Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says Vista Most Secure OS Ever
darryl24 writes "Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia opened up TechEd 2006 in Boston Sunday evening by proclaiming that Windows Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry. But a bold statement can only go so far, and much of this week's conference has been spent reinforcing that point. Microsoft also acknowledges that nothing is infallible when it comes to computer security. In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team."
The most secure OS ever? No one will take them seriously seeing as a) Its Microsoft, b) Its a ridiculous claim, c) The OS has been delayed and delayed and delayed, had tons of stuff removed, and d) THE OS ISNT EVEN OUT YET! Microsoft loves making such bold ridiculous statements. Maybe Vista is the most secure Windows platform ever (even that'd be impressive, NT was fairly solid...) but at least wait till launch for christs sake! Vista is slowly turning into the biggest joke in the Computing Industry, if they continue at this rate they'll even beat Windows ME..! PS- are the comments detail bar along the top of your screen (even when you scroll down), and the muliple story categories new? Swear I never noticed those before...
It's secure, until they publish it.
CALGARY (ADP) - In a stunning development in the open source movement, the OpenBSD project, led by developer Theo de Raadt, was bombed and strafed by a hitherto-unknown air force belonging to private software corporation Microsoft (NYSE:MSFT).
de Raadt's home, and the University of Alberta data center holding the OpenBSD CVS servers, were attacked nearly simultaneously. Though the attack only lasted fifteen minutes, it left hundreds of innocent Windows users injured.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a "sharply worded" protest to the United States government.
Shortly after the attack, Microsoft has released a publicity photo of Bill Gates, standing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, underneath a banner saying simply, "Mission Accomplished."
Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman could not be reached for comment. Sources close to Stallman said he was "somewhere underneath Cheyenne Mountain, importing the OpenBSD source tree into the Hurd."
Carousel is a lie!
As always, future history is yet to be written--although it tends to reflect and repeat the past.
Sigs cause cancer.
I think PhantomOS is more secure. No virus in the world can infect an OS that does not exist.
My work here is dung.
Make a bold claim, do a bold presentation.
Bit of a clarification...they mean this sort of Black Hat.
Given Microsofts track record, and the fact that they've made similar claims with other releases of Windows, I'll wait to see if they speak the truth. Only after Vista has been widely deployed and all the worlds hackers have had plenty of time to bang on it will I believe what Microsoft has to say.
Those blackhats are just making notes of the real vulnerabilities while reporting simple superficial ones.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
The word unblowuppable is thrown around a lot these days...
Vista is amazingly secure. I've been trying to crack a Windows Vista machine all morning, and I can't even find one. Nothing like those operating systems that people are actually using.
said that for every version of Windows, and it's right if you considere two premises :
1) The OS is not used by anyone when the "most secure" sentence was released.
2) The only OS existing in the Microsoft world has the one made by Microsoft (excluding OS/2).
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
If the "industry" he's referring to is "the MIcrosoft operating systems industry"...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, it's the most secure operating system ever... and from my use of the beta, I might be tempted to believe that. Here's an example of that "security": *insert CD*
"You've just inserted an insecure piece of removable media. Are you sure you want to proceed?"
*clicks yes*
*launches Internet Exploiter*
"You are attempting to connect to the internet. The internet is a very insecure place. Are you sure you want to do?"
*clicks "Yes"*
"Are you really sure? I mean, there are viruses out there on the internet. Do you know what a virus is? I mean, this stuff can really mess your computer up! Are you absolutely sure you want to connect to the internet?"
*clicks "Yes"*
"Oooooh, sorry - you don't have sufficient privileges to connect to the internet. Contact your Administrator or type your Administrator password now."
*types password*
*connects to internet*
"You are attempting to send an IP packet over an unsecured interface. This is how viruses get on your computer. Are you sure want to send this packet?"
*sighs* *clicks "Yes"*
*beep beep beep* "USER ALERT: Your computer has received an unsecured packet from the internet! This packet could be part of a virus! Are you certain you want to allow this packet into the application for processing?"
*clicks "Yes."
"You are attempting to send an IP packet over an unsecured interface. This is how viruses get on your computer. Are you sure want to send this packet?"
*sighs* *clicks "Yes"*
*beep beep beep* "USER ALERT: Your computer has received an unsecured packet from the internet! This packet could be part of a virus! Are you certain you want to allow this packet into the application for processing?"
*kicks computer*
*installs Linux/BSD or buys Mac*
VERY secure, indeed.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
And I bet the penetratees are the Windows Vista beta "testers".
Cool, MS doesn't even need to pay for them :) .
And MS-Bob was the BESTEST GUI EVER!!11
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
how secure it is, is yet to be seen... but sad as it is... many suits will believe it just because MS say is it.
I will keep an open mind on this, but I will assert that I think that it was foolish for Microsoft to say that. I bet the hackers will see that as a challenge that they WILL overcome.
I noticed in this article that they're treading on our acronyms.
SDL - Security Development Lifecycle
Relatively inconspicuous. Simple DirectMedia Layer has nothing to fear from this in terms of mindshare. But then again, they knew that SDL was in use. Why not show a bit of cooperation?
RMS - Rights Management Something
This one is amazing, because it's basically DRM named after Richard Stallman. Someone at Microsoft either has a sense of humor, or is a complete prick. I really doubt that this was accidental.
It's superficial, but I think both examples are very symbolic.
In other news, Kellogs say Corn Flakes "taste nice". Film at eleven.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
...sound like a challenge to me... Let's count the kinds of attacks that have existed in the past: Bad daemon/service design allowing for root control through the service itself remotely Bad daemon/service permissions allowing a buffer overflow to give one service-level command access Bad port use allowing for access to stuff that should be off by default Bad user permissions control requiring everyone who actually want to do something to have local admin access Bad MS software design giving software designed to look at public (read: anything) access to the service or kernel level Bad implementation of MS software allowing for public, untrusted content to arbitrarily install stuff on the PC (see also: the Balmer Story) Sounds like we have a lot of possible places to start, and I'm not even someone used to breaking into Microsoft systems. There are probably many, many more vectors of attack that I haven't thought of without even resorting to social engineering or taking advantage of stupid or ignorant users...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Any operating system that is capable of the tasks contemporary computer users want that system to do (being connected to the Internet as the prime example) is one that can be configured to be exploited.
Second, it is empirically accurate to state that no one has complete, a priori knowledge of bugs in a reasonably complex piece of software, some of which could lead to exploit conditions.
Third, is it even theoretically possible to have a priori knowledge of such bugs given a system of sufficient complexity?
Online citizen journalism from the inner city: The View From The Ground
How does hiring a dozen black hat hackers compare to having thousands of professionals seeking errors at large?
The power of the public is cooperation. Someone finds a small bit and _shares_ it with others. A dozen guys in a microsoft office (pun) have none of this power.
Not finding a hole is no proof of being airtight anyway.
vajk
Microsoft claim that this is the most secure OS to date... but they also claim that it's incredibly stable. I don't get how that works.
If you want security, use Windows 95... A crashed computer is incredibly secure - far more secure than Vista.
Of course it's secure. How can someone hack into it if its so complex that even the guys and gals who are writing can't understand it. That's safe -- kind of like putting you money in a safe to which no one knows the combination (and on which the combination is not a factory default Mr Feynman).
You can't possibly know how secure an OS is until it's deployed in the wild, statistics are garnered, attacks are noted, etc., etc. To preemptively announce that "Vista [is] the most secure OS in the industry" before it is even released makes me think Microsoft is still high on itself.
Maybe it's just marketspeak, or maybe it's more of the same arrogance that they know better what is secure than reality does. I'll sit back and wait for a few years, thanks.
Seriously though, I've resigned myself to saying that Windows does the job for many people. But a secure desktop OS it is not. It's not designed like that. In steadily fewer cases, it isn't even the best tool for the job.
Microsoft will repeat the security message in the media until most people believe it. Meanwhile I'll still have plenty of work babysitting their products and buying security software to use on top of their "secure" software.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You know that's one of those statements that will come back and bite them in the ass.
It's like handing software to QA and saying "I've got all the bugs out this time."
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
* Steve Jobs says OSX has the best UI ever.
* Reggie Fils-Aime says Nintendo DS is the most advanced handheld ever.
* GM says the Chevy Tahoe is the safest truck ever.
* My mom says last mother's day was the best ever.
Conclusion? People like to blow their horn and advertise what they have.
Sorry about that. Did someone say Microsoft thinks they've got "t3h m0st s3cur3 05 ev4r lollll!!!!1111" or something?!
Arent the white hat hackers typically the ones employed for legitimate jobs such as this? Now I'm confused :-s
Could someone explain the difference between the two so I can make sure I didnt screw up?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
The message should have looked like:
...sound like a challenge to me...
Let's count the kinds of attacks that have existed in the past:
Bad daemon/service design allowing for root control through the service itself remotely
Bad daemon/service permissions allowing a buffer overflow to give one service-level command access
Bad port use allowing for access to stuff that should be off by default
Bad user permissions control requiring everyone who actually want to do something to have local admin access
Bad MS software design giving software designed to look at public (read: anything) access to the service or kernel level
Bad implementation of MS software allowing for public, untrusted content to arbitrarily install stuff on the PC (see also: the Balmer Story)
Sounds like we have a lot of possible places to start, and I'm not even someone used to breaking into Microsoft systems. There are probably many, many more vectors of attack that I haven't thought of without even resorting to social engineering or taking advantage of stupid or ignorant users...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If you've looked at any statistics you can see that no one has ever cracked into a Vista Server. Ever. It's amazing. In fact, and the numbers don't lie here, there has never been a public patch for security reasons.
Simply amazing.
said, Tony the Tiger.
* White Star Lines Pronounces Titanic "Unsinkable"
* Hindenburg Safest Way To Fly
* Ford Pinto Named Safest Car For 1973
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I seem to recall similar statements made in 2001 about new and improved user-oriented operating system XP. XP was supposed to be the most secure O/S ever and M$ made lots of statements about it being very secure, best ever, very hard to hack, etc.
h tml
v /0555.html
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/12/21.5.s
It was so secure that a guide had to be published, Windows XP: Surviving the first day:
http://seclists.org/lists/security-basics/2003/No
After I installed the Vista beta I can no longer access my hard drive. Linux fdisk, Partition Magic: nothing will let me back in (can't even repartition!).
Can't get much more secure than that...
Seriously, though, the drive really is unreadable. Don't know if Vista managed to kill it (how?!?!) or if it's just a strange coincidence.
Life is short: void the warranty.
It's getting boring. I heard the same argument last time when they released Win XP, and before for Win 98.
Would you stop already. Always the best and revolutionary like never before.
Life will show that nothing really changed, except Microsoft coffins getting bigger
the first virus gets unleashed named "Hasta la vista!"
That not even Microsoft's air force can shoot straight.
The University of Alberta is in Edmonton.
what's this in the article about MS using acronyms such as RMS and SDL? Could this be part of the extend and conquer strategy? Next thing you know they will use LIB, KDE, RHL, PHP, LAMP or OSS as part of their system naming scheme. No, really.
Admitting employment of black hats is admitting a crime. Or, if they did a legal work, they are not black hats. Or, the article is messed up.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Claiming Vista to be the most secure OS ever when it has already had a security flaw is just insane and tells us that MS still just don't get it. Or maybe they do get it. After all they make billions. It is sad but lying to the gullible pays better then telling the truth to the clever. There are just so many more gullible people. Last count about 6 billion.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"...the company has employed black hat hackers...
By definition, if you employ hackers to test an operating system, they are NOT "black hat" hackers - they are, at best, "grey hat" hackers.
Definition from Wikipedia:
Usually a Black hat is a person who maintains knowledge of the vulnerabilities and exploits they find as secret for private advantage, not revealing them either to the general public or the manufacturer for correction.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Their marketing dept is hedging its bets.
Black hats have been "penetrating" the "back door" of microsoft since the beginning. Nothing new here.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Falling Out Laughing
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's so secure that even the owner of the computer can't control it.
Technoli
That's exactly the statement they made about XP. And we see how far that went...
I doubt Vista is even the most secure MS OS... there is no way you could haxx0r my MS-DOS 5.0 box!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
And it's not shipping yet either.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
One of the big arguments against use of illegal drugs is that it financially supports an immoral, illegal, and corrupt system. Even though you may use your stash at home and in a manner that doesn't hurt anyone else, your money goes to the drug dealers, crime lords, and liberal democrats ... err... god-forsaken hedonists that are corrupting the very soul of this country.
Is Microsoft saying that they actually handed over money, got sentences reduced, or somehow offered compensation to the black hat hackers that they've been so anxious to bring down in the past? Isn't this in itself immoral?
...Just like XBOX360 was unhackable.....sure
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Remember "DNS?" Digital Nervous System?
That's okay. Nobody else does, either.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
... and you will be able to run it in five minutes.
Five minutes pass.
GOTO LINE 1.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
since if you run tcp/ip on an old trash-80, for example, no hacker would even wait on the line long enough for the first response packet to come back. he'd time-out LONG before the z80a could respond.
there you go - security by lack of clock speed. (has that ever been done before?)
"most secure os ever". pffft! anyone who would believe this deserves to run --(xp++)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The OSS community has been calling out all the security vulnerabilities of Windows for quite some time and people now pretty much take it as fact... I wonder if Microsoft's new solution to security will just be a DRM'd closed platform where everything has to be signed by Microsoft in order to run. That would be security, if everything made to run under microsoft had to be approved by microsoft. Wouldn't quite be a computer anymore. But all you wonderful IT geeks out there having been pushing a locked down computer for years as a way to make computers secure... I think this is just going to come back and bite you now. Instead of your company's IT department dictating what you can and cannot put on your computer, it will be Microsoft.
Because no hacker can affoard a computer powerfull enough to power it.
"This is the most secure operating system in the world! Let's go test it to see if it's secure!"
Meanwhile...
"I'll pay you guys one-hundred dollars each if you pretend to be script kiddies."
"Two-hundred."
"Deal."
No matter how secure they make Vista or any OS there will always be those users/hackers who have too much free time their hands and want to make life miserable for the rest of us. The real problem lays with the users who incorrectly store lucrative information without securing their actual computer network.
...am I supposed to put something here?
Did someone break the network driver again?
Global Warming is a myth,
Carrot Top is funny,
Cigerettes don't cause cancer,
Irac had weapons of mass destruction,
George Bush is listening to your phone calls to make you safe.
... ever made. After all Microsoft said so both in 1996 and 1999.
So until holes appear in either platform I think we can trust Microsoft when they say something is secure. After all I never heard of a single security hole in WindowsXP or IIS or any server product from MS. Have you?
http://saveie6.com/
3D Realms declared today that "Duke Nuken Forever" is The Best Game Ever! With an incredible non-linear storyline, incredible learning AI across games, outrageous low-lag multiplay, both 1stP and ortho views - and runs on a standard gaming machine! Published with a complete set of of level-making tools and start-of-the-art texture and atmosphere effects, Duke Nuken Forever is set to be the most played game ever.
3D Realms gave a presentation of the all the features that will help Duke keep the number one spot in the market. It also outlined the TV channel, movies series and theme park spun from the elements of the game.
Check it out!
Well they probably take all the holes they are learning from XP and patch it on Vista. XP is more secure than any of the other windows OS's. What they do is just patch what has allready been patched from older OS's and anything new that pops up such as the MSN bug. They know to put that fix in vista aswell. Now alot of people will say "Oh this OS is more secure" but what you have to think is how many people care to even try and exploit that OS. Say you take Windows 3.1 Right now if you ran that there is a very small chance someone will discover a new exploit and post it on slashdot or something. People who find these exploits and holes only care about what people use today. Which is kind of why linux doesnt have as many issues with security as windows. The majority of businesses use Windows Server environements. As linux MAC's or whatever else begins to grow more and more people will be interesting in finding holes. But as for now I think Microsoft is just taking the issue that are arising with XP and just making notes for Vista. Makes sense why they think it is the most Secure OS, but that doesnt mean it wont have its problems.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Vista has little to offer other than what they are touting. Vista is most secure in the world. Microsoft has little to offer other than what they are touting.
If you are lucky enough to have seen vista in action you know it is nothing more than XP SP3 with a newer looking interface and a rather annoying prompt for every action security feature.
Microsoft is in the habit of telling half truths. Why would be believe this is any more true. If it is only half true then we are looking at a lie because it certainly can't be 2 times as good as any other OS that's secure.
Highly unlikely that BSD or even the linux community will agree that Microsoft's new interface for XP is anything more than just that.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Are you sure about that ? this IS Microsoft after all ;). If anyone can compromise an OS surely it's them.
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
...... Microsoft has anounced that 3 eploits have been found and are currently in the wild.
Even though the Windows Vista OS has not been released yes hackers found ways to break the OS security.
We interviewed one of the hackers and he had this to say.
Hacker: OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!!1111one M1cr0suxx is t3h sh1tz0rz!!!!! W3 h@xx0rr3d d3mz!! WTFPWN3D!!!
And there you have it.
I don't know what's funnier, your message or the "Insightful" moderation.
The captcha for this message is "diapers", how appropriate. :-P
1 .Iraq has WMD.
Let's see... that would be the lie that Saddam's own weapons people were telling him. Or weren't you paying attention to those details? Certainly the intel agencies across the globe thought they were still there. You know, the ones that we saw giant piles of on multiple inspections, and which his regime refused to explain away, in terms of where they all went (not counting the truck caravans going into Syria, of course).
2. Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
The only people spouting that one are the people trying to say it often enough to make people believe that the US government actually said that... the better to make political points against the same. In other words, you are the one saying that, so that you can point out how not true it is. In the meantime, the people actually dealing with the problem went to Afghanistan, where the people who did it were actually being sheltered. Of course, the Taliban and A-Q did have regular contact with Saddam's intel people, but that was just on matters of routine cash, weapons, and operating territory. But getting rid of him was every bit as important as denying Taliban shelter to A-Q. Especially since he had things like "annex neighboring countries" and "lob SCUDs at Israel" on his regular to-do list. Oh, and publicly making large payments to the families of terrorist bombers, gassing whole villages, bulldozing mass graves, that sort of thing. You do actually comprehend this stuff, right? I mean, you're just pretending you don't know it, to score shallow rhetorical points, right?
3. Profit! (for big business, at least)
And which large companies, employing hundreds of thousands of people and providing services that small businesses cannot provide, would you like to see operating at a loss? How would you replace them when they fail? Would you have small mom-and-pop antibiotic manufacturers? Neighborhood hybrid car factories run by families with 10 employees? Motherboards made by hand with soldering irons? Aircraft made by the great grandchildren of the Wright brothers in the same bicycle shop? Natural gas pumped and transported a few gallons at a time in backpacks? Oh... you're the type that would rather the government did all of that. Well, just come out and say it, then. That's so much more straight forward than hoping that people will see your BS is just a callow, sarcastic charade.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Mod the entire article as +5 Funny and move on...
No one can compromise an OS that hasn't even been released yet.
Exactly... just like this one.
The retail version of Vista is the most secure OS ever.
MS just left off the "Because no one is using it yet".
In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team.
So, if they go through fourteen teams, will the next one be the Pen15 team?
You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
if it's never delivered and can't actually be installed
Windows Vista is the most secure operating system in the industry
For me to poop on.
Oh yeah? MY OS requires blood and tissue samples as well as an FBI background check to log on and the user can do one of two things: log off or reboot. No network (or God forbid internet) access, no access to install or run programs or peripherals. Nothing. But boy is it secure! Yep, nobody is EVER going to hack into it.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Anyone can make claims, but the proof will be in the pudding. I look forward to the first /. article on "first Vista security patch announced" and the corresponding flame war over that. All I think M$ has done is put a big ass target on their precious new OS. Nice job guys!
*cough*bullshit*cough*
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
I'm using the Beta (thinking of giving up *NIX), and I have to say security has defi
### MASTER MEGA-MILLION LOTTERY###
######### THERE WAS A COMPUTER BALLOT WHICH QUALIFIED YOU AS ONE OF THE WINNER OF THE SUM OF ########
######### US$ 2,000,000,00 (TWO MILLION, UNITED STATES DOLLAR) FOR MORE ENQUIRIES AND INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: #########
---southpaw
>>>>>>>>>>>> VISTA >>>>>>>> HACK ME NOW
+++
no carrier.
just like simon says . i gave that game up in my childhood ...
On the Intarweb, such grandiose claims of superiority over one's foes are usually spelled "EVAR".
in my country this is called prostitution and is not legal
Yeah, I hoped Steve Ballmer to come out and say:
Look, this Vista thing is good, but it still hasn't reached the security, stability or performance levels of any of our previous versions, but please: Buy it, I need that money desperately or my wife will leave me.
...only to system to repel all viruses released before December 25, 2005: Altimit?
If you're a Windows user, open Notepad and type in this phrase, without the quote marks and with no carriage return: "Bush hid the facts". Now save it and open it again. The subversive text is probably gone, replaced by a line of white boxes, or Chinese characters if you have the font.
It's not the massive right-wing conspiracy it might seem, though. The folks at WinCustomize.com discovered an odd bug in Notepad that's triggered by a text file consisting of a four-letter word, two three-letter words, and a five letter word. Some text does it -- "this app can break" is their example -- some doesn't.
If Microsoft can't keep strange bugs out of Windows' simplest application, we'd better get used to the monthly security patch cycle throughout Vista's lifetime.
Didn't Microsoft also call the original Xbox unhackable?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
No one can compromise an OS that hasn't even been released yet.
r +Windows+Vista+found/2100-7349_3-5819428.html
2 .gif
Really?
http://news.com.com/First+potential+virus+risk+fo
But then, Microsoft did the same claim about their Windows XP, touting it to be the most secure version of Windows, and even rolling such funny ads as this one, promoting XP:
http://www.dolphinwave.org/Media/Local/msbanner_1
And then there was MS Blast, probably the most devastating blast against Windows at those times...
Now they claim it to be not just the most secure Windows, but the most secure OS! Imagine the magniture of the next upcoming hit it will take...
By not releasing it, they have managed to make the most secure OS in the world, but just wait until its in the wild!
FTA: ...Windows Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry. (emphasis mine)
I have to wonder why the article didn't use the present tense "is" or future tense "will be" considering that Vista is still in beta! So what IS the most secure OS?
--
I laughed until I stopped.
I *think* the mainframe OSes do an one interesting thing, that is making the user that has superuser rights with respect to granting access to resources (under RACF) different from the user that would be otherwise equivalent with UNIX's root and such that the root equivalent can't change access control and is general excluded from accessing data.
My first thought is that of course the root-equivalent could bypass the security system but I think one would have to do the equivalent of writing and loading a kernel module plus user space tools to do so. Thus it provides a reasonably high barrier compared with the lack of barrier between a UNIX root user and the system's (and user's) data.
Muglia claims that "Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry" [emphasis added]. Notice that Muglia uses the past tense, "was." Depending on the time period he had in mind, I find nothing wrong with his statement. Before Vista was released to the public, it may well have been the most secure operating system in the industry. However, to claim that it remains so at this time is utter folly.
Zastava corporation announces that yugo is the best car ever, USA annonces that USA is the freest country ever, And the Devil announces that hell is the coldest place ever
-------
1. Enjoy your job
2. Make lots of money
3. Work within the law
Choose any two.
Of course it is... virtually no one is using it yet. While Vista is obscure, it follows that there will be little exploitive effort. As always, future history is yet to be written--although it tends to reflect and repeat the past.
Seems I've heard this song and dance before, just before a multi-year parade of vulnerabilities and exploits which would have made the Fall of the Roman empire look like an upended tea cup.
Hell, they're all going to be billionaires all over again and end users will muddle through as always.
Lucky Sisyphus, the rock didn't come with Windows.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I guess that means that Vista won't be able to connect to the internet. Eliminate the source, eliminate the problem, right?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
For some reason, MS saying that makes me think of that line...
(Sorry if I butchered it a bit).
today is spelling optional day.
can they really compose a sentance that contains the words "Windows, AND SECURE" without the secure being introduced with a "not"?
they probably started to write "microsoft says vista is most secure os ever"...then lightening crashed all around them
An OS that crashes every 10 seocnds cannot be hacked, after all.
[/BS]
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
So far it's certainly secure, it's so secure that i couldn't even get the beta version to start, hopefully the final release will be a little less secure than that.
Blazing Spiders
That begs the question: Which industry is Bob talking about? If it is Windows OS, then the answer is yes. If it is OS that run on x86, then most of us are skeptical given that is what MS has said about NT, XP, 2003, etc. They are getting better in terms of security but they are not the most secure.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There must be a reason for desire to upgrade from XP to Vista. As far as I know Vista does not have ANY feature in the corporate or home user environment, which sends the urge to line up at computer stores on the release day to catch a copy.
The only "real argument" for upgrading is this "most secure OS in the entire universe" marketing slogan. The public is sick and tired of all the security flaws, consumers are "ready", they have been waiting for the software Messiah to arrive.
By "secure" they must mean "annoying." I'm running Vista beta 2 right now and I'm running into all sorts of security-related issues. Like warning popups when applications run, local admins not being able to delete things, local admins not even being able to do an "ipconfig /release" in order to get a new IP address via DHCP. Seriously, Vista is going to drive people freaking nuts!!
But I would never, ever, ever utter the words Vista, OpenBSD, and security in the same sentence in a positive tone.
Slashdot users do not give Microsoft the credit it deserves. I've been using MS Windows for years and have frequently found myslef locked out of the desktop and unable to do anything.
My current employer's IT department has set up our computers (running XP Pro) such that we are incapable, no matter how hard we try, of playing DVDs, using the command line or even sending attachments via email. Now THAT is security. In fact, our systems are so secure it almost feels like I'm using my old AtariST. Well, I could download binaries via dial-up with my Atari and I can't even use dial-up with my PC. Computer Security has taken care of that little hole.
The fact is that our Computer Security has removed more features from Windows than most computers had just a few years ago all in the name of security and no matter how determined, I just can't restore it.
Come to think of it, the only thing more secure than Windows is using nothing at all and sometimes, when a new virus comes out, we do. They have even put little locks on the cases to keep us out of the case so we can't replace the HD (or steal the 128Meg of RAM out of our $400 Dells)
So come on slashdotters, give MS credit where credit is due. I have no doubt whatsoever that the New Windows Vista will have the ability for admins to lock the desktop user out of every single feature and function it offers and, in the end, isn't that what security is all about?
Did they mean secure desktop OS? OSX is probably more secure. If you want to stretch a bit and include workstation-based unices, I worked with Data General to audit the security of their C standard library and assorted UNIX utilies (They had to document all that for DOD B2 certification) and I'm willing to bet that even Solaris and Linux are at least as secure as Vista if not more so.
Maybe they meant the most secure OS ever from Microsoft. That I'd be willing to believe, although DOS 5.0 was pretty good as long as you didn't share your disks out to all your friends...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
if vista is their "most secure os ever", it must be the same way mcdonalds food is "the healthiest it's been, ever"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Dick Cheney repeatedly asserted that Saddam was connected to 9/11, and clearly implied that invading Iraq was legitimate retaliation for the attacks of 9/11.
HaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHa aHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaaH aaHaa
Oh stop it, you're killing me you silly bastard!
The only way to secure a microsoft OS is to set the damned thing on fire and hope it doesn't get hacked before it burns up.
Vista..Microsoft...most secure OS ever...
That's F-ing rich!
This is a gag right!???
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
...any operating system that makes you confirm deletion of an icon on your desktop 3 times MUST be secure!
Take THAT you silly hackers!
The keyword here is "Was". It WAS the most secure OS ever in an alternate dimension in a land far far away.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
Let's see, I believe that claim was made about NT, 2000, XP, XPsp2, and Server 2003, which in fairness was the first OS they even really tried to make secure. It was also made about the XBox in terms of "unhackability" (which may not be a word, but should be).
So why would even the most hard core MS fanboy believe them this time? They have clearly shown a long running pattern of being unable to understand what "secure" means, but I bet there are people out there going "good, MS says this is secure, now all those alternative OS weenies can shut up".
Reminds of COPS where you see the woman with the black eye crying "But he loves me, he won't do it again" as the police take away her drunken, shirtless boyfriend.
Finkployd
What industry, the Toy industry? For the love of God, spare me.
...Apple claims the G5 is the fastest personal computer ever, Gates claims 640k should be enough for anyone. This claim should be filed neatly in /dev/null
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
Well, they do beat OpenBSD - Vista has zero remote root exploits in the default install so far. Don't let anyone tell you that that's because it hasn't been released yet, ok?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...how long before before the first exploit after GA? I think XP was the first release after the formation of the Microsoft Committee on Security Excellence (or whatever that added layer of buracracy was) where Gates hired some IT/IP security guy and they made security job one or some such. Wonder where that guy is now.
Ok. Who are the black hats, are they any good, and how stupid is MS? Either these are actually white hats and MS is trying to look cool, or else they just hired a bunch of people who would love nothing more than to break Vista and -not- tell MS about it.
Unpleasantries.
Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia opened up TechEd 2006 in Boston Sunday evening by proclaiming that Windows Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA AH HAHA A
WHAHAHAHABWAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH!
*snort*
Yeah. That Bob guy is a pretty funny.
One has to wonder how many people won't even bother to upgrade to Vista in the first place.
For example, in every review I've read, it appears you need more than 1 GB of RAM, preferably more than 2 GB or more, and a top of the line video card with more than 128 graphics memory.
Additionaly, for reasonable performance with your normal multi-application usage, you have to have better than 4 GHz or a dual core CPU.
This pretty much rules out most laptops I've seen around, and a lot of home PCs.
I can't see paying more than $2000 (more like $4000) for a new PC (or $5000 for a laptop) as well as an additional $2000 for replacement applications, just because Microsoft wants us to pay them more money.
Unless I'm wrong on these counts, I'm going to stick with WinXP for my home laptop and work PC, and consider switching to Linux soon.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
7. ???
8. Profit!!! (To the tune of a few hundred billion)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is a trivially true statement, for certain values of "the industry".
:= "Microsoft Operating Systems". .....
That is: "the industry"
Oh, you actually thought "the industry" might mean something else? Silly human.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Total bull crap. Microsoft has said that about EVERY single OS they have made. They said that about XP and look what it turned into..
Linux, because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
Secure code doesn't stop insecure users, and then those insecure users saying your software is insecure. They totally missed the point.
Blame the user, not the software.
Clippy has a black hat and six shooters now ...
Clippy: I see you're trying to type a memo, would you like me to help?
User: No.
Clippy: Is it ok if I delete the memo, since you mistyped a word?
User: No.
Clippy: I'm just going to shut off the Internet, it might send some viruses in the future if someone doesn't like you - ok?
User: No.
Clippy: Oops. You just typed a word in Arabic! You might be a terrorist! I'm going to send a copy of your memo to the NSA right now!
User: tries to turn off Clippy
Clippy: Well, that did it! Noone turns off Clippy, especially a terrorist! I'm going to shutdown this computer!
User: turns off computer, installs BSD or Linux
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Microsoft secure, now that is funny... Why do you think most ports on MS are open, So MS can see what you are up to. I don't think that is going to change
Dick Cheney repeatedly asserted that Saddam was connected to 9/11, and clearly implied that invading Iraq was legitimate retaliation for the attacks of 9/11.
Nope, sorry. He repeatedly pointed out that there were indications of a connection between Al Queda and Saddam's intelligence apparatus (being shown more and more each day to be exactly true), and very reasonably pointed out the need for a more stable, democratic middle east in the wake of 9/11. "Retaliation" is your choice of words. His description was simply that it was important/essential. Which, of course, it was and still is.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
MS SVP Bob Muglia...
So, that's the infamous "Microsoft Bob" everybody keeps talking about!
The first sentence has both MICROSOFT and BOB in it.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
>So, it's the most secure operating system ever... and from my use of the beta, I might be tempted to believe that. Here's an example of >that "security":
...
> *insert CD*
> "You've just inserted an insecure piece of removable media. Are you sure you want to proceed?"
> *clicks yes*
> *launches Internet Exploiter*
> "You are attempting to connect to the internet. The internet is a very insecure place. Are you sure you want to do?"
> *clicks "Yes"*
> "Are you really sure? I mean, there are viruses out there on the internet. Do you know what a virus is? I mean, this stuff can really mess >your computer up! Are you absolutely sure you want to connect to the internet?"
> *clicks "Yes"*
A Virus once bit my sister
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Virus
with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given
her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and
star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst
Nordfink".
-- All apologies to Monty Python
Frankly MS have a mountain to climb, and I'll bet that a year from now (assuming it actually ships in that time frame) Bob Muglia will be too embarrassed by that claim to show his face.
to the point where you don't even want to turn on the computer.
"This is a fictional example of where things are going"
User: click to open word
Vista: are you sure you want to do that
user: click yes
Vista: are you absolutely sure you want to open this program
user: click yes mumble mumble
Vista: Warning this program has the capability of running macro viruses
user: click ok, like I didn't know that
Vista: do you want to see this warning again
user: click no
Vista: Are you sure
user: click yes, ggrrrr
Vista: Word opens
Vista: There is a new security update for this software would you like to install it now
user: what the, Click no
Vista: are you sure this is very unsafe!
user: oh for the love of Pete where's my pen and paper!!
Microsoft: Yet another user saved from themselves!
What... no one's going to mention TSOL? Sure it's a royal PITA to administer, but it doesn't get much more secure...
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Great, time for the NSA to switch from Security-Enhanced Linux to Windows Vista.
What could possibly go wrong?
(cough)Bull(hork)Shit(cough).
ummm of course you do this with VIsta.. And You could do it with XP as well...big deal
Has MS's PR/relations department EVER heard of Trusted Solaris? I guess not if they are making claims such as this one.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Microsoft just painted a huge bullseye on Vista. If the hackers were not interested in spending time finding exploits they will now. Waving red flags and yelling watch this are things you should not do unless you know for sure the bull is in the other corral or that you are an expert at the stunt you are about to try and pull. Microsoft is in the same corral with the hackers and they are not experts on OSes based on past performance.
From my favorite FarSide cartoon: Two deer standing in the woods, one has a bullseye on his chest, the other one says, "Bummer of a birth mark Hal."
No You don't underastand Live CD
XP and W2K cannot do what live CD can do
They cannot set up an internet/network connection automatically at bootime,
Live CD can
It is very different
When you learn more, you will ne one of those using irt
Try booting a XP or W2K CD wit No hard disk, Thats right I dont even need a hard disk
I see you may be a convert very soon
"in the industry"
we are probably talking about the "microsoft windows industry"
-- lol pwned
It's secure alright. It prevents users from re-arranging their start menu. Now that's secure! I'm not aware of any malware that rearranges the start menu as a feature but Vista will prevent that too.
Want to delete that icon on your desktop? Yeap, you'll need administrative permissions for that as well. But you ask...it's my desktop, why do I need the administrator? One would figure that even running in "low" user mode would take into some kind of consideration that you don't need to be a damm admin to remove icons from your desktop.
And I am ****dying**** to see what happens when we use our RSA keys in Vista. There *is no* administrator password that is fixed. Does Microsoft envision a system that will have users asking me for permission where I have to whip out my key and give new passwords every minute?
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
That part in the middle should read:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a letter of thanks to US President George W Bush, citing this action as another example of US moral leadership.
Secure from people being able to use it productively.
Extract from the Vista manual on security:
.
"Please grant all your website visitors access to the server room.
Point Internet Explorer to the following address: http://127.0.0.1/
Microsoft can not be held responsible for security breaches by physical access to the server."
42 + 1 = 42
Yes they can, learn before you speak I know of what you speak and understand you. Now lets see you play most games on that fancy (scratch that useless) OS residing in RAM...I can....of course for that part I would need a hard drive, since I know of no game that will do this.
in so much that i can hardly get IE7 to run without locking up... in fact i'm typing this on firefox right now cause IE7 has hung... and I can not get it to end task..
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
How can you hate a company like that. I mean, first of all, they can do now wrong, despite offering the worlds worst OS for security in the last decade, they still have 95% marketshare.
Then they say they have the worlds most secure OS even before it enters its release candidate stage.
Lets face it, Apple and Linux is pretty boring compared to Microsoft.
Anyways, I am sure this will blow up in Microsoft's face sooner rather then later as someone finds some simple exploit in Vista that will make this statement false. I do home Microsoft got their act together and actually came up with a MORE secure version of Windows, but to say the MOST secure is laughable.
In the meantime, despite the fact that there have been may beta and CTP releases in the last year, is there any Vista exploits out their yet? I mean, I can't see the hacker community waiting for a gold release of Vista before they start their follies. I haven't read of any security holes found in Vista yet, of course, Beta 2 just was released to the public a few weeks ago. Is there any truth to this statement! I am holding my breath waiting for the answer because it seems a pretty safe thing to do.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
And Oracle was unbreakable! http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-5808928.html
how "secure" will it be once it's available to the general public?
3DRealms says Duke Nukem Forever Most Fun Game Ever.
okay, mugs just drew the line in the sand and claimed hackers that have been beating him silly since windows first existed don't have the talent...
nice challenge mugs.
you get what you get...
i'm betting you don't like the beating too much... just like yu didn't like the last beating too much... or the current beating too much...
That no one can use it. Ever.
First we have XP. Major security problems. So Microsoft has patched the hell out of it and released a lot of security tools to help users. Enter Vista. A brand new OS noone has really had much of a chance to exploit and punch through and find security flaws. Add onto this the justifyable paranoia Microsoft got over XP's security, which helped the development of Vista being more secure and tools that will be part of Vista. I would be more worried if they didn't say this. Even the simplest reasonable encryption in the world was "secure" at one point in time. Once Vista gets out there, it will have plenty of problems (probably not as many as XP since they are prepared, but they will exist). The real question is will Vista or OS X (or OS XI?) have more security problems this coming generation? We'll have to wait and see.....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
This quickly brought me to the conclusion that simply because it is the first such OS from Microsoft, that it must be the most secure OS ever!
Being that this statement is in regards to computers running the current release of Windows, this too reassures me of Vista's far superior security
Every time I use the term "penetration testing" at work, at least one person has to giggle. That makes me feel more comfortable with Vista. Besides, what could a black-hat hacker (who, by definition, is no-more) with a serious grudge against M$ possibly do to put my personal information at risk?
There's no way "shims" is synonymous for working around these added security settings, and could possibly be considered a back-door. This is in no way a "hole" in the warm, fuzzy blanket that is Vista.
Let's not re-interpret this as the "Windows Vista Cannot Be Delayed Anymore Pack".
Son of The Inconvenient Truth... I anticipate Al Gore portraying a president armed to the teeth and forced to fight his way out of his own cabinet.
Just as I was looking at my RSS feeds, I see this story and this.
Aw crap, milk just squirted out of my nose. *snork* *snork*
Coderz 4 Life
They misspelled "evar"
Is that you?
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
hard to break into something that actually doesn't exist.
Apparently they have removed support for network cards and wireless.
To paraphrase CBG:
Worst. OS. Ever.
Microsoft BOB had built-in protection. That machine was so hard to hack that hackers didn't even bother to buy it!
I just tried to rdesktop to my Vista installation from Linux, and instead of allowing a remote 'hacker' access the system, it bravely BLUESCREENed. Imagine an OS so secure it would rather self destructs than allow an intruder. Now that's a secure OS, yes indeed.
Tip: You must update to latest cvs of rdesktop, something about key size.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Why on earth did Micro$oft ever decide to remind anyone about anything every 15 minutes anyway? A standard "Would you like to restart now?" type message box should be more than adequate an opportunity for the user to decide weather or not something is important enough for immediate action. Anything more can be nothing BUT annoying!
"Best in industry" reminds me of the line all the car commercials use. "It has the best horsepower in its class"... then they conveniently make up a class that only includes cars with less horsepower. Obviously Microsoft is just making up their own industry.
Perhaps the reason for all the delays is that they are waiting for everyone to forget that they made the same claims about XP.
"Windows NT 3.0 will be the most secure OS ever!"
- Anything beats Winows 95. This baby comes with military grade security and all!
"Windows NT 4.0 will be the most secure OS ever!"
- NT 3.0 was obviously redicules...
"Windows XP will be the most secure OS ever!"
- I thought so: Windows NT 40 was actually crap!
"Windows Vista is the moste secure OS ever!"
- now hold it... This is getting boring!
How about simply admitting that the Windows you're using is crap, right our of the box! It's not that Microsoft doesn't know: they're just a bit slow to admit it!
I think even MicroSoft BASIC was a more secure operating environment than Windows Vista is going to be. I mean, that shiz ran straight from a ROM chip, son. How you gonna hack that?
He repeatedly pointed out that there were indications of a connection between Al Queda and Saddam's intelligence apparatus (being shown more and more each day to be exactly true), and very reasonably pointed out the need for a more stable, democratic middle east in the wake of 9/11.
Will either our need or our troops produce a stable, democratic Middle East?
of course for that part I would need a hard drive, since I know of no game that will do this.
Of course you would not need a hard drive for that, you can play a lot of games off a live CD, too:
http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/6136
I used it, tried demos of Doom-3, Quake-4, UT2004, America's Army, Cube... Runs great. No HD - just boot a DVD and play. Oh, and you also have a full-blown working desktop with OpenOffice at your fingertips. All from a bootable DVD.
Microsoft, proficient at shooting themselves in the foot. When Vista comes out and people write another 10000 viruses for it, this claim will backfire in a big way and further hurt Microsoft reputation (or what remains of it).
Will either our need or our troops produce a stable, democratic Middle East?
Yes.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What's that? VMS? I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the roar of an operating system under which whole classes of common exploits are programatically impossible.
The most secure OS ever was SCOMP, validated A1 by NSA under the TCSEC criteria.
Next was STOP repeatedly validated B3 and EAL5 Augmented under TCSEC and Common Criteria.
No form of Windows even came close.
So will Microsoft submit Vista to an independent security analysis by industry standards? They will have get a Common Criteria "rating" to sell it to the US Government and other governments. At what level will they submit (you declare how high you are attempting to achieve when you begin the process)?
The proof of their confidence in "most secure" will be to see what level they try to achieve.
Bet they don't go above EAL4, probably lower.
A broad claim that an operating system is "the most secure ever" is completely devoid of meaning.
http://outcampaign.org/
"I'm a penetration tester for Micro$oft."
surprised MS has not taken the obvious steps.
1) turn the machine off
2) lock it in a safe.
3) destroy the code to open the safe.
4) fill safe with concrete.
any machine that is powered and accessible through a user device can be compromised.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Vista Most Secure OS Ever"? LOL
;)
Come on, I just totally choked on my drink laughing at that... If I wanted to be laughing and disrupting my coworkers I'd be browsing bash.org!
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating", so we'll see if Microsoft's claims hold true when the OS is released. But even if it's not "the most secure OS" (if Microsoft really claimed that), they're making progress (which can only be denied by the most biased anti-M$ fanboy lol).
Of course, given the choice, most slashdotters would prefer that Vista be insecure so they have something to bitch about. They lost the stability ammo (although they do continue to talk of BSOD, which are as rare as kernel panics these days), and they desperately don't want to lose the stability ammo. For if the stability ammo goes away (or is sufficiently diminished), all they have left is price.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I think everyone here has got the wrong idea. When MS referes to "more secure" They are refering to their market position and their rights being secured away from the end user.
Got Debt?
Haven't they said that about each version. Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Server 2003 etc. It's a PR move directed towards the masses. Obviously they have a public image problem when security exploits in Windows makes CNN every month or less. Statements such as this shouldn't be directed towards the IT crowd, because we know better. I run FreeBSD and know how to exploit each major version of Windows, and I'm sure most of you do too. The bottom line is that they've focused on security a lot for Vista, so of course they're going to be blowing their own horn in an effort to alleviate their PR problems, and to illustrate a reason why the general consumer even needs Vista in the first place.
Is there a difference?
Ignore this signature. By order.
interesting quote from the article
....
"Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia opened up TechEd 2006 in Boston Sunday evening by proclaiming that Windows Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry."
note the use of "was", hmmm is this butt covering, or are they admiting that vista "was" the most secure OS, if so well if that was the past, whats the current most secure OS
MSNBC
Vista is so secure i cant get it to install itself on my computer.
In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team.
Why, the only one who's getting penetrated in the end will be the user...
Besides, shouldn't those be RedHat hackers there? I know, that joke was dumb.
Having used Vista personally, I can say that it is definitely the most secure OS offering from Microsoft thus far, aside from DOS. However, this security is obtained by a complete sacrifice of usability. I was greeted by ~12 different security prompts attempting to install WinAmp from a network share, even before I was greeted by the install interface. While I did feel secure (and a little paranoid), I was not impressed as I trust that WinAmp obtained from their site isn't going to hose my PC, install spyware/adware/etc.
My $0.02, half of that being a penny for your thoughts.
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
Clever Stratagy, If they dont release it then it can't be hacked. Genius!
In comparison to what? XP? Jesus.
Windows Vista is so secure that it takes 7 steps and 5 confirmation dialogs to delete a desktop shortcut. Now that's what I call a streamlined interface.
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
So its the most secure OS ever because a couple of podunk script kiddies said so? Hey I used podunk in a sentance.
For no. 1, of course . . .
OpenBSD has held that title for the past twelve years. Windows lags far, far behind. If Vista can beat OpenBSD's record (a tough task, to say the least), then they can crown it champion--not before it's even released.
In a world where z/OS, i5/OS, and OpenBSD exist, Vista cannot be considered the most secure OS ever.
If you read TFA, you'll see the phrase 'the most secure operating system in the industry' is similar to what auto makers use. Ford or Toyota never says 'Our car is the best'. They say 'The Toyota Newsupercar is best in its class', which of course means the class is limited to all vehicles that are the same year, color, size, weight, manufacturer, and model as the Toyota Newsupercar.
The 'in the industry' is most likely limited to large companies that had 2005 quarterly gross profits of over $8 billion and have a product called Windows. The "industry" is further limited to all home products with the names Vista or WindowsME.
As you can see, Vista is indeed the most secure OS in the industry.*
i read about the safest windows software while visiting up in seattle. the seattle times (bill, did you read it?), had an article about a guy who was so disgusted with winxps gaping hole approach to lacak-a-security that he unplugged his computer form hhis internet connection and stopped his internet service.
after reinstalling his box, i'd say his system is safer than vista... should it ever make it to store shelves.
windows is safe... just learn this guy's lesson - get off the net.
after all, you might learn about alternatives to windows... on that bad, bad, bad internet thingy...
...what they called the first version, to make it sound like it wasn't their first try... :-D
Microsoft Says Vista Will Come Out
"Vista is the most secure operating system in the industry."
Of course, it's industry is unreleased operating systems
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
They say the same about windows 2000, did they?
It's so very true.
Especially while it's not on sale!!
SeqBox
hence why Windows' days are numbered.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Umm, uh, where could my friend like, uh, sign up? Hypothetically that is.
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
Let's talk about features. There is plenty of material on MSDN that show Vista may well be surpassing Linux or Mac in securing the user experience. OK it's not quite there yet and the debugging process will take months after consumer release.
Just take the neatest feature: virtual folders. I like the idea of having completely sealed user directories and program files. Think about it, it's a very clever trick, forcing programs--that today easily write all over system folders--into special virtual directories identified by uid. Now finally we can implement tighter security policy without impacting functionality.
Also a plus: IE 7. Now runs as limited user. Wow. Finally!
And then you have the new hardware features that appeal to me as sysadmin: mandatory driver signing (Microsoft started this with 64-bit drivers because of the small installed base) and SMART technology. SMART enables Windows to see when devices, hard-disks, etc, exceed fault tolerance factors. Not exactly new technology, I grant you that, but definitely a winner for business desktop users.
Vince
-----
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever" ---Gandhi.
Open mmc and set the user account control to "do not prompt".
This will save your clicking finger.
Until its released.
Yawn...
So that explains why Gates is stepping down!
Uh-oh... Alberto Gonzales is not going to be happy with this newly-dubbed "penetration" testing. I can understand why: Dubya will probably sit and giggle in the Oval Office; Cheney will excercise his second-amendment "rights"; Rumsfeld will say, "I don't know where... I don't know when... There will be penetration..."; and Condie Rice will say, "I was the Provost at Stanford University; I will not be disrespected with that lewd and raucus tone!" Ballmer will come out and say, "hey, we're calling them 'pens' for short. It's better than LInux Malicious Penetration testers, or limps, whom we have also hired. explative!" The only thing better would be Sean Connery on Celebrity Jeopardy with the category "The Pen is Mightier".
OK. Time to go after that new MSN worm...
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
*sigh* If industry meant all OSs ever... trusted irix, trusted solaris, prime, vms, multics, nsa linux, stratus vos.... the list goes on
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
> ... Microsoft already has compatibility improvements planned through Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
Reminds me of tribbles. Born pregnant.
The Titanic is unsinkable!!
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
Well, any O/S is secure when locked up in a development lab with no attack vector from the world at large.
I'll let the next 3 years decide what's most secure in reality thanks ;)
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Insurance company claims to have the best rates, and potential suitor claims to have a huge dick!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If you wanna argue points like this, try to stay current. Using past/patched flaws is just a waste of time. Unless FUD is your goal.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
if they guy really did say "the most secure OS in the industry", they he's going WAY out on limb. And that limb is already falling at terminal velocity.
Anyways, WTF do people think any Microsoft marketing drone is going to say anything resembling the truth? They've never done it in the past from what I've seen/heard. There's gotta be some serious brainwashing going on inside the building at One Microsoft Way. They stuff they try to tell the public is outrageous these days.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I got this Microsoft bulletin in the mail:
URGENT:
Recruits wanted for the 15th Brigade of Penetration Black Hat Experts (Pen 15)! Do you have what it takes to penetrate the network? Is your staying power for penetrating networks all night long unmatched? Then join the Pen 15 club today! You'll get your chance to test your skills out on a farm of over 500 fertile Windows Vista boxes, all of which have never been penetrated before! And don't think you won't be getting any help: our trained technicians (as well as our legal and acquisitions staff) are experts in penetration! Every member of the Pen 15 club will get a commemerative arm band or a special "temporary" forehead tattoo! The hacker who penetrates the most boxes will even receive a grand prize from Microsoft: a Pen 15 fanny pack! So, send in those resumes and get penetratin'!
Should I join???
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I've got a shoebox that is the most secure device for storing large amount of money ever devised. Just place your money in the box AND put the box inside a bank vault and it will NOT get stolen - PERIOD!
Sigh - they claim it's secure because it's got a DEVICE that can SCAN for virus and spyware. If it was that bloody secure it wouldn't need no device to do that.
if you don't trust their black hats, try it yourself
download the beta [microsoft.com]
install
hack
Well, my hat's off to Microsoft this time on the security of their new operating system. Twenty minutes of clicking links, filling in personal information,adding cookie exceptions across three sites, one user agreement, clearing all cookies out five times to get past site jams, two separate confirmation emails, one passport signup, entering my email address no less than twelve times and I can't even find one download link to this sucker. What is this? Their new plan to make black hats kill themselves with boredom before they can even get the OS?
If it does not run, it can't be exploited!
We have given up on the last two vaporware released alphas my work was given "to create drivers"
You can't get it to run on any hardware we found.
So yes, Vista is very "secure"; as in an non-running system is safe!
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
. . . the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team.
Black Hat: "Sir, we've tried everything, and the system seems to be 100% pen proof."
Gates: "Even the disk drives?"
Black Hat: "Yes, sir, we tried putting a pen into one of those, but it won't fit. One of our guys almost knocked a pci card out with a pen, but we don't think he was using a Microsoft Pen (tm)."
Gates: "Good work, men."
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the newer members, who like myself are wondering if this is just another day on the great blog.
For reference, process is as follows:
1)MS does, says, or releases something shitty
2)Above becomes news
3)Slashdotters kick MS ass back into the 1980's, when school dropouts didn't make OS's
4)*Sigh*
I happened to watch the webcast of the keynote today before seeing this article, and the article is being a bit liberal with what was said.
What he said was that Vista is the most secure *Windows* OS ever, and *possibly* the most secure OS in the industry. I added the emphasis, but "possibly" hardly qualifies as a "bold declaration" to me.
It is possible that it will be pretty secure if we ever see it, but to claim it will be the most secure OS is a bit of a stretch. For a start, making claims like that just begs every Black Hat out there to have a go when it it finally released. Odds are that its 'security' won't last then.
Based on my experience with MS 'security', Windows Vista will do as much as possible to lock out the end user, to protect them from themselves.
A "pen test" is where you wander in to a business and offer random employees a pen or pencil if they give you their username and password.
Cripes..
99% of the worlds viruses and spyware programs run exclusively on Windows. Windows Vista will still execute, and is still vulnerable to these programs. Other Operating Systems are not. This IMMEDIATELY disqualifies any OS that runs Windows 2k/XP apps from being the most secure OS.
ActiveX is still a big part of Vista and IE.
And in early reports on Longhorn they talked about a big part of the new Windows API to allow for a full Windows app to run remotely over a server without even needing to be installed on the PC in the first place. First off, this technology already existed before and was multiplatform. It was called Java. While I haven't heard much about this since the Longhorn days, this really, really scares me.
Windows Defender will stop a program from being installed without your knowledge, but if code can be executed without being installed, how do you protect yourself?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
... before Windows XP was released. The line "Windows XP is the most secure operating system ever" quietly became "Windows XP is the most secure Windows operating system ever". We'll see how long it lasts this time.
Sure, Windows is the most secure OS(1) out there, just as it's also the most cross-platform(2) OS(1) out there.
(1) When compared with other Windows versions.
(2) When used with other versions of Windows.
(aside: honestly, must we report everything a vendor says about their own product? When would that NOT be just spin and hype?)
Yesterday, we read a blog from a Microsoftie indicating the problems Vista developers are facing:
a) aversion to truth
b) too many cooks (2000 developers, I believe was mentioned)
c) impossible for one developer to comprehend Vista as a single entity
d) 50 layers of dependencies (including circular dependencies).
e) code approaching 50 million LOC
Now, I suppose with the slow pace and unit testing going on in MS development, MAYBE you've got 2000 developers who are writing secure code. Seems highly unlikely, though, given MS' past performance and daunting challenges.
sloth jr
Something tells me Stallman will not like these initals used for a DRM scheme....
Now with SSSSSSSSSSSSSSMILEX!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> Since when does anyone "own" an acronym?
Since when does anyone "own" an idea?