Kaspersky says Vista is less secure than XP

dafloppyone said:
Anti-virus software vendor Kaspersky has expressed concerns about the security mechanisms built into microsoft's latest operating system. The OS is so secure they are out of a job."
Click to expand...

i can see it now

Kaspersky is bound to complain. Third parties should never have been allowed into the kernel in the first place. Microsoft has finally had the guts to cut the access off, and in the process made the OS much safer.

And the Antivirus companies have the nerve to complain that it is hindering their work. lets be honest. If microsoft did things right they wouldnt HAVE any work.

So every step that MS makes to making them un-necessary is bound to cause complaints from the AV companies.
 
the-void said:
Did you see that. I didn't even mention their names. They cannot even take a little light hearted fun with getting all fanboy on me.

The funny thing is that I have been flamed in previous posts even when I provided constructive arguments regarding the flaws in Vista (links that backup my arguments up were ignored as being biased)

Do you not remember final8y that I was trying to get people to NOT turn the UAC off despite it being annoying. (Which is basically the crux of this thread)
I took a lot of flack for saying that.

So as long as I post within the rules of the forum then I shall happily provide my viewpoint where I see fit and not just to appease others.

If you actually read (or remembered correctly) some of my previous posts you will know that my disappointment comes from the fact that Vista is not ready yet and that I am waiting until November to buy new hardware and slipstream SP1 (and I got flamed for my choice of hardware as well - oh hum).

Hopefully by this point some of the worrying security breaches in Vista will be ironed out. I am also hoping that MS decides WGA in Vista was a complete balls up and changes it. They have already changed it once already, so I can live in hope.

I feel Vista was rushed out of the door with a lot of loose ends. This has nothing to do with me having problems by being an early adopter, but rather the fact that Vista had far too many people trying to steer its designs that it ended up floundering and it shows. Vista only offers a scant few features that are worth having over XP. I'm sorry, but bundling Aero, DVD maker, Instant Search and such do not qualify for reasons to switch, they are just padding.

And this is as much as I feel like repeating myself to the fanboys that demonstrated their ignorance the first time and came out with "yeah, the drivers arn't ready yet, you shouldn't have bought Vista if you didn't know what you were doing". And other classics that indicated to me they wasn't even reading my arguments before they came out with their standard cop out phrases. It was the classic behaviour of a fanboy.

I can understand a 12 or 13 year old xbox360 owner being like that, but surely not over an Operating System. :eek:
Click to expand...
One im no fan boy! i was using an Amiga1200 suped up with 80Mhz 060 & voodoo3 gfx card until feb last year because i don't like MS & i prefer AmigaOS over Windows anyday but unfortunately Amiga has fallen to far behind.
If you had not made your stupid pre-emptive strike then nothing would have started in the first place also it depends on who's making the joke to whether it is taken well or not something that you don't understand.

Two i would never call anyone a fanboy as that seems to childish or is that the new in thing know that the very young seems to pick up new saying faster than adults or is it that its ok to put down things you Void don't like & its far criticisms but anyone who is in favar is nothing but a fanboy.

Lets see how man enough you are & see how long you can go with out calling
others fanboy.
 
Last edited:
the-void said:
dafloppyone, the MS hawks will be here soon claiming you are MS-basing or "of course security companies are going to say that..."
Click to expand...

the daft thing is, these companies basically thrive by exploiting problems with windows. Fundamentally these problems shouldnt even be there in the first place if MS did things properly.

They really missed the boat with UAC, they could have made the OS much more secure and instead made a feature so annoying everybody turns it off. the AV companies have a point in criticising microsoft for this

What i dont agree with is them complaining that blocking access to the kernel isnt the way forward. Of course it is for gods sake. They're complaining they cant do their job because of it. The fact is they shouldnt even have a job and if MS does what its supposed to, and really secures Vista up, they will have a whole lot more complaining to do. Fundamentally these companies shouldnt even exist, and have no right to complain when MS takes step to secure up the OS, and put them out of business.
 
MrLOL said:
the daft thing is, these companies basically thrive by exploiting problems with windows. Fundamentally these problems shouldnt even be there in the first place if MS did things properly.

They really missed the boat with UAC, they could have made the OS much more secure and instead made a feature so annoying everybody turns it off. the AV companies have a point in criticising microsoft for this

What i dont agree with is them complaining that blocking access to the kernel isnt the way forward. Of course it is for gods sake. They're complaining they cant do their job because of it. The fact is they shouldnt even have a job and if MS does what its supposed to, and really secures Vista up, they will have a whole lot more complaining to do. Fundamentally these companies shouldnt even exist, and have no right to complain when MS takes step to secure up the OS, and put them out of business.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with UAC like i have said before is that it does not remember what you have given permission to & have to allow every time you start up wich is realy stupid i would be surprised if they dont fix that in SP1.
 
dafloppyone said:
Anti-virus software vendor Kaspersky has expressed concerns about the security mechanisms built into Windows Vista. According to ZDNet, the firm says Vista's User Account Control system, which asks for confirmation whenever users change system settings or install new programs, is so annoying that users will disable it. And with UAC disabled, the firm says Vista is less secure than Windows XP. Worse yet, Kaspersky chief executive Natalya Kaspersky told ZDNet that her analysts have already found five ways in which malware could bypass UAC.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. Don't turn it off. If you turn off your AV or Firewall and you get virsuses/people breaking in you can hardly complain can you?

Kaspersky also added her voice to Symantec and McAfee complaints that PatchGuard, designed to protect the Vista kernel, is hindering security companies' work. "PatchGuard doesn't allow legitimate security vendors to do what we used to do," said Kaspersky. Symantec has claimed that PatchGuard is hurting security vendors more than it was hurting malware writers. Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, said: "There are types of security policies and next-generation security products that can only work through some of the mechanisms that PatchGuard prohibits."
Click to expand...

Old news, they just can't be bothered to find a way around it. If they don't like it they can always switch to coding for Linux or Mac OS only. Or code an OS themselves.
 
They'll just have to work with it. Thats life, if you make products for other peoples products.

MS are under no obligation to take critisism from these guys, or modify their products to suit them.

We're allowed complain tho, cause we paid for Vista ;)
 
Vista is in the initial stages of its release and the main thing that has made me go back to XP is the lack of drivers support and program support. Thats nothing to do with microsoft however. Using vista for a few months ended with me turning off UAC. I thought i was going to scream at times. Im sure kaspersky will get around the problem and fix the weakness in vista when the user has UAC turned off and im sure that they will make a tidy profit if they achieve this. I will go back to vista when the driver support sorts itself out as I dont seem to ever get problems with virus' etc so will turn UAC off. Its up to the user to do what they feel is best. If protection and security are your number one concern then keep UAC on. Its all about choice. If you dont like windows go linux, if you dont like vista go xp.
 
On the 1st day Microsoft created Vista... On the 2nd day Kaspersky discovered fire... and it was good... On the 3rd day Kaspersky put Vista through its paces... On the 4th day Kaspersky create press release. On the 11th day of the 11th month on the 11th hour Kaspersky discover the 64-bit edition.......

:D

PS: Anything that needs to bypass Patchguard is, by definition, a root kit. These types of software are not supported on Windows anymore and the anti-virus companies which rely on rootkit technology need to accept that.
 
Last edited:
Snip the original comment leading to

the-void said:
Well, it doesn't answer mine. Got a name for that kind of thing have you?
Click to expand...
Trolling every single Vista thread is one thing but that is just plain out of order.... You need to grow up and apologise.
 
Last edited:
Please boys..... Calm down. Does anyone know why UAC was put in in the first place?
A poll was run in several countries asking about the biggest problems with windows? It wasn't the hacker via Mailware but it was more of a family problem. It was because there are certain parts of the average family that install every piece of software on their system to see what it is, or for various "stupid" reasons. And from most of the answers that were received most complained about the so-called cover-disc setups that can give us more problems than we need.
A teenager receives an E-mail and installs a Keylogger unsuspectingly on the family PC. Come to think of it some adults too.
MS listenned to the way they were being installed and did something about it. If you haven't got permision to install software on the PC it won't let you. But if it is turned off the end-user is then responsible for what he/she has on their PC. If they end up with a Virus ridden PC don't blame MS. just blame themselves because the moment they turned off UAC they allowed the corruption of their property. In the next SP I suspect it will be worse because the security will be tightenned further, so tight in fact that Users will be complaining more about UAC whom dislike the Admin Parental Guard. With a number of families I know they have welcomed the feature except the kids whom cannot bung just any ***P on the PC.
Let's keep it simple guys, if you weren't given permission by your parents to do something would you be wondering why they didn't create hell for not abiding by their rules. All MS have done is given more Administrative control to the Family PC. If you see that as negative then you should look at the crime figures for Crime and types of crime on the internet- worldwide.
 
UAC doesnt stop any of those problems though. when you want to run something , your not gonna click NO are you ? especially when you have to do it for every single thing, you soon get used to clicking the "BloodyHellYesForTheNthTime" button.
 
MadMatty said:
UAC doesnt stop any of those problems though. when you want to run something , your not gonna click NO are you ? especially when you have to do it for every single thing, you soon get used to clicking the "BloodyHellYesForTheNthTime" button.
Click to expand...
So you set it up so that the password needs to be entered, so no-one else can wander over and install anything on your PC.
 
But how is that better than setting up TheYoungestInTheFamily restricted user account in XP?
 
only you do is leave the UAC on and wait for next SP1 is release... I just leave it on. it up to you if you want to switch off UAC or leave it on, remember it yer PC... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom