The new MS VISTA and privacy

Well you can have all of windows OS´s on C drive with a third party solution: Firstdefense ISR
Mmm ok perhaps i am wrong here . its just when i installed this dog of a thing
i ended up with it taking over ! and lost my XP version .and every thing on it .
also could not find my modem,i tried to install the drivers ,anser i ended up with Not didgaly siged, tried looking for them on the nett Not found ..(adsl) modem Dlink 2000..baring (i dont think i will race out fora new one) that i had to reformat my drive ,Start RAW, to be able to get it back .
ok So what did i do wrong here ?? as all i done put in the cd and away it went after agreeing to there terms,failing to find the Modem i got stuck with a useless peace of soft ware asking me to link ,and telling me to update! not being able to find my modem back to start.and just looping this agian !
split my hard dive 1 200 gig and 400 gig (we got it from our shop Just to play around) reinstalled XP and all its goods ,to the d:/drive leaving c:/ blank , in with the vita and it installed on c:/ but ended up with the same ..so just rebooted after a long install .format c:/
back to normall
Perhaps you could Help a little here and Explane How you got all the os and versions to run on the same drive ? as i must be doing Something Wrong ...
I want to sick with privacy only ,But it would help if you please Explane this...
as this means Nothing to me (Firstdefense ISR) is this a program? that allows
to install any version of a OS ?
o yes it runs fine on the shop cp's as thats all thy have on them (brand new ) Nothing els ,for clients who want it on there pc's i am talking Home
my systems...

thanks
..

 

Wanna bet? Some of us decided long ago that we didn't like the course M$ was taking and haven't followed the crowd. I've never found a good reason to switch to XP, let alone Vista.
Microsoft made their intentions quite clear when they tried to pass off WGA as a security update, twice now. Do you expect to have the option to say no to it on Vista?

Regardless of how much DRM limits or monitors the user, one thing is obvious. DRM does nothing to benefit the user. Nothing good can come from it for the user. I can't see why anyone would want a PC with this on it.

Vista's "locked kernel" should be all the reason anyone needs to avoid Vista. Patchguard has already been hacked. The kernel is only locked in a legal sense, by denying legitimate security-ware access to it. True, Vista's kernel is more secure than XPs, but it's a long way from being truly secure. By preventing security-ware from accessing or protecting it, they've made Vista less secure than XP. Anyone looking forward to digging a rootkit out of Vista?

Whether we're dealing with companies, individuals, governments, etc, their patterns of behavior demonstrate their true intentions. Microsofts true intentions can be easily seen by noting the changes in windows versions, not to mention the actions of the company itself. With each new operating system, Microsoft has removed more of the users ability to access and control the core system from the system itself, requiring the user to obtain 3rd party tools. Each new operating system has kept more records of user activities and made existing ones harder to find and remove. This progression is obvious to anyone who has dealt with the different operating systems.

On 98 units, user activities are stored in index.dat files, which can't be accessed thru windows without 3rd party software, though they could be deleted in DOS. With Windows ME, users couldn't boot to pure DOS without using a 98 bootdisk.

With NT systems, true DOS was taken away. Users now have to use something like Barts PE to access the system without windows interfering. With NT systems, both files and processes can be hidden from the users completely, processes that are invisible to conventional process monitors. The windows rootkit becomes a reality. Both data and executable files can be hidden in alternate data streams, invisible to the user without specialized tools and the knowlege to use them. Someone remind me how this was supposed to improve security for the user. IMO, this did nothing but open Pandora's box.

Enter application firewalls, HIPS software, rootkit tools of all kinds, necessary to prevent, detect, or remove the malicious code made possible by the "improved security" of the NT kernel. Add AVs and firewalls that function at a kernel level, needed to combat modern malware for the average user. The playing field is again somewhat levelled for the technical user, but the average user is becoming very vulnerable.

How does it benefit the user to lock legitimate tools and security-ware out of the kernel when so much malware is targeting it, when it's already been demonstrated that malicious code can defeat this "patchguard"? How does tying the hands of security-ware and tool vendors help users? It doesn't, and M$ knows it, so why "lock" the kernel in a legal sense when they can't truly secure it? It should be obvious that securing Vista against malware is not the reason they're locking the kernel, not when it represent a net loss in overall security.

The answer to this question can be found in their patterns of behavior throughout Windows history. Each OS released has kept more records of user activity, taken more control of the system from the user, and hidden more from the user. DRM and WGA are blatant recent examples of this. Why lock security-ware out of the kernel? The motive is security, but not for the users. It so that users can't see what is (or will be) running hidden. Simple as that.

Hypothetical question, one I'd love to see debated in depth:
Since legitimate tools are locked out of the kernel, if someone uses a non-legitimate tool to see what's running hidden, have they violated a number of laws, including some directly tied to homeland security and terrorism? If said individual finds hidden processes running, is publishing their findings proof that they've committed criminal acts? If activity monitoring software is found running hidden, does revealing its existence make you a terrorist suspect as defined by the patriot act? The legal aspects of this "locked kernel" combined with its potential for abuse are a nightmare.

It doesn't matter if there's nothing of the sort running hidden now. Such items could easily be delivered via windows update, in whatever form it takes by then. With no legal access to the kernel, how much control do you have over what M$ may install, possibly at the bidding of the entertainment industry (anti-piracy) or the government (homeland security)? IMO, Vista is nothing more than pure spyware disguised as an operating system.
Rick

 

Sorry itsmej. I have been here on Wilders too long, so I think that everyone is familiar with Firstdefense.

Firstdefense is a snapshot program developed by Leapfrog
Leapfrog does not sell the software to consumers but there are a couple of resellers here or here. It is the same software but different resellers. The Vista compatible version of Firstdefense is still in beta stage, but I have been running it since it came and discovered no problems at all.

What I did was make a empty snapshot (Firstdefense makes the snapshot on C drive) and rebooted with the Vista CD in the player. Vista thinks this snapshot is a empty drive.
Firstdefense has a boot manager where you choose what [windows] OS you want to boot to. Vista and XP has no connection between each other, other than the Firstdefense program itself.
The downside (if it really is a problem anymore? with the big hard drives nowadays.) is that Firstdefense requires much hard drive space on C: drive.

Another alternative is Rollback Rx which uses much less harddrive space and are imo much more flexible, but unfortunately it didnt play well in my system. But I believe that it can handle Vista and Win xp too.
Firstdefense is much more robust though, at least on my system. There are people here who has no problems at all with Rollback Rx.

Both these software are really rollback applications, but there is no problems whatsoever to use it as dualboot (or rather 10boot in Firstdefense or 60 000boot system in Rollback if you wish )

This solution costs money, but you gain freedom using your computer they way you want to.

 

Thank you very Mutch for that info ,we have talked about this at the shop and looking into it .agian many thanks

 

It is apparent that you did not look at the link I provided. In essence it says this: "Windows Vista gives you the ability to play back DRMed content. It does not prevent you from playing back non-DRMed content. It also doesn't add DRM to your unprotected content."

Also from Chris Lainer's Blog (MSMVP) http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archive/2007/01/25/519180.aspx

"DVD Rip (DivX, XivD, etc) downloaded from Bit Torrent/IRC/etc: Output at whatever resolution you want. No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP. Don’t pirate stuff!

DVD Rip (VIDEO_TS, ISO) download from Bit Torrent/IRC/etc: Output at whatever resolution you want. No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP. Don’t pirate stuff!

WMV HD Downloads (MariposaHD, etc): Output at whatever resolution you want. No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP.

Apple/Quicktime HD Downloads: Output at whatever resolution you want. No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP.

Videocasts/blogcasts/Internet TV/IPTV: Output at whatever resolution you want. No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP.

DVR-MS (SD) Recordings: Output at whatever resolution you want. You can still edit recordings, convert recordings, etc unless they are CGMS-A protected. Works the same as Windows XP.

DVR-MS (HD) Recordings: Output at whatever resolution you want. You can still edit recordings, convert recordings, etc. Works the same as Windows XP.

MPEG-2/DivX/etc Recordings from 3rd Party PVRs: Output at whatever resolution you want. You can still edit recordings, convert recordings, etc. Works the same as Windows XP.

CableCARD: Content recorded from CableCARDs will follow the same sort of output regulations as HD DVD and Blu-ray. Not available in Windows XP.

DVD: Output at whatever resolution you want. If using Component, output is limited because of Macrovision. Use AnyDVD or like to output at whatever you want. Works the same as Windows XP.

HD DVD: If is ICT* set; output at 540p if you are not using HDCP. If using a digital connection (DVI, HDMI) with HDCP, output will be whatever you want always (ICT set or not). If ICT is not set, you can output at 1080p with VGA and 1080i with Component. Works the same as Windows XP.** CE (consumer electronics) HD DVD players (regular set-top boxes) must follow the same rules, not specific to Microsoft or Windows.

Blu-ray Disc (BD): If is ICT* set; output at 540p if you are not using HDCP. If using a digital connection (DVI, HDMI) with HDCP, output will be whatever you want always (ICT set or not). If ICT is not set, you can output at 1080p with VGA and 1080i with Component. Works the same as Windows XP.** CE (consumer electronics) BD players (regular set-top boxes) must follow the same rules, not specific to Microsoft or Windows.

Additions:

DVD Ripping: No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP
Tools like BackupHDDVD/BackupBluray: No restrictions. Works the same as Windows XP***
*AACS requires titles with ICT set be marked, so check the package before you purchase the movie. Currently, no titles have ICT set.
** The content protection framework in Vista will also allow for a more traditional DirectShow filter model of playback. Right now, playback is limited to within PowerDVD or WinDVD.
***Though, I have not tested them under Vista, there is nothing to stop or prevent them from specifically working."

 

I did read the link. You missed my point. How much DRM limits, enables, monitors, etc isn't the point. I have no use for an operating system that's designed to monitor the legalities of my activities. Part of the problem with DRM is the concept behind it, aka the user has to be monitored because they can't be trusted. For me, a PC is a tool. A tool that distrusts its owner is worthless. The other problem with DRM concerns the concept of digital rights and intellectual property in general. At present, it's audio, video, games, software, etc. What's next? If the trend continues, every word and picture will end up being someones "property" and we'll have a "pay per click" internet.
Myself, I have no use for what they're calling premium content. I've seen very little of it I'd want even if they gave it away. If the entertainment industry thinks their media is so valuable, fine. Put the DRM software in media players and quit trying to force it on everyone else.
Big brother isn't welcome in any computer I use or service.
Rick

 

Well i have to agree Even if its a bit hard stated ,(spyware disguised as an operating system) Mmm Perhaps your right..one thing i do know that from the first MS made to now one has less and less controle ove them .i would say that 2000 and up it got pretty mutch do as one wanted NO more , billy put a stopper on this ..i have had a look at it like most of us and can live without it ..
Each OS released has kept more records of user activity, taken more control of the system from the user, and hidden more from the user)))
Have to agree 100% with this , look at the antie this and that thats now made to defened A MS os ,sure there are ppl that will always try somthing different ,But that was and is not in the mind of that hippy never was ,one could see that from 95 onwards ,the first 95 made was a nice program ,never mind the fialts, its was a nice upgrade , then suddenly KIll Dos,and any programmers along the way ..look at the size of a file now days ! never mind
it fits on a floppy ,no one need a whole cd .and than its compressed,its gotten that big billy can hide any thing.as for updates ,Ehhh who knows what gets installed !,stiil all the yelling is not going to stop this or billy ,All ppl do get bigger and faster ,Jigga bite hard drives ,never mind Gigga , and on it will go ,never ending ..One of my frieds asked my today what you going to do ?
well i siad as long as 98-xp still runs i stay with it as i got it by the neck,
if newer pcs will not run any more , or every thing has to have permision to run ,or will not allow me to install , well go lunix ..or hope someone makes a ather type of OS for us to use ??
This statement I like the way its put!!
(((For me, a PC is a tool. A tool that distrusts its owner is worthless.)))

 

Some thing to think about ..
'WHY DOES MICROSOFT/GATES REALLY NEED TO HAVE 'DIGITALLY SIGNED ' HARDWARE DRIVERS " or 'WHY DOES MICROSOFT REALLY HAVE TO HAVE SUCH TIGHT REIGN OVER EVERY ASPECT OF THE PC INDUSTRY?" - NOW from software supply (oem and retail ) to full control of HOW hardware drivers are supplied (mind you also at a 'license fee cost passed on to the end user).

I found this statement ,and felt its very true..i dont know how many of ppl know mr billy went to china a while back made a deal with them to install on every new pc made ,This new OS ,Wonder why UMmm

 

I wouldn't use a Windows PC that wasn't DOS based. DOS batch files are the best friend you could have when it comes to defending your privacy and ridding a PC of usage records, not to mention their uses for enhancing security. Most of my privacy defending batch files make use of "eraserd.exe", the DOS component of Eraser instead of using the standard "delete" command. It costs me about 90 seconds at bootup to wipe all the index.dat files and temp folders, the browser cache and history, several log files, and replace the system registry and other autostart locations with cleaned copies. Try doing that with XP, let alone Vista.

I'm not sure which should concern potential Vista users more, the loss of privacy and user choice or the security implications of this "locked kernel". Like any other new software, Vista will enjoy a quiet time during which it will seem resistant to attack, that is until the malware writers find the vulnerabilities. Then we're back to the same scenario we have now, another vulnerability found, exploited, patched, repeat process at least weekly, except for a few major changes. The best security apps, ones capable of intercepting unknown processes, driver installs, etc don't run on Vista. What happens when some malware writer decides that the DRM software is an ideal place to put a rootkit? Anyone think for one minute that malware writers aren't looking to use these "secure" areas to protect their malware? Does anyone even begin to think that M$ can prevent this from happening?

I'm sure others here have noted how little time elapses from the discovery of a new vulnerability until exploits for it are in the wild, some of it circulating freely for weeks before M$ patches the vulnerability. How is a an AV supposed to detect or remove malware from areas of an OS it can't legally access if it doesn't identify it coming in? What is available for the average user that has a chance to stop a new rootkit from installing? Don't rely on an AV for this. I get malware regularly in a Yahoo mailbox I've set up for a spam catcher. If I upload them to VirusTotal as soon as I get them, the detection rates are running about 50%. A significant percentage of it has been rootkits.

If a Vista user suspects a rootkit, what are their options? Are there any rootkit tools that work on Vista? Reformat and start over? That could be interesting with their new Licensing policies.

Any one of these problems is bad enough on its own. Combined, they're a disaster waiting to happen.
Rick