They don't get *it*!

Sometimes people don’t understand why I’m so anti Microsoft, but this week I came across a story which brilliantly illustrates my assertion that Microsoft don’t get *it*. One of the features that Microsoft added to Vista in the hope of persuading us it was secure was User Access Control (UAC),  that’s the thing that pops up all of those annoying… er… pop ups asking for your permission to do stuff all of the time. Most Vista users quickly found this to be a royal pain in the ass and began to suffer from pop up fatigue, in the end granting permission to anything that asked for it just to get rid of the popups, others looked for a way to turn UAC off altogether, even if it meant hacking their registry. Fast forward past Vista to Windows 7 and the geniuses at Redmond decided that UAC needed relaxing a bit, one of the ways that they did this (several routes around UAC have been found in the Windows 7 Beta so far) was to create a whitelist of files that can just bypass UAC. Do you see where this is going yet? Yep, by leveraging one of the pre-approved files and making some fairly standard API calls, you can have your possibly malicious code executed sans user permission. So the user gets all the hassle of the pop ups and none of the security goodness. Good job guys. It’s like building a nuclear bunker into the side of a mountain and then installing a couple of Velux windows to let some light in. Still at least Microsoft have added the ability to remove IE from Windows 7, that should keep the EU happy… except that you can’t remove it, you can turn it off, but it can’t be removed completely. Still, why would you want to, it’s not like Microsoft had to request that the world download an alternative browser when they found a huge security hole in IE! I wonder how many people downloaded Firefox, Opera, Chrome or Safari that week?

Talking of Safari, I have been using the beta of version 4 for a good couple of weeks now and have discovered that whilst the it is quick to render pages and execute Javascript, Firefox 3 is actually faster to download the content and provide me with a working page. I actually have another reason for falling back to Firefox, AdBlock Plus. I don’t know how I ever browsed the web without blocking adverts. Don’t give me any of that crap about stealing revenue from websites by blocking their ads, most adverts have to be clicked on to generate revenue and more importantly if your entire business model relies on ads then you have bigger problems than me not downloading them. Think of it as the equivalent to flicking over to Sky Sports News/Kerrang during the television ad breaks.

In other news, I’ve had some serious problems attempting to set up an IMAP account for a custom domain (area-78.com) with SMTP support, using SSL on incoming and outgoing connections. It seems to work over my Sky broadband connection, but chokes on an O2 broadband connection. Any ideas? Are certain ports more likely to work (I know that 25 is generally blocked to prevent spam)? Is anybody else using SSL, I mean I know it’s not perfect, but surely it’s better than nothing?

Post Tune: Ms Fat Booty, Mos Def, Black On Both Sides.

2 thoughts on “They don't get *it*!

  1. @Gruntfuggly: Nope. Firefox is built on Gecko, which means whenever the browser wants to load something it has to go through a Content Policy (small piece of Javascript or C++) which can then examine the address of the thing, an image say, and decide whether to allow it or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *