backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 61 comment(s) - last by scrapsma54.. on Dec 5 at 6:15 PM


Vista's new Parental Controls
Microsoft's Jim Allchin touts Vista new security features

During the long gestation period of Windows Vista, we've heard much about the company’s improved security features, its improved firewall and all-in-one security suite called Windows Defender. Some features -- namely Kernel PatchGuard -- have received quite a bit of attention in recent months. Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin is so confident in the robustness of the new operating system that he says that it may not even require antivirus software in certain situations.

Allchin cited two new security components that give parents great control over what their children can and cannot do on the operating system and allow Vista to be incredibly secure. The first component is Parental Controls which allows parents to monitor and manage their child's computer privileges. These include:

  • Web Restrictions to limit access to what sites your child can visit and download content from.
  • Time Limits to control how long your child can use the computer (can be limited to specific days of the week, specific hours of the day as well).
  • Games can be blocked or given access to based on ESRB ratings and game content.
  • Block Specific Programs that your child should not have access to.
  • Activity Reports to give you a listing of what sites your child has visited during their session, the number of emails they've received, who they're instant messaging and more.

The new Activity Reports may raise a few eyebrows when it comes to privacy, but it will be interesting to see how well the new features are received.

The second component that Allchin described is Address Space [Layout] Randomization (ASLR). This feature intuitively renders system kernel object code in memory to ward off malicious attacks. Here's Microsoft security Guru Michael Howard on ASLR:

So what is ASLR? In short, when you boot a Windows Vista Beta 2 computer, we load system code into different locations in memory. This helps defeat a well-understood attack called "return-to-libc", where exploit code attempts to call a system function, such as the socket() function in wsock32.dll to open a socket, or LoadLibrary in kernel32.dll to load wsock32.dll in the first place. The job of ASLR is to move these function entry points around in memory so they are in unpredictable locations. In the case of Windows Vista Beta 2, a DLL or EXE could be loaded into any of 256 locations, which means an attacker has a 1/256 chance of getting the address right. In short, this makes it harder for exploits to work correctly.

Allchin went on to say that he is happy with the current security level of Vista even though he knows that hackers are constantly looking for new exploits to take advantage of. "Windows Vista is something that will have issues in security, because the bar is being raised over time. But in my opinion, it is the most secure system that's available, and it's certainly the most secure system that we've shipped," said Allchin.

Allchin went on to say “My son, seven years old, runs Windows Vista, and, honestly, he doesn't have an antivirus system on his machine. His machine is locked down with parental controls, he can't download things unless it's to the places that I've said that he could do, and I'm feeling totally confident about that. That is quite a statement. I couldn't say that in Windows XP SP2."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I hope so
By tuteja1986 on 11/10/2006 9:00:23 AM , Rating: 1
We will have to see but i do sure hope so and if this is true then this will keep the mac fanatic quiet on this matter. ;(




RE: I hope so
By drxploder on 11/10/2006 9:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
I don't even use antivirus in XP and I've had no problems.
But yes, I acknowledge the fact that I may be an exception.


RE: I hope so
By Christopher1 on 11/10/2006 10:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well, most of the virii I have gotten are usually from my own stupidity (going to a grey or black site, downloading something from an unreputable site).

Otherwise, I have the virus controls turned off on my parents PC when I am surfing on it (only go to known virii-free sites), and have had no problems.

I also download everything on my PC that I want to install on their's first, and test it first.

Downloading software from disreputable sites is the #1 point of virus entry into computers.
Now that Vista will alert you to ANY change that software is trying to make to your system, those "Trick the downloader" type attacks won't work.


RE: I hope so
By Spivonious on 11/10/2006 11:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
I have never used a virus scanner. Even back on Windows 3.1. In my entire life I have seen two cases of virus infection. One was pretty serious and prevented Windows from booting. The other simply spread spyware around the harddrive, causing popups every two seconds and web browsers to crash. Both of these viruses were on computers owned by people who have no clue what they're doing and download all of the free "tools" that popup on the web (e.g. Gator, CoolSearch, etc).

If you don't open attachments without knowing what's inside and don't download anything that you didn't explicitly start, there is a .00001% chance of getting infected.


RE: I hope so
By aka1nas on 11/10/2006 1:10:36 PM , Rating: 5
How do you know if you are infected or not if you don't have scanner? Most viruses aren't very obvious unless you have AV software screaming at you about them.


RE: I hope so
By Korvon on 11/10/2006 4:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Been using Vista with Firefox for a month... no issues or infections. Tried the only AV for Vista but it limited BitTorrent and slowed down the system. I hate all in one security platforms.


RE: I hope so
By tuteja1986 on 11/10/2006 9:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
I bet you that Anti virus company like Symantec will be so desperately looking to exploit Vista. For every 1 chum cracking Apple's OS their are 50,000 chum trying crack open Microsoft's OS.


RE: I hope so
By gibbsk on 11/10/2006 9:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's likely why they were wanting to get their hands on the Vista kernel... ;)


RE: I hope so
By muffins on 11/10/2006 11:07:57 AM , Rating: 3
how else they gonna make their money if they cant make the viruses? :)


RE: I hope so
By Chadder007 on 11/10/2006 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Im starting to believe that considering how much Microsoft has locked down the Kernal and Symantec has been tripping out like crazy.


RE: I hope so
By Christopher1 on 11/11/2006 9:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it is POSSIBLE that Symantec and other virus-scanner makers are also making the viruses you see on the internet (considering that we almost NEVER have the person who first started spreading them caught).

Do I think that they are doing that? Hell no! If they were found to be doing that, it would be BILLIONS in fines and lawsuits against them.

The risk/reward ratio is way too set on the side of too much risk for an antivirus company to do that.


RE: I hope so
By scrapsma54 on 12/5/2006 6:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft not only has my kudo on this topic (finally a way to shut up my classmates about mac is going to pwn vista).
But its also a way to eliminate all the 3rd party akshole's like mcaffee or norton who try to manipulate a users experience. since microsoft is only letting the 3rd party use an api instead of letting the scanner run amok that means very few people would be able to discover the code to the 64-bit kernel with the help of the scanner. I read in an article recently that norton totally bs the heck out of, said "vista would not be able to discover the trojans if they ever got into the kernel." well the trojan probably would never get there if microsoft wont release the code or even better if microsoft randomized the kernel access code per OS (thus eliminating the chance that a virus would work.


No chance
By greylica on 11/10/2006 9:24:23 AM , Rating: 1
No chance of using Windows anymore, I new Blaster or Sasser will appear sooner or later and everything will turn back again and again. Windows Run in circles, we listen the same blah blah blah when 98, 2000 and Xp comes. Bill gates told
" Hackers will suffer with Windows XP "
OMG.
A misconception is continued...




RE: No chance
By Murst on 11/10/2006 9:46:44 AM , Rating: 4
Well, take a look back at what Microsoft was aiming for with past releases.

What was the problem with 95/98? No one really focused on security back then, so that certainly wasn't it. People were just sick of the constant crashes and restarts that plagued the OS. Microsoft then claimed that they will fix the OS so that it doesn't crash any more. No one believed them and stated it was imposssible with the way windows is written and with the support it must provide for different hardware manufacturers. Well, Microsoft released XP and (mostly) fixed the issue.

With the crashing issue fixed, MS bashing had to move in a new direction. Secuirty was the next obvious target, and here we are today. Microsoft is now stating that they have fixed the issue with the next version of the OS. People are again stating that this is impossible with the way Windows is written. Hopefully MS proves everyone wrong again.


RE: No chance
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/10/2006 9:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a question: If they do put a damper on the security issues (I don't think an OS as mainstream as Windows can possibly be completely free of them, hackers are too creative and too driven to 'stick it to the man'), what will the Microsoft bashers move to next?


RE: No chance
By Christopher1 on 11/10/2006 10:35:42 AM , Rating: 4
It is also a good point to make that should Windows ever become a 'niche' brand (I don't see that happening anytime soon), hackers will move on to the new guy and hack it.

I've talked with people who have run Unix systems, Linux systems (yes, I know they are the same thing basically), Mac systems, and other lesser known flavors of systems.

They have stated bluntly that those systems are just as insecure as Windows-based systems, they just aren't worth the time for hackers to write code for them because they are niche systems.


RE: No chance
By Clienthes on 11/11/2006 4:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
Next up is bloated code. They already bash this, and given system requirements for vista, this is my bet for the next big bashing point.

Good, I say! People complain, MS fixes stuff. So whine up a storm.


RE: No chance
By mindless1 on 11/13/2006 7:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how people can have legitimate concerns and yet others want to just pre-emptively call it bashing.

Tell us this, is there no product on earth that you have any legitimate concerns about? Do you accept that with those product(s) you find problematic, OTHER people might not find those same problems significant? So it goes with Vista too, your needs are not the same as everyone else's.


RE: No chance
By Lifted on 11/10/2006 2:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
The main problem with security in Windows 2000/XP/etc is the user. Users do not know anything about computer security so they use an admin account all the time. This is something Microsoft has to deal with as most people don't want to know enough to safely use their computer on the internet. Aside from worms, which can be blocked with a $40 linksys router, I can't remember the last time I've seen a virus or malware infect a computer being used in by a user the Users group, or an equivilent custom security group. Do Linux users browse the web using root or an admin account all day long? That would be just as potentially destructive as doing so in Windows, but Linux users tend to know something about security so the devs don't have to "lock down" the admin account as Microsoft does for Windows. MS deserves credit for making the use of admin accounts safer when instead they could tell everyone to piss of and learn basic security techniques, the main one being don't run as admin if all you are doing is browsing the web and writing documents.


RE: No chance
By Christopher1 on 11/11/2006 9:07:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'll say that MOST users are very ignorant of basic security. Some simply say that it is more worth their time to just surf and download, and let someone ELSE handle the cleanup if they have a problem.

I've actually heard people say that.


RE: No chance
By Helbore on 11/11/2006 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
An old boss of mine asked me to take a lok at his home computer once. It was so hopelessly infected with virri and adware, that I told him it would be easier to just reinstall Windows fresh. However, he said he wanted a new computer anyway, so he'd just ditch it and buy a new one. He got me to spec it for him and the first thing he said was "£30 for a virus scanner. Get rid of that!" When I pointed out that it was the lack of any security that got his last computer so infected that he could no longer use it, he responded, "I don't care, If it happens again, I'll just buy another one again."

The git had WAY too much money.


RE: No chance
By timmiser on 11/10/2006 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
We've never heard Microsoft hinting that Anti-virus software might not be needed. As a matter of fact, Windows 95 plus pack contained a 1 year subscription to Mcafee Antivirus. Windows XP SP2's taskbar will harrass you with popups until you install some form of anit-virus so I wouldn't say this is the same blah blah blah we've heard in the past.


One thought
By jazzboy on 11/10/2006 10:44:43 AM , Rating: 3
From the article:

- Web Restrictions to limit access to what sites your child can visit and download content from.
- Time Limits to control how long your child can use the computer (can be limited to specific days of the week, specific hours of the day as well).
- Games can be blocked or given access to based on ESRB ratings and game content.
- Block Specific Programs that your child should not have access to.
- Activity Reports to give you a listing of what sites your child has visited during their session, the number of emails they've received, who they're instant messaging and more.


Whilst I'm sure parents would certainly like these features, I think Microsoft should still be encouraging parents to supervise their kids. That would stop kids visiting dodgy sites in the first place as opposed to finding out later and then punishing them - assuming the child even did such a thing and not spyware/virus or something like that.




RE: One thought
By Spivonious on 11/10/2006 10:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
With more and more kids having their own computers in their bedrooms, it would be next to impossible to monitor their computer activity. I see what Microsoft is doing as equivalent to the v-chip stuff for TV. You don't want your kids visiting porn sites while you're at work? Add them to the block list. You don't want them installing some M-rated demo? Add it to the block list.

Don't get me wrong; more parental involvement is the best solution. This just gives parents a little help.


RE: One thought
By Christopher1 on 11/11/2006 9:09:52 AM , Rating: 1
More like a false sense of security. Frankly, people are always bashing the 'kids seeing porn sites!' like it will give them 'ideas'.

Bull. Kids already act sexually and get more information about sex from overhearing parents talk about it, so I don't worry about my young cousins seeing pornography.
I've talked with them, and they knew more about sex when they were 6 than I knew when I was 20, just from talking with older children and overhearing conversations.


RE: One thought
By muffins on 11/10/2006 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 3
They can stop them from visiting dodgy sites. Thats what the first point is.


RE: One thought
By Russell on 11/10/2006 12:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you were a kid would you like your mom watching everything you do online over your shoulder? This is a very good compomise - parents set the limits in the technology, kids can browse independently without fear of parental interference.


RE: One thought
By peternelson on 11/10/2006 5:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I support SOME of the parental features, but they may go a little too far.

Anyway I think these features will be much more popular with companies monitoring / restricting their employees.

eg no accessing porn in the workplace, limited hours to accessing systems while you're at work (not sneakily in the evening to do fraud), logging of sites you visit and any msn use, denying access to websites not business related like myspace, personal blogging, ebay (personal use of), etc.

A whole legal can of worms ;-)


RE: One thought
By Clienthes on 11/11/2006 4:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
I know you didn't mean to make it sound like companies don't have a right to restrict their employees from using company computers and resources to view certain types of material, personal in nature, on company time. But your post could give that impression.

Anyway, which parental feature do you feel go too far? they all seem pretty reasonable to me. Of course, I doubt many parents will take advantage of the features. Bad parenting is rampant these days.


RE: One thought
By Christopher1 on 11/11/06, Rating: 0
Oh, Please
By The Boston Dangler on 11/10/06, Rating: 0
RE: Oh, Please
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/10/2006 9:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
Windows defender has actually started to build a decent name for itself. I haven't looked in a while, but when it was newer, it was in a close race with CounterSpy for best adware monitor.

I liked it as a beta, and now I enjoy the final release.


RE: Oh, Please
By othercents on 11/10/2006 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
Both of you are right. You don't really need a spyware or antivirus software, but not all computer users are as savvy as us. When they see a banner that says "free Xbox 360" they click on it and fill out the form. Then when they get all this spam email about Viagra and Free 1 million dollars they click on that. Then they start getting popups about there computer having Spyware on it, so they click to fix their spyware issue.

This could happen to ANY operating system. The only reason why it doesn't happen with Unix is because your average user doesn't understand how to use it, so you only have technically savvy people using it. It doesn't happen with MAC because their consumer base is too small to make money off of all the dumb users. I'm positive that it will happen in Vista too because of education and the desire to make a quick buck.

Other


RE: Oh, Please
By imaheadcase on 11/10/2006 12:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
what! I'm the 30,300,223,022 vister to the site so i win a xbox, it says so!!!! :D


RE: Oh, Please
By flexy on 11/10/2006 5:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
i am working w/ PCs for years...and you can assume i am not that stupid to get lured by pop-ups to clicking suspicious sites - NOR (as you describe it) "clicking" on mysterious exes.

I had two or three SERIOUS infections the last two years...thats is, WITH a virusscanner running.

The irony is (as far as i remember) those infections happened literally "over night" - based on the fact that i had a browser (FF) window open which i didnt close.

There are websites out there which infect you without doing the OBVIOUS "clicking" on an exe..even with FireFox and no ActiveX..and even with a pretty good (NOD32) scanner running in the background.

I think if you're saying you dont get an infection because you dont click on unknown exes is a little bit naive.

It happens RARELY....but (too bad) if it happens its serious and it takes me the whole aresenal of cleaning tools, safe-mode, various runs of trojan scanners/adware scanners and KAV etc..etc..to get rid of them.


RE: Oh, Please
By flexy on 11/10/2006 5:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
also..i have seen various PCs which ALL had scanners installed and running, eg. MCAffe...this one PC was literally infected down to the bone with hundreds of whatever you name it.

And another PC which had a AV suite running with the pretty good KAV engine and some additional AV engine also got 4 trojans, nevertheless.


RE: Oh, Please
By Christopher1 on 11/11/2006 8:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry to say then that the person you are talking about with hundreds of viruses was going to a lot of 'grey' or black sites and downloading infected programs, or someone else was using his computer and went to those grey and black sites.

The problem right now is that a lot of 'white' sites are not locked down well, and someone can upload a trojan to that site easily, if they hide it in another program.

The solution to that is to make everyone give a verifiable e-mail address that is not a free one, but I don't see that happening.

I happen to keep VERY close tabs on my parents and my computer, virus scanning with Windows Live Care Scanner, Symantecs Internet Security 2005 software, and running numerous ad/spy-buster programs on a regular basis.

I've only ever gotten viruses from codec packs I should have been QUITE skeptical from, or from sites that I knew from their web address were iffy sites, but went to them anyway.


Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
By encryptkeeper on 11/10/06, Rating: 0
RE: Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
By Christopher1 on 11/10/2006 10:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft basher? Frankly, I trust Microsoft a lot, the facts are that when they were first making the NT-system, the internet was a niche thing.

Now that it is standard, they had to rewrite their OS to take into account that most users are stupid, and when they see the words 'Free' or 'Get this for this', their common sense vanishes into the ethereal void.

You might, MIGHT, be able to get away with not running anti-virus on a Vista machine. I wouldn't want to be the first to try it, but if I saw someone credible who is non-microsoft saying you can, I would give it a try.


RE: Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2006 10:44:58 AM , Rating: 3
You dont trust them, because you visit to many pr0n sites and download everything that does with 'em. Be it spyware, virii, you name it!
I dont have a virus scanner, or a firewall running, Everything is backed up. If somehow I do get a virus, then I'll just format, simple! The only things I have installed is Adaware SE and thats it. Never get blue screens of death... nothing goes funky, and most importantly, I dont get disturbed playing games online when the virus scanner decides to do an update, making my latency go through the roof, or when it starts doing a scan and suddenly Oblivion crawls at 1fps. Sorry but a virus scanner isnt for me, All you need is smarter thinking with the way you use the internet, and thats it.


RE: Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
By flexy on 11/10/2006 5:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
>>>
All you need is smarter thinking with the way you use the internet, and thats it.
>>>

so i must be doing somethign wrong...starting from that i do OF COURSE have a scanner running, a special uptodate hostfile which blocks known suspicious sites, all security updates, a firewall...etc...etc.

Your advice "all you need is smarter thinking" is pretty funny...sorry. For every "geek" doing "smart thinking" thre are hundreds of people out there doing "smart thinking" writing malicious code :)

If you want 100% security then the only thing you can do is UNPLUG from the net :)

Some people make it sound you only need some common sense and are immune against virii/trojans...i wish it were that easy.


RE: Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
By StevoLincolnite on 11/15/2006 8:58:15 AM , Rating: 3
Well it is rather unlikely your going to catch a virus if your playing on a gaming server. Or checking your email via hotmail. (Hotmail virus scans your emails).
If you go looking for cracks, go torrenting, Looking at Pr0n, Download .exe files off your mates then your just asking for trouble. Visit trusted sites, sites you KNOW are safe. I dont exactly see myself catching a virus off the text you just posted did I?


RE: Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
By Russell on 11/10/2006 12:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that the no anti-virus claim applies only to certain unlikely circumstances - the kid was locked out of most sites and unable to download files. Barring no sasser/blaster-like fiasco, this isn't unreasonable. If the kid can't do shit, the kid won't get a virus.

If you could block files from being downloaded with XP SP2 you could probably get away without an anti-virus too. But you can't block that (at least not as a regular user or without third-party software). That's the point.


The MS Marketing Machine
By phatboye on 11/10/2006 4:20:44 PM , Rating: 3
Listen to all the sheep out there listening to the MS marketing machine. MS have been talking big about improved security since the late 1990s and yet MS continues to find security holes in thier OS software. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on MS , and yes MS software has improved big time but statements like "Virus scanners optional" when using vista is totally absurd. MS can talk about how secure there OS is all they want but the proof is in the pudding. Let me see Vista go one month without a security flaw after vistas release first before making bold statements like this . Don't try to use your marketing muscle to brainwash your customers into believing that Vista is 100% full proof.

And before you MS fanboys go off giving this post a negative rating, please think about what I am saying. I am not a MS hater but I am really upset to see MS make statements like this without actual proof that Vista is indeed secure enough that it can be run safely without a virus scanner.




RE: The MS Marketing Machine
By Murst on 11/10/2006 4:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you read the transcript of the conversation from where the quote came from before taking things out of context.

Or you know what, you probably won't, so let me explain.

The guy was talking about his kid using Vista without any issues. He has set up controls where his kid was not able to download files except to a specific directory. The kid certainly did not have administrative rights, and could not install new programs. He came to the conclusion, that in this circumstance, he believes that Vista would not need AV.

Next time, before you start calling out at people in these forums, at least get a clue on what the discussion is about.


RE: The MS Marketing Machine
By phatboye on 11/10/2006 7:30:43 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you should think before saying something. But Obviously you can't so let me do the thinking for you. Yes I did read that first statement and yes I did understand what he said. What you don't understand is that before I accept any statement from MS saying that Virus scanners are not needed, even with the help of the parental controls and/or ALSR, you need to back that statement with proof. And since Vista hasn't even been released to the pubic for more than a few months I highly doubt that vista has been tested thoroughly enough that he can make statements as bold as that vista does not need a virus scanner with or without parental controls or ALSR.


RE: The MS Marketing Machine
By EdMcCorduck on 11/11/2006 5:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He has set up controls where his kid was not able to download files except to a specific directory.
Was Allchin perhaps misquoted? That is, maybe what he really said was " . . . he can't download things unless it's to the places that I've said that he could to ." Eyes of a college English teacher here.


Windows One Care
By psenechal on 11/10/2006 10:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
That's a surprising statement from a Microsoft employee considering the company now sells an Anti-Virus application - Windows One Care. I wonder if quotes like that from Microsoft will hurt sales of One Care?




RE: Windows One Care
By timmiser on 11/10/2006 12:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
One care is for Windows XP. They are talking Vista.


RE: Windows One Care
By stash on 11/10/2006 1:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
OneCare 1.5 is currently in beta, and adds support for Vista.


xp
By inthell on 11/10/2006 9:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
well i dont use antivirus with XP so i guess no change for me




RE: xp
By Pirks on 11/10/2006 12:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
same here


Sounds like admission of a vulnerability to me
By peternelson on 11/11/2006 3:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
"In the case of Windows Vista Beta 2, a DLL or EXE could be loaded into any of 256 locations, which means an attacker has a 1/256 chance of getting the address right. In short, this makes it harder for exploits to work correctly."

HARDER but not impossible?

ANY of 256 locations? That's like saying EIGHT BIT SECURITY LOL.

Hardly impossible to crack, even if you have to reboot 256 times to do it. Presumably once you get control you can stop the kernel addresses randomising, or know what they are.

Maybe Vista won't be as secure as all the hype after all.





By Christopher1 on 11/11/2006 9:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, but the problem is that you would have to program a piece of software/malware to look at those 256 locations EVERY TIME you boot up.

That would be quite a big file, not something that your average "Joe Schmo" would be easily tricked into doing.

Plus, if a piece of software was seeing scanning all those 256 locations, Vista would know to put the smackdown on that program and stop it immediately, knowing it was most likely malware.


No antivirus
By berat556 on 11/10/2006 10:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
No antivirus here as well, downloaded kapersky about a month ago and the computer was clean as a wistle.




RE: No antivirus
By Griswold on 11/10/2006 11:05:12 AM , Rating: 1
That could very well be the case (I run AV software and I dont remember the last time it found a little critter - must have been years ago under W2k). But, installing AV software after an infection could also lead to a "nothing found" message.

I see no reason to not run some flavour of AV software (ok, certainly not bloatware from symantec and mcafee) on current systems with dual cores and fast SATA drives - you just dont notice it anymore, unlike years ago.


Security from the user
By Screwballl on 11/11/2006 2:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
I have tested every publicly released beta version of Vista and it is a step in the right direction... for the typical user. The typical user is who gets viruses and spyware and adware and malware. The typical person is one who needs this type of restriction. Meanwhile for us enthusiasts, MS leaves what? Some buried settings deep in the system preferences for application control submenu of partB under "Are you really truly absolutely sure you want to stop these annoying MS security popups every time you want to Open IE7?"
Something as simple as opening control panel or changing your homepage yourself pops up a security warning, any small simple change locks the system until you say YES I WANT TO DO THIS DAMNIT!
IF you can manage to dig deep enough to stop the asinine popups, the more severe ones are more or less welcomed to prevent system damage.
The general public DOES need this, the rest of us can start/continue using Linux and keep XP for gaming (dual boot system of course).




Food for thought
By crystal clear on 11/11/2006 6:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
Allchin Suggests Vista Won't Need Antivirus
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
November 9, 2006, 4:26 PM
During a telephone conference with reporters yesterday, outgoing Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin, while touting the new security features of Windows Vista, which was released to manufacturing yesterday, told a reporter that the system's new lockdown features are so capable and thorough that he was comfortable with his own seven-year-old son using Vista without antivirus software installed.

Allchin's statement came in response to a question about his relative level of confidence that Vista would be more secure than Windows XP SP2. In response, he noted there were key security features added to Vista which could not be added to Windows XP SP2 even though, he said, his people apparently tried to do so.


Two such features -- namely Vista's new parental controls, and Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), which renders the object code of the system kernel in memory differently each time to thwart the designs of malicious code -- render his son's Vista machine comfortable enough for him to use, even though production-quality anti-virus software for the unit has yet to be completed.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Allchin_Suggests_V...




By crystal clear on 11/11/2006 6:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
This is for Brandon Hill-

*The Sounds of Windows Vista


Posted by Jim Allchin on Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:15 PM

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc...

This is interesting-
http://www.philipglass.com/glassengine/


Windows Vista system sounds
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20061110/vista-so...

Enjoy it & compare with XP.




Windows Vista To MSDN subscribers
By manpowre on 11/17/2006 12:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
I just checked Windows Vista on my companys MSDN subscriber account,. Its available, downloading, downloading, 1h left :) I guess the bandwith is still good, since not many people knows that its there yet :)




Better safe than sorry!
By Trogdor on 11/10/2006 5:01:10 PM , Rating: 1
As much as I want to believe their statements, you can never be too safe. I'm going to have anti-virus software on my system regardless. I just like that added security regardless of if it's needed or not.

A car doesn't "need" a seat belt or air bags, but once you crash you'll be damn happy you had em.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki