Can we really trust the software we use?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Can we really trust the software we use?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 17 · Next
Author Message
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1242359 - Posted: 6 Jun 2012, 17:08:37 UTC - in response to Message 1242358.

&
when the support ends as well as AV companies no longer support it...what then?

..another 6 rigs added to a botnet!


AV software supports any computer whatever OS they happen to be running. Whether that OS OS is supported by the OS supplier is another matter.



you sure? Can't seem to find any that supports Win 98 (still using that for certain programs under VM)
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13625
Credit: 31,049,112
RAC: 20,697
United States
Message 1242367 - Posted: 6 Jun 2012, 17:20:04 UTC - in response to Message 1242359.
Last modified: 6 Jun 2012, 17:20:33 UTC

&
when the support ends as well as AV companies no longer support it...what then?

..another 6 rigs added to a botnet!


AV software supports any computer whatever OS they happen to be running. Whether that OS OS is supported by the OS supplier is another matter.



you sure? Can't seem to find any that supports Win 98 (still using that for certain programs under VM)


I can't find anything for my Windows 3.1 machine either, and yes, I have IE 5.0 16bit on there so it can browse the web (though not many websites support IE 5.0 anymore).

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32100
Credit: 13,784,191
RAC: 25,207
United Kingdom
Message 1242462 - Posted: 6 Jun 2012, 21:35:30 UTC

If you go to these websites, you can download earlier editions that support Win 98. But I don't know if they are updateable.

Old AVG

Alternatively try this one

Clamwin

Avast 4.8 should work as well

Avast

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1242820 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 15:49:47 UTC - in response to Message 1242462.

If you go to these websites, you can download earlier editions that support Win 98. But I don't know if they are updateable.

Old AVG

Alternatively try this one

Clamwin

Avast 4.8 should work as well

Avast



Well, old avg is not updating itself, either program wise or definitions wise - either it doesn't support win 98 or it could be a dodgy download. Clamwin - forget it, tried that many times in the past with nothing but problems.

As for Avast, no chance, creates nothing but problems with server & that's all versions!
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8499
Credit: 4,193,618
RAC: 1,726
United Kingdom
Message 1242997 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 19:19:22 UTC

Can we really trust the software we use?


You certainly can't trust using any 'anti-virus', and you shouldn't even rely on the use of a firewall. Both methods are like trying to lasso a horse after it has already bolted through whatever open door or window...

Far better is to only rely on systems that are secure by design.

Secure-by-design still means they are perfectly usable.

A good second aspect is to have the systems completely open and open to peer review and external scrutiny so that the systems are reviewed and known to be robust. "Security by obscurity" is more an excuse for hiding shoddiness rather than being 'secure'...


It is what we make it...
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12739
Credit: 7,275,299
RAC: 17,737
United States
Message 1243024 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 19:57:47 UTC - in response to Message 1242997.

Can we really trust the software we use?


You certainly can't trust using any 'anti-virus', and you shouldn't even rely on the use of a firewall. Both methods are like trying to lasso a horse after it has already bolted through whatever open door or window...

Far better is to only rely on systems that are secure by design.

Secure-by-design still means they are perfectly usable.

A good second aspect is to have the systems completely open and open to peer review and external scrutiny so that the systems are reviewed and known to be robust. "Security by obscurity" is more an excuse for hiding shoddiness rather than being 'secure'...


It is what we make it...
Martin

Ah, like SHA1 hash schemes used to store passwords on open systems ...

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1243030 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 20:06:22 UTC

Can we leave the O/S war where it belongs - in the garbage bin.

This thread is producing interesting & helpful info, I'd like it to continue in that vein.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12739
Credit: 7,275,299
RAC: 17,737
United States
Message 1243061 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 21:17:02 UTC - in response to Message 1243030.

Can we leave the O/S war where it belongs - in the garbage bin.

This thread is producing interesting & helpful info, I'd like it to continue in that vein.

The point being lazyness rulez in security holes. SHA1 is O/S independent. It has also been known to be breakable for some time. That it still is being passed off as the default on many systems is shameful. People read old material that says it is secure and haven't a clue they are reading old material. The open standards people are very reluctant to drop anything because it might "break" something. Well it should break as it already is broken. Just ask on a C group if "gets" should disappear from the language.

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1243065 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 21:23:45 UTC - in response to Message 1243061.

Valid point. However, my post can then serve as a reminder to all - no O/S wars.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8499
Credit: 4,193,618
RAC: 1,726
United Kingdom
Message 1243101 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 22:51:55 UTC - in response to Message 1243061.

The point being lazyness rulez in security holes. SHA1 is O/S independent. ...

Exactly so... The SHA1 problem is a very old one...

And lazyness is also OS independent.

Also to be thrown in with that are rush jobs and deadlines forcing 'lazyness'-like compromises... Unfortunately, often the afterthought patch-and-mend then becomes very expensive for everyone as a retrofit or just for the cost of repeated 'updates'...


KISS? Or doesn't that fit in with "feature rich" Marketing?...


Just a few thoughts ;-)

IT is still what we make it...
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1245193 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 0:33:04 UTC

ICO reopens Google case

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12739
Credit: 7,275,299
RAC: 17,737
United States
Message 1245213 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 3:26:49 UTC - in response to Message 1245193.

ICO reopens Google case

No, you can't trust the default settings of the software in your router. BFD. The idiots asked -- no begged -- for the data to be taken. I mean, we have laws against recreational drugs, does it stop it? So why would you expect a law against a radio receiver to stop it?

____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1245245 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 5:56:09 UTC - in response to Message 1245213.

ICO reopens Google case

No, you can't trust the default settings of the software in your router. BFD. The idiots asked -- no begged -- for the data to be taken. I mean, we have laws against recreational drugs, does it stop it? So why would you expect a law against a radio receiver to stop it?

Well, you are half right, however very negative.

Default settings DO need to be more secure than they are. Perhaps wifi should be disabled until it is setup with a password by the user? (But then some people would just bring the router back to the store for fear of it being broken). Point is, Google kinda screwed up, router manufacturers are not helping, and people kinda screwed up, improvements should be considered on all fronts.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12739
Credit: 7,275,299
RAC: 17,737
United States
Message 1245357 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 14:02:05 UTC - in response to Message 1245245.

Point is, Google kinda screwed up, router manufacturers are not helping, and people kinda screwed up, improvements should be considered on all fronts.

Well, yes, I doubt the engineer who wrote it was at all familiar with the law overseas that prevented what is legal in the USA. Most likely every person up the chain didn't realize that either. So when it got to the lawyers who might have, it was so buried they missed it. Now prove that it was intentional and not ignorance.

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1245368 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 15:19:19 UTC - in response to Message 1245357.

Point is, Google kinda screwed up, router manufacturers are not helping, and people kinda screwed up, improvements should be considered on all fronts.

Well, yes, I doubt the engineer who wrote it was at all familiar with the law overseas that prevented what is legal in the USA. Most likely every person up the chain didn't realize that either. So when it got to the lawyers who might have, it was so buried they missed it. Now prove that it was intentional and not ignorance.



Don't know what your laws state over there, but here, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12739
Credit: 7,275,299
RAC: 17,737
United States
Message 1245391 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:38:06 UTC - in response to Message 1245368.

Don't know what your laws state over there, but here, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.

Name the person, time, place and crime. I think that is going to be beyond the ability to do. You will find the truth is the chain of command did not get the whole truth until afterwards. Besides are you going to haul a person who has never set foot in your country in front of a judge for this?

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1245395 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:41:38 UTC - in response to Message 1245391.

Don't know what your laws state over there, but here, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.

Name the person, time, place and crime. I think that is going to be beyond the ability to do. You will find the truth is the chain of command did not get the whole truth until afterwards. Besides are you going to haul a person who has never set foot in your country in front of a judge for this?


The USA seems to be doing exactly that with Brits.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12739
Credit: 7,275,299
RAC: 17,737
United States
Message 1245404 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:56:43 UTC - in response to Message 1245395.

Don't know what your laws state over there, but here, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.

Name the person, time, place and crime. I think that is going to be beyond the ability to do. You will find the truth is the chain of command did not get the whole truth until afterwards. Besides are you going to haul a person who has never set foot in your country in front of a judge for this?


The USA seems to be doing exactly that with Brits.

And you are extraditing?

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11547
Credit: 1,727,697
RAC: 1,689
Israel
Message 1245405 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 16:57:52 UTC - in response to Message 1245404.

Don't know what your laws state over there, but here, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.

Name the person, time, place and crime. I think that is going to be beyond the ability to do. You will find the truth is the chain of command did not get the whole truth until afterwards. Besides are you going to haul a person who has never set foot in your country in front of a judge for this?


The USA seems to be doing exactly that with Brits.

And you are extraditing?


Me? No but the muppets in charge are.
____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1245415 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 17:11:41 UTC - in response to Message 1245391.
Last modified: 13 Jun 2012, 17:18:41 UTC

Don't know what your laws state over there, but here, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.

Name the person, time, place and crime. I think that is going to be beyond the ability to do. You will find the truth is the chain of command did not get the whole truth until afterwards. Besides are you going to haul a person who has never set foot in your country in front of a judge for this?

You are correct it may be hard to place blame on a specific person. However Google as a corporation violated European law, regardless of who specifically is responsible.

Negligent law breaking is still law breaking. Google as an entity is "who" is responsible. (They can decide who to blame within their organization, but they as a company have to answer for what happened)

person: Google inc.
time(s): whenever their vans were driving around Europe
place(s): every place their vans were
crime: Unlawful collection of radio data (Or whatever their law is called)

Seems like a pretty solid case to me...
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 17 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Can we really trust the software we use?

Copyright © 2014 University of California