Vista's Security Rendered Completely Useless by New Exploit

[Alessandro17]

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/

 

People there say that Vista is horrible because, among others, it crashes a lot.

Are they pretending it isn't true?

 

http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpo...=0&pageid=0

(19 pages). It happens to thousands of people, you'll find a lot more about the subject if you google. It doesn't seem to have a single solution.

One computer engineer with 17 years experience said in that thread he had been driven mad by the problem, he had never seen anything like that before.

[vbetts]

Vista never crashed for me so far, only if I overclocked some to much, but that's about it.

[macmaniac]

Its too bad that Vista is weak. While its not the "killer-OS" that Windows fanboys hoped for, I didn't thing it was that bad either. Its not as bad as the XP fanboys would have you believe.

 

I was getting ok with using it for gaming and running some non-OSX apps. I believe in a multi-OS universe. Competition amongst OSes is a benefit to the consumer.

[NickF123]

I was using Vista with 1 GB ram a cheap ATI graphics card and a $60 e2140 and it worked great, the big reason for me to dump vista was not the performance or the reliability but the constant irritating nag messages, UAC was a joke, sure you can turn it off but it's now less secure, and even with it off there are still too many reminders, messages etc to do anything. I don't want an OS that constantly questions everything I would like to do.

[eraserhead77]

Interesting story today seems to downplay the exploits and previous media hype around this story.

 

Black Hat's Alexander Sotirov: Vista security is not broken

 

The articles that describe Vista security as "broken" or "done for," with "unfixable vulnerabilities" are completely inaccurate. One of the suggestions I saw in many of the discussions was that people should just use Windows XP. In fact, in XP a lot of those protections we're bypassing don't even exist. XP is even less secure than Vista in this respect. [What] we established is that the security advantage of Vista over XP is not as great as [previously] thought. Vista is still very good at preventing vulnerabilities.

 

[vbetts]

Vista and security, sounds like something that doesn't mix well...

[snakeeyes]

What is Microsoft's response to this exploit or have they not responded at all till now?

[borisbadenov]

I've noted the a security flaw in Vista too: it needs to be turned on.

[dillon31292]

I would like to quote a friend from another site:

 

This is just another typical biased article about Vista. Firstly, the article doesn't actually state that there is an issue, it says there could be. Secondly, there are serious exploits for all operating system, so I don't understand why people constantly pretend like Vista is the only OS with problems. I work with various operating systems every day and they all have security issues.

 

And jeez, who honestly believes that Microsoft could never fix an issue like this if it turns out to be as severe as they say?

 

 

This really really doesn't suprise me.

 

I keep telling you people, vista has serious problems. why, like pimpalot just asked, do people continue to say how 'great' it is?

 

 

On that note, this pretty much {censored}s vista permanently. nobody is going to buy or use an operating system that has this kind of fatal design flaw. this does not bode well for microsoft...

Sounds like you know a lot, don't you? How much time a day do you spend maintaining workstations with varying operating systems? They all have security issues. You honestly think this will dent Vista sales? It's not even solid proof, these are just findings that "could" be an issue.

 

Stop bashing what you know nothing about. I use Vista every day and it's absolutely fine, and while I'm not trying to pretend it's some godlike OS, it's nowhere near as bad as you naysayers make it out to be.

 

I spend hours every day maintaining systems running under various operating systems, ranging from Linux to NT, XP and Vista to OSX and Leopard Server, and they all have their fair share of issues.

 

Windows isn't perfect, but neither are any of the others.

Sums it up well enough.

[snakeeyes]

so its good that it will be fixed then my family still uses vista and to tell u the truth they have never got a virus or trojan or any spyware on it though thats probably cause I force them to keep UAC on

[Maxintosh]

Have a lot of fun with Vista

 

 

[Alessandro17]

I spend hours every day maintaining systems running under various operating systems, ranging from Linux to NT, XP and Vista to OSX and Leopard Server, and they all have their fair share of issues.

 

Issues yes (but it depends, how many and how serious).

But security? Nobody will ever convince me that *nix operating systems are as bad as Microsoft ones.

As to stability, I have never seen anything as serious as this:

 

http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpo...=0&pageid=0

 

in any other OS, especially *nix.

[vbetts]

No 2 computers will run the programs the same, even if they are the same exact computers. That's the sad part of programs, which they were designed to run the same on the same 2 computers. People have had bad luck with Vista, people also have had good luck with Vista. Also, that post was made when Vista first came out. February 07. It may continue on, but it's an old issue, so compared to Vista right now, that proves nothing.

 

People do forget about one thing though with Vista, and something that Microsoft have failed with before, but now has gotten up to terms with it. 64-bit Operating system. XP64-bit was terrible, it may have been good for some, but the majority of 64-bit XP has had nothing but problems, and no gain from it. Where as now, where memory is getting cheaper and cheaper, more and more people are going with 4gb of ram or more. Which, you cannot do in a 32-bit Operating system unless the use of PAE, which is unstable completely. Vista 64-bit is the only 64-bit OS that is mainstream, yes Linux distros are 64-bit too, but they are not commonly used as Windows is. You can't use a full 4 gb of ram in 32-bit XP or Vista. That right there is XPs biggest limitation, and why it doesn't have long to last.

 

Now security, I'll quote my earlier post.

I like Vista and all...But...

 

Sense when the hell did any Windows OS have good security? If they did, there wouldn't be a need for virus scanners, or malware protection.

Windows has always had some type of flaw or hole in it's security. This is nothing new, the only reason why this is so big, is because it's such an easy and big exploit through java, which doesn't just limit itself to Windows then.

[Alessandro17]

Just 2 points, vbetts:

 

Vista 64-bit has still drivers and compatibility issues, AFAIK. For instance I can't find a 64-bit dial-up modem driver for any of my computers.

 

As to Linux, you don't need to use 64-bit in order to take advantage of a large quantity of RAM, you only need the right kernel: major distributions will have it.

[fatshitcat]

Well I bet no one saw that coming...

[vbetts]

Just 2 points, vbetts:

 

Vista 64-bit has still drivers and compatibility issues, AFAIK. For instance I can't find a 64-bit dial-up modem driver for any of my computers.

 

As to Linux, you don't need to use 64-bit in order to take advantage of a large quantity of RAM, you only need the right kernel: major distributions will have it.

 

1.Vista itself still has drivers and compatibility issues. 64-bit Vista though does not have as much compared to XP 64 did.

2.No, you don't need a 64-bit OS to take 4 or more gb of ram on Linux. However, Linux is not a mainstream Operating system as Windows is. Though Linux so far imo is the best for multimedia.

[snakeeyes]

I seriously think this exploit requires UAC to be disabled and even if u use internet explorer, it runs on Protected Mode so unless the user allows something unknown to execute no harm should be done.

 

This article doesn't really describe the requirements for this attack. I read on some other page this exploit could be used on other OS's, I will try and find the link.......

 

Besides this article doesn't state the requirements for the attack:

 

If someone is running as standard user with UAC and firewall enabled along with Internet explorer protected mode on, I seriously doubt any attack can damage the system without user permissions.

[Knacker]

Vista is better than XP. After SP1, the 'performance hit' is increasingly minor, especially on computers made 2005 -> present. XP is dated and is really starting to show it. A fresh install comes with archaic applications that have no modern use, and is really lacking in end user features when compared to Vista. Vista has better hardware support, is more secure out of the box, comes with applications that better meet the needs of todays users, and has search and hardware acceleration amoung other things. Of course if one has XP there is no need to shell out $110 for Vista, but for people buying new computers Vista is a better alternative to XP.

 

This is of course, given that you use the {censored} apps that MS likes to bundle with their OSes. I just use FLP or nLite the {censored} out, then install QUALITY stuff one there, from the likes of Adobe or Cakewalk. I don't even use the search feature of any OS: I usually know where all my files are. I keep my {censored} organized. I don't understand what you're talking about hardware acceleration; Vista only uses hardware acceleration for it's pointless glass user interface, which I keep disabled whenever I use it.

 

The hardware support I can only give to you on one level: AHCI. I have to make sure to use nLite to add the proper driver if I'm installing on a new computer, but other than that I've never had any problems getting any hardware to work. (and if I don't care about AHCI, I just set it to IDE mode in bios)

 

I won't upgrade to vista until XP totally falls apart. And all those new "features" for which I'll have to wade through "user friendly" interface trash to disable are the reason.

 

Vendors think they're making things easier on their ignorant end users by changing everything with each new iteration, but all they're doing is alienating those same users by changing the way they do things. I'm fine; I can adapt (or adapt it to me). But who's really going to have a problem are the people who depend on me to keep their computers running. When something doesn't work just the way they expect, they scream for help. It doesn't matter how intuitive or easy it is to figure out, if it's not how it was before, you're going to have a problem.

 

We don't need a new user interface paradigm. What we need is a universally consistent interface which people can get used to.

[Alessandro17]

I won't upgrade to vista until XP totally falls apart.

 

Which won't happen for a few years. The only problem, later, might be drivers support, but I don't see that happening any time soon. In the meantime Microsoft will have released a new OS, hoping they have learned from their past mistakes.

 

We don't need a new user interface paradigm. What we need is a universally consistent interface which people can get used to.

 

I couldn't agree more. That is true both for Vista and KDE4, and that is one of the main reasons why I hate both.

[snakeeyes]

Windows 7 as far as I know will be giving windows a visual refresh so lets see the hatred towards that once its released

[Maxintosh]

for people buying new computers Vista is a better alternative to XP.

That is just your opinion. I have plenty of clients that bought new computers with vista on it, but they hated it so I had to format the hard drive and install XP on their computers instead

[snakeeyes]

That is just your opinion. I have plenty of clients that bought new computers with vista on it, but they hated it so I had to format the hard drive and install XP on their computers instead

 

why did they hate it? I bet it was cause of some reason like it asks me for permission for everything.

[Alessandro17]

That is just your opinion. I have plenty of clients that bought new computers with vista on it, but they hated it so I had to format the hard drive and install XP on their computers instead

 

Same thing happening here. I don't repair people's computers (that would drive me mad), but that is what every computer engineer tells me in this town.

A "mildly geek" friend of mine bought Vista, but it didn't last long on his computer.

 

why did they hate it? I bet it was cause of some reason like it asks me for permission for everything.

 

That could be one reason. But what about everything placed somewhere else? And what about Aero? It is ugly as sin, way over the top and it hinders your productivity.

[snakeeyes]

That could be one reason. But what about everything placed somewhere else? And what about Aero? It is ugly as sin, way over the top and it hinders your productivity.

 

I think people will get used to everything in different locations, I mean they will have to won't they?

 

As for aero, well most people actually like aero in my experience cause otherwise they would be using mac themes

 

Yeah flip 3d doesn't improve productivity it would be better if they had expose or added some useful effect

[Alessandro17]

As for aero, well most people actually like aero in my experience cause otherwise they would be using mac themes :censored2:

 

Maybe you have young, geek users in mind. But your average Joe hates Aero, I can assure you. And besides an average user doesn't even consider using another theme.