how-to block ads
|
Skyrunner8
join:2002-01-10
Berkeley, CA
| anti-virus next?
The thing that gets me is, soon they will provide anti-virus. Do you trust microsoft to come out with definitions on time and good enough? Do you trust them in saying that there is a security hole in windows, another one of their products, that lets it happen? If the 'spyware' and 'antivirus' divisions play hardball with the windows guys, then that would be great news. but i doubt it will happen
--
-Jeff | |
T_Hoffman
join:2002-11-10
Clovis, CA
| why wait for the M$ version of giant to come out when you can download it right now lol.
»www.tucows.com/preview/377898.html
thats the same exact stuff M$ is going to use. well besides it saying GIANT not M$ but same ocean different boat. enjoy
--
i work with a OC192 sitting next to me(thats 9.2 gigabits per/sec) anyone want some?and my neighbor next door is the largest fiber facility in central california wanna race? | |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | reply to Skyrunner8
If you don't trust M$ then why are you running their products?
And if you are running something else, why aren't you discussing its vulnerabilities? Are you familiar with its vulnerabilities even? | |
Skyrunner8
join:2002-01-10
Berkeley, CA
| Trust me, if there was any viable alternative to Windows, i would be running it. LinuxOS and MacOS are not the gaming platform that Windows is because of its monopoly in Operation systems.
I am familiar with the vulnerabilities of most of the popular Operation systems. I read about many of them in depth. I am behind a software and hardware firewall, running anti virus and scan my computer for adware and spyware ever other week. I use non-microsoft products when ever I can, Mainly: Firefox, open office, iTunes(instead of Windows Media Player). Just as i do not trust the 'windows firewall' in protecting my computer, i would not trust a Microsoft Anti-virus or a microsoft anti-spyware application. On their track record alone, I do not think they would be qualified to provide a good product that would protect ones computer. They have come along way with XP and SP2, but there is so much more they can do.
It seems that microsoft would rather go after virus writers and people who exploit their software then to encourage and reward the people that find these problems and tell them how to fix it. I am not discussing other vulnerabilities because the article is about Microsoft. If it were about Firefox, i would talk about how some of the extensions create security risks. But this is about Microsoft, right?
--
-Jeff | |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| I can sympathize that Windows doesn't meet all of your needs. I'm often in here going on about how we IT professionals have to make the products easier to use, that we are failing because we are failing to meet consumer needs by failing to create products that are safe right out of the box, and that don't need hours each month of maintenance.
But the problem isn't just one of the operating system. The operating system is kind of like the car in the transportation system. Some aspects of the insecurity of the car are the fault of the auto makers. But not all.
Take care makers, car owners, car vandals, and the police.
If there was a way to make cars vandal-proof, I think Ford, GM or Mercedes Benz would have found it in the over 100 years since the auto was invented.
Some things just aren't possible.
If you are going to park your car in an area with no street lights, no police force, and gangs of thugs operating with impunity, it isn't Ford's fault if your car gets keyed, the tires stolen, and the rest of it torched.
The current internet is like a town with no street lights, no police force, and gangs of thugs operating with impunity.
When you have that, you mandate street lights, you demand policing, and you demand stiffer penalties for the vandals.
Going after the virus writers is going after the vandals.
Going after those who aid virus writes by openly distributing explict exploits including sample code is going after the accomplices of the vandals, in my opinion.
Sadly *ix is only immune from hacking if (a) they are not connected to the internet and (b) only trusted trained people are allowed to install and operate it. Sadly MS hasn't really been able to do much better.
It's software, and the problems aren't obvious like they are for something physical like a car.
But since nobody has been able to come up with a vandal proof OS (and there are lots of OSs that have been under development a lot longer than Windows) I don't think we can say it is because MS hasn't given it a reasonable attempt.
Yes operating system vendors can do a better job. But no I don't think there won't be a vandal proof operating system in the next 10 years.
So we need to look to the standards for the internet, for ISPs, for internet connected software, to governments and police to do what they are supposed to do, which is create a safe environment for people to be free in.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
Skyrunner8
join:2002-01-10
Berkeley, CA
| the problem is when you have Car makers and the Police under the same people. Imagine if Ford ran the Police department. I drive a ford, but i would not trust them in protecting me. there are to many conflicts of interest for it to work out in the citizens favor.
Its like going after someone that knows of an easy way to bypass a keypad entry system then going after the manufacturer that won't fix it or acknowledge it
--
-Jeff | |
Rob101
@pfizer.com
| reply to Skyrunner8
People say "I would use another operating system than M$ Windoze ...". Yeah, sure, how do you think the so called "Monopoly" came about ? Do any of you M$ trollers\flamers have a brain and do you fill it up with unix\mac trivia so that you have no room for common sense ?
Monopoly = No one else could do it better
Monopoly != Unix\Mac\wotever OS was so good people chose it
It is obvious, people preferred the MS products that worked right away rather than an OS that requires 2-months of RTM just to get working right. They prefer MS Office because it's usable, immediately and most of the known universe can accept DOC\XLS\PPT. People are like lightining, they often choose the path with least resistance. Go figure.
M$ are not in the business of deploying ad-ware in their products, also do you think a corporation has a interest in little old you ? Why would they even bother to sniff your system out, short of making sure your not bending them over and using their products illegally. Most PC's nowdays are half broken what with a dozen anti-virus products all hooked in to every FS call, Adware sniffing everything you do, and a myriad of other M$-OS-Friendly apps all degrading performance and who could blame M$ when a lot of application developers don't even honour the application packaging standards and produce trash that really gets busy ruining your system.
Get with it, stop spouting nonsense about M$, 99% of office PC's are running M$ products, how could the corporate world work if these M$ products were as crap as some of you intimate ? Hmmm.
M$ getting in to Anti-Virus and Spyware is probably the BEST thing that could happen to the industry right now. M$ represents competition, meaning Mcafee and most of the other anti-virus vendors will get with it and stop producing toys based on their 1995 codebase and deliver us something that does the job, doesn't get in the way of the OS, and doesn't delay the user when opening dialogs\looking at the FS.
And finally, my last bit of waffle ... As someone already said, look to the products your using now, most are riddled with their own spy-ware and more bugs than a bug-squisher could squish if he was in a marathon bug-squishing competition :> | |
Skyrunner8
join:2002-01-10
Berkeley, CA
| Right...You obviously don't read your history very well either. They preferred IBM products. If you worked at a big company and you were in charge of buying computers, you bought IBM products. Why? because nobody lost their job from buying IBM. IBM was the company everybody trusted. MS attached themselves to this and almost all offices had it, people at home wanted to use the same thing.
Just like the qwerty keyboard, being popular or in the position of monopoly does NOT mean it is better. (quick history of qwerty keyboard. The QWERTY layout was designed to slow typing down so the typewriters would not jam. Once the computer came along, why do we still have it? cause everybody is used to it, NOT BECAUSE IT IS BETTER ( »inventors.about.com/library/inve···iter.htm ))
It seems like you are the one spouting nonsense. If i didn't have 'anti virus' you would say i am not protected, but if i do have it, you say "pcs are half broken with all those anti-virus products all hooked up into everything." I don't allow adware or spyware on my computer. Period. If Microsoft wanted to, they could close the gaps and holes in which these programs sneak in. I run a clean system.
Did i say these MS products are 'crap' as you claim i did? I dont' like how some of it works, but I THINK THERE IS SO MUCH MORE THAT COULD BE DONE.
Competition? Like Microsoft by itself will create competition that isn't already there? There are a lot of anti-virus vendors out there already and there IS competition. And you said MS is getting into spyware. I hope you meant anti-spyware. And if i am correct, Xp is based off of 2000, correct? And 2000 is based off of NT. NT came out in...1993. Does that mean xp is based on their 1993 code base? WOW, amazing. Before spouting off random facts and trying to put them together in a coherent post to discredit someone else, THINK. Use this common sense that you think you have.
--
-Jeff | |
|
