You think Microsoft is right?

http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1004326726/ShowPost.aspx

Check this out.

Do you think microsoft is right?
Do you think its good for Microsoft to be in the security business? Shouldn’t a third party be telling us that their OS is good and no flaws or weaknesses rathar than the people who wrote the provides it?
Does being security provider give them credibility or take away from their credibility?

Just wondering what your views are on this.

thanks
Melih

I believe they should NOT be in the security business, they build an OS that is easy to get infected by malware why should we trust them to provide all of our protection, and if anything they shouldn’t charge for fixing their mistake of making an unsecure OS.

I beleive Microsoft should be able to build any product they want (or buy other’s products and rebrand them as their own), but the fact that they built it should not imply that they are experts. Crying foul when someone shows your weaknesses shouldn’t be something we are suprised about, concidering the source of the whining. :slight_smile:

Let them build it… we need something to put on the shelf beside MS-Bob and WinMe :slight_smile: (V)

From a commercial veiwpoint, they can do whatever they want, providing they are not infringing anyones patents or using monopolistic practices to achieve market weight. If they compete fairly, that’s OK.

Having said that, if a builder stuffed up the foundations to my house, I sure as S#$T wouldn’t let the same pack of numbnuts build my roof!!! :wink:

Ewen :slight_smile:

You guys are right, let them build it, I certainly won’t purchase it, but maybe others may like it.

I think they are just trying to fix what they broke. They created gapping holes in their software and now they are profiting from providing software to stop the user getting infected by it.

If they build it fine, but I’ll definatley stick to Comodo for my security needs.

Mike

Hi All,
as has been said they can make what they like. When it comes to security I think it has to be tackled by experts in the field of security. Could we say hand on heart that is how Microsoft appears.
I’m only voicing my own opinion of course but I got XP from the start. Look at how many patches that they have applied since it came out. How many of those due to bad security.If you get Vista with Microsoft One Care. Will it be patching without you knowing.Probably.
George.

Another important question:

Should MS be the one who tells you their OS is secure or do you want a 3rd party to make sure their OS is safe?

Melih

Hi,

I would prefer a 3rd party because Microsoft has never been good at having something secure. And of course they may tell you its secure they made it.

In my opinion, the Microsoft OS should be bought without any software, because this is unfair with the another software developers…

About their security programs, I will not use them.

The only security program I use from Microsoft is Windows Defender but I will never trust them as my full provider.

First they thought Internet wasn’t a big deal. Then they made in a hurry an OS that has more holes than an Edammer cheese (I’m Dutch, that’s cheese with a lot of holes ;D), and now they want to earn money with plugging the holes they made themselves.

The worst thing: I do troubleshooting, and all the time I have to convince people Windows firewall is almost completely worthless, because it’s only half. “But I have a firewall, and now you say it’s no good?”

I like the Comodo firewall very much, but I’m slowly moving to Linux because I’ve completely had it with Microsoft. And once they kill everey competition in security I’m afraid in a short time Windows will be completely worthless.

Peter

If they approach a firewall software as they have an OS software then I don’t think Comodo or any other decent company has much to worry about. :smiley: Just look at their current version of a firewall as a good example of how they will handle it. Half-Assed!!

(B) Lee

  1. Microsoft has every right to be at the security business, as long as they are not infringing any market laws.
  2. It is good that Microsoft come in the security business. At least now probably they will try to fix faster the security holes of their products.
  3. It can give them or take away credibility from them. All depends on how secure will be their products. (less credibility of that they already have made over the years is impossible ;D)

ps. Hackers and identity thiefs will love it. Microsoft just made their life easier ;D ;D ;D

(B) (J) (L) (M) (R) (S)

:o Really?? When did Microsoft get into the security business? lol. With IE , security has never been an issue, they simply don’t implement it. The firewall is minimal at best, and what I always get bothered by is so many ISPs, and programs like Comodo, give free security, yet when you pay 300 dollars for XP pro, you have to buy things like their beta, defender , eventually. They see $$$ and I don’t trust their security. They should perhaps stick to their old ways and give us that non-secure system, and let us get the security, not them. The difference in many users is this, some know how to manually check registry, temps, cookies, dlls, ExEs , etc…and can tell what works and what isn’t. I have tried Defender and others and It doesn’t work , plain and simple and I don’t think anything else they put out will either. How about giving Comodo a new slogan, “Leave The Security To Us…” Perhaps MS will get the hint? Nah.

Paul

I think you’re on to something there :smiley:

(L)

And YES, MS will need validation by 3rd parties that their OS is safe and security tools function.

The good point: while they’re building security applications, they might discover problems in their codes.

The bad: they aren’t people from any security vendors so they’ll create - i bet… - a lot of useless rules. Like RealVNC is a real threat… etc. You’ll always need something against Microsoft itself (to stop the home-calling wgatray, to stop media player to send infos to home, to send your serial to home, to stop feedbacks, etc…). They won’t help in cases a worm uses a default setting of the os: “oh, you can switch that easily with MS product but that’s not an OS fault”, “oh, what a pity, we know where’s that switch and you must search for that”, lol. I hope this last one won’t be true.

Read this.

Is this a proof that there should be a 3rd party security provider providing security and not Microsoft?

Melih

Microsoft shouldn’t offer security products , what they should do is finding holes and bugs in their OS and fix it . make us sure that the system is secure .

But making security peoducts is like saying " Ok guys we have so secure os , but u should bye our security software to make it secure os :-" what commerical security comanies do it offer security products for money to make MS systems secure , so what Microsoft have to do is make people feel more save and tring to make more secure OS like what Apple do , But making security software is like saying "internet will never be secure , and we’ll never solve the problem and u should buy our software " .

Microsoft now saying that u never ever should use your computer without antivirus , and now they made antivirus , antispyware and even a more " secure " firewall !!! and alot of people say that internet explorer is the 1st source of malware !!! what a secure Operation Systems ???

Hello @$$ (no offense),

An OS will never be 100% secure no matter how many bugs and holes you fix, what one person codes another breaks so there is no 100% solution.