-Josh

METRO apps may be better as they get tested before they go on the store.

but WinRT != Metro

from what i was picking up one could write a C++ app that uses WinRT and it might be hiding whatever....

Metro apps that go to the app store get some testing.

IMHO MS should also offer app store apps that are non-metro but get as much checking as possible.

but even if the app is C# + .Net + Metro and gets tested they can not promise it will be 100% safe.

just that they check for well known issues and try to catch stuff.

I cannot remember the last time I had a virus, as Windows Vista and 7 are pretty secure, unless you spend time using cracked software and dodgy p0rn sites you are quite secure

6 minutes ago,vesuvius wrote

@SteveRichter: I have seen a post or two abou yours saying how viruses are an issue.

I cannot remember the last time I have a virus, as Windows Vista and 7 are pretty secure, unless you spend time using cracked software and dodgy p0rn sites you are quite secure

As loong as it's pretty secure then we should be fine.

If one practices due diligence and updates their machine regularly, things just tend to work, without you comprimising security.

14 hours ago,figuerres wrote

METRO apps may be better as they get tested before they go on the store.

but WinRT != Metro

I think the two labels are being used confusingly at the moment, all WinRT applications run in the full screen sandboxed environment and are deployed via the Windows App Store. Metro is really only the name of the design style used by the system and recommended as the way apps should behave. When people talk about "Metro apps" they are really meaning "WinRT apps".

6 hours ago,fanbaby wrote

One thing that bothers me about a store with an approval stage is how the heck do they know it's safe? There is no way (i'm talking praticality not theory) to check all code paths. So this is just a temporary solution.

They can, however, scan the application to identify what system calls it's making and ensure they're constrained to those they are supposed to call. Furthermore it means the store knows exactly what the application installs and in the event it is later identified as malware, can much more effectively remove it from a users machines.

18 hours ago,SteveRichter wrote

If winRT apps are sandboxed that means a PC cannot be malwared thru a winRT app, correct? If so, I think it would be a huge step forward for user's to be able to use their PC without the threat of  malware attacks.

No. WinRT apps could still bring malware, it's just an alternative to the Win32 API set (and you can also still get malware through Win32)

11 hours ago,fanbaby wrote

One thing that bothers me about a store with an approval stage is how the heck do they know it's safe? There is no way (i'm talking praticality not theory) to check all code paths. So this is just a temporary solution.

very much true,  the best they can ever do is try, if there is a known exploit / hole / rootkit etc... then can try and check for it.  i can imagine that there will be an on-going need for the store to update the tests they do based on what has been seen and as long as they keep a "Reasonable" set of tests going then at least they are trying.  Users will i am sure be required to hold Microsoft harmless in the event a bad app gets into the store.  some fine print will say so i bet.

one plus is also that when they find a problem they can notify users  and they should be able to disable the bad app on users machines and possibly also give the user a credit and then MSFT legal can go to the author and sue them etc....

20 minutes ago,figuerres wrote

*snip*

one plus is also that when they find a problem they can notify users  and they should be able to disable the bad app on users machines and possibly also give the user a credit and then MSFT legal can go to the author and sue them etc....

I'm sure the Russian mafia thought about it, but then decided to skip since Microsoft legal is a force to reckon with....

BTW, based on the latest legal shenanigans it is