Well Im buying a new OS for my new pc, so i have to buy Vista since my computer parts will work at best with this OS, however I'm usually concerned about security and i want to keep my computer safe from all kinds of malware, so i'm just wondering, how secure is Vista OS? Preferable if i want to be even safer i wouldn't buy Windows OS, i would buy Leopard 10 or Linux. So does anyone know how secure Vista is or is the dangerous still the same?
Page 1 of 1
Windows Vsita How secure is it?
#2
Posted 05 April 2008 - 04:43 PM
At the moment XP is arguably a more stable system, but that's just what I've heard. Here's an article from ZDNet if it helps.
Source: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/...39274261,00.htm
Quote
Microsoft partner: Vista less secure than XP
Security company Kaspersky claimed that Vista's User Account Control (UAC), the system of user privileges that can be used to restrict users' administrative rights, will be so annoying that users will disable it.
Natalya Kaspersky, the company's chief executive, said that without UAC, Vista will be less secure than Windows XP SP2. "There's a question mark if Vista security has improved, or has really dropped down," she said to our sister site ZDNet UK at the CeBIT show in Hanover last week.
Kaspersky provides one of the scanning engines in ForeFront, Microsoft's business security product.
Arno Edelmann, business security product manager for Microsoft, said that Kaspersky's claims were surprising. "We have a thriving community of partners, and Kasperky is one of our best partners," Edelmann told ZDNet UK. "I find their statements a little strange because they have one of the best insights into Microsoft security products."
After being roundly criticised over its security strategy in the past, Microsoft has done a lot of work to improve its approach and has been touting Vista as its most secure operating system. But Kaspersky confirmed that her analysts had found five ways to bypass Vista's UAC, and that malware writers will find more security holes.
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."
Eugene Kaspersky, the company founder, said last Thursday that while vendors had to interact with Vista legitimately, hackers were under no such constraints.
"Cybercriminals seem not to care about Vista licensing," said Eugene Kaspersky. "They don't need to follow regulations or be certified by Microsoft -- antivirus vendors do."
Security company Kaspersky claimed that Vista's User Account Control (UAC), the system of user privileges that can be used to restrict users' administrative rights, will be so annoying that users will disable it.
Natalya Kaspersky, the company's chief executive, said that without UAC, Vista will be less secure than Windows XP SP2. "There's a question mark if Vista security has improved, or has really dropped down," she said to our sister site ZDNet UK at the CeBIT show in Hanover last week.
Kaspersky provides one of the scanning engines in ForeFront, Microsoft's business security product.
Arno Edelmann, business security product manager for Microsoft, said that Kaspersky's claims were surprising. "We have a thriving community of partners, and Kasperky is one of our best partners," Edelmann told ZDNet UK. "I find their statements a little strange because they have one of the best insights into Microsoft security products."
After being roundly criticised over its security strategy in the past, Microsoft has done a lot of work to improve its approach and has been touting Vista as its most secure operating system. But Kaspersky confirmed that her analysts had found five ways to bypass Vista's UAC, and that malware writers will find more security holes.
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."
Eugene Kaspersky, the company founder, said last Thursday that while vendors had to interact with Vista legitimately, hackers were under no such constraints.
"Cybercriminals seem not to care about Vista licensing," said Eugene Kaspersky. "They don't need to follow regulations or be certified by Microsoft -- antivirus vendors do."
Source: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/...39274261,00.htm
#3
Posted 05 April 2008 - 04:54 PM
Oooh thats useful, cheers for sending me that, I found another article that states that Vista was more secure and only needed fewer security patches: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2192615/...ms-vista-secure
But the article you sent me also worried me since its a possible its less secure but like you said its seems pretty secure, iv found more articles sayings its a lot better in security and performance.
But the article you sent me also worried me since its a possible its less secure but like you said its seems pretty secure, iv found more articles sayings its a lot better in security and performance.
#4
Posted 05 April 2008 - 04:57 PM
There's mixed opinions obviously, some of them going beyond issue of security. Vista still has a long way to go before they iron out all the bugs anyway.
Page 1 of 1