Service pack2 built-in virus scanner - Page 3
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Service pack2 built-in virus scanner

  1. #21
    AO Part Timer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    332
    Tiger Shark

    Everyone whines like 9 year olds that M$' security sucks..... M$ does someting about it..... Everyone bitches that it will either be :-
    a. Useless
    b. be monopolistic and force others out of business.

    I for one disagree with m$ and some it's security practices. But I am happy to say I'd rather see patches coming out, rather than no patches at all. From what I know about m$ software, there is a difference involved in the owning process of it. *nix (whichever you like) while some are rock solid from day one, are different in many aspects from what I have knowledge of. While someone here once told me that if I based everything on what I know the world get mighty small mighty fast. So I'll just say this.

    M$ presented a piece of software for the norm. It had a pretty interface, sounds and blinking lights. Those whom didn't know anything about computers suddenly had a $1500 deck of cards, and a machine to auto deal solitare. They captured a group of folks whom normally wouldn't have a computer. Add in the internet, email, and lots of other stuff. Suddenly the end user out numbers the good Admin 1000 to 1. They had a very good idea for business. But failed to have foresight for the future. Their ideas we're driven by money, not a desire for knowledge and the growth thereof.

    Now they are actually trying have sp's and patches that take care of those folks whom don't care if they have the blaster as long as they can read their email. They are infact a bit monopolistic. However other software companies are still out there. M$ just has a dominate hold on the market, and this will remain true for sometime. All great powers will fall. If not for M$ what would you have to bitch about? openBSD not secure enough for you?

    let's close this thread and replace it with something of some real value.

    my $.02

  2. #22
    < nonserious joke >Real value? Like calling Linux, L1NuX, instead of the actual spelling? < /nonserious joke>

  3. #23
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Microsoft gained popularity and market share loooong before Linux became even remotely usable in a stable environment.

  4. #24
    Senior Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    551
    Just to throw in my .02....

    I don't think any of this will accomplish anything except put McAfee out of business and put the hurt on Symantec. Regardless of what Microsoft's intentions are, no amount of AV scanners and firewalls will fix what is wrong with Windows.

    The problem with Windows is not about viruses, worms, firewalls, or even bad code. It's about bad design choices. It's about having the entire OS installed on one monolithic C: drive instead of having a distributed file system where you can have /, /tmp, /usr, /var, and /home mounted on separate partitions with different execute permissions (noexec, nosuid, nodev, etc). It's about every user on the system needing Admin privileges to run basic applications because the directory layout was designed for a single-user environment (and not particularly good even for that). It's about things like this.

    Again, it's about choices that were made many, many years ago before any of this was ever thought of up in Redmond, and about trying to create a patchwork to cover up those choices. You may patch one particular hole, but it will never be right. Nothing can fix Windows except a complete rewrite from the ground up, which will break the API and just about every application out there.

    And we know how likely that is.
    Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    89
    I am a little conflicted with this one. I would much prefer if it were an add-on and not built since Iíll most likely end up using a more fully featured product anyways.
    I to am very paranoid about this. What makes Microsoft products so superior to others? The WindowsXP firewall is a complete joke. First thing I did was disable it where ever I could find it.
    Also will this firewall be configurable? Because I sure could never work out how to configure it and to be honest I'm not to bothered about it either as long as its not in my way.
    And what will happen to others like McAfee, Symatec, Sygate, ZoneLabs, etc.? Will their products still work, or will the Microsoft firewall work at such a level that it will dominate?

    As for virus scanner on the other hand, I'm not to sure about that either. Well first thing is that why bother? Why can't Microsoft leave McAfee and Symatec alone? They are doing a very good job at the moments and always have done so why try to interfare?

    It's about having the entire OS installed on one monolithic C: drive instead of having a distributed file system where you can have /, /tmp, /usr, /var, and /home mounted on separate partitions with different execute permissions (noexec, nosuid, nodev, etc).
    Linux doesn't (by default) install all these directorys on different partitions. Also it doesn't matter to much on what partition a file is on but what permissions are given to it.
    However I do agree that the Windows permission system is fairly stupid. They should learn (not copy) from *nix.
    -HDD

  6. #26
    AO Part Timer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    332
    < nonserious joke >Real value? Like calling Linux, L1NuX, instead of the actual spelling? < /nonserious joke>
    This is funny.

    Y0u r34lly d0 h473 l337 5p34k d0n'7 y0u? 1f 1 m4y 45k w17h 0u7 0ff3nd1ng, why d0 y0u h4v3 5uch 4 d15r3g4rd f0r wh47 c4m3 fr0m 4 51mpl3 w0rk 4r0und f0r c3n50r5h1p?

    While today it may not suggest a very high level of intelligence or maturity to some. To others it is simply part of roots perhaps. If you forget your roots, you have to start over from scratch right?

  7. #27
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    You CAN install various windows compnents on various drives. I am talking about current windows products not Windows 9x. You can also assign various permissions to various users and lock out potential to run malicious code unintentually. The windows firewall has been shipping with windows XP already. Windows is designed for the masses, without it no one would have a web site worth a **** on the net. Grandma using AOL to talk to her geriatric friends would indeed benefit from having the firewall activated by default. If that were the case, we wouldn't be bitching about millions of zombie computers hitting our networks and eating bandwidth.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    267
    Returning to the main point of this article (MicroSoft adding AntiVirus to SP2)

    A couple points come to mind.

    1. GREAT !! Protection for the millions of users who don't know AV from Shinola.
    It "may" reduce the spread of Virii or DDOS

    2. NOT so Great if they treat it the same as DOS 6.22 (6.20 ?) which included an AV.
    There were never any updates from MS.

    3. Who will they partner with to provide the AntiVirus ?
    Assuming MS don't buy an existing AV company to handle the decoding/signatures
    cleaners et al.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    748
    The problem with Windows is not about viruses, worms, firewalls, or even bad code. It's about bad design choices. It's about having the entire OS installed on one monolithic C: drive instead of having a distributed file system where you can have /, /tmp, /usr, /var, and /home mounted on separate partitions with different execute permissions (noexec, nosuid, nodev, etc). It's about every user on the system needing Admin privileges to run basic applications because the directory layout was designed for a single-user environment (and not particularly good even for that). It's about things like this.
    You must not know that much about Windows.. You can break all of this out yourself and have windows configured however you want it... Which is exactly what you do when you install a Unix system. I can install redhat and have a volume named c:\ and have everything reside within that file system. With windows2000 the idea of having to name volumes c:\ d:\ went away. For instance I have volumes on my machine that are named by what they do, and I can access them by that name, not d:\, e:\, etc... Just like in unix. There is nothing wrong with the file system in windows. And this is perhaps the craziest thing that I have heard from a windows basher.

    It is also crazy to say that just because the mount points are differentiated that it makes some big deal. If you only have 1 harddrive in a unix system the file system looks pretty much identical to a windows system.. What does it matter that is seperates different functions out automatically. Even a better question, if i setup a windows system for you and break up that one harddrive into five different partitions and name them /home /tmp /usr and /var. Then I make sure that the user folders, temp files etc.. are setup to use the proper partition in the environment variables does that all of the sudden mean that windows and unix are identical?? No.. of course it doesn't. Again, probably the worst argument against windows I have ever heard.

    If you can't set different NTFS permissions based on folders and volumes, then you really don't know anything about windows.

  10. #30
    dopey:

    I appreciate leet speak for what it was origonally intended for, yes, as an IRC filter endaround. But we aren't in IRC Most people aren't in IRC. I do understand that using " M$ " may have some sort of roots to people's history, but times change. XP is in no way comparible to 3.1 (thank the tao). It may simply be time to let go of high school sayings back when we didn't know a thing about polotics or how Microsoft worked on the larger scheme of thing.

    Mind you, not forcing my opinion here, just expressing it!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •