Should MS take responsibility for a user's decisions?

Discussion in 'polls' started by wat0114, Nov 29, 2011.

?

Should MS take Full responsibility for a user's decisions?

Poll closed Jan 28, 2012.
  1. Yes, full resposibility: explain what MS should do.

    2 vote(s)
    7.7%
  2. No, only partial responsibility: explain what MS could do better.

    8 vote(s)
    30.8%
  3. No, not at all: explain why.

    16 vote(s)
    61.5%
  1. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    And I agree. I don't see how that's relevant. There does not always have to be such a huge detrimental effect to performance or usability. As I showed with the above program is has a lower rate of FP than the others tested and it has an incredibly low performance hit (because it only interrupts calls it considers malicious and most normal programs won't be using those calls therefor won't be effected.)
     
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    It must be put to test first.

    Anyways, I think Microsoft have research teams for models alike. If they aren't on Windows already, it's because they aren't ready for such mass deployment. That's what I *think*.
     
  3. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    In nearly 2000 cases the assumptions held true.

    And saying "Oh well MS must know something we don't" isn't very convincing.

    Tracer can be improved though.
     
  4. guest

    guest Guest

    Lol, they have so many smart brains and such a big budget that goes to research that it sounds convincing to me.

    Anyways, I'm looking forward to see the model you describe being put for mass deployment. We'll see what issues it will raise, if any.
     
  5. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Heck, 3 pages already!!! I didn't read them, but Hungry Man might be onto something...

    -http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/25/microsoft-refunds-xbox-live-phishing

    How about that? :D
     
  6. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    lol console companies are usually extra nice to their users since the're so... finnickey.

    I dont think that MS should have to pay for a users mistake.

    I do think that security inherently belongs in the kernel and therefor MS is the only one who can actually secure the computer and if they want to do taht they need to understand that users will make bad choices.
     
  7. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    Ridiculous the notion unless corporate neglect, fraud, or Malfeasance can be proved.
     
  8. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    The OS being responsible for all security and the user being allowed to do what they want are mutually exclusive.

    One cannot exist without effecting the other IMO.

    Sul.
     
  9. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Usually the user doesn't want to be infected. So I disagree, unless they actually want an infection in which case who cares.
     
  10. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    IMO Microsoft is at least 50% responsible. Microsoft is directly responsible for creating an OS that requires no skill, intelligence or sense from the user. All the user has to know in order to go anywhere on the web is where the power button is and how to click on the browser icon. The OS does the rest for them. When it gets so easy that any child can do it, you end up with users of that mentality, if not that actual age.

    There is absolutely no way that Microsoft can say that they didn't see this mess coming. By the time the 9X were released, it was quite clear what the results would be when unskilled users were combined with an OS that let them do as they pleased. Now the users are conditioned to an OS that does the thinking for them. The time to fix this was 15 years ago, before the PCs did everything for them. Microsoft chose profits and marketed to users who were incapable of using a PC properly, gave them no instructions of consequence, and made them administrators by default over systems they had no clue about.
    Microsoft might not be responsible for what a user clicks on but they are responsible unlearned users on PCs. They made them what they are.
     
  11. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    102,543
    Location:
    Texas
    Not sure you can blame Microsoft for the number of criminals that inhabit the internet these days.

    Times have changed since the innocent days of yore and Microsoft is not the only one under attack daily.
     
  12. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    True, no one wants to be infected. But, they do want to play all the games online, watch all the videos, listen to the music, check out the pr0n, and install everything that catches thier eye, not to mention click the "you've won" prompts - all without having to learn a thing. They, maybe like you, might expect the OS to magically take care of all threats.

    Sorry, I disagree. Not to be stubborn or obstinate or to show "my way" is better, because I don't really have an answer, but rather I just don't see how it is ever going to be feasible. There are too many varibles IMO. The only solution in my view is for the OS to take control of what happens, and that is something that will drive me away from microsoft and into anothers bed. I don't use an apple computer for a reason...

    Sul.
     
  13. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Right. And I think they can do all of that and if there's a proper security model behind them they will have a very low rate of infection.

    I agree. I don't like the walled garden approach.
     
  14. guest

    guest Guest

    I know you love these...

    operating-system-infection-rates.jpg

    Compare and draw your conclusions.
     
  15. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    ?

    I don't see your point.
     
  16. guest

    guest Guest

    My point is: there is already a "proper" security model behind. With each new version, Windows gets better on that (and on several other aspects, of course).
     
  17. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    oh lol

    no not at all

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216654/Windows_7_s_malware_infection_rate_climbs_XP_s_falls


    Infection rates are climbing. They're moving from XP to 7 now that it's gaining popularity. This trend will continue.

    You don't have a proper security model and consistently huge amounts of infections.
     
  18. guest

    guest Guest

    What I posted is based on even more recent data: http://www.ghacks.net/2011/11/11/windows-xp-has-10-times-the-infection-rate-as-windows-7/

     
  19. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    "This operating system is infected all the time but that one is infected even more often therefor the first one has a strong model."

    ehhhh I don't quite buy that, sorry

    XP is used more often in professional areas. XP is blatantly weaker than 7 in terms of exploitation. XP has a huge market share.

    Security isn't relative. I'm not safe because the guy over there is super vulnerable.
     
  20. guest

    guest Guest

    Of all Windows 7 x64 PCs, approximately 1.1% gets infected. Is that "all the time"? Ok keep dreaming your dreams of absolute control over users' actions.

    In professional areas, there are other security policies in place (usually). XP has no anti-something ON by default. The statistics are based on comparable samples.

    For what matters here, you're safe as long as you aren't infected and not likely to get because you're educated and because your OS provides resources to help.
     
  21. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    And what about Windows 7 32bit?
    Or Vista 32bit and 64bit?

    If we could wipe XP off of the map and replace it with Windows 7 you bet you'd see infection rates skyrocket.

    And let's keep in mind that most Windows PCs probably aren't "vanilla" and use other means of protection. Windows alone is not strong enough at all to deal with malware.

    Users are still getting infected. That's all the evidence anyone needs to show that their security isn't adequate.

    EDIT: And if you think that Windows is secure we just don't agree on anything clearly lol
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  22. guest

    guest Guest

    Also considerable lower than XP's one: see the image and related links.

    The samples are comparable (read the graphic on the image! It says COMPUTERS CLEANED PER THOUSAND very clearly). I don't know how to explain that any better.

    Valid for every Windows, so equal statistical effect for every edition, in the very end.

    (( Unless you think the security suites are somewhat more effective or more used in Windows 7, which in reality is false and probably quite the contrary. ))

    Plus, I think it's good that such a security industry exists for Windows. Actually, it's a bonus that so many different specialized people is dedicated to checking everything that might end up in users' computers.

    Show me a similar "ecosystem" (both in heterogeneity and in numbers) with 0 infection rates.

    It can be improved, but its latest version is already quite strong.
     
  23. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    There is no way to tell whether it's a correlation to release date/market share or ease of infection.

    I don't understand what you're asking but I know of no OS with 0 infection rates. If you want lower infection rates for a user OS you can look at linux and OSX - a great example of market share effecting the perception of security...

    We definitely disagree lol
     
  24. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    Doesn't MS certifies certain developers? :D
    That would be somewhat similar to giving user a hint on legit and good software but still i think MS just should let the developing community go on by itself :D
     
  25. guest

    guest Guest

    Yes there is: it says COMPUTERS CLEANED PER THOUSAND very clearly on the graphic. You didn't read it entirely (as usual).

    I'm asking for something as used as Windows (total number of users), for the same "objectives" (total number of uses), and on the same heterogeneity of devices, with also the so called "adequate security" (as in your opinion, "adequate security" means 0 infection rates across all the "ecosystem").

    Yes, and you still didn't show how Windows can be made stronger without any trade-offs (that Microsoft isn't already working on).
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.