🚀 go-pugleaf

porter@mu.enet.dec.com (dave porter) wrote:

>Yes, this is supposed to be funny.  What I mean is, how come
>people get bent out of shape by odd rumours like the Win 95 registration
>wizard one, and don't seem to mind the more blatant invasions
>of privacy that go on every day?

Well, actually the Win95 wizard thing is only half true. Sure it does
fill in an electronic registration card that sends Microsoft Network
all of your stats and stuff, but there IS an option NOT to fill the
form out. 

Just click [No].

dgr@rainier.nds.com (Daniel Robinson) wrote:

>: But then again, Microsoft is such a large 
>: company, that it might be successful in policing it's self.  But, the 
>: inforamtion gathered is so valuable to so many people, I see coruption 
>: as being inevitable.
>    Eh?  Because it is a large company, it might be successful in policing
>    itself?  I don't think so.  Accountablity decreases with size.

Actually I think it is more like : Credibility decreases with stock
growth.

William Rini (billman@centcon.com) wrote:
: cbbrown@io.org (Christopher B. Browne) wrote:

: >Since they basically control things at both ends of the connection,
: >there's essentially no way to tell without using something like an
: >RS-232 sniffer, or disassembling the code.


: No way to tell other than the fact that Inter@ctive Magazine and
: several other publications have tried it and they all have come to the
: conclusion that the info that was transmitted was the info the RW
: asked if it could send.  Of course everybody keeps ignoring that fact
: so that they can go off on these wild joyrides with reality.  

How did they establish that there was only one time that information
was sent?  That there is no code in the microsoft networking package that
listens on an undocumented port that will send stuff at a request.  That would
give a survey of all software on the machine for marketting reasons -- no one
is going to leave a sniffer on their serial port for long enough to discover
anything being sent, especially if it is encrypted. 

Or, some programmer at microsoft could have left the same sort of thing in
as a backdoor.  How likely is this to be found?  Considering what I have heard
from interns at microsoft, the code is a large mass of scantily commented C, 
maintained by college students working for the summer, as well as their paid
programmers.. Knowing how college students are likely to leave backdoors in 
stuff, just as a part of the maturing process, how likely do you think it is
that all of these have been averted.


However, free operating systems like BSD and Linux are safe from this because
the source code can be gone through.  I have poked through the network stuff
trying to figure something out when playing with a problem with some of my
wierder code...  and others have gone through it exhaustively..  and with 
utilities to see activities on a Unix box, you can feel the computer like
it is your own body.. you would know if someone was molesting your machine.  


: What completely amazes me is that this thread
: continues despite the fact that not one piece of information had been
: presented that would even be lightly considered as evidence of
: wrongdoing.  

This thread continues because of the awesome potential present in a multi
tasking operating system that might have many interesting things, when used
in combination with a network that could offer unrestricted access. 

Maybe not Microsoft as a whole.. maybe someone who is going to find this
and play with machines.. maybe someone who paid a programmer to insert this
as a method for industrial espionage.. money talks, especially to programmers
who want to buy that new UltraSparc of their dreams. 

nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber) writes:

>In article <405h3k$u4k@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
>(Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:

>> And you can be quite sure that any available source code has been
>> grepped by lots of competent C programmers for anything that might come
>> to their minds... 

>Yea, and the Internet Worm never happened, too. :-(

Oh yes, it happened, and showed a glaring mistake in one of the more common
networking daemons. It didn't do much harm, though (no data lost, just some
denial-of-service). When it happened, it was a matter of checking the logs
and taking a close look at the program, and everything was clear.

Oh, and today gcc has a warning that that one function is unsecure and
considered obsolete. 

Also, this was an honest to God programming _mistake_ that happened. It
wasn't a backdoor. Had it been a backdoor put there intentionally, the
author of said piece of code would have lost all his credentials in an
instant, and probably have faced a number of lawsuits. And evidence would
have been at hand quite easily. If MS puts something in (and by no way am I
implying they do), so connecting to MSN gives them access to something on
your computer, you have no way of proving it. No way, at least, short of
disassembling and reverse engineering their executables, which is in a grey
area between legal and illegal itself....

So yes, I prefer to trust utilities with source available. 

Bernie

-- 
==============================================================================
Anybody out there who knows how to connect a Wyse terminal keyboard to a PC
_without_ the terminal in between? Current keyboard lses chracters evr so
oftn.............  Getng wrs al te im. Hp!

well that's the whole point Steve, nobody is trying to convine you to
change.  I have yet to say "Hey let's all get Win95 and join the
Microsoft Network"  All I have said is that the story was crap, and
that all of this speculation was just that, speculation.  





kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky) wrote:
>.  I'll stick with a more open system that's 
>easier to scrutinize.


>--
>Steve Kanefsky

 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

caf@agora.rdrop.com (Chuck Forsberg) writes:

>In article <400gtc$lv9@parsifal.nando.net>,
>Aron S. Spencer  <aspencer@nando.net> wrote:
>>In article <400emb$bnj@data.interserv.net> William Rini,
>>billman@centcon.com writes:
>>>I just read an article in Inter@ctive Week that tested the
>>>registration wizard in Win95.  The hooked up the system to intercept
>>>the message and read what was being sent.  Guess What?  It was the
>>>same info that the registration asked if it was ok to send.
>>
>>>You would think that if a couple of reporters working for a magazine
>>>could figure out how to test the registration wizard, someone at
>>>Motorola might be able to figure it out.  
>>
>>   The people defending the Registration Wizard appear to have no concept
>>of corporate security. Functionally, Microsoft has built a back door in
>>to their operating system. The wizard may only send what you say is OK,
>>but it has the capability of doing much more. Whether Microsoft does it,

>Same could be said for every pppd and every internet connectivity package.
>Course it won't make much difference if Art Bell's comet (1995 o1) wipes us
>out in a few years.

Except in the case where the source code for these packages is
freely available, of course :-)

Moral: Don't trust any network software unless you have the 
source for it.

-- 
Raoul Golan, C++/Unix/OO/Telecomms contractor @ IND, ="Those who have put out
Telstra Aust., and history student @ Macquarie Univ. = the eyes of the people
Email: raoul@ind.tansu.com.au -  Left-Wing page @    = reproach them of their
http://triode.apana.org.au:8080/~raoul/Welcome.html  = blindness." - Milton

In article <407o60$amt@data.interserv.net>,
William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>cbbrown@io.org (Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
>>Since they basically control things at both ends of the connection,
>>there's essentially no way to tell without using something like an
>>RS-232 sniffer, or disassembling the code.

>No way to tell other than the fact that Inter@ctive Magazine and
>several other publications have tried it and they all have come to the
>conclusion that the info that was transmitted was the info the RW
>asked if it could send.  Of course everybody keeps ignoring that fact
>so that they can go off on these wild joyrides with reality.  

The fact that Inter@ctive magazine, which carries large amounts of
Microsoft advertising, reviewed a beta version of Windows/95 that was
produced after the issue was widely known proves nothing at all about
the nature of the process in earlier betas.  The early betas did not
ask about the procedure first.  The fact the later ones do is proof
the process has been modified and who is to say what else was changed?
The word of Microsoft is about as valuable as that of the average used
car dealer.

>I said it before and I will say it again, post something new or quit
>wasting bandwidth with the same old speculation on what MS might have
>the capability to do.  [ . . . ]

I agree that this thread is getting old.  Whatever potential there was
for abuse has been almost certainly eliminated by the publicity the issue
has received.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'

In article <nevin-1008950941110001@mac-nevin.cs.arizona.edu>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <40d488$16h@datamagic.com>, kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve
>Kanefsky) wrote:
>
>> But it's better to assume the worst 
>> when it comes to computer security and then prove that it's not true than 
>> to assume that nothing is wrong.
>
>Then don't put yourself on a network.  Period.

Well there are more choices than just the extreme ones.  At least with 
TCP/IP you can put most of your network behind a firewall with a good
set of packet-filtering rules.  Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't
mean we just give up and consider everything to be equally insecure.

...

>Read Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" Turing award lecture,
>and hopefully you'll figure out that you really are trusting a whole lot
>of stuff out there, whether you explicitly acknowledge it or not.

You're right.  I guess everyone should just completely stop worrying about
security.  As long as there's a possibility someone might target you
specifically and try to decipher the EM emissions from your home, you
shouldn't even consider the possibilities for abuse when a single company
controls all your software and your network.


>>I'll stick with a more open system that's 
>> easier to scrutinize.
>
>The real question is:  have you bothered to scrutinize everything (from
>the tools on up), or are you trusting someone else to do it?

Some of both, but mostly trust.  Nothing is 100%, but when it comes to a 
choice between a system that's free and open and has had a lot of scrutiny by 
many thousands of people and one that's completely hidden and proprietary
and controlled by a company that has a history of unethical (IMHO) 
anti-competitive behavior, I think I'll take the open system, and 
recommend that course of action to others as well.

--
Steve Kanefsky

In article <40e8ak$8rb@data.interserv.net>,
William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>well that's the whole point Steve, nobody is trying to convine you to
>change.  I have yet to say "Hey let's all get Win95 and join the
>Microsoft Network"  All I have said is that the story was crap, and
>that all of this speculation was just that, speculation.  

Fine, but you haven't given anyone else any reason to feel safe that MS
is not doing things behind your back.  I think everyone *should* think
long and hard about what could happen when a single company controls
everything like that.  The Registration Wizard fiasco is just a good
time to think about it.

--
Steve Kanefsky

On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, Nevin :-] Liber wrote:

> They have yet to have a problem which would stop most people from using
> their product.  When enough large companies say that they won't use the
                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In other words, if you're just an average consumer, fuck you!

> product because it is a security risk, I'm willing to lay odds that
> Microsoft will fix it.  With the exception of security bugs and data /
> filesystem corrupting bugs, just about everything else tends to be minor.

What about all the infamous UAEs (magiacally 'fixed' by renaming GPFs)??

Someone's got a document they've been beavering away all day on.  Windoze
(or the app) crashes, losing all their work.  But this is a 'minor'
problem, is it?  There's no corruption, just a days work down the drain.
The answer is simple - don't use Micro$loth products.

---
R!ch

If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.
#include <disclaimer.h>                      \\|// - ?
                                             (o o)
          /==============================oOOo=(_)=oOOo=====\
          |  Richard Teer         rich@isltd.insignia.com  |
          |  Insignia Solutions                            |
          |                           Voice: 01494 453409  |
          |                           Fax:   01494 459720  |
          \================================================/

gray@fastlane.net  (Ryan Gray) writes:

>I can just see MS sniffing out some poor user's drive and finding an 
>illegal copy of DOS/Windows on there that, was put on by the PC vendor
>which the user believes he paid for, and MS sending the software police
>to their door.  They ask him to produce the original disks, and he says
>"They didn't give me any, I didn't know I needed any."

     Funny thing in this months PC Zone (cool British games mag).  Top ten 
surprises about Win95 (a cartoon).  One of them was that it scans your hard 
drive for pirated software, distracts you with dirty pictures while sending the
info to MS, and the next thing you know you are being executed by the MS Piracy
Police.  Very funny.
-- 
Serve the Emperor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jon Martin * cs94367@cs.ualberta.ca * http://www.ualberta.ca/~jomartin/
Entering Department of Computing Science at University of Alberta.

In article <DD4CK2.3F9@wombat.hanse.de>, root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd
"Bernie" Meyer) wrote:

> nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber) writes:

> >Yea, and the Internet Worm never happened, too. :-(

> Also, this was an honest to God programming _mistake_ that happened. It
> wasn't a backdoor. Had it been a backdoor put there intentionally, the
> author of said piece of code would have lost all his credentials in an
> instant, and probably have faced a number of lawsuits. And evidence would
> have been at hand quite easily.

I hate to break it to you, but the sendmail attack (one of three attacks
the worm used) was possible because of a backdoor.  Quoting from Bob
Page's report on the Internet Worm
(gopher://coast.cs.purdue.edu:70/00/.gopher/doc_tool/doc/morris_worm/worm.paper):

"In the sendmail attack, the worm opens a TCP connection to another
machine's sendmail (the SMTP port), invokes debug mode, and sends a
RCPT TO that requests its data be piped through a shell."

The debug mode is a backdoor by design, plain and simple.  Because it was
there for "friendly" purposes, no one faced a lawsuit over it.  That's the
great thing about putting code in the public domain:  you don't have to be
responsible for anyone misusing it.

> So yes, I prefer to trust utilities with source available. 

I trust that, as well as trusting companies that have a lot to lose when
they get caught doing illegal things, especially if the gain by doing that
covert thing is marginal at best.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799
                                                office: (520) 621-1815

William Rini (billman@centcon.com) wrote:
: Do you feel unable to answer "No" when the registration wizard asks if
: you would like to register online?  That's all you have to do people,
: just answer "No"  But it sounds as if people claiming to be everything
: from super hackers to system administrators haven't figured out how to
: use that button.

Just who is Windows95 aimed at? It's aimed at the people who don't know 
how to use computers. The ones that want to do wordprocessing on a Pentium,
who've been told by the sales staff that this is the minimum requirements,
and yes 16Mb IS required just to switch the machine on. In short, people
who don't know any better. These are the people who are going to press the
yes button, and these are the people who are going to be prosecuted by
Microsofts allies when they purchase the database of offenders who just
wanted to try out X piece of software a while ago & forgot it was still
there because it was trash & they never used it.
--

 ______________________________________________________________
|Linux the FREE OS that has a Performance/Price ratio that is  |
|INFINITELY higher than anything sold by Micro$oft!            |
|                                                              |
|         http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/linux.html                |
|______________________________________________________________|
NOTE:-This is my Opinion and not necessarily the opinion of
ANYONE else, especially not my employer!

Colin Smith.
colins@mojo.europe.dg.com

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950811083735.8415A-100000@blackdeath.isltd.insignia.com> R!ch <rich@isltd.insignia.com> writes:
>From: R!ch <rich@isltd.insignia.com>
>Subject: Re: Windows 95 testing halted at Motorola 
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 07:41:03 GMT

>On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, Nevin :-] Liber wrote:

>> They have yet to have a problem which would stop most people from using
>> their product.  When enough large companies say that they won't use the
>                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>In other words, if you're just an average consumer, fuck you!

>> product because it is a security risk, I'm willing to lay odds that
>> Microsoft will fix it.  With the exception of security bugs and data /
>> filesystem corrupting bugs, just about everything else tends to be minor.

>What about all the infamous UAEs (magiacally 'fixed' by renaming GPFs)??

>Someone's got a document they've been beavering away all day on.  Windoze
>(or the app) crashes, losing all their work.  But this is a 'minor'
>problem, is it?  There's no corruption, just a days work down the drain.
>The answer is simple - don't use Micro$loth products.

>---
>R!ch

>If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.
>#include <disclaimer.h>                      \\|// - ?
>                                             (o o)
>          /==============================oOOo=(_)=oOOo=====\
>          |  Richard Teer         rich@isltd.insignia.com  |
>          |  Insignia Solutions                            |
>          |                           Voice: 01494 453409  |
>          |                           Fax:   01494 459720  |
>          \================================================/

Doesn`t Insignia live by selling Windows ports to unsuspecting Mac and Unix 
users, not to speak of licenceing Microsofts code????????????????????

Lars

In <nevin-1008950420370001@mac-nevin.cs.arizona.edu> nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber) writes:

>In article <40b1qq$suu@galaxy.ucr.edu>, jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan)
>wrote:
>
>> Can you just imagine if this had occurred with nt?
>
>Microsoft would rush to get a fix out.  Since they are constantly working
>on the OS, they have the talent concentrated in one place.  Unlike the
>free software crowd, they do have something tangible to lose (their
>market, which they do care about having) if they don't fix the problem.

Yeah, like they fixed MSDOS in the 14 years since its initial release.
It's as vulnerable to viruses today as it was in day one.  And still
limited to 640k of RAM.

MS have the market.  They couldn't care less about excellence or deadlines.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In <nevin-1008950946400001@mac-nevin.cs.arizona.edu> nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber) writes:

>In article
><Pine.OSF.3.91.950810150625.11404C-100000@blackdeath.isltd.insignia.com>,
>R!ch <rich@isltd.insignia.com> wrote:
>
>> > Microsoft would rush to get a fix out.  Since they are constantly working
>> > on the OS, they have the talent concentrated in one place.  Unlike the
>> > free software crowd, they do have something tangible to lose (their
>> > market, which they do care about having) if they don't fix the problem.
>
>> But since when did M$ ever worry about fixing bugs?!  Especially design
>> bugs.
>
>They have yet to have a problem which would stop most people from using
>their product.  When enough large companies say that they won't use the
>product because it is a security risk, I'm willing to lay odds that
>Microsoft will fix it.  With the exception of security bugs and data /
>filesystem corrupting bugs, just about everything else tends to be minor.

You'll lose.  Viruses have always been a huge security risk for DOS and
Windows, yet MS have never fixed them, the "industry standard" solution
being to use horrible and inefficient workarounds (see the press
coverage of every new harmful virus for DOS).  

When there is no place for the large customers to go, you can safely
screw them.  If they were stupid enough to place themselves in that
position, they got what they deserved.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article <40bv8d$aac@gandalf.pic.net>, fishbowl@fishbowl.pic.net (James
L. McGill) wrote:

> In article <Uhb9mq9V5MoM075yn@oslonett.no> you write:
> >
> >I bet no-one have seen so many paranoid people since the 70's...
> >"Fingerprint File" by The Rolling Stones suddenly got a new potentional
> >target group.
> >
> 
> And... Has the motorola CEO asked for the head of the one who
> announced to the world that Motorola uses Intel-based machines?  
> 
>   I, for one, am SHOCKED and APPALLED and even DISGUSTED.
> 
>   After all, this is M-O-T-O-R-O-L-A, the maker of the 68* machines.
>   What are they doing, running WINDOWS?  This news ruined my day.
>   If that's not the end of the Unix culture, I do not know what is.

Well, I can't speak for Motorola, but what I have observed as an employee
here is that they use -far- more Macs than Intel boxes. Like a 400 to 1
ratio or thereabouts, at least in my area. The Intel boxes I've seen are
largely attached to factory hardware like test equipment, where the vendor
that made the machine provided it as a dedicated controller or dedicated
data aquisition system. Sometimes an Intel box is used to run specialized
software that won't run on anything else, 'cause the developers of the
software only wrote it for PC's. Can't avoid the darned Intel boxes
sometimes. Guess they are OK as data collection tools. Wouldn't have one
on my desk.

Relax. From what I see, Macs still rule at Motorola.

Can't comment on the truth or falsehood of Moto Canada's reported Ban on
Windows '95, nor on what Windows '95 does or doesn't do so far as being a
security risk. I have no facts on those points -- yet. I'm on-line trying
to get some facts right now myself. Don't know that I'll find them here,
but I'm looking in several places.

JB

kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky) wrote:

>In article <40e8ak$8rb@data.interserv.net>,
>William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>>well that's the whole point Steve, nobody is trying to convine you to
>>change.  I have yet to say "Hey let's all get Win95 and join the
>>Microsoft Network"  All I have said is that the story was crap, and
>>that all of this speculation was just that, speculation.  

>Fine, but you haven't given anyone else any reason to feel safe that MS
>is not doing things behind your back.  I think everyone *should* think
>long and hard about what could happen when a single company controls
>everything like that.  The Registration Wizard fiasco is just a good
>time to think about it.

I really don't understand this thread at all. If you don't trust the
setup wizard just turn off your modem during setup, or after the modem
is setup. 


Igor David Schneider                     Phone: (514)336-2511 ext:330
Network Administrator                    Email: igor@sestech.com
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd.

Robert Cassidy (rmcassid@uci.edu) wrote:

[lots deleted]

: I think the difference between Netscape possibly getting information off
: my system and MS getting information off my system is that I have never
: questioned that AOL, Prodigy, Netscape, Apple, IBM, NCSA, etc. had any
: interest in my system other than the one which they advertised. There
: aren't too many people out there that haven't been bitten by MS at one
: time or another. How many people get regular faxes from MS after they've
: disclosed their fax number in a registration process? How many people get
: faxes from Apple, IBM, etc. after providing the same information? 
This reminds me of what happened to me some years ago.

I went to the Ifabo (Computer fair in Vienna, like comdex, but a lot 
smaller) and tried to get information on student's versions of Windows 
compilers. At MS they told me that they don't know the prices, don't have 
a price list for that and that they don't know how I can order it at the 
moment but I could fill out a form and they would send the information to me.

Ok, so I complete the form and write on it that I am interested in a
student version of MSC. Then, for a long time I didn't hear anything from 
them. But weeks later I start to get letters over letters offering MS 
software to me, I get invitations (which must be paid for, of course) to 
presentations of software and offers for trainings on MS software.

BUT: never, ever was a student version offered to me, I even never got an 
offer for MSC!!!

Then it seemed to me that they had given (sold?) my adress to some 
distributor / dealer of theirs and I got really angry. Usually it helps 
to just put the letter back into the mail, stating "delivery not 
accepted" on it to get advertisers off your back (they have to pay the 
postage and a fee in Austria, so they usually remove you from their 
adress list) - but not with them.

After getting this stuff for more than 1 year, I finally sent them a *REALLY*
 angry fax - and since then I never heard of them again.


Bye,
     /|/|artina :)

EMail: e9026329@stud1.tuwien.ac.at             Fido:  2:310/81.81

In article <40etng$1dc@datamagic.com> kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
>From: kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky)
>Subject: Re: Windows 95 testing halted at Motorola
>Date: 10 Aug 1995 23:35:28 -0700

>In article <40e8ak$8rb@data.interserv.net>,
>William Rini <billman@centcon.com> wrote:
>>well that's the whole point Steve, nobody is trying to convine you to
>>change.  I have yet to say "Hey let's all get Win95 and join the
>>Microsoft Network"  All I have said is that the story was crap, and
>>that all of this speculation was just that, speculation.  

>Fine, but you haven't given anyone else any reason to feel safe that MS
>is not doing things behind your back.  I think everyone *should* think
>long and hard about what could happen when a single company controls
>everything like that.  The Registration Wizard fiasco is just a good
>time to think about it.

	Does any of this give us reason to think that they may have actually * is * 
soing this behind our backs. I think everyone should think long and hard about 
the reasons that Microsoft wouldn't do that. I think everyone should think 
long and hard about the actual possibility of a single company controlling 
things like that. The Registration Wizard fiasco is just a sorry situation.

	Reasons MS Would Not Use The Registration Wizard to Do This:
1. They can get the marketing analysis from other sources.
2. The need to catch pirate copies of software on the home level is rather 
small.
3. The fact that regardless of the method "someone" could find out what they 
are doing is a strong reason not to do it. MS knows that there are very 
powerful companies that would like to BURY them. IBM with a copy of Win95 
could find anything they needed to in a fairly short time. If I was IBM I 
would search every possible avenue to exploit something like this and then be 
very sorry that there was a "leak" to the media before we could inform MS that 
they had "accidentally" included this in Win95.
4. The information that is on the average computer is not worth crap. So what 
if they know you have a 1.o gig hard drive. How dows that help them.

	In the end however it all comes down to speculation. They could do this type 
of thing is they so desired. What you must ask yourself is what do they seek 
to gain and what do they seek to lose if they are found out. The fact that 
this thread has held out is proof that the consumers would be very pissed if 
this was true.

	Stephen Johnston

In article <stephenj.91.00292182@mindspring.com>,
Stephen Johnston Jr. <stephenj@mindspring.com> wrote:

>	Reasons MS Would Not Use The Registration Wizard to Do This:
>1. They can get the marketing analysis from other sources.

They could get much more data and much more accurate data from the
users' computers.  For one thing, the response rate to surveys is
incredibly low -- something like 1-2%.  For another thing, they can get
all kinds of information that users would have a difficult time providing.
They could easily keep track of not just what software you have, but when
you last used it, the number of documents you create with it, etc.  Let's
also not forget that they can keep track of all the Internet access you do
through MSN without having to do anything sneaky as far as transferring
data from your computer to them.  They get that for free, and that's a 
very hot area right now.  Marketing information is *extremely* valuable to 
big corporations.  Many stores give 5-15% discounts on everything you buy 
just for the privilege of knowing what you bought.


>2. The need to catch pirate copies of software on the home level is rather 
>small.

On the contrary, piracy is absolutely *rampant*.  It's futile to try and 
prosecute pirates, but why would MS want to anyway?  That doesn't make
them any money.  Now suppose that they target pirates with
too-good-to-pass-up deals on the software they pirated?  They could make a
*fortune* off that, without having to lose money by selling at those
prices to people who would have paid full price.


>3. The fact that regardless of the method "someone" could find out what they 
>are doing is a strong reason not to do it. MS knows that there are very 
>powerful companies that would like to BURY them. IBM with a copy of Win95 
>could find anything they needed to in a fairly short time. If I was IBM I 
>would search every possible avenue to exploit something like this and then be 
>very sorry that there was a "leak" to the media before we could inform MS that 
>they had "accidentally" included this in Win95.

The fact is that MS is so rich and powerful that nothing would happen even
if they were caught.  Do you really think any incident like that would
make a significant long-term impact on MS?  Do you think everyone would  
suddenly switch to Macs or to OS/2?  MS could easily handle the situation
and everyone would have forgotten about it before you know it.


>4. The information that is on the average computer is not worth crap. So what 
>if they know you have a 1.o gig hard drive. How dows that help them.

You'd be suprised.  Knowing Microsoft, they'd show how their software
increases the sales of larger hard disks and get the hard disk
manufacturers to give them a percentage of every hard disk they sell by 
threatening to make their software smaller and more efficient if they
didn't :-)


>In the end however it all comes down to speculation. They could do this type 
>of thing is they so desired. What you must ask yourself is what do they seek 
>to gain and what do they seek to lose if they are found out. The fact that 
>this thread has held out is proof that the consumers would be very pissed if 
>this was true.

All-in-all a pretty reasonable response.  I agree with the questions you 
think we should be looking at but not your answers to them :-)

--
Steve Kanefsky

igords@odyssee.net (Igor David Schneider) wrote:
>
>I really don't understand this thread at all. If you don't trust the
>setup wizard just turn off your modem during setup, or after the modem
>is setup. 
>
>

Are you saying this is all it takes to be safe?  I think the only way you can
be even reasonably safe with Microsoft OS is to never, Never, NEVER use it on
any public network.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky) wrote:

But the fact remains....still no evidence of it being true.  You can't
seem to get over that hurdle with anything other than weak "Well it
could happen..." arguments.  

Nobody is asking you to buy windows, nobody is asking you to use MSN,
nobody is trying to make you do anything.  This whole thead is about
the truth of the original posters supposed story.  YOU and the rest of
the MS bashers have turned it into you soapbox for your paranoid
fantasies and conspiracy theories.  None of which have any validity
other than the fact that the technology exists.  If you don't like MS
then voice your paranoia in a "I HATE MS" thread.  

Here are some real points you have failed to satisfy to make a real
case for anything you or the rest of your MS bashing buddies have
said.

1.  Is MS so far out on the technology spectrum that they can create a
program that IBM, Apple, etc. could not figure out if it was
transmitting the secrets of your HD?

2.  Don't every single one of the commercial online services have the
same capability as does MS to read your drive, as well as your online
habits and sell the marketing info?

3.  MS could just as easily get marketing info when it gives away it's
Win95 version of Money (that's right for two months they will be
giving away the product for free in an effort to gain market share).
Couldn't they just require a fully completed request form?  I'll give
you that more info could be obtained right from reading your HD, but
how the hell is MS going to explain how they got that info when they
go to try and sell it (as you claim they would)?

Sorry Steve your story just doesn't add up.  If I made the same sorts
of wild comments about Linux or Mac, I'm sure you would be defending
their product as strongly as you are bashing MS. 
 billman@centcon.com   William Rini                      
 The Syndicate  http://www.centcon.com/~billman/syn.html 
                                                         
 PGP Fingerprint                                         
 9F FB EA C8 F6 46 29 45 A8 C3 7F B9 F8 E4 BD 70         
 Finger for public key                                   

In article <hohmuth.82.302B71CB@cipserv1.physik.uni-ulm.de>,
Lars Hohmuth <hohmuth@cipserv1.physik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>Doesn`t Insignia live by selling Windows ports to unsuspecting Mac and Unix 
>users, not to speak of licenceing Microsofts code????????????????????

Insignia Solution's SoftWindows product provides complete emulation of an
80x86 based personal computer in software.  The latest version emulates the
486 while the previous version emulated the 286.  As has been referred to in
previous posts, the quality of this emulation is such that Windows/95 runs
within the 486 version.  Some programs provided with the Insignia installed
copy of Windows require access to Microsoft software layers, but SoftWindows
itself is an entirely separate entity from Windows.  Personally, I think they
should have kept the more descriptive name of SoftPC.  I'm looking forward to
the release of the 486 version for the Digital UNIX environment.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'

In article <nevin-1108950748380001@mac-nevin.cs.arizona.edu>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>The debug mode is a backdoor by design, plain and simple.  Because it was
>there for "friendly" purposes, no one faced a lawsuit over it.  That's the
>great thing about putting code in the public domain:  you don't have to be
>responsible for anyone misusing it.

The debug mode was a compile-time option to aid in debugging (hence the
name) various features of the program.  It was expected that said option
would be turned off in versions compiled for production use.  Unfortunately,
many companies shipped debug-enabled versions with their distributions.  Why
they did this is a mystery to me, but so is the fact they still do not ship
current versions (though they usually manage to turn off the debug option).

>> So yes, I prefer to trust utilities with source available. 

>I trust that, as well as trusting companies that have a lot to lose when
>they get caught doing illegal things, especially if the gain by doing that
>covert thing is marginal at best.

I think that with a little historical research you will find many companies
that have engaged in illegal behavior when they felt the chances of being
caught were small and the profits to be made were large.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'

In article <40gq8q$f3e@sundog.tiac.net>, Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

> I think the only way you can
> be even reasonably safe with Microsoft OS is to never, Never, NEVER use it on
> any public network.

That is true about *any* piece of software; Microsoft is not special in
this regard.  Does that mean you won't be posting anything on netnews
anymore?

Or course, your argument hinges on your personal definition of
'reasonably', which is:  Jim Williams hates Microsoft.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799
                                                office: (520) 621-1815

Max Bell (mbell@atheria.europa.com) wrote:
: In article <hohmuth.82.302B71CB@cipserv1.physik.uni-ulm.de>,
: Lars Hohmuth <hohmuth@cipserv1.physik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
: >Doesn`t Insignia live by selling Windows ports to unsuspecting Mac and Unix 
: >users, not to speak of licenceing Microsofts code????????????????????

: Insignia Solution's SoftWindows product provides complete emulation of an
: 80x86 based personal computer in software.  The latest version emulates the
: 486 while the previous version emulated the 286.  As has been referred to in
: previous posts, the quality of this emulation is such that Windows/95 runs
: within the 486 version.  Some programs provided with the Insignia installed
: copy of Windows require access to Microsoft software layers, but SoftWindows
: itself is an entirely separate entity from Windows.  Personally, I think they
: should have kept the more descriptive name of SoftPC.  I'm looking forward to
: the release of the 486 version for the Digital UNIX environment.

You need a real fast machine to any any descent performance with 
SoftWindows. Myself and many of my co-workers are forced to run 
SoftWindows on SGI Indy boxs and it brings the Indy's performance to a 
crawl. Word 6.0 is painful for all but the smallest of documents.

: Max
: -- 
: .----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
: |  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
: | /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
: `----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'

--

Anthony Schlemmer

aschlemm@netcom.com
schlemaj@ibs.uscs.com

Anthony Schlemmer (aschlemm@netcom.com) wrote:
[snipt]
: You need a real fast machine to any any descent performance with 
: SoftWindows. Myself and many of my co-workers are forced to run 
: SoftWindows on SGI Indy boxs and it brings the Indy's performance to a 
: crawl. Word 6.0 is painful for all but the smallest of documents.


In other words, emulated Word 6.0 under SoftWindows on SGI Indy boxes, is 
probably faster than native Word 6.0 for PowerMacs...


Please note the lack of smileys. This is intentional because I'm not 
trying to be funny.



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In <stephenj.82.012B28C2@mindspring.com>, stephenj@mindspring.com (Stephen Johnston Jr.) writes:

>	How is this a "Mistake". Microsoft is trying to make the registration 
>process easier for you people and all you can do is bitch about stupid rumors. 
>How much "important" data could they really get from this. There are easier 
>ways to find out these things.

Such as????

Cheers,
Geoff

.. Proceed at Warp Speed Mr Sulu

In article <aschlemmDD6LuJ.90t@netcom.com>,
Anthony Schlemmer <aschlemm@netcom.com> wrote:
>You need a real fast machine to any any descent performance with 
>SoftWindows. Myself and many of my co-workers are forced to run 
>SoftWindows on SGI Indy boxs and it brings the Indy's performance to a 
>crawl. Word 6.0 is painful for all but the smallest of documents.

I think it is more the size of your RAM space than the speed of your CPU.
Aside from the size of the code required to provide the emulation, there is
also the memory space of the emulated PC.  If your system does not have enough
RAM, the resulting swapping will degrade performance considerably.  If you
cannot increase the RAM available, you might benefit from reducing the memory
used by the PC down to 8MB if it is currently set higher.  In contrast to your
experiences with SoftWindows, I have found its speed to be quite good even
in Word.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'

Aron S. Spencer <aspencer@nando.net> wrote:

>In article <400emb$bnj@data.interserv.net> William Rini,
>billman@centcon.com writes:
$$I just read an article in Inter@ctive Week that tested the
$$registration wizard in Win95.  The hooked up the system to intercept
$$the message and read what was being sent.  Guess What?  It was the
$$same info that the registration asked if it was ok to send.

$$You would think that if a couple of reporters working for a magazine
$$could figure out how to test the registration wizard, someone at
$$Motorola might be able to figure it out.  

>   The people defending the Registration Wizard appear to have no concept
>of corporate security. Functionally, Microsoft has built a back door in
>to their operating system. The wizard may only send what you say is OK,
>but it has the capability of doing much more. Whether Microsoft does it,
>or some enterprising hacker, the RW can profile the systems run by a
>corporation, and send the information out. It is only a short stretch
>from there to actually send out files, etc. This is not acceptable. It
>couldn't be too difficult for a 'corporate espionage' type to produce a
>virus or worm which would replace Microsoft's phone number with their
>own, and use the RW to... 
>   Well, you get the idea. From a corporate security viewpoint, Win95
>_can not_ be used.

Obviously, you have no concept of network security.
Every credible report of what Registration Wizard does indicates that
it is a client, not a server. The user has to press the button to send
out the information, Microsoft or some cracker can't send a message
to Windows 95 and request the information from your computer.

Eric Gisin, ericg@unixg.ubc.ca

In <40iodk$p3@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> ericg@unixg.ubc.ca (Eric Gisin) writes:

>Every credible report of what Registration Wizard does indicates that
>it is a client, not a server. The user has to press the button to send
>out the information, Microsoft or some cracker can't send a message
>to Windows 95 and request the information from your computer.

How do you know?  Have you checked the sources?  It's completely 
irrelevant whether it's the Registration Wizard or any other component
of Win 95 or MSN who does the job.

And, BTW, this isn't something new.  I've read in comp.sys.dec a story
about the installation procedure of a certain DEC product which silently
sent an email message to a dec.com address whenever somebody installed
the product.  DEC apologized and explained that the code was a leftover
from the internal test version, where it was used to keep track on whom
within DEC was testing the product.  They forgot (add quotes if you like :-)
to remove the code from the production version.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article <danpop.808267192@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
> In <40iodk$p3@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> ericg@unixg.ubc.ca (Eric Gisin) writes:
> >Every credible report of what Registration Wizard does indicates that
> >it is a client, not a server. The user has to press the button to send
> >out the information, Microsoft or some cracker can't send a message
> >to Windows 95 and request the information from your computer.
> How do you know?  Have you checked the sources?  It's completely 
> irrelevant whether it's the Registration Wizard or any other component
> of Win 95 or MSN who does the job.

As someone stated, monitoring what goes in/out of your modem isn't too
hard.

Feel free to speculate, but until you have some evidence, keep it in the
.advocacy groups.


=\
 *=- R.Moberg, author of CD-Player Pro! ftp.cica.indiana.edu:
=/                                      /win3/sounds/cdppro45.zip

billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
>
>2.  Don't every single one of the commercial online services have the
>same capability as does MS to read your drive, as well as your online
>habits and sell the marketing info?
>

Yes, but right at the moment I'm attacking Microsoft.

What you don't seem to understand is that most of the people who are
really hitting hard at Microsoft here don't really care much for the
other commercial OS/Services either.  We have a different, and we
think better, solution.  You're not going to find very many Linux or
FreeBSD users on AOL.  AOL is another case of practicing unsafe sex.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

ericg@unixg.ubc.ca (Eric Gisin) wrote:
>
>Obviously, you have no concept of network security.
>Every credible report of what Registration Wizard does indicates that
>it is a client, not a server. The user has to press the button to send
>out the information, Microsoft or some cracker can't send a message
>to Windows 95 and request the information from your computer.
>

How do you know this?  Have you read the source?  Has someone you know
read the source?  Can I read the source?

If I can't read the source then I don't believe you.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

mattk@hooked.net (Matthew Kerr) wrote:
>
>Well, actually the Win95 wizard thing is only half true. Sure it does
>fill in an electronic registration card that sends Microsoft Network
>all of your stats and stuff, but there IS an option NOT to fill the
>form out. 
>
>Just click [No].
>

I have no reason to believe that clicking [No] does what it is claimed
to do.  I have no way of finding out what happens when you click [No].

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:
>mattk@hooked.net (Matthew Kerr) wrote:
>>
>>Well, actually the Win95 wizard thing is only half true. Sure it does
>>fill in an electronic registration card that sends Microsoft Network
>>all of your stats and stuff, but there IS an option NOT to fill the
>>form out. 
>>
>>Just click [No].
>>

>I have no reason to believe that clicking [No] does what it is claimed
>to do.  I have no way of finding out what happens when you click [No].

then why do you believe that clicking [yes] will send anything to MS ?
If for you reading the source is the only way of finding when you click [no],
then I think it is because you are an idiot.

Can you read the source for Solaris, HPUX, AIX or any other proprietary u*ix
like system's source ?

Or how do you know Phil  Zimmerman is not in a deal with NSA and they are
together with some 2 thousand  so called security experts are partners in a
nation-wide conspiracy against the American public ?

do you consider yourself a security expert who can scrutunize (sp?) any crypto
system ?

No, I  know why because you are an idiot.

muzo

standard disclaimer

William Rini (billman@centcon.com) wrote a good stable response to this
thread.  And I agree with him [ it seems there is nothing really going on ].

But, just the thought that it could go on is interesting enough.  It does
keep us on our toes...

nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber) wrote:
>
>Or course, your argument hinges on your personal definition of
>'reasonably', which is:  Jim Williams hates Microsoft.
>-- 

Not really.  Microsoft just happens to be first on my "hit list."
I'm used to having the source code for the OS I use.  DOS/Windows are
the first OS I've used extensively for which I didn't have the source
code available, and I don't like it.

I also don't like the fact that Microsoft is a large evil monopolistic
corporation intent upon gobbling up the entire software industry and
using Microsoft's agenda as the world's agenda.

(Oh, BTW -- I don't like you.)

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (Nevin ":-]" Liber) wrote:
>
>Or course, your argument hinges on your personal definition of
>'reasonably', which is:  Jim Williams hates Microsoft.
>-- 

Not really.  Microsoft just happens to be first on my "hit list."
I'm used to having the source code for the OS I use.  DOS/Windows are
the first OS I've used extensively for which I didn't have the source
code available, and I don't like it.

I also don't like the fact that Microsoft is a large evil monopolistic
corporation intent upon gobbling up the entire software industry and
using Microsoft's agenda as the world's agenda.

(Oh, BTW -- I don't like you.)

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

Good then go monitor your machine and quit wasting bandwidth with your
silly and illogical bashing of MS.  You forget I'm using Win95 because
I am willing to give up some features in place of others.  Who made
you the person in charge of determining what I should and should not
want out of MY OS?  Your only defense for all your nonsense has been
that Linux has open code, great, goodie for you, but that's not a
major concern for me.  My business requires that I be compatible with
as many people as possible, thus Win3.11 or Win95.  You obviously
don't share my needs, so why are you right and I am wrong?




Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>stephenj@mindspring.com (Stephen Johnston Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>	How is this a "Mistake". Microsoft is trying to make the registration 
>>process easier for you people and all you can do is bitch about stupid rumors. 
>>How much "important" data could they really get from this. There are easier 
>>ways to find out these things.
>>

>Well, Microsloth isn't going to make registration *easier* for me because
>I'm not going to use Win9x.  I want to know what my machine's up to.

>-- 
>Sphere.

>Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

>Buy Free UNIX!

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>Not really.  Microsoft just happens to be first on my "hit list."
>I'm used to having the source code for the OS I use.  DOS/Windows are
>the first OS I've used extensively for which I didn't have the source
>code available, and I don't like it.

ATTENTION:  We have been subjected to an endless thread because poor
Jim doesn't like not having the source code to his OS.  Uhhhh....ever
consider not using  Windows or DOS and sparing us your ramblings?


>I also don't like the fact that Microsoft is a large evil monopolistic
>corporation intent upon gobbling up the entire software industry and
>using Microsoft's agenda as the world's agenda.

>(Oh, BTW -- I don't like you.)


Jim will be accepting applications for the communist party at his
email address.  Ever thought about writing a Marxist OS?  

billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
>
>
>Jim will be accepting applications for the communist party at his
>email address.  Ever thought about writing a Marxist OS?  
>
>

Ad Hominism?  Tisk, Tisk.

I'm no more interested in a left wing totalitarian OS than I'm
interested in a right wing totalitarian OS.  It is you who are
the advocate of totalitarian OS.  Shall we send the requests
for membership in the Nazi party to you?


-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

I'm not the advocating an OS.  I'm just defending logic, you have
already admitted that your case against MS is personal (obviously not
logical).

I didn't ask for a closed OS, it just happens to be the one I use.
You are the one advocating an open OS so you can check it out.  You
are the one bashing MS for doing what capitalists do best, make money
selling a product.

Your views are so slanted to the left that I don't even think you
realize how scary you sound.




Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:
>Ad Hominism?  Tisk, Tisk.

>I'm no more interested in a left wing totalitarian OS than I'm
>interested in a right wing totalitarian OS.  It is you who are
>the advocate of totalitarian OS.  Shall we send the requests
>for membership in the Nazi party to you?


>-- 
>Sphere.

>Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

>Buy Free UNIX!

billman@centcon.com (William Rini) wrote:
>I'm not the advocating an OS.  I'm just defending logic, you have
>already admitted that your case against MS is personal (obviously not
>logical).

Aside from the fact that I don't see much logic in your argument,
and that therefore I don't see you as defending logic -- I don't
really see where static logic is the issue.  The issue is that
Microsoft (and others) is engaging in monopolistic practices,
you are defending those practices, and I consider those practices
evil.  Therefore, you are an agent of the devil.  Simple enough
for your feeble mind to follow?

>
>I didn't ask for a closed OS, it just happens to be the one I use.
>You are the one advocating an open OS so you can check it out.  You
>are the one bashing MS for doing what capitalists do best, make money
>selling a product.

Fine.  Go ahead and use it.  I'll continue to try to save some
souls, thank you.

>
>Your views are so slanted to the left that I don't even think you
>realize how scary you sound.

To the left?  Bullshit.

I hope I sound scary enough that some people out there will stop
and consider what's really happening.

-- 
Jim Williams.

Find a Linux/GNU User Group near you: 
http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

William Rini wrote:

> But the fact remains....still no evidence of it being true.  You can't
> seem to get over that hurdle with anything other than weak "Well it
> could happen..." arguments.  

I don't have any hurdle to get over just because you define one.  I have 
never said that the Registration Wizard does or does not send 
unauthorized information to Microsoft.  Other people on the thread have 
said, however, that early version of the Wizard (before the uproar) 
didn't ask before sending the information.  The discussion about the 
Registration Wizard, however, clearly leads to discussion about what 
security problems might exist with MSN.  It's generally a good practice 
to think about security *before* you attach all your computers to a 
network, and not to wait until someone proves that someone has violated 
your security before thinking about it.

As another example, consider Internet access through MSN.  What do you 
think the chances are that they keep track of that?  No-one can really 
accuse them of anything since they're not stealing data off your hard 
disk or anything, and yet in my opinion they're using information about 
me without my permission -- very valuable information.  Several people 
have testified that Microsoft uses personal information about its 
customers in ways they never authorized.  Don't go on about how local 
ISPs or whatever could be doing the same thing.  I'm much more familiar 
with how standard Internet connections through an ISP work and I feel 
there's a lot less potential for abuse.


> Nobody is asking you to buy windows, nobody is asking you to use MSN,
> nobody is trying to make you do anything.  This whole thead is about
> the truth of the original posters supposed story.  

It's perfectly normal and accepted for a thread to shift its topic of
discussion over the course of time.  Nobody is telling you *not* to use
MSN, so what are you worried about?  I have every right not to use MSN,
and I also have every right to explain why I don't by mentioning possible
security holes.  It's not true that Nobody is *asking* me to use MSN.
Every computer store I go in has got MS propoganda blaring from every 
speaker and screen non-stop.  There are fewer and fewer non-MS choices, 
less shelf-space devoted to MS competitors, etc.


> YOU and the rest of
> the MS bashers have turned it into you soapbox for your paranoid
> fantasies and conspiracy theories.  None of which have any validity
> other than the fact that the technology exists.  If you don't like MS
> then voice your paranoia in a "I HATE MS" thread.  

Suppose, for example, that I knew of a way that anyone could easily view
password-protected Excel files, but I didn't actually know if anyone had
exploited that method or not.  Do you think I'd be wrong to mention that
people's password-protected Excel files are vulnerable to attack?  Don't
think that my concerns about security are just limited to Microsoft.  I
don't like AOL or Prodigy or eWorld either, among others. It's just that
Microsoft is clearly more aggressive than the other companies (based on
their market-domination practices), and in a much stronger position to
exploit security weaknesses given that they wrote the operating system and
a lot of the application software. 


> Here are some real points you have failed to satisfy to make a real
> case for anything you or the rest of your MS bashing buddies have
> said.
> 
> 1.  Is MS so far out on the technology spectrum that they can create a
> program that IBM, Apple, etc. could not figure out if it was
> transmitting the secrets of your HD?

You don't have to be "so far out on the technology spectrum" to do that.
It's actually rather easy, especially if it's a proprietary 
communications protocol and not an open standardized one.


> 2.  Don't every single one of the commercial online services have the
> same capability as does MS to read your drive, as well as your online
> habits and sell the marketing info?

Yes, although as I mentioned above I believe Microsoft has the greatest
potential for abuse.  But hooking directly to the Internet is not the same
as any of the commercial online providers.  I can choose from any number
of Internet providers and I can choose from many different web browsers,
ftp clients, etc. all of which are interchangable and compatible with each
other, and most of which I can get the source code for. I can put my
system behind a firewall or proxy server, create packet filters to make
sure that no packets are going to destinations or ports that I don't want
them to go to, etc.  In short, there are a lot of tools I can use to
control and examine what goes in and out of my system because it's an
open, standardized, distributed system rather than a closed, proprietary,
centralized one.


> 3.  MS could just as easily get marketing info when it gives away it's
> Win95 version of Money (that's right for two months they will be
> giving away the product for free in an effort to gain market share).
> Couldn't they just require a fully completed request form?  I'll give
> you that more info could be obtained right from reading your HD, but
> how the hell is MS going to explain how they got that info when they
> go to try and sell it (as you claim they would)?

I don't think they'd try to sell it, since they would benefit from it most
themselves.  My opinion is that they'd use it to further monopolize the 
markets they already dominate, and attempt to dominate new markets.
And the point is that people wouldn't voluntarily give away a lot of the 
information Microsoft could easily grab from your hard disk (like which 
pirated software you have)


> Sorry Steve your story just doesn't add up.  If I made the same sorts
> of wild comments about Linux or Mac, I'm sure you would be defending
> their product as strongly as you are bashing MS. 

No, not really.  I have exactly the same reservations about using 
Apple's eWorld with Macs.  I still feel that Microsoft is less 
trustworthy, however, given their more aggressive marketing practices.  I 
also feel the consequences of Microsoft exploiting illegally-obtained 
information would be far worse than Apple exploiting such information.  
What could Apple do?  Get a 30% market share instead of 10%?  Microsoft, 
on the other hand, could eliminate the little competition that's left, 
which I find very scary.

I also think you'd have a hard time making these kinds of comments about
Linux, since there's so many people working on different parts of it, most
of whom have never even met each other (BTW I don't run Linux and I'm not
a big Linux advocate, though I have recommended it to a few friends).  You
could pick on a particular piece of software, but then again about 99% of
Linux software has source code available and it would be easy to check. 


--
Steve Kanefsky

In article <stephenj.91.00292182@mindspring.com>, stephenj@mindspring.com (Stephen Johnston Jr.) writes:
|> In article <40etng$1dc@datamagic.com> kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
|> >From: kanefsky@datamagic.com (Steve Kanefsky)
|> >Subject: Re: Windows 95 testing halted at Motorola
|> >Date: 10 Aug 1995 23:35:28 -0700

[...]
|> 3. The fact that regardless of the method "someone" could find out what they
|> are doing is a strong reason not to do it. MS knows that there are very
|> powerful companies that would like to BURY them. IBM with a copy of Win95
|> could find anything they needed to in a fairly short time. If I was IBM I
|> would search every possible avenue to exploit something like this and then be
|> very sorry that there was a "leak" to the media before we could inform MS that
|> they had "accidentally" included this in Win95.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by IBM

Now that that's out of the way :)

The best thing any competitor of MS can do is write a better OS (OS/2 Warp *IS* BTW)
and get the stupid hardware vendors to stop pre-installing MS stuff.  Ever tried buying
a PC without a preinstalled OS and $900.00 of *FREE* software that you don't want?

Additionally, Mr. Gates is probably his own worst enemy and will undoubtedly be
the biggest long-term factor in the failure of MS.

-- 
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by IBM
Internet: dfr@raleigh.ibm.com; VM: dfr at ralvm17; SneakerNet: B062/K303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiger! Tiger! Burning bright, in the forests of the night. 
What immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry.

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

> I don't think Microsoft is stupid -- just evil.

That is incredible. With one line of text you have totally taken me back
to the Atari/Commodore Wars of 1983-1986. We were Atari purists; they
were Commie-doorstop heathens. I thank you for the trip through time.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Men are like chocolates, you just bite them, suck out the cream
filling, and then throw them away. The world sees me as a love goddess,
but I've never been in love." -- the real message printed on the T-shirt
of a student of mine, Kazumi Saito
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <40hkj5$q0u@nnrp3.primenet.com>,
Lawson English <english@primenet.com> wrote:
>Anthony Schlemmer (aschlemm@netcom.com) wrote:
>[snipt]
>: You need a real fast machine to any any descent performance with 
>: SoftWindows. Myself and many of my co-workers are forced to run 
>: SoftWindows on SGI Indy boxs and it brings the Indy's performance to a 
>: crawl. Word 6.0 is painful for all but the smallest of documents.
>
>
>In other words, emulated Word 6.0 under SoftWindows on SGI Indy boxes, is 
>probably faster than native Word 6.0 for PowerMacs...
>
>
>Please note the lack of smileys. This is intentional because I'm not 
>trying to be funny.


You will all probably call me anti-MS, paranoid, etc., but:

Haing worked in a computer store (as that vile creature, a
Sales Rep), and seeing the difference between MS Word 6.0 for
Power Mac and MS Word/Win, I have to wonder -- is there perhaps
deliberate sabotage going on here?  Or is it just *really*
boneheaded design (e.g., Microsoft wrote dialog box code of
their own, instead of using the normal calls like every
intelligent software vendor does).  Also, I hear they use
machine-generated code, which for some reason doesn't work too
well with RISC.
-- 
Joe Thompson, Programmer/Analyst | GraphFunction 3.5    | UVa Astrophysics
of HyperCard, C++, BASIC, Scheme | (C) October 12, 1993 | This space now
Microsoft must pay me $500 for a | kensey@virginia.edu  | for rent. $5/day
permit to distribute this text.  | http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~jgt7c/

Jim Williams (williams@tiac.net) wrote:

: -- 
: Sphere.

: Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

: Buy Free UNIX!
  ^^^^^^^^
Isn't that a contradiction ??????


--
Francois Labreque          | "If you'd cut off my head, where would i stay?
miguel@step.polymtl.ca     |  me in my, me in my head or me in my body?"
                           | - R. Polanski