Gaming Stop Paying for Windows Security

[Originality]

It stopped when people like Law stopped thinking in terms of the thread and started seeing little more than an argument.

That's contextual and their fault, not yours. By the end either one side will back down or a mutual agreement will be reached. I'm interested in the latter as it's interesting to follow.

What's more important; patching flaws in a system, or preventing those flaws from being exploited? Are they trying to perfect their system, or protect it?

 

[Urza]

Never once did I say that the vulnerability wasn't a problem.What about this?QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 30 2010, 01:54 PM) Then do it, or provide an example of malware which took advantage of said flaw.

The fact that flaws exist is not proof of a platform's insecurity. If said flaws aren't actually exploited by anything, then it's simply a silly argument which means nothing.

You said that the flaw existing isn't a problem as long as there's nothing in the wild (that's what I assume you mean by "malware" opposed to a proof of concept) that's been released yet to exploit it.

That led to me asking you why it was patched if it wasn't a problem.

You actually went to the lengths of quoting the post, yet still can't seem to read it? Nowhere in that post do I state that its not a problem, or something that shouldn't be corrected. I state that it's not substantial as evidence that the platform is insecure.

 

[Rydian]

I wasn't trying to say that the platform on the whole was insecure.

1 - You make security claim.
2 - I bring up UAC.
3 - You bring up how UAC can be bypassed.
4 - I show you an example of the same sort of thing on linux.

 

[Urza]

I wasn't trying to say that the platform on the whole was insecure.

1 - You make security claim.
2 - I bring up UAC.
3 - You bring up how UAC can be bypassed.
4 - I show you an example of the same sort of thing on linux.

Except the example you provided was a vulnerability that was patched before exploitation, while UAC is an ongoing testament to Microsoft's inability to leave their legacy behind, and the platform's security is in severe detriment due to it.

 

[JonthanD]

I wasn't trying to say that the platform on the whole was insecure.

1 - You make security claim.
2 - I bring up UAC.
3 - You bring up how UAC can be bypassed.
4 - I show you an example of the same sort of thing on linux.

Except the example you provided was a vulnerability that was patched before exploitation, while UAC is an ongoing testament to Microsoft's inability to leave their legacy behind, and the platform's security is in severe detriment due to it.

I can honestly say UAC is useless drivel, it was meant to cause people to stop and look at "Hey should this program be running?" but with names like xydeltapatch.exe 99% of the people who use a PC will do this "Why is UAC bothering me with this crap *clicks yes*"

Meanwhile for the other 1% that know what they are doing UAC does nothing but get in the way 100% of the time.

The pop ups UAC brings up might as well say "Would you like to install a virus now?" the people who click it to get it out of the way would still click yes.

As far as security goes Windows 7 is leaps and bounds more secure then XP ever wished it could be. I was in the Beta for it from the begging and even back then it was better then Vista was and Vista was better then XP of course XP was way more secure then 9X but 9X had the excuse of being an innocent virgin.....

 

[Rydian]

Microsoft's inability to leave their legacy behind, and the platform's security is in severe detriment due to it.Would you rather they just drop all backwards compatibility like OS X did at a few points?

QUOTE(JonthanD @ Dec 1 2010, 06:49 PM) I can honestly say UAC is useless drivel, it was meant to cause people to stop and look at "Hey should this program be running?" but with names like xydeltapatch.exe 99% of the people who use a PC will do this "Why is UAC bothering me with this crap *clicks yes*"

Meanwhile for the other 1% that know what they are doing UAC does nothing but get in the way 100% of the time.

The pop ups UAC brings up might as well say "Would you like to install a virus now?" the people who click it to get it out of the way would still click yes.

That's a fault of the user of course, and with distros like ubuntu becoming easier to use (and having better hardware support) I've run into quite a few people on linux that had that same type of mindset.

 

[Urza]

Microsoft's inability to leave their legacy behind, and the platform's security is in severe detriment due to it.

Would you rather they just drop all backwards compatibility like OS X did at a few points?

Yes.

 

[Rydian]

Microsoft's inability to leave their legacy behind, and the platform's security is in severe detriment due to it.

Would you rather they just drop all backwards compatibility like OS X did at a few points?

Yes.

Thing is THEY care if they go under.

Average windows users shits their pants when you re-arrange the start menu.

 

[Urza]

Microsoft's inability to leave their legacy behind, and the platform's security is in severe detriment due to it.

Would you rather they just drop all backwards compatibility like OS X did at a few points?

Yes.

Thing is THEY care if they go under.

Average windows users shits their pants when you re-arrange the start menu.

I'm not necessarily saying its the wrong decision from a financial standpoint (it might be, but that's another discussion for another day), however it definitely leaves Windows as the inferior platform.

 

[Rydian]

If they had started doing it ages ago like OSX did people might be used to it.