IIRC, Microsoft fixed a lot of the security issues with Vista/7. Modern Windows is a very different creature from old Windows, and even has features that many other OS's are missing (privledge levels).
Yet according to the article, "A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected." I believe that.
However, an expensive, resource-intensive security suite is /not/ necessary on Linux/FreeBSD (I believe largely due to better design and open source), and also generally not needed on Mac platforms.
Linux and FreeBSD are tools for serious power users. Yes, they're "harder." But you get a lot more bang for your buck.
Windows has a firewall, you're no longer an administrator by default as part of other changes from UAC, between XP and Vista, Microsoft put a lot more internal focus on security, Windows Update pushes itself on you, system file protection and validation stops key files being overwritten, IE8 has a phishing filter, popup blocker, more strict security settings, more process isolation/sandbox features. Outlook has unsafe attachment blocks.
Yes a full internet security suite will have some more benefits, but the main problems are still dodgy downloads and email attachments. If you know enough to stay away from those then the benefits of a full Norton/McAfee suite over Windows Firewall and Morro wont be enormous, I suspect.
Almost all security problems associated with a modern Windows system aren't because of any inherent design problems but rather inexperienced users who run executables which contain malicious software. Linux/FreeBSD on the whole aren't popular enough and attract savvier users.
Currently, there's no perfect solution to this problem. By making is very easy to run any software, you also make it very easy to run malicious software as well. App store/package managers provide half a solution, but are still far from ideal for vendors who don't want to rely on the whims of those packaging, and the process may not guarantee safety or security. Forcing applications to operate in a sandboxed environment is probably the way forward in the long-term, but that's still some way off due to the overheads required to do that while still retaining backwards compatibility with existing software. I think the fact we're in this limbo is one of the reasons that has made web apps popular, because it is essentially providing a sandboxed environment of sorts.
My friend told me a hot dating place __ http://www.bisexualseeking.com __where you have the opportunity to make friends and chat with hot bisexual girls ,supermodels, guys and so on. First i can't believe,then i sign up there.I found her profile with sexy photos and newest blog there. you can know more about her. Her name is sweetlonelygirl on there. I really got many friends including celebrities. it's so exciting.
I'm not sure what to think of this. It's very anti-competitive but I'm not sure there should be competition to produce software that makes Windows safe enough to actually use in the first place.
Personally, I think it's a shame and a rather sad state of affairs that Microsoft won't or, more likely, can't bundle it with Windows. I think a lot of users would benefit from it.
According to the article, 'Morro' may be the name of a beach in Brazil, but it also means 'Moor' in Spanish. That's certainly what I first thought of when I saw the article - the Moors were certainly ferocious warriors, but I'm not sure that's the slant MS is looking for in hispanic countries :-)
16 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 52.1 ms ] threadOh, wait, we don't need antivirus, we're secure by design.
However, an expensive, resource-intensive security suite is /not/ necessary on Linux/FreeBSD (I believe largely due to better design and open source), and also generally not needed on Mac platforms.
Linux and FreeBSD are tools for serious power users. Yes, they're "harder." But you get a lot more bang for your buck.
Windows has a firewall, you're no longer an administrator by default as part of other changes from UAC, between XP and Vista, Microsoft put a lot more internal focus on security, Windows Update pushes itself on you, system file protection and validation stops key files being overwritten, IE8 has a phishing filter, popup blocker, more strict security settings, more process isolation/sandbox features. Outlook has unsafe attachment blocks.
Yes a full internet security suite will have some more benefits, but the main problems are still dodgy downloads and email attachments. If you know enough to stay away from those then the benefits of a full Norton/McAfee suite over Windows Firewall and Morro wont be enormous, I suspect.
Currently, there's no perfect solution to this problem. By making is very easy to run any software, you also make it very easy to run malicious software as well. App store/package managers provide half a solution, but are still far from ideal for vendors who don't want to rely on the whims of those packaging, and the process may not guarantee safety or security. Forcing applications to operate in a sandboxed environment is probably the way forward in the long-term, but that's still some way off due to the overheads required to do that while still retaining backwards compatibility with existing software. I think the fact we're in this limbo is one of the reasons that has made web apps popular, because it is essentially providing a sandboxed environment of sorts.
Dim tags inside dimmed comments
Compare http://uploads.neowin.net/gallery/90_full_msmoro.png and http://images.google.com.au/images?&q=hyundai+badge
That's the great thing about the internet; it serves as a permanent reminder of all those early mornings where I post something before coffee.