Slashdot Mirror
Vista Security — Too Little Too Late
Thomas Greene of The Register has a fairly comprehensive review of Vista and IE7 user security measures. The verdict is: better but not adequate, and mostly an attempt to shift blame onto the user when things go wrong. From the review: "[Vista is] a slightly more secure version than XP SP2. There are good features, and there are good ideas, but they've been implemented badly. The old problems never go away: too many networking services enabled by default; too many owners running their boxes as admins and downloading every bit of malware they can get their hands on."
That's just part of the security, if you had RTFA you might have learned a few things. Besides, most people probably don't even care/know how to disable UAC, so I doubt that will be a big problem...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
[article is not] fair and balanced.
That depends on your perspective. If you are Bill Gates, or drugged or both, you might think it's not fair M$ is blamed for all the M$ born malware that threatens the internet and every machine on it. If you are anyone else, you're dumbfounded the authors bothered to run Vista at all. It's funny how people keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. It's not surprising M$ results make people angry, but it is surprising people keep listening to them and giving their software a fair chance to fall on it's face.
The details in the article are pretty irrefutable. Eris's journal entry is not a bad summary if you don't have time to read further than the second paragraph.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
>Vista security is..A Dialog box asking if you wish to run the exploit or not
Thats pretty much Linux and Mac security as well. At the end of the day if a user is committed to running screensaver.exe (or screensaver.bin) locally.. there is very little you can do to stop him.
If you truly believe that to be true, then why did you only recommend a set of linux distros?
There's enough diversity of system and module settings in that list for the majority of home and business use. Free software is like that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Could you imagine that quote in a scientific paper, or a reputable magazine article? No. It screams "nutjob", regardless of what the person is trying to say and/or the truth within it.
No, I can't imagine any reputable journal publishing anything having to do with M$'s secret sauce code.
Being outside of that, I'm free to say whatever I want about the tin-horns who are busy calling free software "a cancer", "communist" and all that jazz. No respect has been earned and none is paid.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What's inaccurate about the ad? It's clear you're an Apple-hater (must suck for you that Vista is a clone of an old version of OS X), but you don't offer any examples beyond a vague implication that endless security prompts also appear in OS X, which isn't true.
As for the difference between Apple's ads and Vista's ads, Apple's ads correctly point out the difficulties and hassles of using PCs compared to Macs. I love them. Microsoft's are goofy marketing drivel about "Wow" and other goofiness. No wonder Vista is a flop sales-wise.
"Sufferin' succotash."
They wanted to create a real separation of privilege levels. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a real separate privileged/deprivileged space and then not need to get permission to escalate. If you do, you are going around it and there isn't real separation. It's feel good security, not do good security.
I mean I could implement a Linux distro where you didn't run as root, but any time a program needed higher privileges the system auto escalated it. That would work, but it really would defeat the purpose of having a super user. For it to really be effective it needs to be how it is now: You have to escalate permission each time it's needed, or set it to that the app is run escalated automatically. Vista works the exact same way (with UAC on).