I thought some of you may find this an interesting read. It is about Vista 64-bit security and the kafuffle it’s causing.
I don’t know anything about kernels, rootkits or running in Ring 0, (I leave all that stuff up to Melih and the rest of you), but if I upgrade to Vista it won’t be the 64-bit. I have, and am very happy with, both CAV and CPF and am not changing them for MS or any other bully out there.
Sorry, the content of the article made me a little ticked off… Here’s the link:
Thank you for posting that. I have been reading on this for a while now and was one of the outraged. On Cnet blogs I told off a bunch of MS cheering know nothings. They think they are getting better security, what a joke. I think Vista is evil and will go to linux the minute I can no longer use XP, this I swear! lol. It wants to lock out 3rd party securities leaving us to be secure by whom? Microsoft?? Pu-lease! These must be the same who think IE 6 is the safest browser :o .
Here was my answer…
I sit here chuckling a bit. Not at the replies but the thought behind this whole matter. For one, Microsoft is integrating their security products, this doesn’t mean the Vista OS will be any more secure. Let’s look at WindowsXP firewall, ooooo, aaaahhh, we are protected. No, Windows firewall may give a very small protection but that’s it. This is the reason for 3rd party firewalls. Another mention, if any of you think for one minute that “even if” 3rd party softwares were making viruses on purpose, etc…Do you not realize they would get past Windows securities anyway? This is where so many of you are confused, making a secure OS and throwing half baked security products into your OS IS NOT THE SAME. I don’t care how many security products MS throws in, they are no good! Did any of you stop and think that for one, MS will put many companies out of business, MONOPOLIZE the market with security products, and then do whatever they want? I don’t trust MS enough to allow them to do that. Pretend security while they get the know on everything you do. I think it’s rather scary to exclude 3rd party software. Does MS want them away from their systems to beging with? Hmmmm. I don’t , nor will I ever trust MS to any extent. If not for laws and other companies keeping an eye on them, they would have taken all of us to the cleaners years ago and are just as crooked as anyone. Anyone read about anti trust laws? MS is in there. I happen to like FREEDOM. I want to choose what I protect my pc with and sure as heck won’t be MS products, they are TERRIBLE. I would assume those without a true technological know how would simply think, wow, I am protected! No, you are not. Also, I knew the Vista wave would come crashing down, all the takers would have their hands out in anticipation of this “actually older than xp” system that has been almost fed to the dogs twice,has went under many aliases, is now resurrected as a great OS. Mark my words, there will be a great many issues. I for one don’t like where MS is going and it’s too bad really. Although equally as bad is many of us in the tech field who don’t like it, don’t like Vista, don’t like the ways of MS, there are always those who follow blindly and just as with anything else, refuse to take a closer look at a situation. Wow, way to go MS! It’s about time! Oh please, I want to keep my food down, since when has MS ever wanted anything for the users, it’s all about the money and control and always has been. Anyone with an ounce of technological understanding who has tested MS securities, knows they are no good so if those of you cheering this on get your information taken, viruses, spyware, hijacking or you credit card number stolen, I would love to see a response after that. I truly hope Linux comes out with an OS that would adapt to the needs of users that feel they can’t stray from Windows. MS fears Linux and open source and I would gladly help or even pay a fraction of a Windows OS price to help them build an OS that would offer all the “spoilties” that Windows does and get people to switch. MS corners the market, monopolizes every other aspect and they know it. Back to point, if MS has had so many security holes in the past, was so far behind in responding to IE security, what in blue blazes makes you think they will be so kind with the next generation of their OS? Puh-lease! I say leave the outer securities to 3rd party, let us choose, and let MS keep themselves occupied making a secure OS NOT throwing their JUNK into it.
Then here’s a laugh…
NO, I do NOT think MS should have to give away the information their people come up with to 3rd parties, anywhere in the world be it the UK or where ever. If they want the securities, then they need to come up with their own. Why should MS put out all the $$’s, and brains to give the information to 3rd parties. That’s my thoughts.
Now wait, they are saying people should come up with their own securities, yet saying MS shouldn’t give info out??and keep 3rds locked out then?? How do you come up with security then??D anything wrong here??? And who ever said MS put brains into anything with security?
What’s to stop MS from stopping ANY 3rd party softwares at all???