Scott Field: How secure is Vista, really? - Part I

BlackTiger wrote:Just try to kill "winint.exe" from TaskManager...
SecretSoftware wrote:
MS should have moved the WinKernel from Ring0 to Ring1 in that onion. PatchGuard can then secure Ring1 Code. This way you get rid of the impracticality of securing code with same priviliage level that exist in Vista.
SecretSoftware wrote:
MS should have moved the WinKernel from Ring0 to Ring1 in that onion. PatchGuard can then secure Ring1 Code. This way you get rid of the impracticality of securing code with same priviliage level that exist in Vista.
staceyw wrote:Hey, it would be really nice if someone (probably from MS) would put together a detailed list of all these new innovations in Vista (i.e. security, network, new interesting apis, new tech, etc) Not a marketing document, but a real list that devs and IT Pros would like.
androidi wrote:
BlackTiger wrote:Just try to kill "winint.exe" from TaskManager...
No such file comes with windows?? And if you mean wininit then hard to kill as it's not running.
Killing system processes on Vista will invoke a privilege elevation prompt (assuming UAC is running). Admins can do stupid things, just like in XP. If some rogue process tries to do harm, then a user would be prompted by the system that a questionable action is taking place and will be given the option to stop it.
I don't see how killing processes in Admin security context is a Windows security issue. 100% user error.....
C
Charles wrote:Killing system processes on Vista will invoke a privilege elevation prompt (assuming UAC is running). Admins can do stupid things, just like in XP. If some rogue process tries to do harm, then a user would be prompted by the system that a questionable action is taking place and will be given the option to stop it.
I don't see how killing processes in Admin security context is a Windows security issue. 100% user error.....
C
Turning of UAC is a user-decided action and therefore a user-decided mistake. Yeah, a mistake. Do NOT turn off UAC unless you HAVE to on your dev machine (which is our fault, not yours - we will fix this)
You are wrong about not being able to compromise XP by doing stupid things as an admin.
C
HellSnoopy wrote:...everything, user stupidity is to blame most of the time.
So UAC is Microsoft's way of making an insecure Windows system the user's fault instead of Microsoft's fault. A "cover your (I need to watch my language)" feature. Nice.Charles wrote:Turning of UAC is a user-decided action and therefore a user-decided mistake. Yeah, a mistake.
JChung2006 wrote:So UAC is Microsoft's way of making an insecure Windows system the user's fault instead of Microsoft's fault. A "cover your (I need to watch my language)" feature. Nice.
Charles wrote: Turning of UAC is a user-decided action and therefore a user-decided mistake. Yeah, a mistake.
y2k4life wrote:
Does buying Vista come with free training and education on all thes terms like UAC, MalWare, Prompts, etc... or Or is the user just left on there own.
As Scott mentions in the video, all MS software components in Vista are digitally signed. It would be a compatibility nightmare to force all ISVs do do the same. That said, Vista is the beginning, not the end, of a much more strict system. You see, there's
always been (and will contnue to be) a struggle between platform flexibility and system security. It's a very hard problem. Scott, for one, has been working on it for 12 years.
Vista is not perfect, but it contains a great deal of security innovation that will form the basis for future iterations of Windows while doing a great job of keeping users safe today.
C
Bas wrote:
y2k4life wrote:
Does buying Vista come with free training and education on all thes terms like UAC, MalWare, Prompts, etc... or Or is the user just left on there own.
The UAC dialogs clearly say "This program is trying to run. If you started this program, please continue." or even "The source and purpose of this program are unknown. Don't run the program unless you used it before or know where it's from.", followed by "Cancel: I don't know where this program is from or what it is for."
If the user doesn't understand that message, or worse, doesn't -read- that message, then yes, it's the user's fault.
It's not an ideal system, but in my opinion, it's the best compromise between usability and security.
y2k4life wrote:Also as I pointed out Smokey says only you can prevent forest fires. How does he help, educates the campers. MS where is your Smokey The Bear "Only you can prevent hack attacks"? Where is your UAC commercial telling the average users for free what the hell that means?
Obviously if we would live in a platonic world there would be no security issues Malware, hacker, or the likes. The average user would use the computer like it was intended and would not need twenty dialog/prompts asking if they want to open an email. But if it is going to be this difficult than educate them. And I don't mean by giving them text in a dialog box in hopes that they will understand and answer the question with clearity.