Vista's Security Rendered Completely Useless by New Exploit

[mrfreak]

All that someone has to do is turn off scripting in their browser. Then all of that dynamic content will not load.

under IE Browser all that you have to do is turn off active scripting in the browser. and turn off java and java script.

 

that will fix that hole.

The reason that they say that Microsoft can't fix it, is because That would kill the browser's usefulness.

[snakeeyes]

Hi Alessandro17

 

As the old saying goes; "To mess up a *nix box, you really need to work at it; but to mess up a Windows box, you just need to work on it" :censored2:

 

See if the post below helps :censored2:

 

 

 

The bottom line is that OS X was designed from the ground up to be secure. Windows on the other hand was not designed with security in mind and bad decisions made many a moon ago will continue to haunt them forever. At best, all they can do is just 'patch' it here and there, but that of course is not real security.

 

So now I am probably going to sound like I am defending windows but I will try still

 

RPC if its still running by default on Vista then fine thats a flaw assuming there is a threat.

 

r they talking about windows xp internet explorer, I thought Vista had protected mode so nothing should access anything outside, won't this help, unless someone disables it and thats user stupidity.

 

then they again talk about UAC

 

On a Mac, the operating system makes a clear distinction between "user space" and "system space." A computer program that the user runs is not allowed to interfere with or change the memory allocated to a part of the system. If a computer program running in user space tries to change or access memory that is allocated to the system, the system shuts that program down. On Windows, any program can access or change memory that the system is using, meaning any program can, if the programmer is clever enough, make changes to the system.

 

I thought this is what protected memory is for, correct me if I am wrong though and vista has that doesn't it?

 

On the Mac, programs are not permitted to access system events, like mouse clicks or buttons, that belong to other programs. On Windows, one computer program can "spoof" events in another program; that means, for example, that program A can make program B believe "the user just clicked this button," "the user just typed this," and so on. (One Windows virus dropper downloads and installs viruses this way; it makes Explorer believe "the user just asked to download this file," "the user just clicked the OK button," and so forth.)

 

again protective memory and data execution prevention is supposed to stop such attacks isn't it?

 

This article here is a good read

 

http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791916

 

It still makes a lot of assumptions that users will either disable UAC or allow without looking and thats user stupidity, plus may be u r forgetting that UAC isn't really bothersome unless u want to install an app, the only time it asks me for permission is while installing, removing and running anti virus and thats it.

 

Now this article

 

http://freewebsoftwarereviews.blogspot.com...an-windows.html

 

1. agreed that in linux 3rd party apps r updated as well, Microsoft should start a free software repo to

2. is UAC again

3. modular design, I thought modularity contributed to stability and not security so a user can remove something that makes them feel insecure, how can the default components make regular users feel insecure? only 3rd party apps r the ones that a person should fear.

4. Apparmor, agreed its better, does OS X have something like this?

5. open source, thats an advantage but really nothing too big of a deal cause what do u really expect from proprietary OS's and software.

6. diverse environment, I don't see how this is a good thing, this is the worse case for a developer, don't they realize by having a diverse environment even though writing viruses is difficult so is writing programs and drivers, isn't this the reason linux will never get commercial software and also the reason that flash crashes so much?

[dweidman]

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.

 

Alessandro17 -

 

Just to qualify your statements - approximately how many hours have you spent working IN vista. Not your friends. Not your mom. You.

 

You seem to speak authoritatively about Vista - so I would like to know more about your "expertise" in the matter... (Aside from 3400+ posts on "InsanelyMac" - of course.)

 

Thanks in advance.

 

-Daniel

 

PS. FWIW I have Vista at home. In nearly 2 yrs - ZERO crashes. And I am hard on computers in general (added new video cards / ram / sata raid / firewire cards, etc etc...). Lots of apps (well over 75 apps installed): including plenty of torrent / peer file sharing stuff as well. Still my main computer. Just thought you should know so you can evaluate my opinion accordingly... Your turn...

 

PPS. To add balance to everything:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080810/tc_af...panyappledefcon

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/12/31/mac.os.x.a.growing.target/ ://http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/12...rowing.target/ ://http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/12...rowing.target/

[Maxintosh]

Dweidman -

 

There are PLENTY of qualified people in the industry that feel that vista is a joke. I'm glad that you enjoy it but I assure you that you are in a very small minority. I think this article pretty much sums it up:

 

 

I found no general performance benefits compared to Windows XP, and, in fact, the system ran noticeably slower on the year-old Whakataruna. Turning off Aero did not help, and both Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center were sluggish in playing full screen video while third party freeware applications showed no such sluggishness.

 

On two separate computers I had major stability problems which resulted in loss of data. This is an unforgivable sin.

 

Additionally, Vista claims backwards compatibility, but I've had major and minor problems alike with many of my games, more than a few third-party applications, my peripherals, and, in short, I encountered problems that actively prevented me from getting my work done.

 

Based on my personal experiences with Vista over a 30 day period, I found it to be a dangerously unstable operating system, which has caused me to lose data. The 64-bit version is slightly better (which, frankly, surprised the hell out of us and makes us wonder if Microsoft didn't make a mistake in choosing to only distribute Home Premium 32-bit in the retail channel), but it still has stability problems.

 

Any consideration of the fine details comes in second to that one inescapable conclusion. This is an unstable operating system.

 

I really did want to like Vista. Yes, it is possible to enjoy both Windows and Linux - but unfortunately this product is unfit for any user. I still intend to keep a Windows XP partition on my computer for gaming and some multimedia editing, but as of the time of this publication, I have removed Vista entirely.

 

I assure you that Scot Finnie knows a lot more about microsoft operating systems then you do, and you might want to read what he said about vista Before you comment you might want to also read this associated article. Enjoy

[snakeeyes]

I assure you that Scot Finnie knows a lot more about microsoft operating systems then you do, and you might want to read what he said about vista Before you comment you might want to also read this associated article. Enjoy

 

This person apparently gave Windows Vista the second best rating here:

 

http://www.computerworld.com/html/collater...introchart.html

 

linux comes after windows 2000?

[dweidman]

Dweidman -

 

There are PLENTY of qualified people in the industry that feel that vista is a joke.

 

Maxintosh -

 

What, exactly is "the industry" you are talking about? Do you know anything about my background?

 

And sure - I am sure there are "plenty" of people who feel it is a joke. That is a completely useless point...

 

I'm glad that you enjoy it but I assure you that you are in a very small minority. I think this article pretty much sums it up:

 

FWIW - I don't really enjoy Vista. I enjoy my OsX86. It is why I am on this site.

 

I assure you that Scot Finnie knows a lot more about microsoft operating systems then you do, and you might want to read what he said about vista Before you comment you might want to also read this associated article. Enjoy

 

You sure about that again? Be careful what you say here.

 

By the way - I am not a MS fanboy. I just get annoyed by the infantile / borderline retarded comments from people who know virtually nothing about the subject they are parroting. It does them and this community in general considerable disservice...

 

-Daniel

 

PS. Just to help you out here - I worked on the Redmond campus in the Windows Operating Systems Development Group '98/'99 (NT 4.0 Terminal Services / Win 2k - Software Testing). I have also worked at Big Blue... so I am pretty deep "in the industry".

[Alessandro17]

http://www.computerworld.com/html/collater...introchart.html

 

linux comes after windows 2000?

 

What I can see there is that Windows 2000 and Linux are on the same level. That is of course his personal opinion, "Ranked by Overall Usability and Quality".

I don't find that offensive, because Windows 2000 is regarded as one of the best Microsoft operating systems ever.

However I strongly disagree. A modern Linux distro can do a lot more than Windows 2000.

[snakeeyes]

What I can see there is that Windows 2000 and Linux are on the same level. That is of course his personal opinion, "Ranked by Overall Usability and Quality".

I don't find that offensive, because Windows 2000 is regarded as one of the best Microsoft operating systems ever.

However I strongly disagree. A modern Linux distro can do a lot more than Windows 2000.

 

yes I know they r ranked at the same level but they could still have put linux before windows 2000

[Alessandro17]

Alessandro17 -

 

Just to qualify your statements - approximately how many hours have you spent working IN vista. Not your friends. Not your mom. You.

 

You seem to speak authoritatively about Vista - so I would like to know more about your "expertise" in the matter... (Aside from 3400+ posts on "InsanelyMac" - of course.)

 

Thanks in advance.

 

-Daniel

 

I have never said that I am an IT professional.

I have always made very clear that I am "just an experienced user".

I have used Vista more than enough to have an opinion. Besides I don't know why I should justify myself to you. You could be God Almighty for what I care.

When an OS, several months after release, crashes beyond recovery just because you downloaded an official Windows update, it can only be "ultimate shit", and you don't need a genius or "somebody who is deep in the industry" as you graciously let us know (as if I cared, I argue regularly with senior, arrogant Linux developers).

[Maxintosh]

What, exactly is "the industry" you are talking about?

Pick one, the computer industry, the software industy, IT's, etc. most (not all but most) think that vista is a joke. Geez, the goverment won't even use it (and not just our government either)

 

Do you know anything about my background?

What does it matter? Frankly I don't care if you're bill gates, you get to have an opinion, not your own facts. BTW, I would trust someone like Scot Finnie on this topic more than I would someone that has ties with the Redmond campus

 

Scot Finnie is an award-winning journalist, magazine editor, author, and computer-product reviewer who's been plying his trade for 25 years. He is Editor in Chief of Computerworld. He has also served on the editorial staffs of ZDNet, PC/Computing, InformationWeek/Techweb, and Windows Magazine. He's written articles for numerous publications along the way, including CFO, CNET, PC World, PC Magazine, MacWeek, Byte, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Stereo Review: Sound and Vision.

 

Finnie has considerable experience covering operating systems both journalistically and in detailed hands-on evaluations. For many years he focused on Microsoft's Windows operating system. He wrote a book on Windows 95 (The Underground Guide to Windows 95, Addison-Wesley, 1996). In September 2006, he embarked on a three-month test of Apple's Macintosh with OS X and surprised himself by not switching back to Microsoft's operating system. link

 

I just get annoyed by the infantile / borderline retarded comments from people who know virtually nothing about the subject they are parroting.

Red herring.

 

A little old lady could walk up to you and tell you a FACT about vista and guess what? It would STILL be a fact whether she knew the inner guts of the operating system or not.

 

I am sure there are "plenty" of people who feel it is a joke. That is a completely useless point...

Tell that to microsofts accountant

[macmaniac]

Maxintosh has delivered what I think is the final blow to this whole argument. Yes, snakeeyes, Vista isn't that bad, but its FACT that anything with a UNIX core is more secure. Your lip-flapping doesn't change that.

[snakeeyes]

Maxintosh has delivered what I think is the final blow to this whole argument. Yes, snakeeyes, Vista isn't that bad, but its FACT that anything with a UNIX core is more secure. Your lip-flapping doesn't change that.

 

 

lip flapping? did I even say something to u? I wasn't the one fighting here either, I was discussing wasn't I?

[dweidman]

Pick one, the computer industry, the software industy, IT's, etc. most (not all but most) think that vista is a joke. Geez, the goverment won't even use it (and not just our government either)

 

I can only speak for the last two companies I worked for. Both of them decided not to use it. Neither of them decided not to use it because it was a "joke" - rather that there were software incompatibility problems with the vista security model specifically.

 

Honestly though, I am aiming way too high if I am looking for a balanced discussion here.

 

Carry on with the parroted MS bashing (this is InsanelyMac, right?). It is good for the soul. And makes you look smart to your buddies.

 

-Daniel

[Synaesthesia]

Vista's security is much beefed up over XP. This is why I'm gonna install Vista instead of XP on our new home computer - I'm sick of seeing Malware + Viruses.

 

Performance on Vista is not an issue, especially if you switch of indexing and superfetch - much less disk thrashing.

 

I used to think Vista sucks, but I have always seen millions of viruses + malware on Windows 2000 & XP, never seen one on Vista.

 

I prefer OS X + Linux but my family is used to Windows, so I'm gonna go for Vista

[mifki]

i have no problems running vista with no firewall or antivirus, or any "protection" at all, if you have the slightest amount of brains you dont need any of that {censored}

[Maxintosh]

i have no problems running vista with no firewall or antivirus, or any "protection" at all, if you have the slightest amount of brains you dont need any of that {censored}

Congratulations on your entry for the Darwin Awards

[Synaesthesia]

...right...

[Maxintosh]

For those interested, the October '08 issue of Macworld is going to be devoted to showing why Macs are more secure than a *cough* Windows PC

[mifki]

har har maxintosh. no problems yet, none predicted

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

My mac has lots of virii and porn popups and I keep getting this damn notification that I've been affected with spyware...

 

Oh wait, that's my Vista box.

[Maxintosh]

no problems yet, none predicted

Oh I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are willing to predict that your PC will get infected

 

My mac has lots of virii and porn popups and I keep getting this damn notification that I've been affected with spyware...

 

Oh wait, that's my Vista box.

LOL

[vbetts]

Oh I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are willing to predict that your PC will get infected

 

It's not the operating systems fault that people get on internet sites or download things that contain spyware or virus's. And an Os can't infect itself.

 

You're computer is only as secure as you are.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Of course its the end user's fault for downloading {censored}, however, its the OS manufacture's obligation to keep on top of security updates.

 

I use my computer to download alot of apps, music, movies, etc. Why would I use an OS that forces me to be more restrictive and more cautious about what I do on the internet?

[Maxintosh]

It's not the operating systems fault that people get on internet sites or download things that contain spyware or virus's.

In the case of windows I completely disagree. Sure people can make the problem worse, but that's a red herring.

[vbetts]

No. Windows is the most targeted os out there, because it's the most used OS out there. That's why there are so many security issues.