The people do what the platform allows, or encourages, or requires. Up through XP, the platform did nothing to require nor even encourage users to operate daily as non-admins. When you do an ordinary install of XP, the first local user you create is an administrator.
And so software developers did little or nothing to make their products work properly for non-admin users. Whether such software was the chicken or the egg doesn't really matter, the result is the same. It could have all been completely different starting in Windows NT 3.1. Dave Cutler knew the security model of VMS, which was excellent. But if the argument was ever made to enforce that security model on the Windows community, I'm guessing it got overruled in favor of backward compatibility and software developer coddling. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:26 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV I'd suggest that's a people problem, not a platform problem. -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:23 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > It wouldn't be as bad because ALL of those Mac users are non-admins. > > Compared with today's Windows population where probably 60% or more of > Windows users are admins for everyday usage. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:20 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that it probably wouldn't be as > bad. > > I'd also suggest that there's a significant anti-MS sentiment that makes it a > specific target. Along with the fact that I suspect that gunning for the #1 > platform makes extrapolating OS share to virus infection target rate a non- > linear exercise. > > -sc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:13 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > I started to reply to that remark too, then I had a little debate with > > myself whether I could make a good point... given that Macs have had a > > non-admin user default for some time, while Microsoft did nothing to > > encourage users to not be admins until Vista. > > > > Certainly if the tables were turned and Macs had 92% of the worldwide > > market share, the infection rate of Macs would be much higher than we > > see today. But it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad as Windows overall is > today. > > > > Carl > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:00 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > > While I am not a huge fan of MACS, their security model is obviously > > > much better than Windows > > > > I'd suggest that's an ill-drawn conclusion. > > > > -sc > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:19 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > > > Are there any reports out there that show Windows 7 running with UAC > > > that its minimizes the infections of spyware. > > > While I am not a huge fan of MACS, their security model is obviously > > > much better than Windows. I am hoping that with Win 7 and their > > > requirement to run as admin similar to the Unix model that it will > > > help minimize this. Even with users not in admin group in Windows > > > XP, Vista I have seen malware get right on and hose a machine. > > > Of course with Windows 7 if you make someone a local admin and > > > disable the UAC you are back to the XP model of security. > > > > > > Of all our support requests I would say 40% at least are malware > > > related probably higher.. > > > > > > I see this as an OS security issue not a 3rd party program issue. > > > > > > Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tammy [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:11 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > > > Everyone seems to be having these issues of the rogues slipping through. > > > Not just any one AV. > > > 70 thousand or so new ones released daily so it is difficult for > > > anyone to keep up. > > > More explained here by Eric Howes > > > > > > http://www.sunbeltsecuritynews.com/ > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tammy Stewart > > > Malware Removal Specialist > > > Sunbelt Software > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
