Symantec: Vista Blocks Almost All Malware, For No

Article


While many existing malware threats can't install under Vista, Symantec anticipates malware authors will quickly adapt.


Who writes this crud ?

I don't like microsoft , and I really don't like vista, the requirements are too high and it brings nothing new that I need in exchange for those requirements, but lets face it. Symantec is hardly a disintresteded third party observer. They're right in the thick of it all, making anti-virus software for windows. They are NOT going to say "you don't need our product" no matter how good a job windows does.

This kind of self serving new announcement and "white papers" and whatever else they care to call it isn't worth the paper it's written on. News reporters have no business giving these people the time of day ,they're doing little more than acting as unpaid advertisements.

It may be true that Vista has a bunch of security holes, and it's almost certainly true that new ones will be found by the virus and malware writers as quickly as possible. But Symantec is the wrong company to stand up and pretend to be some kind of white knight or expert in the area. Expert they may be , but highly prejudiced ones they also are. The words of a salesman trying to sell you something are worth nothing , no matter how expert he is in his field.


(edit)

Symantec will never say , for example "Move to Linux , it's all but immune to virii" , even though it's true.

Symantec will never say "Get off the Internet Explorer, use Firefox or Opera or some other browser that doesn't have Active X components, thats how most virii get on your computer in the first place. " even though that is true.

It will never say these things, because you will quickly come to realize that if you follow this advice, you don't need Symantec at all, and that would be cutting their own throats. Instead , they will point out obscure difficult to understand flaws in Firefox or linux, tell you it's not perfect and you should stick with windows and all it's virii , ignoring the obvious point that people on Linux, or even just Firefox , go years and years between infections while people on windows it's more like days and days.

And as for this notion that if everyone moved to linux then linux would quickly be as attacked as heavily as Windows, there are several problems with that. Linux doesn't do active X, the usual path way to infection. Linux doesn't open and run attachments that come with your email without even a by your leave such as windows does. Linux techs actually close security holes when they find them. Windows has known about the active x problem for years, but refuses to close it because it's how they make money , it's how they can do things other browsers cannot do. They're running unsecured programs on YOUR computer without YOUR permission, they're just changing around a few names and telling you they're doing something else. Linux doesn't do that at all at all at all.

But ... that would be bad for business if they told you that, so they'll tell you stick with windows and buy their product.