Windows H8

[Skuzzy]

Would you have any links about this?
Back a few years I used to do the monitoring of Firewalls at a mid-sized company and did not see this kind of traffic,  Is this new on just windows 8?  Would also be interested in what kind of information these packets contained.

When did Microsoft say that windows in not secure? 

It is used by the major financial institutions across the world on both a desktop level as well as a server level.   Not going to argue that security could be better.  But you can say the same thing about all systems.

Really?

Microsoft made that statement in federal court that "Windows was never designed to be secure".  You can read several documents from security companies talking about the basic design of Windows and why it cannot be made secure.  As long as the OS operates in user mode (as opposed to protected mode), in conjunction with applications, it cannot be made secure.  Microsoft loads and runs DLL's in user mode, not protected mode.

There are just so many things wrong with the design of Windows that will never allow it to be secure.


Windows 8 added the ability for Microsoft to control what is installed on your computer.  Also further augmented what information they gather from your computer.

If you want to peruse the hundreds of articles about the issues Microsoft has been denying about Smartscreen, then search it.  Many show the data packet contents.  That is just one of the more talked about privacy issues with Windows 8.  There are a number of others.

[SEraider]

If you want to support Microsoft being able to tell you what you can install and what you cannot install on your computer, then that is your choice.

Skuzzy,  if you like books, I recommend a small book called "They own it all, including you" by Ron MacDonald and Robert Rowen MD. 

It is a little bit of a dry read until the middle of the book as they discuss a lot of black laws legalees and history.  But later on they discuss ownership issues as you discuss here and privacy issues.

I am a big privacy advocate.  So I agree with you 10 fold! 

[Trell]

Your Quote on Windows was never designed to be secure”  did not bring up any results that I could find on a quick Google search. 
Sorry as I can’t find it I will assume that this was a while ago.  NT and even 2k was horribly insecure with services and protocol decisions,  But those were the good old times before security became a factor.    Don’t see security as being a major issue with current windows systems compared to other widely used systems in the world. Granting users or running users at elevated user levels is a bad idea all around.   Every system has bugs and I have seen windows systems operate at all levels within organizations from desktops to edge firewalls without major issues.

2.  You are worried about smart screen?  Smart screen is not a super-secret backdoor.  It is a feature that scans incoming download files to look for unsafe applications with the future option of blocking malicious apps.
And the big thing is it can be turned off for the paranoid.   This is  a feature that is beneficial for 99% of the consumers that will be using it. 

But everyone is entitled to their opium on what systems they should use.  And what information they want to give up to make their lives easier.

[Skuzzy]

Do you understand the difference between hardware "protected mode" and "user mode"?  Windows runs mostly in user mode.  By that very design choice it makes it inherently insecure.  The only way to protect kernel memory is to never allow access to it via user mode.

The UNIX kernel never runs in user mode.  It has not done so since the eighties.  This is a secure design.


That is not an opinion.  It is a fact.  This is not an area I am new in. I worked twenty years in operating system design and support.  You can chose to believe Windows is secure, but that choice is not based on the actual design of Windows.


By the way, the quote was made in federal court.  It was in response to questions about the security of Windows.  It was shortly before Vista was released.  Nothing has changed since then.  Microsoft still uses the exact same memory manager they used in Windows XP.  The only changes made were to increase the address range it could deal with.

[Shuffler]

I'll put blinds and curtains on my windows...... and keep the blinds closed and the cutains drawn.

[Skuzzy]

At the end of the day, it does not matter.  Few people will actually take the time to figure out what is really going on, as it is more important to have our toys than to be concerned about doing what is right.  The rationalizations will come forth like a wall of fire, torching any common sense it can find.

We have gotten fat, soft, and lazy.  We do not want to do anything which might cause some us to lose convenience.  Microsoft, Apple, and Google all do a very good job making sure the smoke and mirrors are maintained.  The consumer does an even better job of being distracted from it all and convincing themselves they have to have whatever the big three are selling.


For me, Windows 7 will be the last dollar Microsoft gets from me.  Apple will never get a nickle from me.  Google is on the short list as well.

Just call me paranoid and move along.  By the time you get hit upside the head with what is happening, it will be too late to do anything about it and you can rest easy in the comfort your rationalizations have brought.

[CptTrips]

Do you understand the difference between hardware "protected mode" and "user mode"?  Windows runs mostly in user mode.  By that very design choice it makes it inherently insecure.  The only way to protect kernel memory is to never allow access to it via user mode.

The UNIX kernel never runs in user mode.  It has not done so since the eighties.  This is a secure design.

Given that, could it be said that Mac OS X is a more secure design that Windows?

Wab

[Skuzzy]

Given that, could it be said that Mac OS X is a more secure design that Windows?

Wab

The current Apple Mac OS is based on Freebsd.  Yes, it is a more secure design than Windows is.  However, Apple has introduced design elements, which do reduce the inherent secure design of the operating system.  They had to in order for their applications to work.  It is an unusual operating system in what they chose to keep and what they chose to toss out for their own design.

[SEraider]

Just call me paranoid and move along.  By the time you get hit upside the head with what is happening, it will be too late to do anything about it and you can rest easy in the comfort your rationalizations have brought.

I share this concern too Skuzzy.  But if I need a new computer, and I do, what OS can I use that is more secure?  Understand that computers is not my gig so any help is possible.  Can I buy a new computer with W7 and wipe it out and put XP back in? 

Besides XP, what is another option?

[CptTrips]

Besides XP, what is another option?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob

,
Wab

[Skuzzy]

I share this concern too Skuzzy.  But if I need a new computer, and I do, what OS can I use that is more secure?  Understand that computers is not my gig so any help is possible.  Can I buy a new computer with W7 and wipe it out and put XP back in?  

Besides XP, what is another option?

Linux is more secure than Windows or any Apple OS, with a caveat.  As long as you honor the permission system and never use the 'root' account to do anything, other than admin tasks, it is more secure than any other OS available.

For the things I have to use a Windows OS for, I am making me a install disk from my current XP desktop installation, which contains all the current patches and updates.  I'll use it and Windows 7 for the Windows side of things.  One day, when Microsoft decides to break those OS's  I'll just get rid of anything Microsoft related.

Just remember, when Microsoft pulls the plug on XP, you will not be able to get any of the updates that have been available since XP became available.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Linux is more secure than Windows or any Apple OS, with a caveat.  As long as you honor the permission system and never use the 'root' account to do anything, other than admin tasks, it is more secure than any other OS available.

For the things I have to use a Windows OS for, I am making me a install disk from my current XP desktop installation, which contains all the current patches and updates.  I'll use it and Windows 7 for the Windows side of things.  One day, when Microsoft decides to break those OS's  I'll just get rid of anything Microsoft related.

Just remember, when Microsoft pulls the plug on XP, you will not be able to get any of the updates that have been available since XP became available.

I was under the impression that BSD based distros were the ultimate in security. At least they seem to be ultra conservative about it. Especially now that they got rid of the CIA backdoor that was hidden in BSD for years

This conservativeness also means BSD is a lot more complicated to configure and use (a bit like linux in the old days) which is why it's not very popular as a desktop. I have a friend who is crazy about BSD and he has 5-6 old servers which he runs BSD on for hobby. It's all CLI for him

[Skuzzy]

BSD is a secure OS.  Apple introduced the security issues with it when they 'Appleized' it.

I favor the CLI as well.  Much easier and faster for me to use.  GUI's get in my way.

[titanic3]

So what OS are you going to run in the future if you're a gamer? 

[Skuzzy]

So what OS are you going to run in the future if you're a gamer?  

I do not play game on my home computer, so it is a non-issue.  However, if you believe the tech rags, the desktop PC is dead anyway.  So games will all be played on a console, which is also being heralded as dieing, which means your cell phone will be the future game platform of choice.

Get ready for Angry Birds v10.

I wish I could laugh about that, but I have seen too many people watching movies on their cell phones claiming it is just as good as being at a movie.