Re: M$ to charge to protect users from it's OS holes, security.

Super Spinner <Pepe.Smythe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Hayes wrote:
John Slade <hhitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Peter Hayes" <not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1hg85i0.n3ich3iiso6pN%not_in_use@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It's certainly wrong, immoral even, for Microsoft to charge for software
to protect the user from malware which exists solely as a result their
own deficient OSs.

Horse ***. It isn't only problems with Windows, it's people installing
viruses and other malware when they install junk from the Internet.

Horse ***. If Windows didn't have so many defects, running as root,
buffer overruns and the like, and all the other flaws in the first place
there wouldn't be any viruses and other malware in the first place.


LOL
Of course, Apple is perfect in that regard, right?
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798

And what has that got to do with "M$ to charge to protect users from
it's OS holes, security"? Nowt.

As I said earlier, Microsoft will continue to fix the OS flaws (buffer
overruns, and the like) for free via Windows Update (just as Apple does
with its Security Updates). The "running as root" problem is being
addressed in Vista, where the default account will be non-admin, and
IE7 on Vista runs on an even lower privelege level.

I'm glad to hear it, but these are all issues that should have been
addressed before XP was released. The clang of the stable door is
deafening.

Oh, and when is Vista likely to appear, and more to the point how many
users will upgrade to obtain these long overdue benefits?

(Meanwhile, Mac OS
will continue to have its default account level as Admin).

Yes, not too clever, I agree.

And you're wrong to say that if Windows didn't have so many defects,
there wouldn't be malware. I'd guess that 90% of spyware is installed
as a result of users installing random shareware, pirated software
"packages", and file-sharing software from warez sites, P2P, "cool"
looking sites, etc. If a user installs it, what's the OS going to do
to stop them?

For starters, have an uninstaller that tracks what was in the installed
package and remove all of it, and not leave it up to the software vendor
to pick and choose.

This one fact is a splendid illustration of Microsoft's contempt for
security issues.

That's where anti-spyware kicks in. Viruses are more
likely to actually exploit OS holes, but Microsoft is continuing to
patch such holes for free. But most viruses nowadays don't rely on OS
holes and the OS can't do much to stop them (not running as "root" is a
start, but doesn't prevent trashing the home directory, nor does it
prevent spreading to other computers (it does prevent affecting other
user accounts)). For such viruses, that's where anti-virus software
kicks in.


The other protection that OneCare provides is a two-way firewall (an
improvement over Window's built-in one-way firewall). It also has
backup software and performance tuning.


The only way I could see you're and others' argument that "the OS
itself should be secure enough to deal with malware installed by the
user" holding water is if the OS itself had anti-malware integrated
into it. Vista will have free anti-spyware integrated into it (Windows
Defender, which works hand-in-hand with OneCare (at the user's
option)). Microsoft can't add anti-virus or the enhanced firewall of
OneCare for free due to antitrust concerns; they have to charge for
these things. Mac OS doesn't have this stuff integrated for free
either, and it's not because the OS has no holes (the existence of Mac
OS Security Updates should tell you that the holes are there, no matter
how much those of your ilk want to pretend otherwise).

Microsoft's problem, and by extension the problem for the user
community, is that through incompetence and wilful neglect they have set
up their software as a target for a wide range of rogues from the hacker
in his spare room to mafia gangs.

No amount of patching, or reconstruction in the case of Vista, will
change that. Factor in Windows' overwhelming market share and I suspect
the situation is hopeless. Perhaps the time has come when an "internet
driving licence" is needed before being let loose on the web.

Note: Regarding what an OS can do to stop the user from running random
downloaded software, XP SP2 does check digital sigs of any downloaded
software and informs the user as to whether there's no digital sig, an
invalid digital sig, or a legit digital sig (and shows the detals of
the sig (who signed it, on whose behalf was it signed, and the sig
itself) when the user runs the software

Most driver software appears to lack this digital signature, perhaps due
to the cost of obtaining said signature.

When this happens, few users pay attention to missing signatures and it
becomes a paper tiger.

(Mac has no such protections,
but it doesn't need it as its not targetted (for now)).

Indeed, it's a problem Apple will have to address, if they haven't
already done so. The biggest threat, and one that will grow in the
coming years, is phishing, ie - social engineered exploits.

--

Peter
.

Quantcast