rVidia
07-27-2006, 12:06 PM
Symantec found networking security bugs that make the current version of Vista less secure than XP Pro: http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2987
...let's keep in mind that Symantec and Microsoft are actually competing in the security arena for the first time.
And:
...the discovery of these few networking threats isn't the real source of my concern. Much scarier—particularly to those of us who have been working in security for decades—is the fact that Microsoft has apparently rewritten a lot of security code in Vista.
Now, people who have never performed low-level coding, testing, and security evaluations may cheer when they learn that Redmond has tossed out the notoriously buggy Microsoft code to start anew. But those of us with a bit more experience know that new code always spells trouble: More new code means more problems, and a lot of newly written security code is usually a disaster waiting only for the big release date to happen!
Code is simply too complicated to get it right the first time. Consequently, it seems to me that Vista will likely present a vast array of new security threats—after we've finally wrung most of the vulnerabilities out of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
So why is it worth risking your business just so Microsoft can make another few billions of dollars? Are Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 really so bad that your organization must buy an expensive and problematic new operating system and office suite?
Sure, his last few statements may be a bit over the top, but... Any thoughts on this?
...let's keep in mind that Symantec and Microsoft are actually competing in the security arena for the first time.
And:
...the discovery of these few networking threats isn't the real source of my concern. Much scarier—particularly to those of us who have been working in security for decades—is the fact that Microsoft has apparently rewritten a lot of security code in Vista.
Now, people who have never performed low-level coding, testing, and security evaluations may cheer when they learn that Redmond has tossed out the notoriously buggy Microsoft code to start anew. But those of us with a bit more experience know that new code always spells trouble: More new code means more problems, and a lot of newly written security code is usually a disaster waiting only for the big release date to happen!
Code is simply too complicated to get it right the first time. Consequently, it seems to me that Vista will likely present a vast array of new security threats—after we've finally wrung most of the vulnerabilities out of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
So why is it worth risking your business just so Microsoft can make another few billions of dollars? Are Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 really so bad that your organization must buy an expensive and problematic new operating system and office suite?
Sure, his last few statements may be a bit over the top, but... Any thoughts on this?