Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits - Linux

This is a discussion on Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits - Linux ; "Vista remains riddled with holes, despite its multilayer security architecture and embedded security tools. Besides providing no improvement in virus protection vs. XP, Vista brings little or no security gains over its predecessor against such threats as RDS exploits, script ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits

  1. Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits

    "Vista remains riddled with holes, despite its multilayer security
    architecture and embedded security tools. Besides providing no
    improvement in virus protection vs. XP, Vista brings little or no
    security gains over its predecessor against such threats as RDS exploits,
    script exploits, image exploits, VML exploits, malformed Web pages and
    known malicious URLs, the Test Center found."

    http://crn.com/software/199701019

  2. Re: Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits

    On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:20:34 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > "Vista remains riddled with holes, despite its multilayer security
    > architecture and embedded security tools. Besides providing no
    > improvement in virus protection vs. XP, Vista brings little or no
    > security gains over its predecessor against such threats as RDS exploits,
    > script exploits, image exploits, VML exploits, malformed Web pages and
    > known malicious URLs, the Test Center found."
    >
    > http://crn.com/software/199701019


    I suppose you didn't read the response from Roger Grimes in the responses,
    did you?

    Also, notice how they keep commenting about Vista didn't "identify" this or
    that attack, neglecting to mention how many of the attacks actually
    succeded in infecting Vista.

    They used an external systtem to identify all the attacks against the
    machine, then marked Vista with a negative if Vista didn't immediatly
    notify the user of the attack, ignoring whether or not the attack
    succeeded. Basically, they were rating Vista on how well it acted like an
    anti-virus program.

  3. Re: Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits

    "chrisv" schreef in bericht
    news:O8udnZVFz-dPOGTbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@giganews.com...
    > "Vista remains riddled with holes, despite its multilayer security
    > architecture and embedded security tools. Besides providing no
    > improvement in virus protection vs. XP, Vista brings little or no
    > security gains over its predecessor against such threats as RDS exploits,
    > script exploits, image exploits, VML exploits, malformed Web pages and
    > known malicious URLs, the Test Center found."
    >
    > http://crn.com/software/199701019
    >


    BWAHAHAHAHAAAH!, you ignorant twat!
    Wow, even Slashdot, anti-Microsoft capital of the Web, acknowledges that six
    months after its release, Vista Security is still besting Linux.
    http://aspadvice.com/blogs/ssmith/ar...han-Linux.aspx

  4. Re: Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits

    "chrisv" schreef in bericht
    news:O8udnZVFz-dPOGTbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@giganews.com...
    > "Vista


    *PLONK*



  5. Re: Review: Vista, XP Users Equally At Peril To Viruses, Exploits

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:20:34 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> "Vista remains riddled with holes, despite its multilayer security
    >> architecture and embedded security tools. Besides providing no
    >> improvement in virus protection vs. XP, Vista brings little or no
    >> security gains over its predecessor against such threats as RDS exploits,
    >> script exploits, image exploits, VML exploits, malformed Web pages and
    >> known malicious URLs, the Test Center found."
    >>
    >> http://crn.com/software/199701019

    >
    >I suppose you didn't read the response from Roger Grimes in the responses,
    >did you?


    Yeah, and his main point is that the testers must have switched-off
    and/or accepted the UAC prompts, which is probably quite
    representative of what Joe Vista User will do.

    >Also, notice how they keep commenting about Vista didn't "identify" this or
    >that attack, neglecting to mention how many of the attacks actually
    >succeded in infecting Vista.
    >
    >They used an external systtem to identify all the attacks against the
    >machine, then marked Vista with a negative if Vista didn't immediatly
    >notify the user of the attack, ignoring whether or not the attack
    >succeeded. Basically, they were rating Vista on how well it acted like an
    >anti-virus program.


    Poor Erik, you didn't like their test results and methodology. I
    suppose that you think that M$ "get the facts" is completely
    unbiased...


+ Reply to Thread