-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Peter KÃhlmann on Monday 26 Oct 2009 20:09 : \____
> nessuno wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 8:40 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>> > Sinister Midget III <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>> >> On 2009-10-22, Terry Porter <linu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>> >>> 'My [Windows] PC should have more security'," said the grandfather.
>>> >>> "Like 50-foot castle wall-type security. Next thing I know, whammo!
>>> >>> There's Windows 7. Now it keeps all my personal info safer and I
>>> >>> don't have to worry about bad stuff getting through. Victory is
>>> >>> mine. How's that for secure?"
>>>
>>> >>> Wow, I bet dfs and hadron would be impressed !
>>>
>>> >>> SPLORF!!!
>>>
>>> >>> During the Windows 7 launch event in Sydney this morning (see photo
>>> >>> gallery top right), journalists were shown a number of
>>> >>> advertisements that will feature in an upcoming television campaign
>>> >>> - including one touting the operating system's security
>>> >>> capabilities.
>>>
>>> >>> The advertisement in question features an elderly gentlemen with
>>> >>> what looks to be his grandson. They are playing with a very grand
>>> >>> toy castle and talking about IT security.
>>>
>>> >> All of these MICRO$~1 ads are so hokey. Yeah, that's what gramps and
>>> >> the grandkids always do. They sit around playing with toys and talk
>>> >> about IT security.
>>>
>>> > You "advocate$" must be really happy that MS have picked up their
>>> > game and improved security. After all, thats all you really wanted.
>>> > Right?
>>>
>>> Absolutely correct.
>>>
>>> However, do you not see the cleft stick that you are in?
>>> There are only two possible outcomes:-
>>>
>>> 1. Windows 7 proves to be *much* more secure than previous Windows
>>> incarnations.
>>> This then gives the lie to the theory that Linux etc. are only more
>>> secure than Windows be cause they are such a small target, and would
>>> emphasise what has been said for years - that all (previous)
>>> incarnations of Windows were as secure as a wet brown-paper bag.
>>>
>>> 2. Windows 7 proves to be not-very-secure, in which case it's "rinse
>>> and repeat".
>>
>> I'm betting on 2.
>
> Right on the mark
>
> The idiotic UAC from Vista which infuriated users to the point of simply
> switching that POS off for good has been changed.
>
> To the point where *applications* can bypass it, *without* any notice to
> the user.
> So, in short, the malware is bypassing it, and the user is left in the
> dark.
>
> If the user wants more security, he is effectivly at the same point where
> Vista left him, which means he is chosing between cholera and black death
>
> In short: MS is still utterly incompetent and unable to come up with some
> working admin/user concept, which has been in the different *nix from the
> start.
>
> Now lets wait for the typical windroid cretins to blame the user when
> malware is running rampant on Win7
I heard from one guy who was obstructed by UAC when attempting to *remove* a virus.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
When I do it, it's development. When you do it, it's coding.
When he does it, it's mindless hacking." -- Paul Tomblin
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
00:05:01 up 16 days, 4:06, 2 users, load average: 0.96, 0.80, 1.14
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkrqLfQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo59RQCgsAaaPHjVB2H7FLuJLmzfWCHQ
SZAAn2gPdrSwu4T3OLLt+Qg8Rxag02sx
=ZobJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
