f



Microsoft's security chief suggests 'Net tax to clean computers

<Quote>
How will we ever get a leg up on hackers who are infecting computers
worldwide? Microsoft's security chief laid out several suggestions
today, including a possible Internet usage tax to pay for the
inspection and quarantine of machines.

Most hacked PCs run Microsoft's Windows operating system...

....an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a
public safety issue and do it with general taxation," [Microsoft
security chief said].

According to Microsoft, there are 3.8 million infected botnet
computers worldwide, 1 million of which are in the U.S. They are used
to steal sensitive information and send spam and were a launching
point for 190,000 distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2008.
</Quote>

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164438/Microsoft_s_security_chief_suggests_Net_tax_to_clean_computers

Yep, all you Linux and OS/X user out there, cough up!!
0
nessuno7491 (871)
3/2/2010 8:53:37 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 123965 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

21 Replies
380 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 57

nessuno wrote:

> <Quote>
> How will we ever get a leg up on hackers who are infecting computers
> worldwide? Microsoft's security chief laid out several suggestions
> today, including a possible Internet usage tax to pay for the
> inspection and quarantine of machines.


What about taxing the profits of Micoshaft Crocporation?
Then they would be in a hurry to repair the problem.

Banning windummy users who get infected 3 times
and only allow them back on after installing Linux
would help a long way to avoid taxing the internet
and promote good practice across the globe.



> Most hacked PCs run Microsoft's Windows operating system...
> 
> ...an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a
> public safety issue and do it with general taxation," [Microsoft
> security chief said].
> 
> According to Microsoft, there are 3.8 million infected botnet
> computers worldwide, 1 million of which are in the U.S. They are used
> to steal sensitive information and send spam and were a launching
> point for 190,000 distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2008.
> </Quote>
> 
> 
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164438/Microsoft_s_security_chief_suggests_Net_tax_to_clean_computers
> 
> Yep, all you Linux and OS/X user out there, cough up!!


0
7
3/2/2010 8:57:44 PM
nessuno pulled this Usenet boner:

> <Quote>
> How will we ever get a leg up on hackers who are infecting computers
> worldwide? Microsoft's security chief laid out several suggestions
> today, including a possible Internet usage tax to pay for the
> inspection and quarantine of machines.

No!  Microsoft gets *enough* charity.

> Most hacked PCs run Microsoft's Windows operating system...
>
> ...an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a
> public safety issue and do it with general taxation," [Microsoft
> security chief said].

Let them tax *Microsoft*.

> According to Microsoft, there are 3.8 million infected botnet
> computers worldwide, 1 million of which are in the U.S. They are used
> to steal sensitive information and send spam and were a launching
> point for 190,000 distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2008.
> </Quote>
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164438/Microsoft_s_security_chief_suggests_Net_tax_to_clean_computers
>
> Yep, all you Linux and OS/X user out there, cough up!!

Frickin' idiocy.

-- 
Q:	Are we not men?
A:	We are Vaxen.
0
Chris
3/2/2010 9:03:28 PM
7 wrote:
>only allow [windummy users] back on after installing Linux
>
Your strokes are too narrow.
**Anything other than Windoze** would cover it.
After the point when Apphole switched over from OS 9,
EVERYONE now uses a Unix-like security model
(*except* Redmond).
0
JeffM
3/2/2010 11:39:50 PM
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 23:39 JeffM wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>>only allow [windummy users] back on after installing Linux
>>
> Your strokes are too narrow.
> **Anything other than Windoze** would cover it.
> After the point when Apphole switched over from OS 9,
> EVERYONE now uses a Unix-like security model
> (*except* Redmond).

By Jove - I never thought of it that way.
Now, hanging on to that word "security", I wonder if there are any
inferences to be drawn there?
e.g. Do you think that we ought to start gathering some statistics?

0
bbgruff
3/2/2010 11:53:33 PM
>JeffM wrote:
>>EVERYONE now uses a Unix-like security model
>>(*except* Redmond).
>>
bbgruff wrote:
>By Jove - I never thought of it that way.
>
Sometimes you have to take a step back to appreciate the view.

>[...]that word "security"[...]
>Do you think that we ought to start gathering some statistics?
>
Y'mean like *zero botnets*?  The only times I've seen
non-M$ stuff with anything resembling a widespread problem,
it was because some utterly clueless Webmaster
was sending passwords in the clear.
0
JeffM
3/3/2010 12:03:51 AM
>JeffM wrote:
>>EVERYONE now uses a Unix-like security model
>>(*except* Redmond).
>>
bbgruff wrote:
>By Jove - I never thought of it that way.
>
Sometimes you have to take a step back to appreciate the view.

>[...]that word "security"[...]
>Do you think that we ought to start gathering some statistics?
>
Y'mean like *zero botnets*?  The only times I've seen
non-M$ stuff with anything resembling a widespread problem,
it was because some utterly clueless Webmaster
was sending passwords in the clear.
0
JeffM
3/3/2010 12:05:42 AM
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:53:37 -0800, nessuno wrote:

> <Quote>
> How will we ever get a leg up on hackers who are infecting computers
> worldwide? Microsoft's security chief laid out several suggestions
> today, including a possible Internet usage tax to pay for the inspection
> and quarantine of machines.
> 
> Most hacked PCs run Microsoft's Windows operating system...
> 
> ...an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a
> public safety issue and do it with general taxation," [Microsoft
> security chief said].
> 
> According to Microsoft, there are 3.8 million infected botnet computers
> worldwide, 1 million of which are in the U.S. They are used to steal
> sensitive information and send spam and were a launching point for
> 190,000 distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2008. </Quote>
> 
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164438/
Microsoft_s_security_chief_suggests_Net_tax_to_clean_computers
> 
> Yep, all you Linux and OS/X user out there, cough up!!

Microsoft *could* charge an extra fee for those using their Malware Magnet 
OS -- and then pass that fee along to whomever. I bet *that* would go well 
with their customers. 

"Yeah, you're right, we *do* produce a Malware Magnet OS. So... I think 
the best situation is to charge you more to try to protect others from our 
crap... We'll just add it to the EULA."

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
3/3/2010 12:11:49 AM
On Mar 3, 9:53=A0am, nessuno <nessuno7...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Most hacked PCs run Microsoft's Windows operating system...
>
> ...an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a
> public safety issue and do it with general taxation," [Microsoft
> security chief said].
>

Microsoft some years suggested a email tax to minimise spam.  Only
trouble was that the penny a email would flow into MS coffers.
0
peterwn
3/3/2010 1:04:24 AM
On Mar 2, 3:53=A0pm, nessuno <nessuno7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Quote>
> How will we ever get a leg up on hackers who are infecting computers
> worldwide? Microsoft's security chief laid out several suggestions
> today, including a possible Internet usage tax to pay for the
> inspection and quarantine of machines.

Microsoft's Antivirus can't keep up, so now they want to disable
computers that are running "viruses" and "malware" based on their
definitions.
Does this include:
  FireFox?
  Thunderbird?
  Linux VMs?
  VMWare and VirtualBox?
  Eclipse?

Plug-ins for any of the above?

> Most hacked PCs run Microsoft's Windows operating system...

Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.

> ...an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a
> public safety issue and do it with general taxation," [Microsoft
> security chief said].

So now Microsoft wants to use the Government to impose a tax which
will be paid directly to Microsoft to cover the cost of the failure of
Microsoft to close the "back doors" of it's own operating system?

> According to Microsoft, there are 3.8 million infected botnet
> computers worldwide, 1 million of which are in the U.S.

I would guess that this estimate is actually low, probably 3-5 times
that number, but I don't have any current information on that.

> They are used
> to steal sensitive information and send spam and were a launching
> point for 190,000 distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2008.

> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164438/Microsoft_s_security_c...

> Yep, all you Linux and OS/X user out there, cough up!!

I think Microsoft aught to be TAXED for all the mischief they've but
into their operating systems, e-mail, web browsers, and security
systems.  Microsoft's IE vulnerabilities were published almost
immediately after IE 4.0 was released in 1997.  Microsoft's solution
was to slap injunctions against sites that published such information.

When government agencies, security specialists, and IBM engineers
pointed out these same vulnerabilities, Microsoft's solution was to
release a "liability patch".  The patch disabled the back doors.  But
since nothing worked anymore, users backed out the security patch -
absolving Microsoft of the liability.

0
Rex
3/3/2010 4:44:20 AM
On Mar 2, 7:03=A0pm, JeffM <jef...@email.com> wrote:
> >JeffM wrote:
> >>EVERYONE now uses a Unix-like security model
> >>(*except* Redmond).
> bbgruff wrote:
> >By Jove - I never thought of it that way.

> Y'mean like *zero botnets*? =A0The only times I've seen
> non-M$ stuff with anything resembling a widespread problem,
> it was because some utterly clueless Webmaster
> was sending passwords in the clear.

In 1994, slackware set the default password for root to "root".
Another web hosting site installed rsh and put an asterisk in the
first line of the /etc/hosts.equiv.

The Lion virus sucessfully exploited these "holes" and infected a
whopping 8,000 servers.  The admins involved were fired.

In 1987, the Morris Worm, a program designed to map out all of the
servers on the internet using UUCP commands, had an error in a timing
loop, probing a new server every 15 seconds instead of every 15
minutes.  The worm shut down thousands of UNIX servers and made
national headlines.

Normally, when a UNIX system has a glitch, it makes headlines.  Even
when Google had a glitch in a server configuration - it made
headlines.

This is because it happens so rarely.

0
Rex
3/3/2010 4:51:54 AM
Rex Ballard wrote:

> Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
> software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
> either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.

That was not my experience. When I ran Norton on an XP system, not much
of anything worked - or if it did, by the time it did I'd forgotten what
I was trying to do and wandered off for a beer. Talk about a resourse
hog!
-- 
Enkidu


0
Enkidu
3/3/2010 5:32:03 AM
On 03/03/2010 05:32, Enkidu wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>> Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
>> software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
>> either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.
>
> That was not my experience. When I ran Norton on an XP system, not much
> of anything worked - or if it did, by the time it did I'd forgotten what
> I was trying to do and wandered off for a beer. Talk about a resourse
> hog!

It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will affect 
system performance.
0
Phil
3/3/2010 9:16:00 AM
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:16:00 +0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

> On 03/03/2010 05:32, Enkidu wrote:
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
>>> software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
>>> either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.
>>
>> That was not my experience. When I ran Norton on an XP system, not much
>> of anything worked - or if it did, by the time it did I'd forgotten what
>> I was trying to do and wandered off for a beer. Talk about a resourse
>> hog!
> 
> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will affect 
> system performance.

I've slammed Symantec at every opportunity because as far as I am
concerned, the company died when Peter Norton sold/left it.

The programs got bigger and more bloated over the years and some
versions were so bad and would intertwine themselves into the
registry so tightly, that Symantec actually has specific removal
tools on their website because control panel-->remove programs
leaves a lot of droppings around.

I have actually seen cases where removing Symantec from a
preloaded computer, especially a laptop, has resulted in a
substantial increase in speed of the unit.
It's like the processor or memory got kicked up a couple of
notches.

That being said, I am testing Symantec Endpoint Protection for a
friend of mine who owns a small company and is considering
deploying it.
I find it works very well, doesn't seem to effect resources any
more and maybe even less than the current light weight which IMHO
is Avira which is to say I don't even notice it there.

That being said, no antivirus program is 100 percent and they
never will be.
The user is the weak link and will always be.
 
0
M0she_
3/3/2010 2:50:51 PM
Phil Da Lick! wrote:

> On 03/03/2010 05:32, Enkidu wrote:
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
>>> software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
>>> either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.
>>
>> That was not my experience. When I ran Norton on an XP system, not much
>> of anything worked - or if it did, by the time it did I'd forgotten what
>> I was trying to do and wandered off for a beer. Talk about a resourse
>> hog!
>
> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will affect 
> system performance.

Only because everyone running windows is forced to buy newer, more
powerful hardware to run the newer bloatware.
-- 
Enkidu
0
Enkidu
3/4/2010 12:49:50 AM
On 4 Mar 2010 00:49:50 GMT, Enkidu wrote:

> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> 
>> On 03/03/2010 05:32, Enkidu wrote:
>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
>>>> software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
>>>> either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.
>>>
>>> That was not my experience. When I ran Norton on an XP system, not much
>>> of anything worked - or if it did, by the time it did I'd forgotten what
>>> I was trying to do and wandered off for a beer. Talk about a resourse
>>> hog!
>>
>> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will affect 
>> system performance.
> 
> Only because everyone running windows is forced to buy newer, more
> powerful hardware to run the newer bloatware.

Try Avira.
Just about zero impact on performance.
0
M0she_
3/4/2010 12:58:13 AM
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:58:13 -0500
M0she_ <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4 Mar 2010 00:49:50 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
> 
> > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> >> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will
> >> affect system performance.
> > 
> > Only because everyone running windows is forced to buy newer, more
> > powerful hardware to run the newer bloatware.
> 
> Try Avira.
> Just about zero impact on performance.

It's malware in itself!
Avira AntiVir Personal (with frequent mandatory pop-up ads looking like
malware) 

Greets

-- 
http://maxa.homedns.org/

Sometimes online sometimes not


0
Branimir
3/4/2010 1:02:16 AM
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:02:16 +0100, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:58:13 -0500
> M0she_ <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Mar 2010 00:49:50 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
>> 
>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will
>>>> affect system performance.
>>> 
>>> Only because everyone running windows is forced to buy newer, more
>>> powerful hardware to run the newer bloatware.
>> 
>> Try Avira.
>> Just about zero impact on performance.
> 
> It's malware in itself!
> Avira AntiVir Personal (with frequent mandatory pop-up ads looking like
> malware) 
> 
> Greets

Try paying for it...I know that's tough for you freetards, but
that's life.
You want top quality, you have to pay for it.
You want crap, try Linux.
It's free.
0
M0she_
3/4/2010 1:15:40 AM
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:15:40 -0500
M0she_ <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:02:16 +0100, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:58:13 -0500
> > M0she_ <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4 Mar 2010 00:49:50 GMT, Enkidu wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> >>>> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will
> >>>> affect system performance.
> >>> 
> >>> Only because everyone running windows is forced to buy newer, more
> >>> powerful hardware to run the newer bloatware.
> >> 
> >> Try Avira.
> >> Just about zero impact on performance.
> > 
> > It's malware in itself!
> > Avira AntiVir Personal (with frequent mandatory pop-up ads looking
> > like malware) 
> > 
> > Greets
> 
> Try paying for it...I know that's tough for you freetards, but
> that's life.
> You want top quality, you have to pay for it.
> You want crap, try Linux.
> It's free.

Well, I think there are no AV software that can catch everything
out there, perhaps 70-80% most.
 Besides that, I don;t have AV software and
have full control of what is going on in my machine.
Look firewall in windows does not have purpose to
protect you from outside world, rather opposite,
to protect outside world from you!

Greets


-- 
http://maxa.homedns.org/

Sometimes online sometimes not


0
Branimir
3/4/2010 1:28:41 AM
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

>> Try Avira.
>> Just about zero impact on performance.
>
> It's malware in itself!
> Avira AntiVir Personal (with frequent mandatory pop-up ads looking like
> malware) 

A better plan: Dump Windows for Linux and continue to use your old
hardware. No malware, no virus, no AV drag on system performance.
-- 
Enkidu
0
Enkidu
3/4/2010 1:33:22 AM
On 04/03/2010 00:49, Enkidu wrote:
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2010 05:32, Enkidu wrote:
>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ironically, people actually DO pay premium prices for AntiMalware
>>>> software that actually WORKS.  They pay as much as $50/year/PC for
>>>> either Norton, McCaffee, or Symantic antivirus packages.
>>>
>>> That was not my experience. When I ran Norton on an XP system, not much
>>> of anything worked - or if it did, by the time it did I'd forgotten what
>>> I was trying to do and wandered off for a beer. Talk about a resourse
>>> hog!
>>
>> It's not so bad these days. Still, any premium AV suite will affect
>> system performance.
>
> Only because everyone running windows is forced to buy newer, more
> powerful hardware to run the newer bloatware.

No, they had a massive de-bloating program in place during the 
development cycle of at least 3 versions, starting (I think) with 2006. 
The year before they started this it was such a lumbering dinosaur that 
it brought most systems to their knees after a while. Like I said, it's 
better thanks to this, but like any premium suite it will impact on 
system resources.
0
Phil
3/4/2010 9:32:23 AM
Branimir Maksimovic pulled this Usenet boner:

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:15:40 -0500
> M0she_ <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Try Avira.
>> >> Just about zero impact on performance.
>> > 
>> > It's malware in itself!
>> > Avira AntiVir Personal (with frequent mandatory pop-up ads looking
>> > like malware) 
>> 
>> Try paying for it...I know that's tough for you freetards, but
>> that's life.
>> You want top quality, you have to pay for it.
>> You want crap, try Linux.
>> It's free.

I'll take the Free crap you get with Linux,
rather than the free crap you get with Windows.

Any day.

> Well, I think there are no AV software that can catch everything
> out there, perhaps 70-80% most.
>
> Besides that, I don;t have AV software and
> have full control of what is going on in my machine.
> Look firewall in windows does not have purpose to
> protect you from outside world, rather opposite,
> to protect outside world from you!

A troll's wet dream?:

-- 
The countdown had stalled at 'T' minus 69 seconds when Desiree, the first
female ape to go up in space, winked at me slyly and pouted her thick,
rubbery lips unmistakably -- the first of many such advances during what
would prove to be the longest, and most memorable, space voyage of my
career.
		-- Winning sentence, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest.
0
Chris
3/4/2010 11:44:21 AM
Reply: