Limited personal testing for months...proves you know a lot less then me. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, t.piwowar <t...@tjpa.com> wrote:
> Okay, so it is buzzword compliant. But how does it work in the real world? > You don't know and I don't know. All I have to go on is the company's past > track record of broken promises about security. All you have to go on is a > list of buzzwords from their PR department and some limited personal > testing. So all this proves is that your gullibility score is much higher > than mine. > > > On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Chris Dunford wrote: > > Agreed, except that unless you have set yourself up to run as a >>>> non-admin, Win7 is far more secure than XP out of the box. >>>> >>> >>> This is just advertising for a operating system that is still in >>> beta. You have no way to know that it is true. Spouting such >>> marketing blather reduces your credibility to zero. >>> >> >> Yeah, except...no. XP doesn't have kernel patch protection, service >> hardening, data execution prevention, address space layout randomization, >> mandatory integrity levels, UAC, BitLocker, AppLocker, or DirectAccess. >> > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
