All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

SP2 Fails in security

(1/3) > >>

solarismka:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/17/2315255&tid=201&tid=1

What a big supries!  Lets see, as I've stated many times before.  Its a pain in the ass to install. Brakes MAJOR applications and sometimes can fail the machine to even come back up!  But besides all that, all the M$ Fan Boys keep touting on the holy grail of SP2.  Well, let me be the first to say I told you so.  Only a zealot would say M$ is going forward when EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS they are going backwards.

Orethrius:
This actually sounds like SP1 in its early days, believe it or not.  Generally unstable, totally insecure (I mean, a firewall that can be disabled PERIOD?  Oh come on now, how is THAT secure?), and rushed to market once again.  Microsoft fans that may be reading this: let your corporation of choice know that you want QUALITY products, not RUSHED pieces of shit that pass themselves off as the latest patch.  I'm not going to recommend that anybody with a dual-boot system even LOOK at SP2 until they bang out all the bugs.  This is just ridiculous.  Now would this kind of behaviour be acceptable if they DIDN'T have the position they enjoy so freely today?

Aloone_Jonez:
SP has been overall positive for me, SP was retardedly simple to installl and Windows has been more stable. I can

solarismka:

quote:Originally posted by Aloone:
SP has been overall positive for me, SP was retardedly simple to installl and Windows has been more stable. I can

Aloone_Jonez:
You would have to be an idiot for these exploits to affect you.

 
quote:
Attached: access.gif

Hello,

attached you find the copy of your access data you
requested. For security reasons, the file is scrambled
and can only be viewed with cmd. To view it, save the
attached file, execute "cmd" from the start menu,
drag&drop the file into the new window and hit
return. cmd will descramble the file for you.  

--- End quote ---


http://www.heise.de/security/artikel/50051

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version