Accounts may not be answer to questions about system
260591
President Bush is selling private investment accounts, financed with a share of current payroll taxes, as a way to solve Social Security&#39;s long-range financing problems and benefit younger workers.
119952
The User Account Control built into Windows Vista is supposed to help make the new operating system safer. But it can be spoofed, undermining the very mission for which it was created, according to Symantec.
281927
Apple is facing questions over user data placed in DRM-free tracks sold through iTunes.
769541
Some widely used applications haven't been certified for use with Windows Vista, they may, nonetheless, work.
25491
A bank that guarantees its online users safety and security has direct evidence that its Web-based banking system is not bullet-proof. Should that bank tells its users?
547312
Business & money: Â· Doubt cast on SocGen claim of single perpetratorÂ· Employee of financial services firm is held
665989
I overheard a long-time hospital client talking to another support vendor today. The hospitalâs patient accounting department was attempting to send patient financial and billing data to a third-party biller. The vendorâs normal Web site was down, and they were trying to come up with an emergency fix.
256345
I haven&#39;t made up my mind on the subject of private accounts for Social Security. Unlike the Bush administration, I prefer to study the facts before leaping to conclusions.
336282
PayPal Outage Effects Online Retailing and eBay  eBay Inc.'s online payment system PayPal said on Tuesday that account data and personal information were not compromised by a glitch in the new system update that has resulted in some users not being able to log into their accounts and also PayPal not ...
234398
QUESTION: What is the best approach to protecting me from ID theft and related activities? Will a software package work best, or must I go to a hardware firewall?
300862
Reposted in the queue as it's impossible or at least very complicated to move it as I asked (although the post where aphrael said such thing disappeared so perhaps this is not the case after all - another minor K5 mystery).  The original discussion can be found here (read it as there are some clarifications by rusty). All right, here is the (adapted) diary. Rusty posted a comment in the diary entitled "Would you pay 10USD for K5 Life Membership?" saying that K5 will become a pay site once new user registrations will be reactivated: "I was thinking $5.00 (none / 0) (#18) by rusty on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:42:15 PM CET But it would actually be charged. That plus a hash of the identifying CC info so you only get one account ever, and I think we'd either shrivel up to nothing and die, or solve the spamming and crapflooding issues. Funny that someone else is thinking about this right now. It'll probably happen before I turn new signups back on." This of course begs the question: HIBT? If so I'll bite (see some considerations under the fold).
585848
Office for Mac 2008 incorrectly assigns ownership of some files, Microsoft has confirmed, creating a potential security problem for businesses installing the new application suite.Joel Bruner, a Chicago-based Mac consultant, was the first to notice the ownership snafu. "[Microsoft] moved to Apple's Package Maker (.pkg) installer files, good news for the enterprise, [but] unfortunately, they've created all the packages to install most all of the files with the owner set to 502."In a shop where employees run with limited privileges -- a practice very common in an enterprise -- and IT is the only user with full administrative rights, Office 2008's ownership assignment means that a user who wasn't supposed to have complete control over those files actually does. In other words, whomever is assigned user ID 502 has full read/write access to Office's files."So let's say, Mr. IT installs this on a user's machine where the first user is the admin[istrator] (501) and the standard user is Joe User (502)," said Bruner in a post to his blog on Monday. "Well, when after all's installed, it will give Joe User (502) ownership of these folders and their installed contents:/Library/Automator/ (if it doesn't exist already) /Library/Fonts/Microsoft /Library/Application Support/Microsoft /Applications/Microsoft Office 2008"The screw-up could present a corporate security problem, at least internally, said Bruner, if that Mac's second, standard user -- user 502 -- decides to make changes to the folders and files by, say, deleting some or moving others.A Microsoft developer left a comment at Bruner's blog confirming that the company knows about the problem. "The MacBU (Mac Business Unit) is aware of this issue," said Erik Schwiebert, a software design lead in the group.Microsoft, however, did not immediately respond to queries about how it intends to correct the problem and what users can do in the meantime.Other commenters at Bruner's blog hesitated to blame only Microsoft, however. "The truth is that this is a long-standing flaw in Apple's Installer," argued someone identified as Not Required. "Maybe Microsoft should have known better, but maybe Apple should also have improved their installer years ago. Apple clearly hasn't cared enough about smaller developers to make a fix, so hopefully Microsoft has a high enough profile that something finally gets done."In a follow-up post also on Monday, Bruner added that all the Office for Mac 2008 files owned by user 502 are also erroneously set as executable. "Now tell me does '/Microsoft Office 2008/Read Me.html' need to be executable for you to look at it?" asked Bruner. "Tick, tick, tick, *ding*! No. It does not."
369741
A service launched last week that aims to help online users determine whether their credit card and Social Security numbers may have been compromised is running into skepticism about how secure -- and safe -- it is.
769408
In 1980, I signed a deal with a company to market a product I was developing. The contract required me to turn over the source code, which I did. One day I went to a meeting at the office of the company, and there on the product manager's desk, right next to a door that opened to the outside, was a floppy labeled "Dave Winer's source code" in big letters.  If you own a Mac you may soon find out what that felt like. It's amazing to me that the tech blogosphere doesn't treat Apple's policy re broken hard disks as the huge gaping security hole that it is.  Think about it. We worry about bad people getting their hands on little pieces of data that, when added together, give them the power to be you in banking and credit transactions.  Think about what you would do if your laptop was stolen. Well, if you own a Mac and its hard disk goes bad, and you make the mistake of bringing it to Apple for service, you will turn over all that data to Apple. Not "may" or "might" but "will." What Apple in turn does with that data is none of your affair. They don't sign anything or offer any guarantees that they won't sell the disk to a data miner. Think it can't happen or that it's unlikely? I don't gain much comfort from your feeling of security. I've been writing about this issue since December 22. Usually when I write something critical of Apple, the results are mixed. Some people are supportive, but far more people attack. This time the ratio is very different. Almost everyone who has commented gets that there's a huge problem here. Can we solve this problem? Of course we can.  Some say that other vendors do this too. That gives me less comfort, not more. That means there's no escaping this crazy way of treating user's confidentiality. Ultimately it hurts the vendors because people can't use their computers for things the manufacturers say we can.  Further, it's got to be an issue for the banks, brokerage firms, credit agencies. If you are a newspaper and you employ reporters and they use a computer, how exactly are you guarding the confidentiality of your sources? If you're a confidential source, don't you have an interest when the reporter gives their computer manufacturer all their data to do with as they please? Imagine what you would do if it turned out there was a bug in a Netgear or Linksys router that allowed, under special circumstances, a mailicous person to gain access to the full content of your hard disk at any time. Would you have a problem with that? This is worse than Microsoft's neglect of malware that got me to stop using their computers. In that case it was Microsoft being neglegent. This time Apple itself is the cause of the problem. It's as if they planted a virus in their operating system that entitled them, under special circumstances, completely out of the user's control, to gain access to everything on your disk, with as much time as they want, with no way for you to prevent or even detect the intrusion.  See also: My letter to Steve Jobs.
17762
By deception or force if necessary When is a virus not a virus? When its sending your personal data to the Recording Industry Association of America, silly.â¦
223142
(InfoWorld) - Microsoft has blamed an unspecified server problem for a 19-hour stretch during which paying users of Windows XP and Vista were accused by the company's WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) validation system of running pirated software. Any Vista system fingered during the episode was stripped of some features, including the operating system's Aero graphical interface. As of Saturday at 3 p.m. EDT, Microsoft said the problem had been fixed. "We are aware it is a server-side issue," said Phil Liu, a Microsoft program manager in the WGA group. "[But] the cause is unknown at this current time." "Customers who received an incorrect validation response can fix their system by revalidating on our site," said Alex Kochis, senior product manager of WGA, in a blog posting. The site Kochis referred to is the Genuine Microsoft Software home page, which includes links to validation tests for Windows and Microsoft Office. "After successfully revalidating, any affected system should be rebooted to ensure the genuine-only features are restored," Kochis continued. The validation server snafu began sometime prior to 8 p.m. EDT on Friday, when users started posting messages on Microsoft's support forums, including Vista Validation Issues, saying that their PCs had been tagged as running nongenuine Windows. Overnight, the number of users adding their accounts to the tale spiked significantly, as did the frustration index. "What in hell is going on, Microsoft?" asked a user named Hedgemeister. "SUPPORT? Where are you? Validation issues with Vista. Hello? All of us need help," wrote Gnrlbzik. "This is an absolute disgrace. Treating legitimate customers like criminals is a great way to make people want to buy your software in the future! [I'm] absolutely disgusted," added Costanza. Although copies of both Windows XP and Vista were being tagged as counterfeit during the 19 hours, users of the latter were especially incensed. The WGA antipiracy scheme for that operating system disables several features when it thinks the copy is bogus, among them the Aero graphical user interface and ReadyBoost. Early in the outage, several Microsoft customers posted what they said was the text of e-mail they had received from Microsoft support that suggested users sit tight for several days. "I'm sorry to inform you that the Windows Genuine server might be down for few days," the e-mail, attributed to Microsoft Technical Support, said. "I have escalated the issue to our Genuine team, kindly try to validate again on Tuesday 28 Aug 2007." If the message was intended to mollify users, it didn't work. "TUESDAY!?! Yeah, f that," said Nooaah. It wasn't until Saturday around 1 p.m. EDT that a non-anonymous Microsoft manager offered up information. "I guarantee that we're working on this issue right now," said Liu in a post to the forum. "My goal is to identify a FIX for this issue -- afterwards get you all what you are looking for, an explanation and cause. I promise I will have an explanation and resolution as soon as humanly possible." Users' testy relationship with WGA Although Microsoft did not identify the number of affected systems Saturday, based on the user comments and Liu's promises, it appeared to be systemwide. If so, it would be the biggest problem so far in the developer's contentious WGA program. Designed to spot pirated copies of its Windows and Office software, WGA has been mandatory since mid-2005 before nonsecurity updates or files can be downloaded from Microsoft's site. WGA has faced criticism almost since its inception, but until Friday, the most vocal complaints dated back to June 2006, when users discovered that the Windows XP version of WGA was "phoning home" to Microsoft every time the PC was booted. Those critics returned when Microsoft upped the ante with Vista by replacing the WGA messages that only nagged XP users suspected of running counterfeits with a new policy that used an RFM (reduced functionality mode) to cripple machines. In RFM, only Internet Explorer works, and then for just an hour at a time. Because RFM only allows a grace period of three days to those who previously activated Windows but are subsequently deemed pirates, any problems must be fixed quickly to prevent customers' PCs from going dark. Microsoft managed to beat the deadline. That, however, didn't mean much to some, who said this was it for their relationship with the vendor. One claimed that he was heading out the door to buy a Mac, while others swore they would switch to Linux. Others called on Microsoft to ditch WGA. "Once again the legitimate person gets screwed while the people who pirate software probably aren't even affected," said Mark in the support forum. "This whole validation process should be dropped. This is just another nail in the Microsoft coffin." Saturday's outage was not the first time the validation service has gone dark and then identified all PCs connecting with the servers as running pirated copies. In October 2006, Microsoft's Kochis acknowledged a similar blackout. "Earlier this week, a server on the back end of the WGA service experienced a bug that resulted in a temporary outage. As a result, some systems were incorrectly flagged as being non-genuine, and we want to confirm for those who contacted us about this that it was indeed an error," he wrote.
503837
Windows Security Center may not know when your antivirus definitions are out of date.