What is Digg?63 Comments
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+66Keeping programs like Norton out is a good thing for your computer.
- sirber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28PatchGuard: 0% CPU
Norton: 30% CPU - bikeham, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22You got that damn straight. Piece of crap.
- eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Simple lessons in keeping your computer virus free:
1. Use nat (network address translation, if youre ip address is 192.168.x.x or 172.16-35.x.x or 10.x.x.x you are using nat) or a firewall.
2. Don't porn surf/crack surf/look for free ringtones etc (sorry but those are gonna get you viruses faster then anything else if you have a firewall). If you do use firefox or opera as it is rare for anyone to go through the trouble of trying to hijak it.
3. Don't accept anyfile from anyone using IM, unless you have had at least an x line conversation consisting of what's that file, (be specific if its broad), and some other non-sensical question.
4. NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER click yes without knowing what clicking yes will do. PERIOD.
If you have a firewall it will protect you from 99.999 percnt of random attacks, if you surf only safe sites (or "dangerous" sites with use of opera/firefox), and you do not accept random files from friends without knowing what they or if your friend intended to send it then it is unlikly you will have any use for a anti-virus program.
Best anti-virus is your brain period. I've been running AV free for a year or so now with zero problems. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I have shown a lot of my family how to use Microsoft Virtual PC to run anything they download off the Internet. This means that any infection they get is wiped when they shut it down. Which means they can get all the free smileys they want without infecting my machine with spy-ware
- troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Norton aren't stupid, they know if they can access it so can malware writers(aka their primary drivers of business)
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9No he should stay the ***** outside (the kernel) and guard from there. There's no reason for him to be in the house at all.
- deter1ii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Seems like Semantec wants Microsoft to write a program that semantec can secure. Its not M$'s fault semantec cant do their job, if you cant secure it, dont say you can.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25Any AV is 100% useless. If you know what you're doing you don't need one it's as simple as that. And please don't reply "OMG I USE LINUX LAWL I DUNT NEED ONE!111!!!"
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm thankful for my antivirus. Viruses come out before patches to them. I remember the first time I was attacked by a worm every 15 minutes, pre-patch, and my antivirus cleanly wiped it out each time in under 5 seconds.
Why I was attacked by a worm that often is ironic but off topic...
Either way, AVG is my savior. - krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@Rub3X: OMG I USE LINUX LAWL I DUNT NEED ONE!111!!!
Mac, too ;) - goat77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's quite clever although a bit extravagant.
- GinsuGuy585, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wait, lemme get this straight.
The AntiVirus companies complain that they are locked out of the kernel.
They also say that the blackhats can get into the kernel.
Do you want these companies working on your computer? - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Listen, sometimes applications break when changes are made to the OS. In this case, Microsoft is making it a lot more difficult for the bad guys to do bad things.
The "good" guys currently make software to improve security on Windows. Now that Microsoft is improving Windows security themselves the "good" guys are getting worried that their software might not sell as well.
The solution? FUD. If people still fear that their computer is insecure they will continue to buy the "good guy's" software. - goat77, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11The only time I've gotten a virus in the past year was when I infected myself with one on purpose to prove that it was easy to remove one without an anti-virus... it was and is.
- Burgerman851, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"no one is going to write code to hurt 10 people..."
Well, if there are only 10 types of people in the world... - sirber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ClamWin is cool.
It's not resident so no speed loss, and you manually scan what you think is unsafe. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No kidding. They shouldn't have their hands tied on this point. They are in a position where poor security has a big impact on people's work and they should be allowed to make Windows as secure as it needs to be. 3rd party security vendors be damned. I know MS has been complacent but certainly they didn't think they'd get to ride this AV/security train for long did they? I guess they did. Too bad, ***** happens.
- Dribblemaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So if a security guard comes to your house to protect it, but the front door is locked... should he use the same tactics to gain entry as the burglar?
I'm not defending Symantec here as this applies to alot of security vendors, but I am worried that either Microsoft will be soley responsible for this level of security, or security vendors will issue they're own "patches" perhaps making the OS unstable or something of the like... - robwistar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@pj: clyde's was first. but, he should have used the 'reply' button and yes, it was boring.
- yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Microsoft: We are making our OS more secure.
Others: That's anti-competitive.
Slashdot 2.0 (Digg): M$ LOL - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FTA :
"There is a whole bunch of companies out there that have pioneered next-generation security, that are limited by PatchGuard."
Change 'limited by' to 'no longer needed because of' then he's hit the nail on the head. AV companies are freeloaders, and they'll probably become the new RIAA by litigating instead of changing their business model. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You know, people should be applauding Microsoft for implementing security measures like this. I'm no big fan of Windows (that doesn't mean I don't use it), but since 95 it's been getting better each time. The move to the NT kernel in XP improved stability and now with Vista it sounds like there might be some decent security measures as well. Good job to MS for making Windows more secure regardless of what these security companies moan about. (IMO they are a dead-end anyways since they thrive off of Windows flaws, even if it takes decades I'm sure MS will eventually fix these flaws)
-- A Mac & Linux user (when I have a choice) - rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OMG I USE LINUX LAWL I DUNT NEED ONE!111!!!
- tigro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Microsoft is in a cath-22 like situtation. the only reason that compaines like symantec exist is becuase windows is so insecure, it's a flaw in windows that opened up a new market. But if windows tries to make a good, secure product, then they are being anti-competitive by shutting down a market that Microsoft created in the first place by being so *****. so Microsoft has it's hands tied, they can't really make good secure code without being labeled anticompetitve, so really, who is being stifiled/anticompetitve here? Microsoft innovation? or Security software companies innovation?
- jaym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems like a standard Symantec response given that most viral software will attack Norton Utilities. M$ is trying to protect against this with reasonable cause, but the fact is that the big guys always get attacked.
So whatever the defense, there will always be an attack.
whitehats - what can be done? nothing? make more $ from clients?
blackhats - always a challenge, eh? - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If MS can't secure the kernel reliably what makes you think Symantec can from the outside? MS _needs_ to lock down Windows. If they can't do that without 3rd party software then they have failed with Vista just as they have with previous versions of Windows.
- Dribblemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@rub3x "Any AV is 100% useless."
Maybe for you... but for the general end user it's a must. Patchgaurd, in my opinion isn't the best option here, or at least the way they're implementing it... if patchgaurd can already be bypassed today, we force security vendors to hack the code they're trying to protect, depend on Microsoft to issue security updates quickly... I dunno.
At least when a new virus is found, I can usually depend on my antivirus to have it's definitions updated in 24 to 48 hours... Personally, I think MS should be working more closely with the security vendors.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bill Gates should bitchslap Peter Norton.
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Peter Norton has not been a part of that company in decades, literally.
The only thing he gets from Symantec is a royalty check for using his name on the
products he originally invented back in the time of MS-DOS. - BuddhaChu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sirber: Thanx for the idea of looking into Clamwin (I didn't know Clam had been ported over to Windows). I'm trying Portable ClamWin out right now....
- Dribblemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ nofxjunkee
"If MS can't secure the kernel reliably what makes you think Symantec can from the outside?"
Well... that's my point. Symantec (or anyone else) can't if they're on the outside maintaining compliance with Microsoft while hackers are on the inside.
"If they can't do that without 3rd party software then they have failed with Vista just as they have with previous versions of Windows."
uh huh... yup... couldn't agree more. All the more reason we still need 3rd party security vendors @ this stage of the game. Do you really believe Microsoft will be able to do this alone (@ least @ this point)? They've been trying to tighten kernel / OS security for awhile... think about it - would you want to be locked into 1 security agency for your home? Or would you rather be able to choose from a selection of security agencies perhaps some of which have a better reputation then others? - Mindstormy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9(@ krewe) no one is going to write code to hurt 10 people...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"if you cant secure it, dont say you can"
If you can't spell it, don't say it three times in the same comment. S-Y-M-A-N-T-E-C. - carlsonloggie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Symantec AV can't even clean (uninstall) itself properly. Why should it be trusted with access to the kernel? Let alone trusted with AV protection. And unlike one of the comments here, that goes for the corporate edition as well.
- JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*IF*, and that's a HUGE if, M$ can eliminate the need for AV products great - though I'm sure they'll find some way to screw that up
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tomi
You must be right, and I must be a typical Digg user. I did bury him the second I read that, but then I read the rest of his comment in your post :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think that anti-competition and similar things go out the window when operating system security is whats at stake.
@nofxjunkee : "IMO they are a dead-end anyways since they thrive of of Windows flaws"
Couldn't agree more. And people want to protect their interests? Only at the expense of OS security. - Dribblemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ nofxjunkee
"If I put a lock on my door that keeps out burglars AND the SWAT team, I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't think anyone deserves a carte blanche when it comes to system access."
erm... that's the whole point. What lock can you put on the door that can't be opened by a hacker? Hackers aren't going to follow Microsofts implementation of Patchguard, it's already been breached by them... meanwhile, Symantec (or insert your favorite AV here) is sitting outside the house because they're compliant with Microsoft? - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i just don't like seeing that microsoft is making any pay service to cover the gaping holes it made in the first place. sounds like mafia "oops" insurance
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You make a good point there. I believe kernels can be secured because of the track record that *BSD kernels have, and Linux is quite secure but to a lesser extent than say the OpenBSD kernel.
If MS cannot pull this off then they have to break backwards compatibility at some point and secure their kernel by whatever means necessary. Restricting access to interrupt tables sounds like a good step forward, but if there are ways around it then it's pretty useless.
Since Vista's kernel won't be secure enough, I agree that it's a bad idea to limit the effectiveness of 3rd party solutions. If the lock only gives the impression of keeping out the bad guys when it really doesn't, then it's a waste if it also hinders the good guys. - djhash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good for you nofx... this thread has 2 out of 4 comments with spelling mistks.. oops.. make that 3 out of 4. :-)
- djhash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its all in the semantic ;-) (i know one is noun other is a made up word.. no similiar meaning, but i was just kidding..)
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If I put a lock on my door that keeps out burglars AND the SWAT team, I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't think anyone deserves a carte blanche when it comes to system access.
Yes MS has a shoddy history w.r.t. security, but anything they do to improve that is a fine decision imo. - djhash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Those companies are idiots, kernel is secure, but that doesn't mean that remote access is secured, files are protected from intruder, it means that files and computer are protected from malicious code that will harm the system. Patchgaurd still wont protect someone if they are running Apache and an FTP server with no security measures for files. They should forget about the kernel and focus more on the outside of the kernel. as someone said in a previous comment "The gaurd should stay outside the house and gaurd the house, not break into the house and then gaurd it."
My $0.03... (I feel a little of "Bill Gates" type of generousity) - ellenweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Think of the precedent that could be set if Microsoft and Symantec worked together jointly to try to protect its shared clients from the onslaught of attacks that experts say are imminent. It seems to me that unless these firms can work together -- we cannot expect their software to interface either. Just makes sense. Good discussion of a few alternatives here though. Thanks.
Brain Based Business - smohan123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Symantec is really hating Microsoft right now. I'm wondering when other vendors will jump on board the MS antitrust bandwagon. It's inevitable. Microsoft obviously can't learn to change its business tactics, and so it tries to bully 3rd party software vendors out. Well this isn't exactly how things are supposed to go in America, and sooner or later Symantec, Trend Micro, McAfee, and others will be heard and actions will be taken. Microsoft's gotta change its ways.
- CptSpaulding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Step two in the plan to extort us for virus protection on that swiss-cheese OS.
- isellmacs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Microsoft steps up and starts selling Microsoft Antivirus Solution!"
I keep seeing this over and over again. I'd like to see some proof that MS intends to actually SELL the product. Far more likely they will include it as a basic component of Vista and future Microsoft Operating Systems. - las3rjock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No he should stay the ***** outside (the kernel) and guard from there. There's no reason for him to be in the house at all."
So if someone were to break into your house, you would like the police to sit outside and watch while you and your family get beaten and raped? Windows has proven itself time and again to be a pretty easy house to break into... -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is