Microsoft Warning re DBR

[sagegrouse]

Whazzis this warning message I got from my computer mean?


Content on this website has been reported as unsafe
gm21wv.com
Hosted by: www.dukebasketballreport.com

We recommend that you do not continue to this website.
Go to my home page instead

This website has been reported to Microsoft for containing threats to your computer that might reveal personal or financial information.

More information

This website has been reported to contain the following threats:

Malicious software threat: This site contains links to viruses or other software programs that can reveal personal information stored or typed on your computer to malicious persons.

Learn more about phishing
Learn more about malicious software
Report that this site does not contain threats
Disregard and continue (not recommended)



Microsoft SmartScreen

sagegrouse

[wilko]

My guess is a UNC grad got hired at MS and is having a little fun....

[uh_no]

Whazzis this warning message I got from my computer mean?



sagegrouse

i have ad block, so don't honestly know if this site has ads, but often they will trigger the non-trusted flag

[Duke71]

Yes, Microsoft is doing a bang-up, thorough job in playing the "big brother" role in looking out for what's best for us on multiple fronts.

I'm a longstanding alum but I only yesterday signed-up for the DBR Board, so that I could occasionally post too. My story is slightly different, but similar principles apply.

As all of you active posters already know, the last step in the acceptance process is receiving a confirming eMail from the DBR Board server asking you to "complete this last step to become a registered member. You will only need to visit this URL once to activate your account."

Since, I knew the drill from other bulletin boards I've registered for, I immediately zeroed in on the hyperlink, started clicking and got nowhere fast. It was only when I browsed the entire eMail that had arrived in my Microsoft Hotmail account (via my pass-thru alumni.duke.edu account) that I spotted the revealing pop-up message from the helpful people at Microsoft, "This message looks very suspicious to our SmartScreen filters, so we've blocked attachments, pictures, and links for your safety."

Sad to say, this stuff is getting more and more necessary, so it's hard for me to automatically blame MS even tho' I'm not a huge fan of theirs. It's just one more "turnover" trying to get in the way of us winning the game.....

[-jk]

Most likely one of the ad companies' servers has been compromised. I saw today that they found more vulnerabilities in Flash (man, I hate that software!).

Best rule: keep your Windows up to date, and your AV, too.

-jk

[moonpie23]

www.apple.com

[uh_no]

www.apple.com

its funny because mac is actually the most vulnerable operating system

http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/02/11/mac.os.vulnerabilities/

[gus]

its funny because mac is actually the most vulnerable operating system

http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/02/11/mac.os.vulnerabilities/

A study by IBM shows IBM to be the most secure? That's a surprise. I also wonder if it's still true in the nearly three years since that article was published.

I'm also not convinced that having a lower percentage of "disclosed" vulnerabilities "addressed" is the best metric for declaring MAC OS as "the most vulnerable". It's a bit like saying Shelden Williams was a better 3 point shooter than JJ in 2003/2004 (40.0% vs 39.5%). And Patrick Johnson is one of the best shooters ever to don a Duke uniform (career 83.3%).

[uh_no]

A study by IBM shows IBM to be the most secure? That's a surprise. I also wonder if it's still true in the nearly three years since that article was published.

I'm also not convinced that having a lower percentage of "disclosed" vulnerabilities "addressed" is the best metric for declaring MAC OS as "the most vulnerable". It's a bit like saying Shelden Williams was a better 3 point shooter than JJ in 2003/2004 (40.0% vs 39.5%). And Patrick Johnson is one of the best shooters ever to don a Duke uniform (career 83.3%).

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1598208/apple-microsoft-trashed-hackers

perhaps the time for elite "hackers" to compromise the system is a more telling stat

[alteran]

A study by IBM shows IBM to be the most secure? That's a surprise. I also wonder if it's still true in the nearly three years since that article was published.

I'm also not convinced that having a lower percentage of "disclosed" vulnerabilities "addressed" is the best metric for declaring MAC OS as "the most vulnerable". It's a bit like saying Shelden Williams was a better 3 point shooter than JJ in 2003/2004 (40.0% vs 39.5%). And Patrick Johnson is one of the best shooters ever to don a Duke uniform (career 83.3%).

Yeah, I'm not sure how I'd parse that either. Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. You just don't know. Apple's could be far worse, or relatively trivial.

I am surprised that Apple was as slow as the article says to fix vulnerabilities. That's certainly not the popular perception.

Just one more metric among many.

[alteran]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1598208/apple-microsoft-trashed-hackers

perhaps the time for elite "hackers" to compromise the system is a more telling stat

Wow, there was some serious snark in that article!

Interesting piece, though. Glad I surf using Chrome.

[uh_no]

Wow, there was some serious snark in that article!

Interesting piece, though. Glad I surf using Chrome.

I think the ultimate takeaway is that you're vulnerable if you don't take precautions. I use a mac at work and a 'pc' otherwise, and the best defense against most attacks is a strong password and good intuition about what is and isn't going to compromise your system.

[gus]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1598208/apple-microsoft-trashed-hackers

perhaps the time for elite "hackers" to compromise the system is a more telling stat

This time a year and a half old article about a hacking competition? You're just googling for anything that supports your original premise, aren't you? But not coming up with much?

Here's a more recent article, referencing the same hacker your older article mentioned:

Experts: OS X now much more secure than rivals (http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/23/leapfrogs.windows.7.linux.but.still.not.perfect/)

It's clearly a myth that Apple is absent security issues (and the claim that Macs don't get viruses should have died what, six years ago?), but you're really stretching with your statement that Apple's is "the most vulnerable operating system".

There are a lot of different ways to define "vulnerable" in this context, but if you choose the to define vulnerable as "susceptible to successful attack", Macs are still less vulnerable than PCs. Of course, what apple fans should realize is that one big reason is not something innate about Apple, but rather a function of market share. So ironically, advertising Macs as safer could lead directly to them being less safe.

[snowdenscold]

Most likely one of the ad companies' servers has been compromised. I saw today that they found more vulnerabilities in Flash (man, I hate that software!).

Best rule: keep your Windows up to date, and your AV, too.

-jk
The Shocking Truth
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg9gvgagDt1qa5z1ro1_400.jpg

[moonpie23]

i did this a while back, but it's still pretty true....

[-jk]

i did this a while back, but it's still pretty true....

Wow! Talk about reaching back... Windows 95 and 3.1?

-jk

[uh_no]

This time a year and a half old article about a hacking competition? You're just googling for anything that supports your original premise, aren't you? But not coming up with much?

Here's a more recent article, referencing the same hacker your older article mentioned:

Experts: OS X now much more secure than rivals (http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/23/leapfrogs.windows.7.linux.but.still.not.perfect/)

It's clearly a myth that Apple is absent security issues (and the claim that Macs don't get viruses should have died what, six years ago?), but you're really stretching with your statement that Apple's is "the most vulnerable operating system".

There are a lot of different ways to define "vulnerable" in this context, but if you choose the to define vulnerable as "susceptible to successful attack", Macs are still less vulnerable than PCs. Of course, what apple fans should realize is that one big reason is not something innate about Apple, but rather a function of market share. So ironically, advertising Macs as safer could lead directly to them being less safe.

Perhaps you consider the original point which was made, essentially that macs are inherently more secure than windows machines, and thus the solution to one's security issues is to buy a mac. Thus i simply needed to show that macs have similar vulnerabilities as PC's, not that they are necessarily MORE vulnerable. I believe I have shown that, and you seem to agree.