Always what I suspected, despite Prashanth writing a gushing review on his blog, and claiming Vista is more secure. There’s a new flaw that has been detected on Vista, the ‘most secure Windows ever’. But that’s not what I found interesting. Read the article, and you’ll see that the much-touted Windows Defender, the built in security app of Windows Vista, detects only 65% malware, compared to 75-99% of other security software. And then again, the User Access Control system is turning out to be counter-productive – it throws up so many warnings at everything that I bet most users will turn it off, thus defeating its very purpose.
The fact is, Microsucks is giving away half-baked software simply to retain a monopoly and chuck out the other security software vendors. Even that, it not the major issue in my opinion. What IS major is that many newbies and not-so-techie users may be lulled into believing they’re well-protected because they’ve Windows Defender, and might not go in for proper security suites. THIS is far more disconcerting – having a large section of computers users under a state of illusion that their PC is a fortress.
15 replies on “Vista (In)security”
Check ur grammar-words r missing here and there.
Mmmm…Before you make any comments about any product I suggest you use it.
I’ve stopped believing Yahoo and no longer consider it as a source of genuine information.
Yaar, Vista is secure enough. And then I do use Spyware Doctor on it. I would periodically scan the PC for Malware while Defender protects me from the most common forms of Malware.
And as I mentioned in my blog… Vista is better with UAC turned off… and this is simply the initial stages of baby Vista, the flaws will be patched. BTW, it is atleast better than the dumb OS ur using, try Fiesty for heaven’s sake..!!
And please reply to this comment without using swear words… 😛
@Rach: I don’t care. This post was made in a hurry.
@Abhishek: I may point out to you, it’s not Yahoo! which is saying this. The article is from PC World. So how exactly did Yahoo! get dragged into this? As for judging without using, I’m not speculating wildly, I was simply quoting a test done by an accredited lab and reported by PC World.
@Prashanth: Dumb OS? I think Akismet blocked another comment of mine on your blog. Lemme repeat that here – what exactly do you think should happen when you open 8 documents on OpenOffice with Mozilla Firefox in the background on a system with less RAM than yours? You may be used to having many apps open on your PC, but then, neither Linux nor Windows nor Mac can overcome the physical memory constraints, can it? After all, you’d never even WORKED on Oo before, while I do have experience with MS Office 2007 (Code Wars 06 docs were made exclusively on that). Now tell me who’s being judgmental. And yes, I am waiting for my Feisty ShipIt CD, I can only comment on it after that. As for Vista being secure, you only FEEL secure. It still doesn’t defend the fact that Windows Defender is substandard.
And you missed my point in the post. I said that GENERAL users may think they’re well protected by the default software. You as an aware computer user of course know that you do need specialized software, but what about the others?
Everybody knows about an antivirus. In India, whether people purchase the OS or not, most do purchase Norton after their unbreakable(you can break it, but the moment you update…squashed!!) activation technology.
I do use a trusted and acclaimed anti-virus, an anti-spyware, and even a firewall. The former 2 are allowed to scan my computer periodically for all the crap. And then, I repeat, windows defender is good enough for the most common forms of malware, plus, it is updated twice a week. So, new malware definitions are added. It is becoming more secure by the day. Vista by default is protected against many viruses made for XP as they are simply incompatible. The newer viruses however, are being kicked out by my trust 64-bit compatible anti-virus.
And Vista, being 64 bit, doesn’t suffer incompatibility problems that linux suffers thus forcing 64-bit owners like u and me to use 32-bit OSs..!!
And coming back to ur “dumb OS”, i was just kidding or pulling ur leg a bit..!!
But one thing I can say is that, MS Office 07 is less resource hoggy than OO.org2 is… please admit that or should i post benchmarks on my blog..?? (hey, thats a neat idea!)
@Abhishek: Yes, they do know now. But they may also be lulled into believing that Vista’s built-in security features are enough, which as this study says, are not.
@Pras: Yes, Oo is a resource hog ONLY when using .docs. Ever noticed that .sxw files are so much more smaller? Also, for an OS which took SIX years to come out, shouldn’t malware definitions ALREADY have been there? Viruses incompatible at times, yes, but then, so will useful programs. Didn’t you hear that Vista corrupts iPod filesystems? As for ‘no compatibility problems’, don’t kid me ok? Your OS didn’t even have bloody sound drivers due to some ‘incompatibility issue’! And take your Flip 3D, where click-to-switch is not allowed. How intelligent is that? It basically means it’s only publicity hogwash, because when you’re working you won’t want to use arrow keys to cycle through 12 apps.
Yes… click to switch is allowed in flip 3d… you need to leave the tab key and then click on it. I figured this out yesterday (help and support to the rescue)…. it takes too much control… but then, its alright. Its useful when you know how to use it..!!
Next, how do you expect windows xp sound drivers to work on a totally new OS? Until the programs are compiled and optimized for vista, they wouldn’t work. Its as simple as that… the same problem is with the various linux distros..!!
And until Apple released iTunes for vista, iPods arent going to work. Still, there are some OSS iPod sync-ers to be used in this case. iTunes isnt the only thing, right?
So, topped with a decent anti-spyware software, and a relatively new and good system, Vista is a pleasure to work with. Trust me, its better than xp and then soon, it would be just as widespread..!!