Vista Is So Secure That It Doesn’t Need An Antivirus
Jim Allchin seems to feel confident enough that Windows Vista users don’t need to use an antivirus and they will still have plenty of protection. Many people, including myself, will think he is crazy but he seems to be confident in his reasoning:
My son, seven years old, runs Windows Vista, and, honestly, he doesn’t have an antivirus system on his machine. His machine is locked down with parental controls, he can’t download things unless it’s to the places that I’ve said that he could do, and I’m feeling totally confident about that.
…
Vista is something that will have issues in security, because the bar is being raised over time. But in my opinion, it is the most secure system that’s available.
It is commendable for Allchin to feel so secure with an operating system that he helped to develop, but what is the reality of what he said? Sure Vista is a new operating system with a bunch of great security features but it will only be a matter of time before hackers find ways to circumvent the hurdles that Vista presents to them.
I can slightly understand why he doesn’t feel like an antivirus program is needed on his son’s computer since Vista has parental controls. That way you can limit what sites can be opened and completely block downloads. However, are we going to assign parental controls for ourselves? I know several adults that need parental controls for their own protection but the reality of the matter is that they are going to continue authorizing and downloading spyware, malware, and trojans.
There was no clarification on whether Allchin was talking about the Windows Vista 64-bit edition. It would make a little more sense if it was the 64-bit version because it locks down the kernel whereas the 32-bit version does not. Either way I’ll have an antivirus installed on Windows Vista.
So, who’s gonna run Vista without an antivirus?
| Update: |
Jim Allchin has responded on the Windows Vista Team blog to what he was trying to say: “My point in bringing up this extreme example was really meant to emphasize that importance of defense-in-depth measures we put in Windows Vista—both the number of defenses and their combined effectiveness.“
|
News Source: The Inquirer
Enjoyed the post? Subscribe to our feed to get a daily dose of CyberNet!
Related Posts:
- Free AVG Antivirus Finally Works With Vista Beta 2
- Download Windows Live OneCare 1.5 Beta - Vista Compatible
- Picking Up A Computer For Christmas, Then Get NOD32 Antivirus
- Vista’s UAC Blocks Rootkits
- Free Kaspersky AntiVirus after $50 Rebates!
I an not now running without an Antivirus program in Vista and I plan to continue to run one with the released version. Currently I am using Avast.
Avast is working great with Vista and I don’t know what would have given Allchin the motivation to announce that Vista doesn’t need an antivirus. I think that was a mistake but I heard he is retiring anyway now that Vista is complete, so he won’t be the one that listens to the complaints that arise from that.
I am sorry but I don’t care how secure a system is I am still going to run anti virus. I am running ubuntu 6.10 and I am still running ClamAV with ClamTK front end. Better be safe than sorry.
So true, isn’t it funny how everyone goes and purchases/downloads antivirus software AFTER they have gotten a virus. It is so much easier to prevent a disaster than it is to recover from one.
Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.
Some people (for example: Charlie White from Gizmodo) think that they don’t need an anti-virus program.
Charlie said once on his podcast that if people are careful, they will not get any viruses. That seems to be true, because after five years without a virus scanner, he decided to run a scan on his PC. Result? 0 viruses found.
In his opinion, anti-virus products are just a waste of RAM. Another reason not to use a virus scanner: if there’s a new virus that infects your pc, virus scanners are not able to detect that yet because it’s too new.
But enough about Charlie. Personally, I always have a virus scanner running in the background. Although it never detected something evil (except for maybe one minor thread a few years ago), I just feel safer.
That guy is full of it!
And what if spyware attacks your computer? I know, one spyware is not a big deal. But what if tonns of it come? You can never be carefull enough not to get theese. Most virus scanners detect spyware too…
OK, Vista is planned to be secure, it is secure *theoretically*, but imagine all those tons of vulnerabilities (in all those Vista-specific security functions), which will be found in first years of using Vista.
For example, Linux have another meaning of security. It is solid and stable, because it was built for years, and it is REAL part of Operating System.
Windows Security is not really something built-in into Windows. It is more like add-on to Windows. That’s why it is unreliable!
Don’t forget, that there are some viruses/trojans, which are spreading in networks using Windows vulnerabilities (without any user interaction!), there are worms, created specifically for Outlook, which runs once you highlight the letter (you even don’t need to open any attachments!).
So, no matter how clever you are, ALWAYS USE ANTIVIRUS.
I would like to point out that Vista needs an Anti-Virus only slightly more than Mac OSX does. Both are vulnerable, and both require you to authenticate before the virus installs. The Vista viruses might prove to be a little more harmful, though :twisted:.
I think his reasoning is that people must not fall into the same trap as the typical sick person in that there is some kind of “miracle pill fix-all” in the event we get sick. You can also prevent yourself from getting sick by eating healthy. I think that is his emphasis.
For example, I can easily make a machine secure without an anti-virus.
Caulk the Floppy Drive, Duct-tape the CD drive, gum the USB ports, and yank the network cabl….