Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th May 2011 20:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 474072
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Microsoft cares about user security more than any other company.
Not more than any other company, maybe more than Apple. MS provides an AV because due to the legacy of its terrible security in the recent past, there are many orders of magnitude more Windows viruses, than viruses for any other OS.
"Microsoft cares about user security more than any other company.
Not more than any other company, maybe more than Apple. MS provides an AV because due to the legacy of its terrible security in the recent past, there are many orders of magnitude more Windows viruses, than viruses for any other OS. "
To give Microsoft atleast some credit Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) is an exceedingly good AV; it's a whole lot less resource-hungry than the others and is very good at doing its job without getting on the nerves of its users. Not to mention it's free.
So while Windows still has a security-hole here or there and Microsoft can't really stop people from being stupid and installing malicious things atleast they are trying to.
RE[5]: ??? - ahahahaa.. hehe.. sorry, what?
by jabbotts on Sat 21st May 2011 14:15
in reply to "RE[4]: ???"
Microsoft cares about user security more than any other company.
oh damn that's funny. Where you making a joke or did you actually type that with a strait face?
If Microsoft cared more than any other company we would have a modular Windows install. Everything including a web browser and basic image rendering libraries wouldn't be deeply embedded into the kernel. Privileged separation would be implemented in a strong manner instead of the wet cleanex separation between regular users and administrators. We'd never have had regular programs needing administrator rights to run. They would deliver anything but "good enough" quality product. We wouldn't have the immense "antivirus echosystem" that's remained so well supported by every Windows version so far. In all likelihood, Microsoft would be producing Windows under an open source license to take advantage of the expert peer review available; it seems to work for Cryptology and they tell me that relates closely to security.
I mean; keep some perspective. Microsoft cares more about user security than Apple. Sure. But "more than any other company"?
RE[6]: ??? - ahahahaa.. hehe.. sorry, what?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 21st May 2011 14:29
in reply to "RE[5]: ??? - ahahahaa.. hehe.. sorry, what?"
Everything including a web browser and basic image rendering libraries wouldn't be deeply embedded into the kernel.
Lolwut? Where do you people come up with this stuff?
Privileged separation would be implemented in a strong manner instead of the wet cleanex separation between regular users and administrators.
You realise that when it comes to access control, Windows NT is miles ahead of vanilla UNIX and Linux, right? You need SELinux to come even somewhat close to the kind of fine-grained control NT allows, and then SELinux is a complicated mess.





Member since:
2011-05-21
This is social resposability:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/pc-security/antivirus-rogue.aspx
Microsoft cares about user security more than any other company. Microsoft Security Center offers info about different kinds of malware and social enginering scams. Also, Microsoft gives an Antivirus for free.