Security Firm: Windows 7 Less Secure Than Vista

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]They'd have to use Google to find your solution. This is something people do not do. Instead, they call their "geek" friend or family member to help them out. Some people are also too afraid of doing the wrong thing even with instructions in front of them. I see you've never done tech support and you're seeing everything through the eyes of someone who is not "most people".[/citation]

And thats why "most people" don't give a damn if their UAC is cranked up all the way or not or whether a pop up came up telling them that oops there is no anti-virus.
But its just crazy that some people who work at security firm are too stuck up with small things like Oh I didn't get a pop up message that i don't have anti-virus installed...I mean common just look at the little flag with an "x" on it. Even most people will notice that

Obviously you can't have all...Most people wanted the UAC to be less annoying and Microsoft did just that with windows 7...so why fuzz about something which everyone wanted??
 
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Because it helps sell their software?[/citation]

LOL true...
But ironically even after these attempts they fail to make their products popular...

Lately i haven't seen anyone recommend trend micro...
its all symantec, McAfee, AVG, Kaspersky, NOD32...
 
[citation][nom]deltatux[/nom]I for one loved UAC (albeit more annoying than sudo), on Windows 7, I cranked up UAC to maximum as it should be used.[/citation]

How retarded.

Windows' security model is for users to use limited access accounts, requiring an elevation to admin to perform administration functions. Why would you crank up UAC, turning the admin account into a pseudo-limited-user account, itself requiring prompts for elevation?

Being logged in as Admin, you should already be aware of your access level. You shouldn't need Windows to ask you, "Are you sure you want to administrate your computer?"
If you're unsure, you have no business having access to Admin. The Play-Skool iMac is more your level.
 
[citation][nom]DominionSeraph[/nom]How retarded.Windows' security model is for users to use limited access accounts, requiring an elevation to admin to perform administration functions. Why would you crank up UAC, turning the admin account into a pseudo-limited-user account, itself requiring prompts for elevation? Being logged in as Admin, you should already be aware of your access level. You shouldn't need Windows to ask you, "Are you sure you want to administrate your computer?"If you're unsure, you have no business having access to Admin. The Play-Skool iMac is more your level.[/citation]

LOL no wonder windows fails...I think windows should learn from linux. As far as I can tell Linux user account hierarchy makes much more logical sense than the one windows has.

Linux by default creates a normal user account, for performing administrative tasks you need administrative password which makes sense.

Whereas on windows 7 the default account that is created is an Administrative account. And yet when you try to do administrative tasks you are "nagged" to confirm the operation.

In the past i've even come across certain files which i cannot edit even while logged in as an administrative account. I think this kind of ruins the point of an Administrative account.
 
[citation][nom]Regulas[/nom]OS X less secure than Windows, you are kidding right? Or you are misinformed about OS X based off of Unix.[/citation]

Actually kingnoobe is kinda correct when he says OS X is less secure than Windows.
After all OS X was the first one to get hacked (in record time) at a hacking contest recently.

And just because something is based on Unix, doesn't automatically make it secure. It just means that windows based viruses don't affect Unix based systems. And Unix (Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, etc) all combined are significant minority. Windows is used by vast majority of organizations. So hackers and virus makers profit more from breaking down windows than any of the other operating systems.

I can guarantee you that as OS X gets more popular it will start seeing it's fair share of viruses, malware, hackers, and all other sorts of nasties.

We've already seen that OS X is no longer "virus proof" unlike some people who liked to boost in the beginning that Mac's are virus proof.
 
damn, he was lame. The first time I installed Win7, it CERTAINLY reminded me on the ballooning Action Center that I need an anti-virus. Let's face it, for an OS that has a very large market share, Windows can only fix bugs and improve things and it cannot create a super-secure OS. You can't really blame them if the OS can or can't detect malware. That's why an anti-virus existed! It's like Toyota or Honda, making great cars but then, do they provide a driver? No. But again, Windows 7 is a great system. I say he was just to dumb or being overly-meticulous on the system.
 
[citation][nom]CrashOverride90[/nom]Linux by default creates a normal user account, for performing administrative tasks you need administrative password which makes sense.[/citation]
Ubuntu requires only the user's password to perform sudo commands. It's a convenience thing but it sacrifices some security. Of course, you can create a root password after installation like any other distro.
 
There is no point arguing with Blind Folded people who say that Windows has more viruses simply because its popular. I am sorry to say but these are the people who really don't know how linux works & how Windows works & why is it easy to make a virus & spread it in windows against Linux. These are the people who have never tried Linux.

I am a 15 yrs Windows User & 3 Months Linux users & a Construction Architect by Profession.

Can santeana answer these Questions:

1) Why is it Difficult to make & propogate a virus in Linux (No shitty Popularity answers)

2) Why u don't really need a Firewall in Linux (u have Firewalls but they are just GUI to iptables)

3) Why u need a Disk Defraging in Windows to maintain performance & why u dont need a Defrager in Linux or Mac

4) Why will u never find anything on my machine even if u hack it?
(this is a difficult question for santeana as he seems unfamilier with Linux)
Ans: Disk Drives are unmounted by Default & to mount it u need password. So even if someone hack into my machine he cannot find any data !!!...

There are Far more Pro's to Linux & Far more Con's to Windows
 
@ prathameshdotinfo:

I don't want to get in any argument but I am just going to state a few points here

Actually its not true that linux don't need firewalls.
Let me ask you...what does the majority of servers run on? Windows? I dont think so! Majority of servers are based on linux.
And websites and servers get hacked ALL the time...so really Linux gets attacked a whole lot!

And if you don't take proper security measures i.e. firewall, proper partitioning on your Linux server than you are most likely going to be owned in no time.
Linux can be as vulnerable as you can make it and as secure as you can make it. It depends on how well informed and thorough you are.
So if you want to go ahead and run linux blind folded without firewall or other security considerations you might as well be running windows without a anti-virus program.
And as for passwords...well you do know passwords get cracked a lot! So you need to have a really strong password...not something like "i love you" lol

And in reality unless you go to stupid websites and download lots of porn from random sites or other crazy things you are extremely unlikely to be affected by a virus on Windows.

Even a simple anti-virus like Microsoft security essential will do the trick if you use safe browsing practices. You really don't need to spend 50 bucks for a internet security suite. It's just a marketing hype. I have tried a lot of internet security suites and most of the time they reduce system boot time and bug you for no reason.

Personally I just use comodo firewall + Microsoft Security essential! Free and works best without slowing the system too much
 
[citation][nom]Maxor127[/nom]People complain way too much about UAC. It works fine in Vista. I rarely get alerts. People either overexaggerate about it or are using their system incorrectly.When I do get an alert, I know it's coming and it's second nature to just click through it. If you like having a less secure computer, then good luck with that.[/citation]


UAC doesnt make your computer more secure. it just makes an idiot more informed about what doing somethings can do. So gl being that idiot. and you apparently havent used a computer with UAC i have vista Ultimate and it nags everytime i try to do almost everything including deleting something D:.
 
"I was disappointed when I first used a Windows 7 machine that there was no warning that I had no anti-virus, unlike Vista," Genes said. "There are no file extension hidden warnings either. Even when you do install anti-virus, warnings that it has not been updated are almost invisible."

well, after installing win 7 professional on my desktop and laptop, im sure that i got a warning message about anti-virus, its icon was a white flag in lower right besides time and date! and it led me to microsoft security essentials home page!
 
[citation][nom]ano[/nom]@everyone who thinks Mac OS X is virus-proof!from Kaspersky Lab Technical Suport:"Today there are many viruses for Mac OS X, its number is growing, especially Trojans. Thus, if you got infected with such a virus, most likely you're not going to notice it, but your Mac will get hijacked and your data - stolen..."http://support.kaspersky.com/kavmac/tech?qid=208280936http://support.kaspersky.com/kavmac[/citation]

You are 100% correct. And this goes for not only Mac, Windows, Linux, BSD...or any other Operating system.

Not a single Operating System on this planet is 100% virus proof.
The basic definition of virus is "a software program capable of reproducing itself and usually capable of causing great harm to files or other programs on the same computer ..."

And by that definition anyone with good knowledge of programming can program a virus for whatever operating system. After all all OS'es are made be humans and are bound to have some holes and some nerd will find it for sure!
 
www.charlescorrea.net
www.vivekbhole.com
Dear CrashOverride90 these 2 are Official sites of 2 Prominent Architects in Mumbai. Not porn sites by any chances. Both of them have malacious code. So u really dont need to visit Porn sites to get infected. Your windows machine can get infected by just about visiting any website. Do use Opera. It warns u in advance.

& a average user in Linux need not install a Firewall cause Linux kernel itself is a Firewall. Infact most of the Hardware firewall that u have installed have Linux kernel. By Default Linux has all incomming ports closed except a few. The firewalls available in Linux are just GUI for configuring ports in iptables. They are not the Actual firewalls. U need GUI for iptables like Firestarter if u wish to run servers or use p2p programs like Transmission.
 
[citation][nom]CrashOverride90[/nom]Actually kingnoobe is kinda correct when he says OS X is less secure than Windows. After all OS X was the first one to get hacked (in record time) at a hacking contest recently. And just because something is based on Unix, doesn't automatically make it secure. It just means that windows based viruses don't affect Unix based systems. And Unix (Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, etc) all combined are significant minority. Windows is used by vast majority of organizations. So hackers and virus makers profit more from breaking down windows than any of the other operating systems. I can guarantee you that as OS X gets more popular it will start seeing it's fair share of viruses, malware, hackers, and all other sorts of nasties.We've already seen that OS X is no longer "virus proof" unlike some people who liked to boost in the beginning that Mac's are virus proof.[/citation]
That hack was Leopard, Snow Leopard is out now and it was done in a way that a normal user would not experience, so I stand by my quote. Any OS can be invaded if the user allows it. I am a Linux user myself.
 
Thank you, Microsoft. Actually thinking USABILITY is as important as security!!! About effing time! We should be doing things in LESS CLICKS than before, not more.
If they really wanted to make it secure, they would figure out the difference between a physical device connected to the computer and actions caused by remote. Higher security on the remote actions, but less security on the real physical device connected to the comp. How many viruses are spread by actual human interaction with EACH computer. Therefore, don't make me click multiple different windows to verify that, yes, I do want to complete the action.
BTW, I have yet to find a antivirus software that is worth there cost both in dollars and system resources. Watch what you download and have a good firewall. Most of the problems are malware, anyway, which AV programs do not do well against.

Just my two cents. Oh yeah, since Win7 was my idea, how come notification windows don't pop-up where my cursor is? That way on high resolution/multiple displays, I don't have to whip my cursor across 3 virtual miles window real estate.
 
it's so funny to see lots of you guys are trying to act like a senior software engineer who knows a lot about almost everything! even some of you guys claim to know about windows, mac os, linux and unix kernels and source code! yeah right! i bet MOST (not all!) of those people cant even understand a line of code in vb😉

and people who try to act like "i know what is the best solution for microsoft" are funny and stupid too! like microsoft or any other HUGE software company with over 80,000+ empolyees couldnt find out the solution and suddenly someone on tomshardware found the solution then just came here and wrote it down in 10 lines so everyone can see it!

just LOL at some of you wannabe computer scientist😉
 
80,ooo+ employees can easily make a fix. Point is they are not allowed to. Microsoft is a Big MAFIA of OS. If they come up with a good OS which is as secure as OS then computer maintenance industry will come to Half. Which companies will DIE:
1) All AV companies will diminish.
2) Anti Malware softwares Companies will disappear.
3) All software firewall companies will be wiped out.
4) All HDD Defraging Companies will be History.

All AMC companies will Suffer. It will be a Big Loss to Software Industry. So if Business has to go on - Let Windows be the Way it is. At the endpoint who suffers.......The END-USER.......
 
suddenly microsoft is the source of all the bad things in the world! LOL!

i forgot to add conspiracy theorists to my list 😉
 
People don't seem to understand that security is a trade-off for ease of use. Security always makes things less easy and user friendly, always. You can come up with creative ways to minimize amount of user friendliness you sacrifice for security, but at the end of the day you still have to choose. If you're wanting an ultra secure system then it's gonna be annoying to use in many ways compared to a less secure system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom