Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Symantec: MS Making Vista Insecure
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft's partners are continuing to cry foul over the
> | decision to lock down the Windows Vista kernel with a
> | feature called PatchGuard, claiming an announcement
> | about sharing security APIs is simply a "red
> | herring" to fool the press.
> `----
>
>
http://www.betanews.com/article/Symantec_MS_Making_Vista_Insecure/1161117633
>
> A few days earlier:
>
> Vista PatchGuard Hacked
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Hackers have already broken PatchGuard and can disable it.
> | This means that hackers can already get malicious code into
> | the Windows Vista kernel; while legitimate security vendors
> | can no longer protect it. This presents a serious new risk
> | for consumers and enterprises worldwide," stated Oliver
> | Friedrichs director of emerging technologies in Symantec
> | Security Respons.
> `----
>
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-PatchGuard-Hacked-37979.shtml
>
> This should be a compelling reason to get out of this
> relationship (with Microsoft) as early as possible. Vista might be
> as 'secure' as Windows XP. Symantec's CEO has already advised
> people to ditch the platform---his very own bread and butter.
I was chatting to a fellow geek last night. We were talking of the fact that
Our data held with various companies such as a bank or shops, we have the
right to know what they have on us.
But we also have the right of a high degree of security, which the law does
give us. If we know that a system is unsafe, and the law tells us that our
data on their system must be protected. We must have the right to insist
that our data is only viewed or accessed on a safe PC.
If a bank employee, such as one of their sales reps, has a batch of customer
data to hand as he tries to flog his loans etc. I never really liked the
idea that those reps had my data on a laptop running XP. I definately don't
want data about me on an unsafe unprotected Vista PC.
We must be able to insist that the Vista system which is already proven as
unsafe can not be used because of the data protection act. It isn't as if
it is unsafe by accident or a bug, it is unsafe because they haven't dealt
with the safety aspect.
That pratt who advised them that not allowing patches into the kernel would
some how protect the system needs to get back to 1st year computer studies.
Even a 1st year programmer knows how to patch dlls, even editing them
manually.
|
|
