Suggested Security

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by BChat, Jan 13, 2007.

  1. Vista Tech Support has been available for a while.
    Just a little more of your own ignorance on top of others.

    Just because you do not understand, does not make your belief truth.
    You have a ways to go...
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Jan 14, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. BChat

    FireWall2 Guest

    Jupiter,

    You own you’re below quotation, please don’t assign your disbelief toward
    me. Please don’t be frightened for learning about Vista and BitLocker's
    inherent Ultimate Security.

    Below, Your Statement of self-ownership:
    “Just because you do not fully understand Vista and Bitlocker, does not make
    your wrong belief truth.
    You have a ways to go...â€

    The forth coming is a statement from Microsoft Security: Vista has an
    integrated anti-malware solution in Windows Vista. This new interface was
    provided in Windows Vista beginning with RC1.

    Required more than eight-years for developing Vista and BitLocker for
    self-preventing malware and other Threats, the methods that Vista technology
    implements for preventing not-desired OS entries would near fill a library.

    For obvious legal reasons, Microsoft decided to allow “Certified†third
    party applications as A/V and a few others for running within Vista using
    controlled / limited resources.

    For legal reasons never would Microsoft broadcast that third party A/V and
    the other “Certified†applications not be needed or necessary. Simply, the
    “Certified†third party applications will not harm Vista. Use your
    imagination for determining if the “Certified†third party applications
    enhance Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

    During the last year or more I’ve used Vista on quite a few machines, with
    and without BitLocker. Also, have made every user induced mistake and error
    that’s possible for making, some accidental , some intentional, just for
    testing / evaluating Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

    My views regarding Vista and BitLocker’s Ultimate Security comes from
    Microsoft and personal experience; not a guess, or shot in the dark
    presumptions. Simply, my views comes from factual Microsoft Experts.

    Unless things have recently changed, the MVPs within these Forums are
    non-paid volunteers, *not* employees of Microsoft, reason for the gross lack
    of understanding, regarding Vista and BitLocker.

    --
    Firewall

    Disclaimer:
    Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista
     
    FireWall2, Jan 14, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. BChat

    FireWall2 Guest

    BChat,

    The forth coming is a statement from Microsoft Security: Vista has an
    integrated anti-malware solution in Windows Vista. This new interface was
    provided in Windows Vista beginning with RC1.

    Required more than eight-years for developing Vista and BitLocker for
    self-preventing malware and other Threats, the methods that Vista technology
    implements for preventing not-desired OS entries would near fill a library.

    For obvious legal reasons, Microsoft decided to allow “Certified†third
    party applications as A/V and a few others for running within Vista using
    controlled / limited resources. For legal reasons never would Microsoft
    broadcast that third party A/V and the other “Certified†applications not be
    needed or necessary.

    Simply, the “Certified†third party applications will not harm Vista. Use
    your imagination for determining if the “Certified†third party applications
    enhance Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

    During the last year or more I’ve used Vista on quite a few machines, with
    and without BitLocker. Also, have made every user induced mistake and error
    that’s possible for making, some accidental , some intentional, just for
    testing / evaluating Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

    My views regarding Vista and BitLocker’s Ultimate Security comes from
    Microsoft and personal experience, not a guess, or shot in the dark
    presumptions. Simply, my views comes from factual Microsoft Experts.

    Unless things have recently changed, the MVPs within these Forums are
    non-paid volunteers, *not* employees of Microsoft, reason for the gross lack
    of understanding, regarding Vista and BitLocker.
     
    FireWall2, Jan 14, 2007
    #23
  4. "For legal reasons never would Microsoft..."
    How convenient for you to use this excuse to cover your own ignorance.
    You are the only one that ASSUMES malware includes viruses, Trojans and
    other similar malware.
    The protection in Vista, Windows Defender is for spyware, another type of
    malware.
    No where does Microsoft even suggest Vista offers complete protection
    against all types of malware.
    Of course you do while spreading your misinformation.
    Of course you say "For legal reasons never would Microsoft...", how
    convenient.

    Your other assumptions show more of your errors which fill your posts.

    --
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
    http://www.dts-l.org
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Jan 14, 2007
    #24
  5. BChat

    FireWall2 Guest

    Jupiter,

    Could not resist providing you with the below extracted Microsoft quotation:
    likely I'll have others from Microsoft provide you additional information
    regarding Vista's Ultimate Security. There was much more of the below
    information, I only provided you with a tid-bit of information. Not my
    responsibility for educating you.

    There seems to be confusion in some quarters about certain features of
    Windows Vista that are designed to help make it more secure and reliable. One
    of the misunderstandings surrounds Kernel Patch Protection, also known as
    PatchGuard.

    To be clear, the term “patch†here should not be confused with how software
    providers deliver legitimate updates (e.g., bug fixes) to you. Kernel Patch
    Protection helps protect the integrity and reliability of the Windows kernel,
    the core of the operating system. Kernel Patch Protection also makes PCs more
    secure by helping protect against potentially malicious software known as
    rootkits, which modify the kernel in an attempt to hide from detection.

    Kernel Patch Protection is not new. Last year it was built into the 64-bit
    versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. With Windows Vista, Kernel
    Patch Protection will likewise be incorporated into 64-bit versions only. We
    have been exploring ways to implement Kernel Patch Protection on 32-bit
    Windows systems, but have not done this yet, although some customers have
    requested it, because of limitations of the 32-bit architecture and because
    it will cause compatibility issues for some applications and devices that are
    already in use. In adapting applications and devices to take advantage of
    64-bit Windows, on the other hand, developers have an opportunity to resolve
    these compatibility issues.

    It is important to remember that Microsoft (for years) has actively
    discouraged third-party applications developers from designing software that
    modifies the Windows kernel, because such software has been known to cause
    instability issues and lower the reliability of Windows. Rather than allow
    kernel modifications that could cause reliability and security problems for
    you, Microsoft has worked for many years with third-party developers, such as
    security software developers, to encourage the use of Microsoft-supported
    extensions that enable them to build more effective and reliable products.

    Some security vendors have asked Microsoft to provide instructions on how to
    disable Kernel Patch Protection in 64-bit versions of Windows, because their
    products include some features that modify the Windows kernel in undocumented
    and unsupported ways. Making exceptions and allowing some vendors special
    access to modify the Windows Vista kernel is unworkable. It opens the door
    wide for malicious software. For example, rootkits could be designed to
    present themselves to the operating system in the guise of a legitimate
    application that was given special access. Also, making exceptions will
    prolong the reliability problems that are caused by unsupported kernel
    modification, such as when multiple applications compete to patch the same
    kernel interfaces.

    In the case of security solutions, unsupported kernel modifications also
    limit your choices, by making it extremely difficult or impossible for
    multiple security solutions to co-exist reliably on a system. We want to work
    with security providers to make common extensions available, so that any
    security vendors can use them, and so that security software does not itself
    put your security and reliability at risk from malicious kernel modifications.

    Here is what we are doing to maintain the integrity and security of 64-bit
    Windows, while still addressing the needs of our security partners:

    • Contrary to some media reports, Microsoft will not weaken the security of
    64-bit Windows by enabling some applications to modify the kernel of the
    operating system.
    • We have applied our no-exceptions policy against kernel patching to
    Microsoft applications as well as third party applications, consistent with
    our Windows Principles. No application can bypass or weaken Kernel Patch
    Protection—this is essential to improving security and reliability for you.
    Note that many third-party security companies provide highly competitive
    products without modifying the Windows kernel in unsupported

    --
    Firewall

    Disclaimer:
    Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista
     
    FireWall2, Jan 14, 2007
    #25
  6. I have been watching your posts and the first thing that comes to mind is
    that bridge in New York I have for sale. If anyone would buy it, it would
    be you. Only a marketing droid would ever issue the phrase "Vista and
    BitLocker's inherent Ultimate Security". So many people have told you how
    your statements are totally void of any real truth or basis in fact.
    BitLocker is just a hard drive encryption implementation. Since it is
    coupled with the OS it is much easier for them to do it than anyone external
    to Microsoft. It is 'security' in that files are protected from an external
    party trying to read them without knowing the proper passwords and
    encryption keys. There may be some viral components that try to install
    themselves via direct access to the hard drive at a time when a user is not
    logged in, but I don't know of any. With EFS encrypted files might be
    accessed directly and written to when someone who has access to those files
    is not logged it and the data will be written in plaintext so that when they
    are normally accessed they will be garbage, but that is also a very unlikely
    scenario.

    P.S. Don't bother to reply as you are in the kill file and I see you have
    nothing useful to contribute.
     
    David J. Craig, Jan 14, 2007
    #26
  7. Nothing in your drivel says anything about not needing an anti virus.
    Being more secure is not the same as not needing an AV.

    "Vista's Ultimate Security"
    "Ultimate Security"?
    Must be another myth you fabricated.
    More likely you are misusing and/or misreading a term.

    Again, you are the only one.
    You are all alone on that belief.
    Not even Microsoft will agree with you.
    Opening the Security Center proves you wrong.
    Go back and read the thread where you posted and were proved conclusively
    wrong before.
    You did not read what was told you then, perhaps now would be a good time.

    "Not my responsibility for educating you."
    And apparently not your responsibility to educate yourself since you make
    little or no attempt to digest the information already given you in previous
    threads,

    Do not bother posting back, you clearly have no intention of opening up to a
    truth that disagrees with the myth you so firmly and alone hold as fact.
    Unless of course you can show at least a single authorities reference that
    proves anti virus is not needed for Vista.

    "likely I'll have others from Microsoft provide you additional information
    regarding Vista's Ultimate Security."
    Have one of these people contact me through my private Email and tell me no
    AV is needed in Windows Vista.
    Microsoft can tell me Vista's "Ultimate Security" has no need of an AV.
    If you know such people, they will be able to tell us.
    If on the other hand, you blow smoke, that will also be obvious.
    Without such proof, you are blowing nothing but smoke and wasting your time.

    --
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
    http://www.dts-l.org
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Jan 14, 2007
    #27
  8. David;
    I am done with him in this thread as well.
    Firewall2 will have to post for his own reading.
    Unless of course he can provide the proof I asked.
    Of course he can't since his belief is only a fantasy he is trying to
    elevate to myth status.
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Jan 14, 2007
    #28
  9. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?
    I'm not the one who doesn't understand BitLocker, that would be
    you. You're the one that stated that it was some kind of 256 bit
    encrypted firewall, it isn't. You're also the one who went on
    and on about malware and viruses needing to compromise 256 bit
    encryption when you were shown, quite plainly, this wasn't the
    case.
    I've got news for you sport, it has been quite some time since
    Mike Nash left the STBU. Even here you can't seem to get your
    facts straight.
    I don't need to sport. I am a vendor with Microsoft and have an
    account on Microsoft's internal network. I participate on the
    internal Microsoft BitLocker discussion alias. There's no
    possible way you could list the members of the BitLocker team at
    Microsoft and that has nothing to do with how many people are on
    the team, you simply don't know who they are. Name dropping in a
    news group post does not mean that you know what you're talking
    about.
    You apparently haven't learned very much if you continue to
    believe that BitLocker provides any protection against getting
    infected with a virus or with malware. You continue to give bad
    advice here, and that bad advice is built upon your mistaken
    understanding of how the underlying technologies work. I'm not
    just going to sit back and let you continue to spread your
    terrible advice here.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #29
  10. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, Jupiter
    And once again, he simply doesn't understand that BitLocker does
    not provide any protection against getting infected with malware
    or a virus.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #30
  11. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, David J.
    This isn't technically accurate. BDE, when used with a TPM chip,
    also provides protection against the modification of boot files
    and components. While this can be helpful in the event that a
    virus or malware modifies these boot time files and components,
    it does not, as Firewall2 keeps stating, protect you from
    getting infected in the first place.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #31
  12. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?
    You are the one that has a gross misunderstanding of Vista and
    BitLocker.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #32
  13. BChat

    FireWall2 Guest

    Paul,

    Thank you for the Post abscent the previous hostile malicious attacks.

    Respectfully, not my responsibility for providing you with an education
    regarding Vista and BitLocker's inherent Ultimate Security.

    My education came from the ***Source***, Microsoft !!!
     
    FireWall2, Jan 14, 2007
    #33
  14. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?
    Regardless of where your "education" came from, you simply don't
    understand what you read or what you were told. For you to
    continue to insist that BDE somehow protects you against viruses
    and malware, and that the only way you can get infected if
    you're using BDE is for the virus or malware to somehow
    compromise the encryption provided by BDE is just wrong and
    clearly demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding
    on your part.
    You really need to stop spreading your incorrect and dangerous
    advice here. Unlike some of the others here who have killfiled
    you, I'm not going to do that as the "advice" you are offering
    here is dangerous and wrong.
    You just don't get it, and you can't even carry on a discussion
    at a technical level about these technologies.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #34
  15. BChat

    FireWall2 Guest

    Paul,

    You are wearing me out... BDE is just one portion for Protection. The
    Ultimate Security is achieved from the whole or entire OS. Including, Vista
    users are greatly protected from OEMs third party applications. Although, the
    OEMs Vista OS is not as totally secure, compared to Genuine Microsoft
    Software.

    Small note from Microsoft:
    "We have applied our no-exceptions policy against kernel patching to
    Microsoft applications as well as third party applications."

    Please rest assured, the Microsoft bus of education will soon arrive.

    When I speak to Microsoft employees via telephone or email it is not via an
    alias.
     
    FireWall2, Jan 14, 2007
    #35
  16. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?
    Apparently it passed you by.
    More name dropping, still no technical content in any of your
    posts.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #36
  17. BChat

    Robert Moir Guest

    I don't wish to be rude, but who do you think you are? I don't usually do
    this sort of thing but if you wish to crow about yourself and drop a few
    names and talk about your year as a tester in order to show me up, it's only
    fair that I compare my limited and paltry knowledge of the OS and also also
    compare my contacts within Microsoft to the names you drop.

    Let's see now:
    I've worked in the IT industry for something like 18 years now, acheived
    pretty much all the Microsoft certification available over that time. I've
    previously been a MVP for 8 years, though I left the scheme in October, and
    I'm willing to bet that I've had more exposure to big name "players" in
    Microsoft because of that than you have despite all the names you drop. Same
    for many of the current MVPs I've also seen you sneer at.

    I've got several books from various members of the Microsoft security team
    sitting on my shelf that are signed to me. Have you?

    My main "MVP speciality", incidentally, was OS Security, which means the
    majority of my work and the majority of my contact with Microsoft was
    focussed on security technologies including file encryption (aka EFS in XP,
    Bitlocker in Vista), Firewalls, and methods of dealing with Malware.

    I've been a member of the Longhorn testing team since they opened up the
    scheme to MVPs, which was considerably more than 1 year ago, I can tell you.
    I've also been involved in the betas of Windows 2000 back when it was NT5,
    and XP back when it was 'codename whistler'

    I've spent a considerable amount of time learning about and testing various
    aspects of Vista both for this testing group and as part of the "R&D" type
    work I do for my employer, who operates a network for several thousand
    users. I'm currently leading our evaluation of whether or not to deploy
    Vista to the whole network.

    Regards
    Rob Moir.
     
    Robert Moir, Jan 14, 2007
    #37
  18. BChat

    FireWall2 Guest

    Paul,

    My Post have been filled with specific ***documented*** technicial details
    and additional topic specific information. Seriously, I can't imagine how you
    missed the provided technical information, including quotations from
    Microsoft Exectutives.

    Could it be possible that you intentionally ignored the topic specific
    technical details?

    More than certain that you have the experience and knowledge for
    comprehending what was previously shared. What could possibly be the reason
    that you did not recognize the specific detailed information? As the timeless
    adage goes, one can lead a mule to water, but one cannot force that mule for
    drinking.

    Apoligze that you did not distinguish the previously provided detailed
    information.

    Again, thank you for your politely written Post !

    Respectfully,
     
    FireWall2, Jan 14, 2007
    #38
  19. BChat

    Paul Adare Guest

    in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?
    You have copied and pasted from various documents on TechNet and
    they have all been out of context and irrelevant to the
    particular subject at hand. Go look at the recent copying and
    pasting you've done in the discussion on encryption where the
    content you pasted from TechNet didn't even reference
    encryption. Any time you've tried to discuss the issues, without
    copying and pasting from some document, you've got the facts all
    wrong.
    See above.
    Because what you posted was off-topic and completely irrelevant
    to what was being discussed.
    You're the one that doesn't get this, not me. What is your
    technical background? You've got recognized industry experts
    telling you that you're wrong, yet you continue to insist you're
    right without being able to present any technical proof beyond
    pasting in text you've copied that doesn't even support your
    silly position.
     
    Paul Adare, Jan 14, 2007
    #39
  20. BChat

    Robert Firth Guest

    No such thing as 'inherent security' in software. In fact, software is
    inherently insecure.

    --
    /* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * Robert Firth *
    * Windows Vista x86 RTM *
    * http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
     
    Robert Firth, Jan 14, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.