New Malware Report Hits Vista's Security Image 258
An anonymous reader recommends a Computerworld article on a new report from Australian security vendor PC Tools. The company released figures on malware detection by its ThreatFire product, and in its user base 27% of Vista machines were compromised by at least one instance of malware. From the article: "In total, Vista suffered 121,380 instances of malware from its 190,000 user base, a rate of malware detection per system [that] is proportionally lower than that of XP, which saw 1,319,144 malware infections from a user base of 1,297,828 machines, but it indicates a problem that is worse than Microsoft has been admitting to." Microsoft hasn't responded yet to this report.
What kind of malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would also like to see how many of these "infected" computers had UAC and automated updates turned off.
Looks like just another Vista bashing article (so it will no doubt be really popular here).
I don't think this article will be popular (Score:5, Funny)
technical limitation (Score:5, Funny)
This was my first thought too. But then I realised that they've obviously omitted that fact on purpose, to solve an infinite recursion paradox:
Vista is malware
Vista can host malware
Therefore vista is self-hosting
Vista is unstable
Therefore, vista can't host a stable OS
Therefore Vista can't host itse..
Oh, never mind. It works out just fine.
Re:technical limitation (Score:4, Funny)
And that, my friends... (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Posted from my Vista machine
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Computing must be based on trust unless you have your own chip factory, and even then you have to trust your employees.
If you buy a Dell with Linux on it, Dell can preinstall any rootkits they want and there's no way anyone could find them. You would have to boot from a CD or floppy and repartition the drives and reinstall the OS. Hell, they could install a hardware rootkit and even that wouldn't work.
I'm glad I build my own PCs. I'm going back to vaccuum tubes. Where's my tinfoil hat?
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Funny)
Why is it that only malware writers can write software that is Vista compatible?
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I got Vista specificaly to stop that kind of malware, and its worked like a champ.
See, I'm generally sharp enough not to put malware on my own system. The problem is that my kids use the computer while I'm at work, and they like to install "free" stuff they find online. Since you can't do a damn thing in XP w/o running as admin, there was no stopping this.
With Vista UAC you can run as an unprivelged user. If a program wants to install something, it will prompt for the admin password. If its me and I really want that install to happen, I enter the admin password and it proceeds as normal. If its one of my kids running, they call me at work begging for the password, and I tell them to go jump in a lake.
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:4, Insightful)
But the point is, if HP puts it there when you buy the computer (and yes I'm calling out HP by name: my HP laptop had orders of magnitude more of that shit installed than any Dell I've ever bought), the user's not going to remove it unless they're pretty technical. And technical users probably aren't running this anti-spyware tool, anyway. So suddenly every single HP PC sold it marked as having spyware, giving their numbers a huge boost.
Of course it complicates things, seeing as Wild Tangent is actually spyware. But you can't necessarily blame the user for it being on there, and you certainly can't blame Microsoft if their OEMs pre-load spyware on the machines. In this case, it would say absolutely nothing about Windows security, since the OEM purposefully bypassed the security to load it on.
(Microsoft could try a campaign to get more control over what software is shipped with Windows computers, and then you could watch Slashdot go crazy about how evil they are. It's a no-win for them.)
P.S. Why the hell is HP still in business? Their computers are loaded to the gills with so much crap that they take 3 hours to boot the first time (I wish that was an exaggeration!). And when you put in the Windows CD to restore a clean system, HP slipstreamed the crap on the Windows CD too! And these guys are selling more computers than Dell? Do customers just like abuse?
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Microsoft could try a campaign to get more control over what software is shipped with Windows computers, and then you could watch Slashdot go crazy about how evil they are. It's a no-win for them.)
Well, Slashdot's not a single entity with a single opinion. No matter what Microsoft does, there will probably be people on Slashdot that disagree with the decision.
That said, Microsoft has a history of trying to prevent competition by restricting what can be installed by OEMs. Remember the Netscape debacle? So there's a very good reason to be concerned if they tried to do this again, even if there were good intentions.
Ultimately, it's difficult to determine whether malware got onto the machine by the O
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell not? As somebody else pointed out, MS was able to force OEMs not to install Netscape and other media players. Its in MS's best interests to stop OEMs adding crapware to PCs as it harms their image. They could easily force this by threatening to stop advantageous pricing for OEMs that do install bad software. I realise that most OEMs & system builders operate on very small margins to any extra money the
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's entirely correct about the tracking cookie thing, every malware scanner I've used (apart from Windows Defender, I *think*) flags cookies as malware. My ex's new Vista laptop came with Norton pre-installed, and it flags a tracking cookie every time it runs (and only the cookie - so her laptop would possibly contribute to the report's number, despite being clean)
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Funny)
Not saying there's a correlation to be made...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Different vendors describe malware in a variety of ways, so it would be useful to know which definition they're using here to get an accurate overview of what they're trying to say. After all, statistics without context are useless.
Re: (Score:2)
but 3 pages of Trojans would seem to indicate that they found something, no?
I see nothing in the original comment that implies that the poster believes that nothing was found. As I read it, the original poster believes that the issue is being blown out of proportion, and that without more detail we can't tell whether or not this is the case. Given that malware tools do indeed flag some perfe
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I download and install the cool icons for my IM client and malware comes along for the ride, is it Vista's fault that it allowed me to install it?
As far as I know, all MSFT has claimed is that Vista is more secure than XP, not that it is immune from malware.
There's nothing that an OS vendor can do to protect the user from their own actions.
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is key. Any OS which can run 3rd party code is vulnerable to malware. Whether the damage is restricted to the single running user or can damage anything the OS allows it to, software written for the express purpose of breaking something will work correctly given the right privileges.
So it doesn't matter if you're on Mac, Windows, or Unix, if you run code that is intent on deleting something and you give it the right permissions, it will do it.
There are various levels of protection you can offer here.
0. Let the malicious code run wild without any permission barriers
1. Run the malicious code as root
2. Run the malicious code as current user
3. Run the malicious code as special unprivileged user
4. Run the malicious code for privileged APIs and stop the malicious code on unprivileged APIs
5. Run the malicious code in a sandbox
6. Run only "signed" code
7. Do not run non-preinstalled software
As the levels go higher, the more hassle it is for users to install new software. Obviously we don't want to go back to DOS and level 0. And we've seen what happens when we run with level 1 restrictions. Running code at level 2 is a possibility, but it also leaves the user open to localized damage, specifically damage to their own accounts and data.
Microsoft decided that for their systems, a compromise between level 2 and level 1 was necessary. And in order to do anything to the system as a whole, UAC was implemented to request a means to elevate user privileges temporarily.
It's an ugly, annoying dialog, but what is the alternative? If you (the general 'you') think that another system does this better, in what ways specifically do you feel the system provides an adequate amount of protection and flexibility?
Re: (Score:2)
[nitpicking] Ahh, but Linux is impervious [/nitpicking]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft decided that for their systems, a compromise between level 2 and level 1 was necessary.
In addition, .NET contains Code-Access-Security (CAS) mechanisms that let you get all the way up to level 6.
.NET APIs are marked with permissions, and .NET assemblies can declare which permissions they need to run. System policy can restrict which applications even get to run, and allow some applications to run with restricted function.
.NET will allow you
4 :
5 : A sandbox is slightly different but can be considered to be a special case of 4 (or a virtual machine, or however else you implement it). Again,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Got a Trojan called Velemonde or something like that. Nasty bugger. Took hours to get rid of it (if I even did, popups stopped anyway).
However I am pretty sure it wasn't vista's fault. A more likely scenario is that when I passed out from a hard nights drinking my idiot friends that crashed the night before decided to go on the internets to some dubious websites and download everything and then run everything.
Am I going to go out a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really surprised, and can't really blame Vista either that much. AFAIK, it will put up UAC prompts by default to warn users opening e.g. malicious e-mail attachments (or hyperlinks via Live Messenger), but if they then say "Yes, OK, I approve", what more can it do? Vista on the other hand should allow users to start executables.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like someone got royally F**KED.
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Self selection bias?
How many of these machines were scanned only *because* an infection was already suspected or known?
Re:What kind of malware? (Score:4, Informative)
To quote TFA:
"It is important to highlight that all systems used in the research pool were at the very least running PC Tool's ThreatFire and that because the technology is behavioral-based, the data refers to threats that actually executed and triggered our behavioral detection on the client machine", said PC Tools' CEO, Simon Clausen.
I don't use ThreatFire, but "behavioral-based" and "threats that actually executed" doesn't sound like a cookie. They could mean it, but it doesn't sound like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:100% of Vista machines affected with malware (Score:5, Insightful)
PR != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Come again? Does anyone but Microsoft actually believe Vista has an "image" of better security?
Vista has one and only one major security-impacting feature - The "Train users to always click yes" interface to privilege escalation. And I feel confident saying that very, very few of us consider that a "good" thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How would you design a system that fulfilled the two items above while still allowing the flexibility to actually install programs when desired?
Re: (Score:2)
See OS X, most any desktop Linux or BSD distro for the answer. Of all the desktop OSes it's only the ones made by MicroSoft have this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel so misunderstood -- Can't imagine how you got that idea....
You said
And I was simply pointing out that no other popular desktop OS has this issue with munging security so badly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no trouble with my OS X, BSD, or Linux software installs affecting security. Heck, I know some MS users who have no trouble with that.
So I guess it's like driving. Everyone thinks they can do it, but in fact maybe one in five of us can actually do it without causing problems. So incompetent people wreck their cars and have p
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is one of those correlation/causation fallacies.
Linux has fewer of these 'user blindly runs stupid shit' problems because, at the moment, it's only run by people who also know about that sort of thing.
If Linux was the everyday OS, it would have just as many idiots blindly typing in their root passwords on demand.
I've never understood the thousands of HOWTOs and install guides that say 'now, don't run this as root!' then preface damn near ever step with 'sudo and type in your root password.'
Back-compat is the hurdle (Score:2)
And I was simply pointing out that no other popular desktop OS has this issue with munging security so badly
No other popular desktop OS has had a continuously maintained API going back to an operating system with a single-user kernel. The Win32 API has been around since the single-user Windows 98, and end users expect binaries compiled and tested on Windows 98 to run on Windows Vista. Apple solved this on Mac OS X (Classic environment) and CodeWeavers solved this on Linux (Wine) through partial virtualization of an old operating system to run its applications.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. So why didn't MS virtualize wi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The first OS to have a prototype implementation of an API is beside the point.
Uh, not when you're arguing it's a problem with the API, it's not.
I'm not sure why you think it was a "prototype", either. Win32 was NT's primary API.
Most applications for the home market were designed and tested not on Windows NT but on Windows 95 and Windows 98, as Microsoft didn't market NT for home use until 2002.
This does not excuse developers for blatantly bad practices. There is no excuse, for example, for applicati
Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Users should be informed the program is trying to run as an admin and so has been killed
Users should ask to install a program, be asked for admin password to continue and then go ahead without repeated warnings
Asking for permission to do something means the program was not installed properly (when installed it should request all permissions it will need), or should not be doing it
Windows Vista does all the wrong things
Prompts for permission on both installed and uninstalled programs repeatedly
treats an install the same as running a program
Linux/OSX are not perfect but seem to have got the balance more correct (mainly due to a legacy of doing the right thing and so not having to support user programs that assume full admin rights)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that installed apps should not ever bring up the UAC
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Vista does all the wrong things
- Prompts for permission on both installed and uninstalled programs repeatedly
- treats an install the same as running a program
That's actually quite inaccurate:
The question is do you need admin creds to run the program / installer or not?
- For most installers the answer will be "Yes".
- For many programs (say office/notepad/firefox/cmd.exe) the answer will be "No"
- For the same programs, the answer could sometimes be "Yes" (cmd.exe, firefox to install a plugin, etc.)
Note that you won't get asked to elevate everytime you launch the app -- though you can configure it that way if you wish. The app needs to be coded correc
Mandatory Windows Logo testing (Score:2)
How would you design a system that [silently blocked unwanted software installations] while still allowing the flexibility to actually install programs when desired?
By verifying that executables have been signed by the Windows Logo Program on every machine that doesn't have a current subscription to MSDN. Yes, this would force many ISVs with fewer than 10 employees to target Ubuntu and not Windows, but the makers of BREW phones, iPhone, and Xbox 360 have already accepted this collateral damage.
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Informative)
of us consider that a "good" thing.
Wait, that sounds familiar. Oh, wow! Both my post and yours are virtually identical!
Seriously, people bash UAC, but it's pretty much identical to sudo.
Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
In a social engineering attack where you download some program (malware) and run it -- the malware could spoof a UAC prompt -- if you are foolish enough to click "Allow", well, nothing really happens because the program didn't get elevated privileges (since it was a fake UAC prompt). In the sudo case, the equivalent level of foolishness has you entering your password instead of merely clicking "Allow". Result is that the malware has your password now, so it's basically Game Over.
Of course, this is probably a moot point because a better social engineering attack would actually do something causing a genuine UAC prompt (instead of bothering to spoof it). The level of foolishness required to click "Allow" is probably the same in both cases.
I guess where UAC becomes valuable is when an attacker has managed to exploit a hole, to execute code remotely without requiring you to fall foul of a social engineering attack. This way you know you haven't done anything to deserve the UAC prompt that just popped up, so you know that you should click "Deny" here. This might still fail to protect users that have absolutely no clue, but honestly they shouldn't be running an admin account anyway (and hence should not be able to elevate a process).
Re: (Score:2)
There is a problem in this thinking. The sudo prompt is only expected to appear in certain situations (such as clicking on administrator mode button in certain dialogs), not randomly when browsing the web. AFAIK, on Vista it can appear anytime application asks for it (but I am not Vista user).
Not true -- what happens when you launch synaptic, for example? You get a sudo prompt. Most gui apps (installers, administrative widgets) that require admins privs are going to start with gksudo or whatever to elevate.
The part about a prompt appearing when you're randomly browsing the web also still applies. i.e. the assumption here is that a security hole in your browser has been exploited because you went to a website that has malicious content. The hole was exploited to remotely execute code. This cod
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that forcing people to enter their *Admin* password to escalate their privileges also forces them to stop and think "hmmm does this program REALLY need that type of access?"
Sudo and UAC both grey out the entire desktop, and pop a system modal dialog that prevents you from doing anything else until you respond to it. If that's not enough to tell the user something big is happening, the password part isn't going to help either.
Additionally if the person is not an admin for that machine, they won't be able to install the software without someone's help, ideally an individual who took the time to NOT give them an admin account for just this reason... so they wouldn't install malware by mistake.
Right, and that's exactly how it works for UAC as well. If you're not an admin, your only option for installing something that requires admin access is calling an admin to help out. You won't get a UAC prompt (you have to do what's known as an 'over-th
Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Key difference - Using sudo represents an active request by the user for privilege escalation. Telling UAC to continue approves apassive request that the user might not actually have made (or known they made). When enough of them pop up at random times, it conditions the user to just say okay to make it go away - By comparison, no one would ever just randomly sudo a command for the hell of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if doing this, the approach becomes virtually identical. Well, one difference being that I have to actually *enter* the password in e.g. Ubuntu if doing an "administrative task", while I don't have to do this and just click through under UAC if I
Re: (Score:2)
IANAVU (I'am not a vista user), but I suspect that the difference of UAC and Sudo are that the Windows developers haven't cared earlier and therefor do all kinds of bad stuff because nothing have prevented them from doing so earlier, and therefor UAC bothers the users more so they get annoyed and start pressing yes for all (much as I suspect my sister does for her antivirus, antimalware and firewall I installed for her.)
But
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the problem is the Vistas UAC prompts users (even local admins) far to often.
Being a "Local Admin" just means your user has the ability to elevate using UAC. It is the rough equivalent of the 'wheel' group or /etc/sudoers.
%administrators ALL=(ALL) ALL
in
If I'm a local admin on a workstation, there are certain tasks that I would expect to be prompted for (installing software, patching software, deleting file from C:\Program*\, ETC.) but changing the system time? Opening the system
Re: (Score:2)
Most users would complain. In a corporate setting that is totally different
Lockout chip business model (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
But do those features actually work as intended? (Score:2)
Its only an improvement if the features work and are reliable and do not cause any other problems or side-effects.
Oh no, now you've done it (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista isn't great and was overhyped, but it's not nearly as bad as most people here seem to think. I'd hazard that the loudest critics haven't even used it.
Wait a moment... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They would, wouldn't they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
step 2: Publish story "OMG Malware!!1!"
step 3: ????????
step 4: Profit!
Consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
So a company that sells security software [pctools.com] puts out a press release to say that you still need to buy their software even if you run Vista. I can't think of a single ulterior motive that they might have to do this!
How many of the anti-virus companies don't issue doom-and-gloom style press releases? It is just their way of drumming up business. I would rely on these figures as much as I would rely of Microsoft's "research" that might suggest that Vista is completely immune to any security issue. The truth lies somewhere in between - which shouldn't surprise anybody.
And before anyone jumps down my throat, no Microsoft didn't says Vista was that perfect.
Cracks in the armour (Score:2)
There's a difference between the prompts when the exes are signed or not, for example here - http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/docs/intro/autoit_on_vista.htm [autoitscript.com]
Clearly Microsoft must give an URGENT update! (Score:2)
Disable the Yes button!
Phone them up and demand this urgent security feature!
Big Impact on Opinions (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of "obnoxious security" as highlighted by the apple commercial [apple.com], now we have "less effective than advertised obnoxious security that's still better than XP."
Can we possibly bring ourselves to acknowledge that M$ actually brought about an improvement in PC security? It shouldn't hurt too much since it appears to be verifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
And lets face it, if the user runs it, can it be considered a security failure on the OS part?
It's not Vista's fault that the user said 'Run SnowWhiteNailsDopey.scr.exe! Yes! Yes! Allow! Yes! I'm Sure! Yes! Yes! Don't Care That It's a Virus!'
Lets face it, if Vista didn't allow this, Slashdot would be running stories about how Big Bad Microsoft doesn't let users run programs on their own computers, that DRM watches you pee, and so on.
Sure, Vista is indeed safer .. (Score:2)
Sorry - you left that door wide open
huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Solutions? (Score:5, Funny)
This is indeed troubling (notice position of tongue and cheek). How can we fix this? I propose a five step program
5. Electro shock all users the click "install now" without thinking
4. Remove the fingers of users that follow the links on penis enlargement spam
3. Publicly flog all users that attempt to install that "special media player" to get to "free p0rn" from a any site in the former communist block.
2. Revoke all credit card, debit card, home depot card and sears charge cards for those that purchase a fake Rolex based on an email they got
1. Remove any and all computers from folks that say "My computers running slow, you know about computers, can you look at mine"
Respectfully,
Cluge
PS - A more meaningful less painful solution would be an OS lock down - IE think a live image distro where the Hard Drive is only used to store user data. Every reboot takes you back to square one - a heavily locked down environment with basic abilities allowed, but little else.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Vista has been analysed and researched now (Score:2)
Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Al these prompts and other crap, it's useless. It's just to "make you feel secure" and "annoy the hell out of you". Effectiveness is ZERO.
Vista and UAC .. (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought Vista with UAC didn't get malware. Didn't Allchin say Vista didn't need [theinquirer.net] any anti-virus software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Threatfire labels tracking cookies as malware, and yes, that means this story means nothing. I'm not fan of tracking cookies, but they're not a big deal to most people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I saw it coming (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a windows savvy user, and I've never had problems with viruses or malware, mostly because I know when to make sure what I'm about to run isn't malware.
That means I know generally what's already in my computer, and when I'm about to install or run something new, I either know it's from a legitimate source, and thus don't worry about it, or I scan the file before using it.
that's why I applaud things like the firefox virusscanner, it's actually combating the risk of infection at the point-o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Next, think about an Ubuntu install vs. a Vista install. Vista caught a lot of flak for the "cancel vs. install" thing but sudo('s GUI counterpart) is not much different, right down to the dark fade as it asks the user what to do. Since Linux clearly stole that idea from Windows, well, won't some leet folks please write a virus for Linux and level the playing field? Linux users are so tired of having nothing to painstakingly tweek.
Re:Self-selection bias? (Score:5, Informative)
27% of all the machines were owned by a marketing company. Its sunk in.
Sudo copied Windows - hmmmm ... "Sudo was originally written by Bob Coggeshall and Cliff Spencer "around 1980" at the Department of Computer Science at SUNY/Buffalo".
As for the virus remark - Its more difficult to write Linux viruses. User level permissions are more rigorous. The browsers don't have ActiveX. People who use Linux tend to know what a firewall is; and don't click yes in reply to "would you like to install" dialogues so much.
Re: (Score:2)
(Well, one would expect people would get a hint when it shakes around all over the screen, but no, must be real, better click it! It looks very important! Doesn't it?)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
gksu, which acts more or less like a GUI front-end to su, dims the background when you use it. I don't know if it's a configurable option, or how long it's been doing that, but I first noticed it a little while after Vista started dimming the screen on UAC prompts. That's what the GGP was referring to.
gksudo:
Dims screen, asks for permission to perform administrative operation, asks for password.
UAC:
Dims screen, asks for permission to perform administrative operation, asks for password
Re: (Score:2)
The point I was trying to make is that Windows is trying to have the benefits of *nix(e.g. shifting the blame onto the user via sudo) without all of the rock-solid file permissions and idiot-proofness of, well, Unix-like operating systems(all rm -rf jokes aside).
Re: (Score:2)
won't some leet folks please write a virus for Linux and level the playing field
Well, maybe Wine enables you to run Media Player, Internet Explorer and Outlook? =P, if nothing else I guess VmWare got you covered!
(I'm mostly shooting for the DRM-makes-it-a-virus-part in http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=558098&cid=23473018 [slashdot.org] but maybe you can run into other issues aswell.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the problem is combining ... (Score:5, Informative)
No matter how good your antivirus/antispyware/OS, once an idiot user figures out that by closing a certain app or clicking "yes" somewhere he can run the funny application he got by e-mail, he will do so, and the system is potentially infected.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:the problem is combining ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that works as an excuse for Microsoft.
The trouble with that Windows is supposed to be the operating system of the common man. At least, every time Linux gets a cool feature, the Redmond apologists start roll out their hypothetical Joe Sixpacks and Great Aunt Mildreds and tell us how these ordinary people can never cope with Linux, but windows, focus-grouped to death as it is, has been designed for these exemplars of non-geekiness, and is therefore superior.
But that makes it kind of hard to blame bad security on the users. Windows is supposed to be designed with the click-on-the-dancing-monkey demographic in mind. They can't really throw their hands in the air and say "it's not us, it's the stupid users" without admitting that, really, they haven't a clue how to make a secure operating system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A Network admins know that the common man or woman doesn't know their computers from their asses. It's like the saying goes, PEBKAC.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is king because Linux software isn't even there yet when it comes to quality. Whenever you have new hardware you probably can't even use linux because the drivers haven't come out yet or are beta and/or a bitch to install.
Linux continues to be dogged down by too many deal breakers for so many people. You can
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not an opinion I share, obviously.
But even if I did - I still don't see how that would Vista off the hook in terms of security.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem
Exists
Between
Keyboard
And
Chair
For anyone wondering...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft is king because Linux software isn't even there yet when it comes to quality. Whenever you have new hardware you probably can't even use linux because the drivers haven't come out yet or are beta and/or a bitch to install.
So I take it you haven't used Vista then? My scanner doesn't have working Vista drivers, it works in XP and Linux just fine. When Vista decided that my network is "local only" with no way to resolve it, I removed Vista and haven't looked back. You can argue some positive points with respect to Vista, but quality and driver support are not two of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some other commenter pointed out that being trained to clicking "Yes" was comparable to running everything as super doer. Rightly so. Do you know how tremendously difficult it is to convince Peter average user to have strong passwords, to keep user accounts and administrative accounts separate, and so on? As soon as he finds out how to run programs with administrative priv
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, Microsoft could counter that by combining the powers of Soviet Russia, old Koreans, Nathalie Portman, hot grits and Cowboy Neal to form Captain Meme, who drowns out everything Captain Fanboy posts with a flood of +5, Funny posts.