Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Your Opinion |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:30:14 Australia/NSW |
FWIW, My concerns in regard to this do not relate to the fact that Microsoft is selling products to address security issues in its other products, they, like all other major players, are in business for the revenue, if people are prepared to pay for their products they will, if not they'll go elsewhere for their security solutions, commercial or otherwise. My concerns relate more to the long standing and excessively common practice in Microsoft solutions to grant additional (and in regard to Security issues, excessive) accesses to it's products and/or sites to enhance the apparent performance of its products, against other products, AND that most of these additional accesses are "below the covers", so they are difficult to collate details for, and/or to block/control them. Developers have/will always (in my experience) emply any mechanisms to simplify processes and enhance performance, in MANY instances the risk to the security and integrity of the environment in which it's deployed is considerably increased by these practices, all the more so when it is covered up my the operating system processes. FWIW, this is just the opinion of a long standing security person, who's been fgighting many vendors for a long time on these issues, not just Microsoft. Neale Green
I have heard the comment "It's a huge conflict of interest" for one company to provide both an operating platform and a security platform" made by John Thompson (CEO Symantec) many times from many different people. See article below. http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=32554 In my personal opinion, regardless of the vendor, if they create an OS, why would it be a conflict of interest for them to want to protect their own OS from attack. One would assume that this is a responsible approach by the vendor, but one could also argue that their OS should be coded securely in the first place. If this were to happen then the need for the Symantec's, McAfee's of the world would some what diminsh. Anyway I am just curious as to what other people think. Thanks in advance Mark All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned. ..... All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Your Opinion, jay.tomas |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Full-disclosure] iDefense Security Advisory 03.23.07: DataRescue IDA Pro Remote Debugger Server Authentication Bypass Vulnerability, iDefense Labs |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Your Opinion, Jim Harrison |
| Next by Thread: | [Full-disclosure] Call For Papers - IT Underground Dublin, Marcin Tkaczyk |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |