full-disclosure - CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6130FAF67D15D411BF7100E01899071F1DB49F@stork.mightyoaks.local>
From: david.vincent at mightyoaks.com (David Vincent)
Subject: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

> > I can't recall ever speaking to someone who actually bought a new 
> > application from a vendor simply because their old version of the 
> > application from the vendor was insecure or buggy. In fact, that
> > would tend to push them to look elsewhere.
> 
> Well Microsoft expects you to buy it for those reasons:
> 
> >From http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/windowsnetsupport.asp
> 
> "Customers running applications with SQL Server version 7.0 
> and MSDE 1.0 should consider evaluating and upgrading to SQL 
> Server 2000 and MSDE 2000 respectively with SP3 on Windows 
> Server 2003 to achieve a more secure operating environment."
> 
> From 
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/w
> hyupgrade/default.asp
> 
> "Top 10 Reasons to Move to Windows 2000"
> 
> "#2: Reliability. An essential requirement for business users 
> is a personal computer they can count on."
> 
> 
> >From http://www.bcentral.co.uk/drive/default.asp
> "Compare Windows XP with Windows 98"
> 
> 
> 
> Windows XP and Windows
> 98 compared
> 
> Find out for yourself just why
> Windows XP Professional proved to be
> more reliable than Windows 98 in
> independent tests."
> 
> 
> 
> Security
> 
> Windows XP Professional and Office
> XP Professional are our most secure
> ways of safeguarding your most
> confidential data from unauthorised
> use, viruses and hackers.
> 
> 
> And my personal favorite:
> 
> >From http://www.microsoft.com/resources/desktop/smallbiz.asp
> 
> "Windows XP Professional is at least 10 times more reliable 
> than Windows 98."
> 
> 
> 
> I can also recall several of the Windows upgrade pictures 
> claiming "More Reliable" and "More Secure".  So apparently to 
> Microsoft, their software being reliable and secure is 
> something they expect you to upgrade for.
> 
> Also Microsoft passes their "bugfixes" off as enhancements.  
> I'm sure you've seen "Better ..." or "Faster ..." when in 
> reality they just fixed problems with the old versions.
> 
> > Microsoft in particular is huge for adding new features.
> 
> There were just soooo many features from 95 to 98 to ME.
> 
> None of these constituted a new product.


...unless you've signed up for their Software Assurance program where you
get the license to install any new version of their software when it becomes
available without paying any additional fees.

this all says, to me, "hey, if you've already bought the license and have
been thinking about upgrading, why the heck are you waiting?"

-d