begin risky.vbs
<pan.2006.12.30.02.36.51.91127@xxxxxxxxx>,
Nick Ballard <nrballardco@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:52:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> No Rush to Adopt Vista
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | "I say Microsoft never intended anybody to run Vista prior to
>> January," | he said. "What works on Vista, beyond Office 2007?" he
>> asked. "I'm going | to Vista... when my VPN supplier tells me that they
>> have drivers that | work, and when my antivirus vendor tells me that
>> they have non-beta | versions that work."
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20061228/tc_pcworld/128346
>
> It's ironic that the antivirus vendors were locked out to begin
> with. Only very recently have they had the information from
> Microsoft that they need to develop effective antivirus software.
Perhaps MS believes that vista doesn't need AV SW! :-)
It couldn't be that MS have their own, I mean bought, AV SW and wanted
to kill any competitors by any chance?
> Now we're facing a situation where the zero-day exploits and viruses
> will get faster and more widespread circulation than the antiviruses.
Only 50k for a 0-day exploit for vista at this time. A mere pittance
apparently as almost no one is using vista. Certainly no businesses
with any sense.
The big money is for XP 0-day exploits. The fact that there are 0-day
exploits for vista before it is even generally available says much for
MS's most secure OS ever.
Windows: Insecure by design
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
