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 have been on Vista for 9 months and without virus protection almost 2 with no worries at all for any of the first 7 months. Well, at first I was a bit worried but as time went on I grew much more comfortable. In October I installed One Care 1.5 (beta) and have been using it since. The combination of One Care and Vista seems great. One Care has some growing to do in the firewall but it takes care of my pc's very nicely (with automatic updates of all sorts of drivers, automatic backups, scans, etc). I'm not putting it against Norton's or anything but it runs in the background and keeps my tidy with no interaction at all, ever. On 11/28/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > doesn't apply patches. So the first big security hole that > > is exploited will spawn a whole batch Vista zombies. Hence > > why it's important to run antivirus. > > Viruses aren't, by definition, simply exploits that take advantage of > existing vulnerabilities. They typically require user intervention. If a > user doesn't have the ability to run unapproved executables, then the user > can't run the executable containing the virus. Preventing a user from > running a program that may or may not contain a virus is a much more > effective countermeasure than trying to detect the virus when a user runs > a > program; especially if, as you noted, people don't keep their machines > (including virus signatures) up to date. > > And, of course, patches generally don't protect you from trojans and > viruses, which again typically require user intervention and permissions. > If > I run an executable program, and I have adequate permissions to allow that > program to do whatever it wants to do, there's no patch for that. Patches > are much more important when it comes to protecting against remote > exploits, > but a firewall is a more reliable protection against that sort of thing. > > So, to the extent that Vista's UAC prompting actually makes people think > about what they're doing, it will, in fact, stop trojans, which like > viruses > rely on people running programs within a privileged security context. If, > on > the other hand, people disable this or just click through it without > thinking, then we're back where we started, and no amount of antivirus > software will prevent it. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, > Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. > Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:261928 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
