Virus time?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| klhrevolution Dec 06, 2008 11:53 AM EDT |
Is this how the hijacks will begin ? I dunno bout this.. |
| tracyanne Dec 06, 2008 2:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is this how the hijacks will begin ? No. Quoting:I dunno bout this. Yes. |
| phsolide Dec 08, 2008 1:52 PM EDT |
Unless "linux" converges on some monoculture, this is unlikely to cause any problems. There's just too much variation in the way of versions, and variants, a sort of "natural immunity". |
| tracyanne Dec 08, 2008 4:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:the OpenXML Document Viewer extension for Firefox translates Word 2007 documents saved in the Open XML format into HTML for direct display in the web browser. When did HTML suddenly become a security risk? What is it with some Linux/FOSS supporters? Why is there this Pavlovian response when ever Microsoft ans Windows are mentioned? The Document viewer in question converts one XML (Word 2007 Office Open XML) format into another XML format (HTML), it applies CSS to that HTML according to the rules embodied in the converter, based on the atributes applied to the source XML. XML, like HTML is a text based format for encasulating data in a form that is both human and machine readable. |
| tuxchick Dec 08, 2008 4:39 PM EDT |
HTML isn't a risk, but dynamic web sites that offload the processing to the client are. I think we all know how poorly-coded most sites are, and the core flaw of Windows is how it welcomes the execution of remote code. Just like modern web browsers. Just try to browse sites with all scripting turned off- lotsa luck. I can't find a good reference, but the last security briefing I listened to said the biggest security problems for Linux servers are LAMP stacks, and the biggest holes for clients are Web browsers, especially Firefox. It's popular and there are zillions of unsafe extensions, and even the official ones don't get security-audited before they are released. Linux is definitely safer than windows, but there are real risks. So what if an exploit fails at privilege escalation and only compromises your data files? I'd say that's a bigger problem because you easily reinstall the OS, but compromised data can carry some severe consequences. Whether the OOXML plugin is a risk I dunno. In terms of "FOSS carries the interoperability load yet again" it's business as usual. I suspect that MS' contribution consisted of giggling as they converted the 6000-page OOXML spec to a PDF and emailing it to the Firefox devs. |
| mortenalver Dec 09, 2008 3:29 AM EDT |
They probably sent it in Metro format. |
| hkwint Dec 09, 2008 2:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:What is it with some Linux/FOSS supporters? Why is there this Pavlovian response when ever Microsoft and Windows are mentioned? It's probably not about Microsoft nor Windows nor is it a Pavlonian reaction, this is just another instance of a Microsoft platform being pushed. Here you go: Quoting:Turning a product into a platform perpetuates and broadens the success of the product. This is because writing code to support even one platform is hard; writing code to support multiple, alternative platforms is exponentially more difficult. This leads developers to choose between alternative platforms, and (ideally) choose one over all others. This choice, once made, is not easily changed; code written to one platform is only re-written to another with difficulty. In efect, once a developer chooses a platform, the developer is "locked in" to that platform. ... OOXML is one of the best examples of a product turned into a platform; in this case a standard: You may remember Microsoft asked ECMA to write a standard that conforms to a certain MS Office version back then. In other words, start a platform around MS Office. Quoting:... "Evangelism is the art and science of getting developers to ship products that support Microsoft's platforms" James Plamondon, Technical Evangelist, in "Effective Evangelism" In other words, any OOXML support for any Free Software is - in Microsofts definition - Evangelism for Microsoft. Not all of us Linux/FOSS supporters want to be part of that Microsoft Evangelism; and you should respect that just as a lot of the Linux/FOSS supporters will respect your decision to be part of it. |
| tracyanne Dec 09, 2008 4:25 PM EDT |
@hkwint, it is one thing to dislike Microsoft products, it's another to understand the history of Microsoft and how they play the game, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish when the mere mention of the name causes outbreaks of unfounded and outrageous claims. The first two are healthy, the last is paranoia, and that's what the first post of this thread was, that's what Roy does. I'll informed, ill conceived beliefs about the situation, or any situation, do not improve your ability to deal with it, only reason and well researched information are useful. Everything else leads to ill conceived action -panic, and that's what it looks like a lot of Linux/FOSS people are doing, panicing. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 09, 2008 4:57 PM EDT |
Paniking? Not so. The FOSS world is doing fine. The corporate world? No so much. |
| tracyanne Dec 09, 2008 5:11 PM EDT |
Knee jerk responses to the mere mention of the entity, or headless chookery. |
| hkwint Dec 10, 2008 3:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:it's an entirely different kettle of fish when the mere mention of the name causes outbreaks of unfounded and outrageous claims. That's something I can wholeheartedly agree with; it's not necessary at all. |
| phsolide Dec 10, 2008 4:06 PM EDT |
Someone must explain the meaning of the term "headless chookery". I'm a big dumb American, I live in the middle of North America. Also, can someone explain the meaning of the British newpapers? It would appear that the UK has about 4 big newpapers: The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Sun. Citing each of these seems to have distinct connotations and opaque-to-Americans implications. |
| tuxchick Dec 10, 2008 4:47 PM EDT |
'Chooks' is Australian for chickens. |
| tracyanne Dec 10, 2008 5:20 PM EDT |
And "Headless Chookery" is to run around in circles achieving nothing, to respond in a paniced or unreasoned manner. If you've ever lived on a farm, you are bound to know what I mean. |
| jdixon Dec 10, 2008 7:03 PM EDT |
> And "Headless Chookery" is to run around in circles achieving nothing... LIke a chicken with its head cut off, which would be the equivalent US saying. |
| hkwint Dec 10, 2008 7:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:LIke a chicken with its head cut off We 'd say "A chicken without pate" - in our own language off course, but it's entertaining to hear someone in the US would immediately assume the head is cut off. |
| jdixon Dec 10, 2008 10:43 PM EDT |
> ...but it's entertaining to hear someone in the US would immediately assume the head is cut off. AFAIK it was the default way to kill a chicken on farms. I know some people merely wrung their necks, but cutting the head off seems to have been more common. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!