51:14 AM |
|
Wasn't it just last week that Sophos showed how 8 out of 10 new malware samples they checked blew right through UAC?
8 of 10 when the executable was already on the computer and the user intentionally ran the program. (in such cases, UAC would not, at its default setting in Windows 7, fire a request for escalation) You know this fact, yet ignore it and repeat the lie, because it supports your agenda. You also ignore what I said: denying access by default, beyond that when set to its higest level (recommended). |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, November 09, 2009 10:39:44 AM |
|
#12: 8 of 10 when the executable was already on the computer and the user intentionally ran the program. (in such cases, UAC would not, at its default setting in Windows 7, fire a request for escalation)
Very helpful of UAC. It's supposedly there to protect you, but it won't trigger if you run a local file that tries to take over your system? I'm not a Windows genius like you are, but it seems to me that UAC trips all the time when I run local programs on my system. Want to install something? Hello UAC! Want to run certain apps? Hello UAC! Want to manually make a non-trivial change to the OS or file system? Hello UAC! But when you have a nasty piece of malware on your box, UAC is nowhere to be found. But we can easily find you making excuses for UAC. Just like the rest of MS's DRM, it bothers regular users while not impeding the bad guys. You know this fact, yet ignore it and repeat the lie, because it supports your agenda. What 'fact' and 'lie' are you talking about now? I don't see any facts, just excuses. You also ignore what I said: denying access by default, beyond that when set to its higest level (recommended). I didn't ignore you; I just don't necessarily believe you. Your words are belied by the actions of Windows. I still chuckle when I read this bit: Microsoft, in the Microsoft Security Intelligence Report released yesterday, stated that "The infection rate of Windows Vista SP1 was 61.9 percent less than that of Windows XP SP3." But let's not get complacent. Microsoft seems to be saying that Vista is the least ugly baby in its family. Gold! |
| #14 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Monday, November 09, 2009 02:01:27 PM |
| Latch and Lloyd: Excellent, and educational, discussion. |
| #15 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Monday, November 09, 2009 02:02:03 PM |
|
#13, are you forgetting that it has to get on the box in the first place and then be selected by a logged admin approval mode user and intentionally run?
You've said you're running Windows 7 and that UAC escalations are seen opposite benign user preference settings, yet you're asserting that the installation of an application is not? Are you running defaults for UAC under Windows 7, or have to elevated them to their highest setting? What makes you think that you can just throw things out there that are not true? The lie I am speaking to is the one in the title of the post, the body of which revealed the details, which are consistent with what I have posted in this thread. |
| #16 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at Monday, November 09, 2009 05:42:08 PM |
|
It's always the same: Vista pwned or Win 7 security breached. The caveats always seem to be left out like the hackers needed certain software preinstalled in a precise configuration while seated at the target computer with a thumdrive loaded with malware and the Administrator password in their back pocket. This post was edited by rxcall on Monday, November 09, 2009 at 21:24. |
| #17 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Monday, November 09, 2009 07:16:09 PM |
|
#16, Yes, very true and in the body of this and many stories, subtly revealed are the details reflecting that, or many weeks later, a security researcher who shoveled praise on Google's Chrome, will in a separate interview state clearly and candidly that the browser had no special technology and only used the protections freely available to all Windows Vista/7 developers and that the exploit used against IE 7 and IE 8 BETA would also have worked on Google's Chrome (just as another example of how incomplete and dishonest the information can be). It's sick example, because in browser shoot-outs in mags like Maximum PC, Google's Chrome lists its great security as a new pro, while at the same time, the same article pans IE 8. When in fact, IE 7/8 are more secure on Vista/7 and more effectively use the same securable objects model and UIPI broker!
Similarly, the real risks, third party plug-ins that Microsoft does not author, like FLASH, which in IE run outside and around protected mode in IE and Google's Chrome for no good reason, fall back on UAC and security software to protect users when there is a bad action script in an infested FLASH ad. The attitude seems to be, sacrifice FLASH support or put up with how Adobe does business... And now that Firefox has far more vulnerabilities that IE and Safari has nearly as many - both combined accounting for 80% of all vulnerabilities published so far this year, suddenly now the vulnerability count is not a factor and declared unimportant. All I can say is please consider what I have recommended: Run Windows 7/Vista x64. Use IE 8 in its default mode. Increase Windows 7 UAC to Vista defaults. Run as a standard user and rely upon a separate Admin Approval Mode user to install software. For home users, run Microsoft Security Essentials or some other approved anti-virus. |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, November 11, 2009 07:59:59 AM |
|
#16: It's always the same: Vista pwned or Win 7 security breached.
It gets tiresome after awhile, doesn't it? The caveats always seem to be left out like the hackers needed certain software preinstalled Sophos said it was a default install with nothing else done. #17: Is it already time for another round of 'Blame the Messenger'? You'll note that MS didn't refute anything Sophos said, but they did try to impugn Sophos' motives as a deflection technique. Your insinuation that they did something sneaky doesn't hold water. I do remember many instances of MS saying something, only to find out weeks later that they were a little light on the verite. Perhaps that's why you're so suspicious? And now that Firefox has far more vulnerabilities that IE and Safari has nearly as many I don't know if that's true or not, but I am a little alarmed that the bugs are going up. At least they're usually not that severe and patched fairly quickly. |
| #19 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Thursday, November 12, 2009 07:24:54 PM |
|
#18: "Sophos said it was a default install with nothing else done."
They only had to add the file to the hard drive and run it. |
