WIN 7

[DanS]

The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

Who cares?

Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

You are so f****ng wrong.
Windiws 7 is Vista SP3, not Vista II.
How could anyone be so dum?

You must be extremely stupid. The word is DUMB, not DUM you MORON. Windows
7 is Windows 7 and not Vista SP3. Now shove your head back up your ass
where it belongs.

 

[Jackie]

UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation
of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with
anything original.

So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you
saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely
to be worse and harder to use? What is stupid is not doing something
*just because someone else did it already*.

It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with
malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that
has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.
Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.

It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash
and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious
ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If
Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in
the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause
damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of
these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features
I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also
available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.

The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the
applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its
own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what
applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.

I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the
way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This
feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from
lower-level features such as process memory injection, window
subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,
low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a
separate application for this.

 

[DanS]

So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much

Yeah, this should be good.

There will be no answer.

 

[Jackie]

I didn't say you should. You should have a router that comes with a NAT
firewall to protect your ports. It's a device, not a program.

Again, you quoted everything I said and only give me a very short reply,
completely unrelated to the important things.

No need to try and make me look like a fool. I am not asking for any
advices about this and I do not have a good reason to tell you whether I
have a NAT router between my home network and the outside. It is
completely unrelated to our discussion.

 

[Jackie]

The discussion is about security. Connect the dots. For YOUR sake, I
hope you use a router. I already do If you don't like the way I
reply or the content, kill file me.

I am sure you realize that the way you write things can be insulting to
the reader.
I am not ignorant to the importance of using one, but thank you for your
consideration.

 

[Bob]

WGAF

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

I am sure you realize that the way you write things can be insulting to
the reader.
I am not ignorant to the importance of using one, but thank you for your
consideration.

That is the way Alias is. He can't backup any statement with fact. When
you call him on anything, he gets agitated and says to killfile him. He is
a garden variety troll with his main goal of trying to convert everyone to
that INFERIOR Ubuntu that the majority of people dislike.

Imagine, a FREE OS that has been FREE for years, yet Ubuntu is still on very
few desktop machines. That should tell you all you need to know about it.

 

[bill]

On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote: snip

If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just
holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?
Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather
station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running my
way.

 

[ray]

Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?
Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather
station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running
my way.

It's way easier than a lot of folks would like you to believe. Glad
you're having a good experience.

 

[John B. Slocomb]

Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted
everything in my post.

Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
irrelevancies.

Given that Alias seems to know very little about computers, witness
his assertion that the Windows kernel is the Registry and that a
certain compilation of Linux is a version based on the desktop
environment, it seems likely that he is one of these "instant
experts", that finally learned enough to turn the computer on and off
and now portrays himself as the all knowing pundit.


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John B. Slocomb]

I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows
is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than
Linux users. All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in
Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

I don't believe that is a valid statement. Certainly you - the Linux
Advocate - are less savvy then any number of others posting in this
group - your foolish statement that the Windows kernel is the Registry
and your more recent one about a version of Linux being "built on"
Gnome, the desktop environment, certainly indicates that you have
little knowledge of either system.

If your assertions are correct I wonder about the various firewalls
that have been built for Linux? Not necessary as the system is bullet
proof? Gee, I wonder why those stupid Linux coders made them?

I wonder is perhaps, rather then waving your hands in the air and
repeating your mantra "Linux is wonderful, wonderful, wonderful" you
might like to address my comments in some detail?
John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Jackie]

Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
irrelevancies.

It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
sounds logical or not.

 

[Death]

Alias wrote:

SNIP

OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
prove to you what they say is true?

You're a Windows user, dumbass.

Tell them how you make $14,000 /week.
That will give you at least a little credibility.

That ubuntu is based on gnome was hilarious.

 

[Jackie]

OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
prove to you what they say is true?

Unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
Facts are either true or false. I have said my part on why I believe
what I believe. I don't feel that you have contributed much.
If you feel that I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you don't want to
bother convincing me and other people on why we are wrong, I suggest we
stop talking about this because the conversation is already starting to
become meaningless.
If you have read my previous posts, does it really sound like I need to
"do my own research"? What part of what you *you* say sounds even
slightly convincing?
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you do not have any
intention on enlightening us, let's end this conversation right now.

 

[Death]

Regardless of any proof I may give, you and John won't believe me anyway
so what's the point?

There is no point in any conversation you participate in.
It's just Windows bashing, ubuntushitsthebed promoting, plain and
simple.

If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
not into futile endeavors.

The "countdown to nothing" is a futile endeavor, dumbass.

 

[Death]

Death wrote:
SNIP


Yawn. I didn't know you were so *amused by* me. Oh well, the price of *stupidity*.

Corrected in place

 

[Death]

Was that supposed to be cute and clever, Mr Perfect?

Just clever.
Death ain't cute.
He's handsome and not an ubuntard.
+2 for Death.

 

[Jackie]

If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
not into futile endeavors.

That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously
given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad
laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is
malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware
apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.

Now, to answer your general statement...
For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be
elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about
bypassing AV software
(http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).

In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious
application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in
Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/0...n-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/
This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in
Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.

Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you
always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.

Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control
system developed by Novell.
You can read more about it here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor

Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you
can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall
Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty
good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I
also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.
http://www.sandboxie.com/

Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already
pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.
Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does
not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.