Windows Chief Suggests Vista Won't Need Antivirus 361
LadyDarth writes "During a telephone conference with reporters yesterday, outgoing Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin, while touting the new security features of Windows Vista, which was released to manufacturing yesterday, told a reporter that the system's new lockdown features are so capable and thorough that he was comfortable with his own seven-year-old son using Vista without antivirus software installed."
If users can... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a virus cannot harm the operating system does not mean it is harmless.
no antivirus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez.. (Score:5, Insightful)
My first thought was... (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do execs say things like this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-virus software (Score:4, Insightful)
Well gosh... (Score:5, Insightful)
NATIVE ANTIVIRUS
Seriously, isn't this what third party antivirus vendors have been whining about?
And I though Allchin had at least half a brain... (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's still an irresponsible thing to make as a blanket statement.
Any OS can be virus-ridden... (Score:3, Insightful)
What else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had two infections on my Windows over the years--Nimda and a video codec trojan. I'm not counting the second boxes that I used to use for experiments--I never put anything important on them, so I tended to just not care, and blow away Windows when they got nasty--that was back in the bad old dialup days when potential damage to others was minimal, and Windows was a lot less secure. I don't know if AV would have stopped Nimda, because I didn't use AV back then. AV didn't stop the trojan. I used to disable AV routinely because it *is* a virus. It used to slow boxes down way too much, and cause all kinds of problems with installers. I always un-do the stupid defaults in Windows and IE, and I try not to be too careless. Nimda is really the only one I can blame on MS, and it was patched ages ago. I would probably disable AV on my current box, but they seem to have gotten better about not hogging resources and/or crashing the box so I just leave it alone.
I wonder if Vista is finally going to display extensions by default. That was always irritating. It would be *nice* if you had to enable active content on a per-site basis by default. It would be better if they just didn't have so much active content out there. Would I "just trust" a Vista box? No way. But would I run it without AV if there was none pre-installed? Yes, in a heartbeat--but I would still be very careful about how I conducted myself on the web, and I would still want to go through all the settings to make sure there was nothing stupid in there. And I would *still* be checking up on processes and registry keys from time-to-time.
But anyway, XP without AV is not a big deal--if you know what you're doing. Unfortunately, that's a big if. Nevermind 7 year olds. It's the 57 year olds that you have to worry about.
It's not the viruses you need to worry about... (Score:5, Insightful)
The main attack vectors these days seem to center on "drive by downloads" or pop ups that trick you into downloading executables ("WARNING! Your PC is infested with SPYWARE - CLICK HERE to remove"). Most Antivirus software is unbelievably pathetic when it comes to identifying/dealing with spyware. I've seen dozens of clients who have so much spyware, it can take 30 minutes or more to boot up and then spend more time closing all the popped-up windows. FF and it appears IE7 as well will hopefully go a long way to closing this attack. Now we just need to wait for everyone with win95,98,ME, NT, etc. to upgrade.
Coming soon to a virus near you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anybody else thinking that we'll have Vista viruses that mutate and adapt to the ASLR of a particular system within a year or two? I mean, seriously, what is it with software companies (or rather, security companies) and this apparent hubris that "our product is bullet-proof"? I mean, haven't we seen enough security systems and copy protections go down in smoke, even when people were convinced that "it can't be cracked"? Give me a break...
It's not the OS that needs antivirus... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've used XP SP2 without AV for years (Score:3, Insightful)
firefox + nat=no anti virus not needed
You're crazy for using ie7 though.. you can still run activex, its not safe.
If his son is not an Admin on the box, why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
And with UAC, since Administrators don't even run with full token by default, 3rd party applications will quickly move away from assuming Admin access (a huge problem with running XP as limited -- apps blow up).
Context (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)
disturbing... (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, Vista Is Still The Anti-OS.
That said, a disturbing quote to me from the article was, "His [Allchin's son] machine is locked down with parental controls, he can't download things unless it's to the places that I've said that he could do, and I'm feeling totally confident about that," he [Allchin] added. "That is quite a statement. I couldn't say that in Windows XP SP2.""
It's not disturbing they/he claim the security in Vista, it's disturbing I've been around long enough it's an old tape. Every single new Windows, every single new version, every single new service pack brings the old saw "this time ${WindowsVersin} is really secure and stable". I guess I'm tired of saying "told you so", when it's not. (Oooops, I did it again.)
Prediction (not too hard...): Vista will be riddled with stability and security issues.
Re: I've used XP SP2 without AV for years (Score:3, Insightful)
1. file extension,
2. trusted source
is the key.
P.S I just noticed that 'Firefox' and 'Thunderbird' aren't in the FF2 English dictionary!
Never mind, the solution is quite intuitive really, just highlight the 'misspelled' word, right click and select 'add to dictionary'. Sweet...
Users define the (in)security of a system (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't leave all my default servicing running. I don't, usually, let my bare ass hang out on the internet, I try to stay behind a firewall or a NAT box. When I do run a server it's apache / mysql (even on windows), and I turn off / don't install all the external administration crap (ssh is more than good enough). I don't run random files I find on, or that are sent to me over, the internet. I keep my systems patched. Etc.
It's not that difficult to avoid viruses and worms today, it just requires a little discipline and critical thinking.
Re:no antivirus? No SEATBELTS! (Score:2, Insightful)
And if you're SURE you're NEVER going to crash, WHY do you have INSURANCE???
Re:And XP has no buffer overflows... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, since he's "outgoing" and with a comfortable financial situation [sec.gov], I doubt he much cares. Perhaps in his spare time he can lounge by the pool and read something [nsa.gov] enlightening.
Re:Also reported: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or are hackers just like all other humans, just like electricity, water, wind and pretty much everything else and take the path of least resistance? "I want my virus to work, so I'll code it for the weakest platform."
Re:I've used XP SP2 without AV for years (Score:4, Insightful)
Or your PC has been sending out millions of spam emails but you've been clueless because nothing unexpected shows up in process list and your PC isn't crashing or behaving badly as far as you can tell.
How many of the litterally millions of infected spam zombies out there do you think are on PCs who's owners "Never had a problem" with viruses? I wonder how many of them tell Mac and Linux users they are crazy for suggesting that Windows security is a bit... lax.
Re:Also reported: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Also reported (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if you consider how many times did the Apple platform switch in the recent years and how much overhead has that generated for the Apple third-party software manufacturers, not to mention how many API changes have taken place since 10.0, you'll quickly realize that Apple platform is almost as "enthusiast" as Linux. OTOH, whether you like it or not, XP in 2006 can run software made in 1995 without any problems whatsoever. All this means that businesses can get more mileage from their custom solutions and hence the market share disparity...
Re:I've used XP SP2 without AV for years (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.runtime.org/dixml.htm [runtime.org]
Re:Antivirus is a cure worse than the disease (Score:3, Insightful)
The seatbelt analogy doesn't fit very well. Even the safest of drivers have a sizable risk of getting into an accident because other less-safe drivers share the road with them. Unless this guy is sharing his PC with someone with less-safe computing practices, he doesn't have a comparable risk of spyware/virus infection.
Which is not to say there's no risk - even the safest of computer users can get hit with some 0-day exploit in Windows or the like, unless they leave their machine physically and permanently disconnected from the Net. But like anything else, it's a tradeoff. Do you want that incremental increase in safety at the expense of antivirus subscription fees and computational slowdown? Some people will, some people won't. It's a matter of risk tolerance and the cost/benefit ratio.
And you, sir, are not the "average joe" computer user
And that's exactly why AV programs should let you specify what level of understanding or risk aversion you have. Provide a "Typical User" and "Expert User" selection, with a "Typical User" default setting. There are few things more aggravating than someone or something continually assuming you're an ignoramus despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
Norton's been driving me nuts because I disabled some of its options to save my (pretty old) computer some performance. Every time I log in Norton nags me with this dire warning about "items affecting my status"; those items being the things I told it not to do. I'm very well aware of what I did and the implications, and don't need the app to be my nanny. I'm sure lots of people do want the nanny, and Norton should give it to them. But there's no need to apply that extreme risk aversion to everyone. It's been enough to make me seriously consider uninstalling Norton entirely.