You missed the point. The data collection itself is evil. It doesn't matter if they do something wrong with it now. BTW, don't forget that any admin or manager can browse your data anytime.
And as for me being an MS fanboy -- do you really believe that an MS fanboy would know what sudo is? Saying that Vista's solution is more comfortable than that of Linux and OS X makes me an MS fanboy? Isn't it rather obvious that it's more comfortable to do one click than to enter a password? Oh, well. This was my last message to you. Don't bother replying, because I won't read it.
What you don't realize is that we can audit sudo for security.
Sure you can audit sudo. And you claim that it means that there can be no vulnerability in it allowing an adversary to bypass it? Well, you made me laugh. As I said, you truly are a naive fanboy who doesn't know much about security.
Please do. Make sure you end with, "you still have to enter your password." A bug in sudo can't allow malware to just click right past the prompt.
Of course, there can be an exploit in sudo allowing you to bypass password prompt. You've just proven that you are not worth my time, as you don't know much about security exploits. You are yet another naive fanboy without sufficient knowledge.
Shouldn't be used in the first place. You really need an external dedicated firewall if you want to pretend to be safe.
That's true for inbound traffic. But for outbound traffic, only software firewalls are effective. An external firewall has no way of knowing whether it's CoolScreenSaver.exe or Firefox.exe trying to connect to a server. The answer is, use both (internal and external).
As I already said, yes, UAC isn't going to help click-happy idiots, which most people are. However, it's the same for OS X and Linux, which require the user to enter his admin password. Most people will enter the password.
Hence, the only difference between Vista and the *NIX systems in this regard is that on Vista it's much more comfortable and much faster (one click). Security-wise, there's no real difference.
Of course it does protect you, that is, an informed user (not a click-happy idiot). You know, a click-happy idiot will also happily enter his admin password whenever he is asked to do so by OS X or whatever. There's no difference. Why make it more difficult when it can be much simpler for the informed user?
Anyway, the point is that on Vista people run as non-admins by default and can easily elevate with per-app granularity. Easy, neat, and secure enough. I am a security aware power user. On Windows XP malware can infect my OS without me noticing. Whereas on Vista I will see the UAC prompt and will know if it's appropriate to click Allow (for example, a browser should never really need to elevate). You get the idea. Vista's UAC works and it's orders of magnitude more secure than XP.
Could you provide technical documentation to support your claim?
Yes. It's right from insiders (MS security guys) Michael Howard, Steve Lipner who wrote the book "The Security Development Lifecycle: SDL: A Process for Developing Demonstrably More Secure Software", where in Part I, Chapter I, you can find this quote:
Much noise has been made about not running as an administrator or root account when operating a computer. We authors are vocal commentators about this issue, and this has helped force fundamental changes in Microsoft Windows Vista; users are, by default, ordinary users and not administrators. Even members of the local Administrators group are users until they are elevated to perform administrative tasks.
Yep, and it would be tagged as "defectivebydesign" and "haha". You know, MS is a near-monopoly so their products do deserve a good deal of good old unfair bashing...
This is what I don't understand - since when were patents ever enforceable on the people using infringing devices?
It's the same as with copyright. Even end users who use an illegal copy may be prosecuted. Only trademarks are an exception (e.g. if you purchase a counterfeit).
You forgot about many European countries that aren't members of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, many East European countries (former Yugoslavia, etc.). They could be around at least 200 million people in total.
Wait, I'm confused - does the genuine Vista phone home or does the pirated version?:)
Yes, the genuine Vista keeps itself updated with security patches, while the pirated product only sends what?... uh, your credit card numbers and passwords. Well, never mind.
Wait, I'm confused - does the genuine Vista phone home or does the pirated version?:)
Yes, the legal version downloads updates from Microsoft. The illegal version might download commands from Russian hackers and consequently send spam all over the internet or take part in DDoS extortions. Now tell me: which one do you prefer?:)
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point. The data collection itself is evil. It doesn't matter if they do something wrong with it now. BTW, don't forget that any admin or manager can browse your data anytime.
And as for me being an MS fanboy -- do you really believe that an MS fanboy would know what sudo is? Saying that Vista's solution is more comfortable than that of Linux and OS X makes me an MS fanboy? Isn't it rather obvious that it's more comfortable to do one click than to enter a password? Oh, well. This was my last message to you. Don't bother replying, because I won't read it.
What you don't realize is that we can audit sudo for security.
Sure you can audit sudo. And you claim that it means that there can be no vulnerability in it allowing an adversary to bypass it? Well, you made me laugh. As I said, you truly are a naive fanboy who doesn't know much about security.
Don't bother replying, I won't read it.
Please do. Make sure you end with, "you still have to enter your password." A bug in sudo can't allow malware to just click right past the prompt.
Of course, there can be an exploit in sudo allowing you to bypass password prompt. You've just proven that you are not worth my time, as you don't know much about security exploits. You are yet another naive fanboy without sufficient knowledge.
Shouldn't be used in the first place. You really need an external dedicated firewall if you want to pretend to be safe.
That's true for inbound traffic. But for outbound traffic, only software firewalls are effective. An external firewall has no way of knowing whether it's CoolScreenSaver.exe or Firefox.exe trying to connect to a server. The answer is, use both (internal and external).
world already, its time they adapt their ways to what majority wants.
.doc or at least compatibility with them.
Which is MS Word and
Quick, somebody tell Linus and RMS that MS dominates the OS market
Actually, Linux dominates the small business server OS market. Windows dominates the desktop OS market.
If a bug in UAC is ever discovered
That's a red herring comment. If a bug is discovered in sudo... Do I have to continue?
As I already said, yes, UAC isn't going to help click-happy idiots, which most people are. However, it's the same for OS X and Linux, which require the user to enter his admin password. Most people will enter the password.
Hence, the only difference between Vista and the *NIX systems in this regard is that on Vista it's much more comfortable and much faster (one click). Security-wise, there's no real difference.
Of course it does protect you, that is, an informed user (not a click-happy idiot). You know, a click-happy idiot will also happily enter his admin password whenever he is asked to do so by OS X or whatever. There's no difference. Why make it more difficult when it can be much simpler for the informed user?
Anyway, the point is that on Vista people run as non-admins by default and can easily elevate with per-app granularity. Easy, neat, and secure enough. I am a security aware power user. On Windows XP malware can infect my OS without me noticing. Whereas on Vista I will see the UAC prompt and will know if it's appropriate to click Allow (for example, a browser should never really need to elevate). You get the idea. Vista's UAC works and it's orders of magnitude more secure than XP.
Before you start doubting, the book I quoted from was released in 2006, when Vista had been feature-finished (beta testing). More about the authors:
Michael Howard, CISSP, is a Senior Security Program Manager in the Security Technology Unit at Microsoft.
Steven B. Lipner, CISSP, is Senior Director of Security Engineering Strategy in the Security Technology Unit at Microsoft.
Your anecdotal "insights" can hardly compare to these guys.
Yes. It's right from insiders (MS security guys) Michael Howard, Steve Lipner
who wrote the book "The Security Development Lifecycle: SDL: A Process for Developing Demonstrably More Secure Software", where in Part I, Chapter I, you can find this quote: Much noise has been made about not running as an administrator or root account when operating a computer. We authors are vocal commentators about this issue, and this has helped force fundamental changes in Microsoft Windows Vista; users are, by default, ordinary users and not administrators. Even members of the local Administrators group are users until they are elevated to perform administrative tasks.
They forgot by far the biggest non-US competitor, Chinese http://www.baidu.com/
How is it possible to "deserve" something "unfair"?
Ever heard of things like irony or sarcasm?
Yep, and it would be tagged as "defectivebydesign" and "haha". You know, MS is a near-monopoly so their products do deserve a good deal of good old unfair bashing...
Um, if you read carefully, you'll see that it's exactly the quote I worked with (and it does appear to have the unfortunate ellipsis).
This is what I don't understand - since when were patents ever enforceable on the people using infringing devices?
It's the same as with copyright. Even end users who use an illegal copy may be prosecuted. Only trademarks are an exception (e.g. if you purchase a counterfeit).
I now see that this whole article was tagged as "Fanboy". Well I guess #2 is correct then.
I believe your analysis wrong, due to unfortunate wording. I think there's ellipsis in the sentence.
Therefore: "commercial software distributors and end users."
Might read: "commercial software distributors and [commercial software] end users."
It trumps Vista, of course;
The above indicates:
1) Unbiased balanced opinion (and adverbs, such as "of course")
2) Fanboy
3) Troll
4) Shill
5) Uh, nm I have karma to burn.
You forgot about many European countries that aren't members of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, many East European countries (former Yugoslavia, etc.). They could be around at least 200 million people in total.
Between Avast!, AVG, Clamwin, Panda, and any other free antivirus software out there, there's got to be something to replace Norton.
Here in Europe ESET's NOD32 is gaining popularity particularly among techies and power users. Two highlights:
1) Advanced heuristics. A test showed that an older version of NOD32 detected 90% of THEN UNKNOWN(!) viruses, based on behavioral and other characteristics. Ref: http://www.eset.com/download/whitepapers/AV-Comparatives-2006-Summary.pdf
2) Incredibly low footprint as far as memory consumption and CPU load are concerned (and that includes real time scanning).
It's commercial but it's really worth it.
Wait, I'm confused - does the genuine Vista phone home or does the pirated version? :)
... uh, your credit card numbers and passwords. Well, never mind.
Yes, the genuine Vista keeps itself updated with security patches, while the pirated product only sends what?
Wait, I'm confused - does the genuine Vista phone home or does the pirated version? :)
:)
Yes, the legal version downloads updates from Microsoft. The illegal version might download commands from Russian hackers and consequently send spam all over the internet or take part in DDoS extortions. Now tell me: which one do you prefer?
The pirates have a better product.
If you see a potential phone-home Trojan or a potential zombie as a better product, I sincerely wish you good luck.