LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Microsoft has announced plans to shelve its subscription-based malware-protection suite in favour of a freeware alternative.
Read more.Microsoft has announced plans to shelve its subscription-based malware-protection suite in favour of a freeware alternative.
How about dealing with the architectural inadequacies of Windows that viruses exploit and makes anti-virus programs necessary?
Originally Posted by Agent
I think you'll find windows is the most secure Operating system out of OSX and linux. Think before you post and get you're facts straight. Some holes can't be blocked or customisation wouldn't be available..As for Morro I will use it. I've not had a virus since I started using vista the week after release.
At least they have given up on the idea of charging us to fix their crappy OS - be grateful
Spot the troll.. either that or you actually BELIEVE that (which is probably more entertaining!)I think you'll find windows is the most secure Operating system out of OSX and linux. Think before you post and get you're facts straight. Some holes can't be blocked or customisation wouldn't be available.
is it under the bridge
That may be the case for Windows 7 and Vista, but i don't think they're under obligation for XP for instance. I think it's rather presumptious of people to blast MS for making a product that can be exploited. When they hold the majority of the market share, people ARE going to find ways to exploit it simply because of the potential gains. Sure you could go to Linux or Mac (although OS X is becoming less and less secure), but i think Windows Vista generally does a good job. I've had maybe one virus on XP, and that was because i was careless. My firewall is enough for me, though i've got ESET Smart Suite installed anyway.
I think this is a good idea and i disagree that it would mean MS having a monopoly on the market. I really don't understand this weird culture of not letting an operating system come with a lot of pre installed applications that are actually useful because it's "monopolising". Arguable Microsoft are in the best position to make an antivirus program as they're privy to their own source code. This is something they should have developed from day 1 really, about time.
You're either:I think you'll find windows is the most secure Operating system out of OSX and linux. Think before you post and get you're facts straight. Some holes can't be blocked or customisation wouldn't be available.
a) Joking
b) Trolling, or
c) Completely insane.
I hope it's a), because I found that somewhat entertaining, and I'd hate to think of you as certifiable. But this is the interbutts afterall, and sometimes it's hard to tell.
Other than a tendency to run everything as one super user, what are these architectural inadequacies?
The kernel offers a lot better protection against would be viruses than most! (so much so it makes making a decent anti-virus hard!)
As we've seen with the rise in userbase on other platforms, viruses just target the easy large numbers, often identical configurations. The amount of LAMP viruses, worms aimed at popular open source (shock horror they have major bugs) forms and stuff like php nuke spring to mind.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
You and I have been over this many times before. There's little point in us repeating what we've said months/years ago.
With default configurations we see in 2008, killing tonnes of legacy stuff (which was where most of the vectors where).
I can't see many design flaws left vrs new security features.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Because doing so would break all existing programs, rendering one of the best things about windows, completely void.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
but there aren't actually that many, legacy problems that occur in a 'server' environment.
Everything running as admin.
'Window Messages' (ie using WM_SETTEXT, things like WM_GETTEXT are 'fixed')
On the desktop the 'dangerous' defaults are still on by default giving users more permissions than they should have, but things like UAC are actually quite a good at mitigating this risk. Thou the fact that the windows user requires no clue is still the most dangerous thing.
Lack of a unified installer means no one can verify anything, but also removes an attack vector.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Behold yee!.. yee be no longer burdened by decades of broken legacy cruft!
But lack of package management creates a huge giant gaping attack vector. Of course, changing that would create a panic among people who deal with click monkeys.
Its a very mixed kettle of fish such a notion, i would only 'like' it if it was done by/as a seperate entity like WHQL.
If you had an iPhone esque you buy all software via me. I'd be very worried.
But the notion that 'downloader beware' is i think still an important rule, having package management dosen't mitigate this risk one ioata (and lets not pretend that even 90% of programmers are good enough to read through source code to assess a programs threat, hell i'd only give a cursory glance at the IAT which is easyer when compiled without IDE tools).
That said even the SMS type distrabution systems microsoft have for enterprise are utter crap. And as has been announced were going back to Side-By-Side.... Oh dear.
But my point still holds true that there are plenty of bad designs in other OS'es, and if i was going to loose backwards compatability, linux certainly isn't worth it. I'd like a microkernel OS, with most hardware drivers in usermode. If i'm not going to be able to play any of my old games, or buy hardware without worrying about compatability, i'd like more than an easy application library.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
