Windows Firewall: the best new security feature in Vista?

LOL...
The real question should be whether anyone would trust Microsoft to handle their security. How about Microsoft anti-virus, or anti-trojan solutions?
Would anyone here choose to use them if Microsoft was to bundle them free of charge in Vista?
I think I'll stick to the third-party solutions for now.

The old venerable Sygate has been protecting systems during the boot-up phase for years now.

 

I hope in the future MS will not have any antivirus or firewall embedded in its software and to say if you buy a MS OS/product you will be 100% protected by using our security system/suite and dont need to buy anything else.

They did this many yrs back when they embedded IE in Windows and were taken to court by Netscape.

Users who use Windows should have every right to choose what firewall, antivirus and antispyware etc etc on their PC without having MS to interfere and tell them what to use.

 

I had some problems with it, though not serious why bother with so many other good FireWalls out there...

 

This is the type of argument that I try to tread lightly on, but I have to say that I think it's right for Microsoft to put in security software by default. If you're intelligent and eager enough for a third party competitor, you can switch. But Microsoft acknowledges that only .2% of their users are security buffs and understand if they left Windows without a firewall or some type of built in protection, then they'd be dealing with more with pissy haxx0rd users than they would anti-monopoly advocates.

When I eventually buy Vista, i'm going to be glad not having to search my tail off for a Firewall and a resident Antispyware and can just concentrate on installing and actually AFFORDING a good AV product. I think Microsoft should get a hats off for putting pressure on the competition too, because without IE7, Windows Defender and a Firewall with outbound protection, you're going to see competitors do bigger and better things with their software.

 

LOL.

It took Microsoft over 10 years to finally figure out that a machine connected to Internet needs a decent firewall?! Now you understand why no professional takes Microsoft's "security" seriously.

There is a good reason why these jokers have developed such a poor track record in the industry amongst the computer professionals. Those who know a thing or two about software, understand that their code, in general, is one of the most bloated and sloppiest around. And with bloat, comes unnecessary complexity, bugs, and system instability.

Bottom line, while the average Joe will no doubt benefit from this "innovation", those in the know, are already using more capable products.

Cheers!

 

Hi,

I agree with most if not all of what has been said.

But without Microsoft, most people would not be able to gain access to the Internet with a very very easy to use system , plus the freedom of choice to use any of the huge range of Hardware and Software which Windows can accommodate.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

Hi,

I am of the opinion that the computing world would have been a better, more competitive place without Microsoft's monopoly.
For example, at this point in time, it is highly inconceivable for a new operating system (similar to BeOS) to debut, and end up being loaded on every new PC sold -- regardless of how advanced, easy to use, and secure it might be relative to Windows O/S. It's just not going to happen.

When one company has such a large monopoly in an industry, making a buck for others is rather tough.
The history is replete with examples of adept software companies which have been acquired in order to prevent competition. Large hardware-based companies, such as Intel Corp., are not immune to these tactics either. They routinely employ this practice, and actually have an entire group dedicated to hunting down companies with technologies that might be construed as "dangerous" to their healths. Every year, half a dozen such acquisitions are made by Intel alone.

Without a doubt, Microsoft has a defacto monopoly on PC O/S. In terms of numbers, it dwarfs all of the others (Linux, Mac, etc.) combined.

I suppose, in the end, it really is a Law of Jungle which prevails. It's only natural, but not necessary good for everyone!

Cheers.

 

IMO, that is a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Sense MS was\is the big boy on the block the majority of hardware and software is geared towards it. Not the other way around.

 

With their past history involving security? I for one say "Neigh, not I". I for one will spend the time to educate myself and then do it myself.

 

Hi, godzillex

Re: your post #8.

Thats why I said:- I agree with most if not all of what has been said

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

Hi, ThunderZ

I said Freedom of Choice with Haredware and Software.

Take Mac it is not a new kid on the block, if you was to Purchase a "Mac" then that is were your Freedom of Choice stops what you see you have got, unless thing have changed in the past six or seven years I could be wrong as I no longer consider their systems.

My first Freedom of Choice is Linux as an OS, but...... Windows is where the fun and help is, and is needed.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

linux gives lets u have hardware choices, and if it had the same market share as Windows, then there would a very broad range of software for it too.

 

Hi, WSFuser

I use both x32 and x64 of Kanotix.

The most major problem people seem to have with any Linux OS is getting an ADSL connection, the only way I think to guarantee a connection is to purchase a Modem Router. [Wireless Router]

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

i thought dialup was problematic and that dsl was easy to setup in linux. i tried suse with just my dsl modem for sbc yahoo and it worked (after setting dhcp).

 

Hi, WSFuser

Long time since I had DialUp.

what I ment [it not a gripe] is "Linux" does seem to have ADSL modem drivers problems.

I have Distros Fedora, Kanotix, Knoppix, Mandrak[old] and Suse, which all have [did have?] Modem Problems, but not unsolvable. [see sig ]

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

do u mean for USB modems?

suse linux worked ok with my ethernet DSL modem.

 

Hi, WSFuser

Yes USB modems, sorry to miss such a thing out.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

From my experience (Ubuntu, Mandrake) dialup (winmodems) is the problem in Linux. DSL, no problem (unless, of course, you have wireless).

 

RE:M$ and security;
I look at Internet Explorer and the XP operating system and the critical updates that have been released.
M$ and security on my computer? No thanks!!

 

I support open source and free software community. I agree MS has a large monopoly that dwarfs other OS. But when think of usability today... it is still Windows.

I am a ordinary user. I tried linux since RedHat 6, and continuously trying other linux distro though not frequently. One problem is every time i install a distro, I have to learn again the functionalities that I need, and every distro seems has different UI. From OS installation, driver installation to configuration, the road is not easy. It is hard for ordinary user who used to use windows to switch to linux. Take a look at http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm. then I realise it is "linux users" like to use linux.

For security problems, I become to consider reversely, windows is so popular that when there are security problems, the computer community will know quickly and expect patches to come. If there is problem in other OS or software, since thay are not so popular, will it be so quick discovered and will it be fixed so soon?

If linux has user base as windows, will it be that virus and trojans target linux like today targeting windows?

Talk about Windows Firewall in XP, it is the lightest and fastest and most easy to use one I find, and its SPI work so well that better than many others. (I tried all firewalls in firewallleaktester.com & pcflank.com) Though no outbound control, but I doubt if it is really so critical, since I have never one attack due to outbound in the past several yrs but receive many attacks from inbound. (from logs)

 

well that too but its a trade off. malware authors are no different software developers; they (usually) target large audiences.

 

Hi, apm

Well yes mostly.

I agree with Freedom of choice, but partly disagree the choice.

You will have found you failed all of them with WinXP FW, unless you have some form of HIP's control.

How do you know what is going out, with outbound control or logging.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

I mean linux is not the preferred choice for common user who don't need to know much about how computer works.

My mom have no choice.

. why need HIP to know?
u mean outbound control?
I just want to say I tried all FWs tested in those sites in my system, and find WinXP FW's performance is very good in preventing incoming attacks.

I check the connection states of the services running to figure out any abnormal behaviors. Well if some strange appz running I think its easy to find out from the processes list. What's the point to track say what bitcomet sending out, u use it because u trust it, and u will allow it in say ZAP for In&Out connection anyway.


P.S.
Not targeting you TheQuest 8, just to say my points.

 

i still think theres valid (tho rare) reason for outbound control. if u dont want a particular program to phone home, just block it with an outbound firewall. u could also uninstall it and look for an app that doesnt send out data, but if the app has use and value to u, which would be easier?

anyways outbound has been discussed several times on this forum but thats my $0.02.