Another Day With My PC

Just when it seems that Apple may have shot itself at the foot for allowing its OS X to be the subject of a hack-the-program sort of competition at the CanSecWest conference in Vancouver, Canada, Microsoft has recently found itself in a similar situation.

Joanna Rutkowska, a security analyst who is famous for exposing Windows’ security flaws, will be conducting a seminar, called “Understanding Stealth Malware,” on how hackers could exploit Vista’s faulty design and take over the system. This training session will start on July 28. The five-day event is slated to be held during the Black Hat Briefings and training show in Las Vegas.

I hope Microsoft would be a sport on this one. The training hasn’t even started yet, but it has already assumed a very defensive mode. Conferences such as the one that will be conducted by Rutkowska would actually benefit the software giant rather than hurt it. We all know that Bill Gates’ engineers are not exactly candid when it comes to the flaws of their most famous product. They can’t and won’t be able to anticipate all the problems that might come in their software’s way. Hence, what Microsoft should do instead is to listen to these people who dissect Vista and learn from their discoveries.

Much has already been said on how OS X edges out XP and Vista in the OS market in terms of design and security. Windows fans dismiss such claims as mud slings from Apple’s henchmen who make their product look good by deforming Bill Gates’ banner products.

So which OS has the upper hand, at least as far as having the most durable and shiniest armor is concerned?

The CNET Duel

CNET has recently sponsored a duel between these two top operating systems. OS X easily put the lights out off Vista in the security category. This is hardly surprising since Vista’s predecessors were known to be vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. While Microsoft has claimed that Vista is the most secure OS in the world, their checkered track record hasn’t convinced even their software’s most loyal fans that their system will be fully protected against malware threats.

Pride-Swallowing Revelation

Take for example Vista’s User Account Controls (UAC) feature. This innovation was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of Vista’s impregnable wall. Its function is mainly to ferret out attacks from malicious programs and prevent them from making any changes to your system. I originally lauded Microsoft for this. I was even tempted to say that Vista’s security features could take Symantec and McAfee out of business.

Complacent folks such as yours truly were taken for a rude awakening by Joanna Rutkowska, a known Windows decapitator, when she revealed the useless nature of Vista’s UAC. She exposed the vulnerabilities of this supposedly impenetrable filter. Microsoft was stunned at the revelation. It didn’t heavily dispute the claims made by Rutkowska. What it only did was to sheepishly point out that the UAC is not exactly a part, or at least an important component, of Vista’s security repertoire.

Having More Enemies

One of the reasons why Vista seems more vulnerable to external threats than OS X is the fact that the former has more enemies than the latter. I’m not sure why many want to see Microsoft go down. Could it be because of its monopoly over the OS industry? I don’t know. Personally, I don’t have any problem with Microsoft ruling over the world. Maybe the reason why people prefer Windows over Linux or OS X is because the former is more easy or convenient to use. You could argue that OS X might have been the world’s most widely used program had it not been for Microsoft’s bully tactics. That’s definitely a good point to consider. But the fact remains that many people are simply comfortable using Windows than any other OS available in the market.

If OS X is more secured than Vista simply because the former is subjected to fewer attacks than the latter, then Apple’s triumph is a hollow one. The circumstances or conditions should be the same for both programs. Maybe OS X critics are indeed right in saying that the Apple software’s security record seems unblemished since nobody has ardently tried to climb its walls.

Oooops! I may have spoken on Vista’s demise quite too soon on my previous article. In my April 16 entry, I have revealed Microsoft’s plan on pulling the plug on its most successful program. Although it’s not yet dependent on any life support system, Windows XP’s days are definitely numbered already.

Plotting XP’s End

I think I didn’t give details as to how and when Bill Gates’ company will cut the life out of XP. Microsoft will still be providing a hefty oxygen tank for its old product in 2008 before slowly letting the air flow out without any plan of replenishing it. It expects XP to suffer its first stroke in 2009 when non-security updates will be put to a halt. The fatal blow would come 6 years later when the company will cut all its ties with the software. Of course, the OS would still run after 2015. However, it would be reckless to stick with it considering that it won’t be updated anymore against any error or threat.

Many were saddened by the news, but weren’t a bit surprised. Everybody was already expecting that Microsoft would soon euthanize XP. The only question was when or how soon. I thought that we already got an answer last week when it was announced that all kinds of support over the OS would be cut by 2015. However, it would seem that Microsoft is not in a hurry to bury XP after all.

Extended CPR

Dell has recently announced that it would still be selling PCs bundled with XP. This is surprising since computer makers are supposed to be solidly one with Microsoft in exclusively promoting Windows Vista. Many were surprised then when Dell backtracked and decided to accommodate the growing clamor for XP machines.

You might suspect that the XP-bundled PCs are either low-end models or hand-me-downs. This is hardly the case. In fact, the new Dell XP PCs are powered by the latest processors. Needless to say, the units could easily handle Vista as if it’s DOS.

What made Dell decide to ditch its original plan of exclusively bundling its PCs with Vista is the growing number of complaints against the new OS. Many consumers are simply not happy with Vista. The popular PC maker is also being more receptive to consumer preference. Aside from offering XP again, it has also announced that it would soon release models bundled with Linux.

Delaying the Inevitable

You may surmise that Microsoft frowned upon Dell’s move. Well, you may have suspected or presumed wrongly. Of course, it’s a dent to the former’s campaign to get Vista into every PC in the world. However, giving its old product a new lease in life wouldn’t harm them. In fact, it’s a perfect opportunity for them to get rid of excess XP stocks rotting in their warehouses.

The news is quite vindicating for Vista critics. They have been emphasizing since day one that Vista has been unreasonably rushed and that it’s just XP sporting a new skin. I totally agree on the former, but I may have to temper my tongue on the latter. While the technology with which Vista is based has some similarities with the one used in XP, it’s definitely a lot different and far more advanced. Your PC’s muscles would not be wasted in Vista, that’s for sure.

I’m glad that an XP revival is already in the making. However, I doubt it if it could be sustained. The fact remains that there’s already a new OS. While it may not have lived up to its expectations, I’m sure that it will win critics over very soon.

At the rate programs, especially operating systems, get hacked everyday, one might not really be amused at contests which aim to expose the vulnerabilities of an application.

A software engineer and a security researcher who participated in a similar competition at the CanSecWest conference in Vancouver, Canada laid out a security glitch on Apple’s OS X by successful hacking a MacBook running on the said program.

Dino Dai Zovi created the exploit while Shane Macaulay handled the practical aspects of the hacking. They were able to get in to the system courtesy of some vulnerabilities in Safari. Macaulay won a laptop for his efforts, while Dai Zovi will be submitting his work on the Apple holes in a bid to win the $10,000 prize that is offered to anyone who can successfully hack an element of OS X.

It’s a good thing that Apple’s a sport and allowed this kind of competition to expose the weaknesses of its product. Many companies wouldn’t dare subject their software to such a test, especially amidst a losing campaign to wrest control of the industry that they’re in. The last thing that Apple needs is a reason for customers to further drift away from OS X and unconditionally embrace Microsoft’s Windows Vista.

I’m not a fan of OS X, but judging from the time and intricacy involved in developing the exploit, I think that the Apple OS is a fairly secured application. If you’ve been a Windows user since time immemorial, you’ll definitely agree that Bill Gates’ products are not that difficult to exploit. Patches after patches are continuously being released by Microsoft in order to stem the daily attacks that their OS is getting from hackers all over the world. It seems that the Redmond, Washington company doesn’t need to organize a competition anymore in order to inspire somebody to hack into their product.

So why did I just say that the OS X is still a good operating system despite the fact that Dai Zovi and Macaulay successfully crossed its moat? Well, for starters, the MacBook that was hacked did not have any security program in it. It only had the latest version of the OS X and all the necessary patches, but nothing more.

You might surmise, as I did, that the OS X would be virtually impregnable if its security functions or features are complemented by other system defenders, such as anti-spyware and antivirus programs. Indeed, I doubt it if Macaulay would’ve been able to bring home anything if the MacBook also had Symantec’s Norton Antivirus.

I’m not saying that hacking through a system that is protected by a third-party security suite is an impossible task. We all know that it’s definitely possible. Hackers have already put into shame some of the best antivirus and anti-spyware programs in the market.

I hope that software makers wouldn’t hesitate in sponsoring competitions that aim to dissect their products and expose any flaw that they may have overlooked. This would definitely contribute to a safer and more secured computing world.

These guys really have no respect for anybody or anything at all.

Security experts revealed that hackers are taking advantage of the Virginia Tech incident in order to lure unsuspecting people to their malware-ridden Web sites. The bait comes in the form of e-mails with supposed links to pages that contain videos, pictures, or news about the massacre.

The infection is swift. All the unwary has to do is to click on the link and a screensaver, called “TERROR_EM_VIRGINIA.SCR,” will automatically install in his system. This Trojan horse gathers banking and other financial details.

This scheme is expected to persist and intensify as millions of people are still curious as to what really happened in Virginia Tech. Experts also expect the same trend or ploy to be applied in future incidents which would capture the interest of many people around the globe.

In order to avoid being infected, make sure that you get your news or videos only from reputable sources. Spurn e-mails with dubious attachments, especially if they come from somebody you don’t know. One should always be on his toes whenever roaming around cyberspace. Although I’m sure your registry cleaner, antivirus, or other system tool could spare you from your recklessness while surfing the Web, prevention is still the best remedy against malware attacks.

Much has been said about the impending demise of Windows XP in view of the release of Microsoft’s latest operating system. The company expects the exodus to be gradual and voluntary, citing the eagerness of PC users to try something new.

However, the hovering speculation is that many will be shifting to Windows Vista because they will be forced to. Some say that XP’s years are already numbered. Microsoft is expected to pull the life support system on its old OS in the next 2 years, leaving the remaining XP users to fend for themselves against malware attacks and other security risks.

But there’s no need to sound the alarm, yet. In fact, Microsoft seems bent on extending the shelf life of XP by planning to release another service pack for it. There’s no definite detail yet as far as SP3’s contents are concerned. It won’t be released anytime soon, too. Some say that the third major batch of updates will be issued in the first half of 2008.

Microsoft will be shooting its own foot if it hastens the demise of its most successful product. Many are not yet convinced that their system is ready for the new OS. Some are even of the opinion that Vista is the one that’s actually not ready for their computers. For now, I suggest that you stick with your OS until you’re fully convinced that it has already outlived its usefulness.

Is there such a thing as a perfect operating system?

If you’ve been a Microsoft client since the 1980s, then you’ll probably answer in the negative. Indeed, the previous Windows released by Bill Gates’ company had a lot of flaws. If you think that compatibility issues only sprung after Windows 95, then you’d better ask those who navigated their computer using the DOS prompt. OS problems are as old as the program itself.

Windows XP

The most successful OS to date is Windows Vista’s predecessor, Windows XP. Around 90% of the world’s computers function under this program. It even gained many converts from Apple’s OS X. For many, it’s the closest thing to a perfect operating system.

Microsoft would now want us to believe that XP has outlived its purpose and that it’s already ill-advised to stick with their previous product. One of the things that the Redmond, Washington company boast about Windows Vista is that it’s purportedly the most secured operating system in the world. They were so bent in trying to convince people to ditch XP for the new OS to the point that they were already contemplating on throwing mud at the former.

Not Perfect

Microsoft doesn’t have to magnify the previous security flaws that plagued Windows XP in order to show everybody that it’s not as secured as many might think. Nobody needs to be reminded of that, especially since updates or patches continue to roll out for this program. Hackers seem to find new holes in the OS every week. Fortunately, Microsoft has been successful in stitching the tears of their product before malicious applications could fully exploit it. This has been the story of XP since its first release.

Not Perfect Either

Every type of program needs to be updated from time to time, regardless of the purpose for which they’re constituted. However, operating systems need those patches more than any type of application does. No OS author can ever anticipate every peril that his creation might encounter in the future. New software, especially malicious ones, are being released on a daily basis. Hence, the operating system needs to continuously adapt to changes or threats as they come.

While Windows Vista is billed as the most secured OS in the planet, any person with sufficient experience in computers would immediately brand such claim as far fetched. There’s no way that the new OS could survive new attacks, recognize new programs, or adapt to new technology without the necessary patches or updates.

This Vista myth has been recently shattered by claims that Microsoft is set to release more than a hundred patches for its new product. Take note that it has only been 3 months since Vista has been released to consumers. XP received its first service pact 11 months after it has reached the vendors’ shelves. So which OS has a better record now as far as security is concerned?

A good OS doesn’t have to remain unchanged until the release of its successor. On the contrary, a static program will outlive its usefulness faster than those which are constantly being subjected to updates or modifications. It is therefore important for an OS to be malleable so that it could reshape itself into something which is more responsive to the needs of the user.

It’s Friday folks… have a laugh!

The advent of broadband Internet has immensely changed the way we surf the Web. Gone are the days when most of the Web sites that we browse or log on to contain plain text or feature very few pictures. At present, a Web page designer would definitely lose clients if he doesn’t know how to integrate audio and video in his creations.

But this wasn’t the order of things a decade ago. If you were able to go around cyberspace during the 90s, you would notice that there were no streaming audios or videos in 90% of all the Web pages on the Internet. There were even music sites that didn’t contain any MP3 or WMA file. All they had back then were lyrics and pictures of singers who topped the charts.

You might even think that the MP3 file format hasn’t been invented yet during that time. If you did, then you thought wrong. Most of the multimedia features that Web pages have today were already available 10 years ago. Sure, Real’s audio player was still quite primitive that time. However, the technology to upload multimedia presentations on the Net was already present back then.

So why weren’t our parents or older siblings able to experience the sensory overload that we’re getting right now every time we’re opening Internet Explorer or Firefox? The answer is obvious.

14kbps during the 90s was already considered “warp speed.” Dial-up still reigned during this period as the primary mode or means of connecting to the Internet. That all changed when DSL, cable Internet, and wireless access became available. The bandwidth that these connections offer is many times faster than their predecessor. As a result, Web site makers have stocked their designs with tons of audio and video files to make it more interesting and interactive. Accessing Web sites loaded with multimedia presentations would’ve been virtually impossible on a dial-up connection. However, songs and videos can be seamlessly played when surfing at 512kbps or higher.

So does this mean that the demise of the dial-up is near?

Wait for part 2 of this article I’ll give you a hint, though. The answer is in the negative. There are ways by which you could boost up your dial-up connection to dizzying speeds. However, there are several disadvantages in injecting steroids on your slow connection. For one thing, it could mess up your registry. I’ll discuss the pros and cons of this “jack up” next week.