begin risky.vbs
<8351357.hKBYPnFqMg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> Related:
>
> Security Suite Smackdown, Part I
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Eight of the biggest names in security go head to head in
>| this round up of the best (and worst) of the apps that
>| aim to keep you safe.
> `----
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2031667,00.asp
>
> Microsoft's Live OneCare is 7th of out 8 products
Coming 2nd last is no surprise but how MS can charge for a service
that is required because their OS is insecure by design and their SW
so riddled with bugs just shows how stupid Windows users are.
I had a browse at the SW section in a shop in Bern today and was
amazed at the number of products whose sole purpose is to protect
Windows PC's in some way or other.
> Study: Symantec Best at Removing Rootkits; Microsoft Worst
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The application that performed the poorest, according to
>| Thompson, was Microsoft's Microsoft Windows Defender (Beta 2),
>| which is being built into the Windows Vista operating system.
> `----
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2051268,00.asp
Again no surprise. MS are utterly clueless when it comes to security.
To this day most security bugs are found by 3rd parties who have no
access to the src code.
Who remembers when Gates stopped all SW development for a month to
focus on finding insecurities in MS's SW? After the month patches were
released for about 10 or so vulnerabilities. Only a couple were
discovered by MS. The rest by 3rd parties as usual.
The truly amazing thing is that people are so used to Windows' inherent
insecurity that they regard it as normal. The rest of us all suffer
because of Windows spam bots and DoS attacks from owned Windows PC's.
|
|
