On Thursday 30 November 2006 20:35, John C. Bland II wrote:
That's not bad for One Care. Think about it...other than geeks, how often
do people buy new virus software?
Buy ? Never.
I had Norton because my bank gave it away for free, but it got s bloated
and slow, and then they wanted money
lol. That's how it goes. Force others to use what we like. I do it often
with my family (who hits me up like I own Geek Squad). :-)
On 12/1/06, Tom Chiverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 30 November 2006 20:35, John C. Bland II wrote:
That's not bad for One Care. Think about
On Thursday 30 November 2006 01:04, John C. Bland II wrote:
An app can't auto-elevate itself. It runs in the sandbox given and if it
Is this like the Java (etc) sandbox model ? The one that was, ya know,
*software* and so had *bugs* that meant you could escape ?
Even chroot on *nix used to have
One last thing (Jacob Munson), Vista can't be compared to a
virus protection
application (Norton's, etc). That is what they do...manage virus
definitions. Vista is the OS. If Vista has a hole, MSFT will
fix it. If a
new virus comes out, MSFT will update One Care's virus
definitions (a
Their argument was that Vista is strong enough to
protect against ALL future virus attacks, and therefore
antivirus software is redundant and unnecessary.
My argument is that preventing a user from running applications is a more
secure approach than letting users run applications, but
On Thursday 30 November 2006 15:31, Munson, Jacob wrote:
protection. But I thought I heard somewhere that Microsoft is not going
to include their virus scanner with Vista by default?
Last I heard, they weren't going to (URL up thread).
Instead, you'll get a box that flashes up all* the time
On Thursday 30 November 2006 16:31, Dave Watts wrote:
Windows historically has had
a very strong security model
:giggles and thinks of the Windows 98 login screen. They one you bypassed by
pressing escape.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to administratively repurpose interdependent networks
Windows historically has had a very strong security model
:giggles and thinks of the Windows 98 login screen. They one
you bypassed by pressing escape.
Windows NT, ok? I never used Windows 98/95, so I don't even think about
those.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
On Thursday 30 November 2006 17:33, Dave Watts wrote:
:giggles and thinks of the Windows 98 login screen. They one
you bypassed by pressing escape.
Windows NT, ok? I never used Windows 98/95, so I don't even think about
those.
:-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to autoschediastically syndicate
My argument is that preventing a user from running
applications is a more
secure approach than letting users run applications, but
checking those
applications' safety at runtime against an existing list of known bad
applications. Therefore, if I were to choose a single
mechanism for
When it comes to Windows, I am in that boat, but that's
because people have told me that a lot of software just won't
run if you're not an admin. And unlike Linux, there's no
'sudo' that works all the time in Windows. I've tried the
'runas' thingy you can get off resource kit CDs, but
Fortunately, though, if you want to run as a non-privileged
user on Windows
XP, it is doable and practical for most knowledgeable users.
I've been doing
it for quite some time, and the only real problem I've had is
that it takes
me two or three steps, sometimes, to do something that I'd
Ahh...my bad Jacob. Vista is more secure though so I understand what Dave
and them are saying. If the (virus) app can't do something crazy (edit the
registry, delete files, etc) without user approval, then the virus is dead
WITHOUT the users input (which is the biggest problem but at least they
One Care has a 90-day free trial and after the trial, the service is
marketed at $49/year, so about $4 per month. Considering that Symantec et
all charge for the live update service after 18 months, you can probably
break about even.
You can avoid the liveupdate cost by upgrading your software
That's not bad for One Care. Think about it...other than geeks, how often do
people buy new virus software? My mom had Norton's 2001 or 2002 until she
brought her PC down on her last trip. Her virus definitions weren't updated
because she didn't understand what they were trying to make her pay.
The One Care is a member service, so it has your credentials and your
account identifier. One Car was made to avoid installing new software as it
has a software upate service similar to the windows update. Also, there is
a member identifier that should allow you to use the product with Vista if
No, it doesn't come on Vista. Well, RC2 didn't have it. One Care 1.5 is for
Vista. It is currently in beta.
On 11/30/06, Teddy Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The One Care is a member service, so it has your credentials and your
account identifier. One Car was made to avoid installing new
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 17:06, Dave Watts wrote:
Vista simply makes that a little simpler, by requiring user intervention
for administrative actions
Unless it's turned off.
Or broken.
Or there's an issue with a privileged network deamon.
Or...
If you can't accidentally run executables,
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 00:33, John C. Bland II wrote:
Yeah, but some of the best hackers couldn't get through. Only 1 did, which
is amazing taking the history of Windows.
The best hackers (in terms of success rate) work for spammers or crime
syndicates.
They have an incentive to keep
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 01:05, Snake wrote:
Linux users would argue otherwise :-)
That's odd, because my old public DNS server was attacked, and my new Sendmail
install bounces at lest one a day.
Never mind all the funny things in the Apache logs. True, most of them are IIS
attacks :-)
://acoderslife.com
-Original Message-
From: John C. Bland II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage?)
You may not want to open that bag of worms. lol.
Plee:
Please don't start a Linux vs Windows flame war
Vista simply makes that a little simpler, by requiring user
intervention for administrative actions
Unless it's turned off.
Or broken.
Or there's an issue with a privileged network deamon.
Or...
How is this any different from anything else? Fortunately, most users won't
be able to
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 14:07, Dave Watts wrote:
How is this any different from anything else? Fortunately, most users won't
be able to figure out how to disable UAC, I suspect.
It'll be interesting to see how many computers ship with it off because it's
very broken.
As I said, it's
The remote attack surface for a patched Windows XP SP2
machine with the
Windows firewall enabled is pretty small. I have every reason
to expect the
attack surface for Vista to be as small or smaller. That, by
itself, doesn't
mean that users can't do stupid things that will get their
It'll be interesting to see how many computers ship with it
off because it's very broken.
My guess is that no computers will ship with it off. It doesn't seem broken
to me, either. If by broken you mean makes things more difficult for the
user, well, yes, I guess it's broken. I'm using Vista
The statement that started this whole conversation was a
Microsoft exec. claiming that Vista won't need antivirus
software. I TOTALLY agree that Vista will be way more secure
than previous versions. But to claim that Vista won't need
antivirus software is to claim that it won't have
No, those aren't the same at all. It might have as many holes
as a block of
Swiss cheese, but if the user can't execute the virus because he lacks
permissions to do so, the virus can't run. If the user can execute the
virus, but lacks permissions to modify the operating system
itself, the
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 16:02, Dave Watts wrote:
If by broken you mean makes things more difficult for the
user, well, yes, I guess it's broken. I'm using Vista RC1. Can you explain
what you mean by that?
It's Just Another Box.
Users will click it and type their usernames without reading
Tom, have you even seen or worked with Vista, specifically UAC? You have
strong opinions about Vista but it doesn't sound like you're speaking from
present knowledge. Just curious here.
To clear one thing up, Vista WILL NOT come with UAC turned off on ANY box.
An app can't auto-elevate itself. It
That's OK, Microsoft say you can use Vista without any
antivirus or antispyware, and it'll be fine.
/me rolls in the aisle
Don't laugh too hard. You can use Windows XP without antivirus or
antispyware, and it'll be fine. You just have to do two things:
1. Don't run as an administrator.
2.
If you can't accidentally run executables, you can't
accidentally turn your
machine into a spambot.
I think that the changes that Microsoft have made in Vista are awesome,
but they won't stop the Trojans that take advantage of security
vulnerabilities. Unless you think that Vista won't have
I think that the changes that Microsoft have made in Vista
are awesome, but they won't stop the Trojans that take
advantage of security vulnerabilities. Unless you think that
Vista won't have any security holes (yeah right). The
average user that is prone to let their PC become a zombie
They actually let hackers take a shot at Vista this summer and rave reviews
came out of it. I think 1 person was able to trick UAC but this was
in...hrmmm...I think Beta 2. That hole was covered in the next major
release.
I'd definitely say Vista is more secure and agree with Dave's statements. I
They actually let hackers take a shot at Vista this summer
and rave reviews
came out of it. I think 1 person was able to trick UAC but this was
in...hrmmm...I think Beta 2. That hole was covered in the next major
release.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I have no doubt that
: Tue Nov 28 21:56:27 2006
Subject: RE: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage?)
They actually let hackers take a shot at Vista this summer
and rave reviews
came out of it. I think 1 person was able to trick UAC but this was
in...hrmmm...I think Beta 2. That hole was covered in the next major
release
Yeah, but some of the best hackers couldn't get through. Only 1 did, which
is amazing taking the history of Windows. The 1 that got through even gave
great praise for the new system. If I can find the email/post, I will post
it here. I just have no idea where it came from.
Windows, OS X, etc are
Linux users would argue otherwise :-)
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 November 2006 22:13
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage?)
Aren't all comps open to hack/attacks...
This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage?)
Linux users would argue otherwise :-)
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 November 2006 22:13
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re
lol. Yeah, they always do. :-D
On 11/28/06, Snake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux users would argue otherwise :-)
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 November 2006 22:13
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage
viruses/Trojans written specifically with Linux in mind.
..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
Bobby Hartsfield
http://acoderslife.com
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage
the
info. Human stupidity never ceases to amaze me. For intelligent creatures,
we sure can be total dumba**es hehehe.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Munson, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2006 14:05
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Vista (was: CrystalTech outage
41 matches
Mail list logo
