Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#231

Post by vanviegen » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #186

vanviegen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is generally also critical of Alphabet, Meta and Amazon. And rightly so. We should be pointing out ethical issues, urging companies to improve. Especially the large and powerful ones. It's just Apple that somehow seems to gets a pass on some occasions.

Accusing MS of a coordinated PR smear campaign against Zoom, with zero evidence other then "it feels like it", is a far cry away from pointing out ethical issues.

I agree. But that doesn't make all of HN an 'anti-MS echo chamber'.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#232

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #150

pokepim wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't see how you got from my post to that conclusion. Did I forget a word or write something extremely unclear?

No, you didn't. pokepim either misread, jumped to conclusions, or just saw a chance to grind an axe that they were just itching to grind.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#233

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #11

> We reported the issues to Microsoft in March 2021, who has only remediated one so far I feel that I read something like this almost every single time Microsoft is mentioned in a vulnerability disclosure. What makes the company so bad at dealing with security reports? I don't expect it to be a lack of talents or resources, or is it?

There may be an element of survivorship bias. You hear about the ones where someone whines that they didn't fix it. When they fix it quickly, all you hear are the grumbles about yet another software update.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#234

Post by dspillett » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #226

dspillett wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you used Zoom prior to last summer you are entitled to… Assuming you are a US citizen and were using zoom from a US location at the time.

If it's bad enough to violate US false advertising law, I imagine it violates that of most countries.

As far as I know there has been no similar court case outside the US, so the “you are entitled to” part doesn't count elsewhere. But yes, that is still a good indicator of how egregious the attempted misinforming was.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#235

Post by hocker_news » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

hnthrowaway0315 wrote: post #197

Does anyone know why they have to do weekly micro patch? I mean who is the PM and does he/she really believe it's enough to do tests for weekly releases? The last patch on MacOS was released on the 16th and today I see anew patch. BTW the picture issue is still there.

> BTW the picture issue is still there.

What do you mean by that exactly?

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#236

Post by trevorishere » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #138

rob74 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I fail to understand why Zoom seems to have so many fans. I find the UI confusing, on my Linux machine having a call with video will lead to the CPU cooler going into overdrive, I often have to leave and re-enter calls because audio output isn't working, etc. etc.

Zoom has a free version and the UI isn't that bad - and it scales to quite large groups. It's not nearly as confusing as Webex. And the video and audio quality are better than Teams. And no one knows what Google is offering this week (I think it's Meet, but maybe Hangouts or Duo or are they all the same now?)

Audio quality on Zoom is downright worse with a hallow, distant sound -- Zoom is/was using the same codec as Skype (Silk) which Teams replaced earlier this year (Satin) which is much more robust and capable.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#237

Post by detaro » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #145

detaro wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pattern of stories indicated that it was a thing that got attention, so people went digging for whatever they could find and push. You don't need a conspiracy for something to get way more attention than others.

Would they drip-feed what they found though? Sounds like you need some form of coordination for that at least.

The "drip-feed" of people finding things not all at the same time, and basing their search on previous findings?

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#238

Post by grvdrm » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

stevesimmons wrote: post #183

Teams is sometimes comically bad... For instance, 4 people in a video chat, not an uncommon use case. The simples and most logical screen layout would be 1/4 of the screen each. No: one person gets 1/2 the screen, with a tall vertical slice. Two people get 1/4 of the screen, normal aspect ratio. And you get a tiny window in the top corner.

I feel so validated by this comment. Cannot understand how Teams lays out participant video windows. I keep looking for a magic “arrange by” context option that obviously does not exist.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#239

Post by hnthrowaway0315 » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

hocker_news wrote: post #235

hnthrowaway0315 wrote: post #197

Does anyone know why they have to do weekly micro patch? I mean who is the PM and does he/she really believe it's enough to do tests for weekly releases? The last patch on MacOS was released on the 16th and today I see anew patch. BTW the picture issue is still there.

> BTW the picture issue is still there. What do you mean by that exactly?

You see a picture in a chat, you click it, it shows up fine. You click it again, it shows a white screen. Has been going on for a while on MacOS.

Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities

#240

Post by artificialLimbs » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

ncann wrote: post #213

artificialLimbs wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until you discover the joys of Teams search.

The pros of Teams search is it is pretty good at finding things, like random chat message from someone who has left the company years ago. The cons of Teams search is it is almost useless when you can only view the single message in the result list, e.g. a single chat message without any surrounding messages for context, and also no possible way to jump to the conversation for that message.

This is "the joys" of Teams search.