Suggested Security

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Vista Tech Support has been available for a while.
Just a little more of your own ignorance on top of others.

Just because you do not understand, does not make your belief truth.
You have a ways to go...

 

[Guest]

Jupiter,

You own you’re below quotation, please don’t assign your disbelief toward
me. Please don’t be frightened for learning about Vista and BitLocker's
inherent Ultimate Security.

Below, Your Statement of self-ownership:
“Just because you do not fully understand Vista and Bitlocker, does not make
your wrong belief truth.
You have a ways to go...â€

The forth coming is a statement from Microsoft Security: Vista has an
integrated anti-malware solution in Windows Vista. This new interface was
provided in Windows Vista beginning with RC1.

Required more than eight-years for developing Vista and BitLocker for
self-preventing malware and other Threats, the methods that Vista technology
implements for preventing not-desired OS entries would near fill a library.

For obvious legal reasons, Microsoft decided to allow “Certified†third
party applications as A/V and a few others for running within Vista using
controlled / limited resources.

For legal reasons never would Microsoft broadcast that third party A/V and
the other “Certified†applications not be needed or necessary. Simply, the
“Certified†third party applications will not harm Vista. Use your
imagination for determining if the “Certified†third party applications
enhance Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

During the last year or more I’ve used Vista on quite a few machines, with
and without BitLocker. Also, have made every user induced mistake and error
that’s possible for making, some accidental , some intentional, just for
testing / evaluating Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

My views regarding Vista and BitLocker’s Ultimate Security comes from
Microsoft and personal experience; not a guess, or shot in the dark
presumptions. Simply, my views comes from factual Microsoft Experts.

Unless things have recently changed, the MVPs within these Forums are
non-paid volunteers, *not* employees of Microsoft, reason for the gross lack
of understanding, regarding Vista and BitLocker.

--
Firewall

Disclaimer:
Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista

 

[Guest]

BChat,

The forth coming is a statement from Microsoft Security: Vista has an
integrated anti-malware solution in Windows Vista. This new interface was
provided in Windows Vista beginning with RC1.

Required more than eight-years for developing Vista and BitLocker for
self-preventing malware and other Threats, the methods that Vista technology
implements for preventing not-desired OS entries would near fill a library.

For obvious legal reasons, Microsoft decided to allow “Certified†third
party applications as A/V and a few others for running within Vista using
controlled / limited resources. For legal reasons never would Microsoft
broadcast that third party A/V and the other “Certified†applications not be
needed or necessary.

Simply, the “Certified†third party applications will not harm Vista. Use
your imagination for determining if the “Certified†third party applications
enhance Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

During the last year or more I’ve used Vista on quite a few machines, with
and without BitLocker. Also, have made every user induced mistake and error
that’s possible for making, some accidental , some intentional, just for
testing / evaluating Vista and BitLocker’s inherent Ultimate Security.

My views regarding Vista and BitLocker’s Ultimate Security comes from
Microsoft and personal experience, not a guess, or shot in the dark
presumptions. Simply, my views comes from factual Microsoft Experts.

Unless things have recently changed, the MVPs within these Forums are
non-paid volunteers, *not* employees of Microsoft, reason for the gross lack
of understanding, regarding Vista and BitLocker.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"For legal reasons never would Microsoft..."
How convenient for you to use this excuse to cover your own ignorance.
You are the only one that ASSUMES malware includes viruses, Trojans and
other similar malware.
The protection in Vista, Windows Defender is for spyware, another type of
malware.
No where does Microsoft even suggest Vista offers complete protection
against all types of malware.
Of course you do while spreading your misinformation.
Of course you say "For legal reasons never would Microsoft...", how
convenient.

Your other assumptions show more of your errors which fill your posts.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[Guest]

Jupiter,

Could not resist providing you with the below extracted Microsoft quotation:
likely I'll have others from Microsoft provide you additional information
regarding Vista's Ultimate Security. There was much more of the below
information, I only provided you with a tid-bit of information. Not my
responsibility for educating you.

There seems to be confusion in some quarters about certain features of
Windows Vista that are designed to help make it more secure and reliable. One
of the misunderstandings surrounds Kernel Patch Protection, also known as
PatchGuard.

To be clear, the term “patch†here should not be confused with how software
providers deliver legitimate updates (e.g., bug fixes) to you. Kernel Patch
Protection helps protect the integrity and reliability of the Windows kernel,
the core of the operating system. Kernel Patch Protection also makes PCs more
secure by helping protect against potentially malicious software known as
rootkits, which modify the kernel in an attempt to hide from detection.

Kernel Patch Protection is not new. Last year it was built into the 64-bit
versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. With Windows Vista, Kernel
Patch Protection will likewise be incorporated into 64-bit versions only. We
have been exploring ways to implement Kernel Patch Protection on 32-bit
Windows systems, but have not done this yet, although some customers have
requested it, because of limitations of the 32-bit architecture and because
it will cause compatibility issues for some applications and devices that are
already in use. In adapting applications and devices to take advantage of
64-bit Windows, on the other hand, developers have an opportunity to resolve
these compatibility issues.

It is important to remember that Microsoft (for years) has actively
discouraged third-party applications developers from designing software that
modifies the Windows kernel, because such software has been known to cause
instability issues and lower the reliability of Windows. Rather than allow
kernel modifications that could cause reliability and security problems for
you, Microsoft has worked for many years with third-party developers, such as
security software developers, to encourage the use of Microsoft-supported
extensions that enable them to build more effective and reliable products.

Some security vendors have asked Microsoft to provide instructions on how to
disable Kernel Patch Protection in 64-bit versions of Windows, because their
products include some features that modify the Windows kernel in undocumented
and unsupported ways. Making exceptions and allowing some vendors special
access to modify the Windows Vista kernel is unworkable. It opens the door
wide for malicious software. For example, rootkits could be designed to
present themselves to the operating system in the guise of a legitimate
application that was given special access. Also, making exceptions will
prolong the reliability problems that are caused by unsupported kernel
modification, such as when multiple applications compete to patch the same
kernel interfaces.

In the case of security solutions, unsupported kernel modifications also
limit your choices, by making it extremely difficult or impossible for
multiple security solutions to co-exist reliably on a system. We want to work
with security providers to make common extensions available, so that any
security vendors can use them, and so that security software does not itself
put your security and reliability at risk from malicious kernel modifications.

Here is what we are doing to maintain the integrity and security of 64-bit
Windows, while still addressing the needs of our security partners:

• Contrary to some media reports, Microsoft will not weaken the security of
64-bit Windows by enabling some applications to modify the kernel of the
operating system.
• We have applied our no-exceptions policy against kernel patching to
Microsoft applications as well as third party applications, consistent with
our Windows Principles. No application can bypass or weaken Kernel Patch
Protection—this is essential to improving security and reliability for you.
Note that many third-party security companies provide highly competitive
products without modifying the Windows kernel in unsupported

--
Firewall

Disclaimer:
Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista

 

[David J. Craig]

I have been watching your posts and the first thing that comes to mind is
that bridge in New York I have for sale. If anyone would buy it, it would
be you. Only a marketing droid would ever issue the phrase "Vista and
BitLocker's inherent Ultimate Security". So many people have told you how
your statements are totally void of any real truth or basis in fact.
BitLocker is just a hard drive encryption implementation. Since it is
coupled with the OS it is much easier for them to do it than anyone external
to Microsoft. It is 'security' in that files are protected from an external
party trying to read them without knowing the proper passwords and
encryption keys. There may be some viral components that try to install
themselves via direct access to the hard drive at a time when a user is not
logged in, but I don't know of any. With EFS encrypted files might be
accessed directly and written to when someone who has access to those files
is not logged it and the data will be written in plaintext so that when they
are normally accessed they will be garbage, but that is also a very unlikely
scenario.

P.S. Don't bother to reply as you are in the kill file and I see you have
nothing useful to contribute.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Nothing in your drivel says anything about not needing an anti virus.
Being more secure is not the same as not needing an AV.

"Vista's Ultimate Security"
"Ultimate Security"?
Must be another myth you fabricated.
More likely you are misusing and/or misreading a term.

Again, you are the only one.
You are all alone on that belief.
Not even Microsoft will agree with you.
Opening the Security Center proves you wrong.
Go back and read the thread where you posted and were proved conclusively
wrong before.
You did not read what was told you then, perhaps now would be a good time.

"Not my responsibility for educating you."
And apparently not your responsibility to educate yourself since you make
little or no attempt to digest the information already given you in previous
threads,

Do not bother posting back, you clearly have no intention of opening up to a
truth that disagrees with the myth you so firmly and alone hold as fact.
Unless of course you can show at least a single authorities reference that
proves anti virus is not needed for Vista.

"likely I'll have others from Microsoft provide you additional information
regarding Vista's Ultimate Security."
Have one of these people contact me through my private Email and tell me no
AV is needed in Windows Vista.
Microsoft can tell me Vista's "Ultimate Security" has no need of an AV.
If you know such people, they will be able to tell us.
If on the other hand, you blow smoke, that will also be obvious.
Without such proof, you are blowing nothing but smoke and wasting your time.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

David;
I am done with him in this thread as well.
Firewall2 will have to post for his own reading.
Unless of course he can provide the proof I asked.
Of course he can't since his belief is only a fantasy he is trying to
elevate to myth status.

 

[Paul Adare]

in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?

Paul,

Please donâ??t assign blame toward me for your lack of understanding regarding
Vista and BitLockerâ??s inherent Ultimate Security, please.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand BitLocker, that would be
you. You're the one that stated that it was some kind of 256 bit
encrypted firewall, it isn't. You're also the one who went on
and on about malware and viruses needing to compromise 256 bit
encryption when you were shown, quite plainly, this wasn't the
case.

Instead, consult Mike Nash and Ben Fathi, each Microsoft Corporate Vice
Presidents for Security and Technology Unit.

I've got news for you sport, it has been quite some time since
Mike Nash left the STBU. Even here you can't seem to get your
facts straight.

Also, consult Austin Wilson Microsoft Director Windows Client Product
Management.

Also, consult Microsoftâ??s BitLocker Team, too many names for listing.

I don't need to sport. I am a vendor with Microsoft and have an
account on Microsoft's internal network. I participate on the
internal Microsoft BitLocker discussion alias. There's no
possible way you could list the members of the BitLocker team at
Microsoft and that has nothing to do with how many people are on
the team, you simply don't know who they are. Name dropping in a
news group post does not mean that you know what you're talking
about.

Just because you have not learned what I have learned from Microsoft's
Experts, and more than a year personally evaluating Vista and BitLockers
Security, does not provide you the license for criticizing and expressing
disapproval of my research and knowledge !

You apparently haven't learned very much if you continue to
believe that BitLocker provides any protection against getting
infected with a virus or with malware. You continue to give bad
advice here, and that bad advice is built upon your mistaken
understanding of how the underlying technologies work. I'm not
just going to sit back and let you continue to spread your
terrible advice here.

 

[Paul Adare]

microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, Jupiter

"For legal reasons never would Microsoft..."
How convenient for you to use this excuse to cover your own ignorance.
You are the only one that ASSUMES malware includes viruses, Trojans and
other similar malware.
The protection in Vista, Windows Defender is for spyware, another type of
malware.
No where does Microsoft even suggest Vista offers complete protection
against all types of malware.
Of course you do while spreading your misinformation.
Of course you say "For legal reasons never would Microsoft...", how
convenient.

Your other assumptions show more of your errors which fill your posts.

And once again, he simply doesn't understand that BitLocker does
not provide any protection against getting infected with malware
or a virus.

 

[Paul Adare]

microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, David J.

BitLocker is just a hard drive encryption implementation.

This isn't technically accurate. BDE, when used with a TPM chip,
also provides protection against the modification of boot files
and components. While this can be helpful in the event that a
virus or malware modifies these boot time files and components,
it does not, as Firewall2 keeps stating, protect you from
getting infected in the first place.

 

[Paul Adare]

in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?

Unless things have recently changed, the MVPs within these Forums are
non-paid volunteers, *not* employees of Microsoft, reason for the gross lack
of understanding, regarding Vista and BitLocker.

You are the one that has a gross misunderstanding of Vista and
BitLocker.

 

[Guest]

Paul,

Thank you for the Post abscent the previous hostile malicious attacks.

Respectfully, not my responsibility for providing you with an education
regarding Vista and BitLocker's inherent Ultimate Security.

My education came from the ***Source***, Microsoft !!!

 

[Paul Adare]

in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?

Respectfully, not my responsibility for providing you with an education
regarding Vista and BitLocker's inherent Ultimate Security.

My education came from the ***Source***, Microsoft !!!

Regardless of where your "education" came from, you simply don't
understand what you read or what you were told. For you to
continue to insist that BDE somehow protects you against viruses
and malware, and that the only way you can get infected if
you're using BDE is for the virus or malware to somehow
compromise the encryption provided by BDE is just wrong and
clearly demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding
on your part.
You really need to stop spreading your incorrect and dangerous
advice here. Unlike some of the others here who have killfiled
you, I'm not going to do that as the "advice" you are offering
here is dangerous and wrong.
You just don't get it, and you can't even carry on a discussion
at a technical level about these technologies.

 

[Guest]

Paul,

You are wearing me out... BDE is just one portion for Protection. The
Ultimate Security is achieved from the whole or entire OS. Including, Vista
users are greatly protected from OEMs third party applications. Although, the
OEMs Vista OS is not as totally secure, compared to Genuine Microsoft
Software.

Small note from Microsoft:
"We have applied our no-exceptions policy against kernel patching to
Microsoft applications as well as third party applications."

Please rest assured, the Microsoft bus of education will soon arrive.

When I speak to Microsoft employees via telephone or email it is not via an
alias.

 

[Paul Adare]

in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?

Please rest assured, the Microsoft bus of education will soon arrive.

Apparently it passed you by.

When I speak to Microsoft employees via telephone or email it is not via an
alias.

More name dropping, still no technical content in any of your
posts.

 

[Robert Moir]

Robert,

Please don't assign blame toward me for your lack of understanding
regarding Vista and BitLocker's inherent Ultimate Security, please.

Instead, consult Mike Nash and Ben Fathi, each Microsoft Corporate
Vice Presidents for Security and Technology Unit.

Also, consult Austin Wilson Microsoft Director Windows Client Product
Management.

Also, consult Microsoft's BitLocker Team, too many names for listing.

Just because you have not learned what I have learned from Microsoft's
Experts, and more than a year personally evaluating Vista and
BitLockers Security, does not provide you the license for criticizing
and expressing disapproval of my research and knowledge !

I don't wish to be rude, but who do you think you are? I don't usually do
this sort of thing but if you wish to crow about yourself and drop a few
names and talk about your year as a tester in order to show me up, it's only
fair that I compare my limited and paltry knowledge of the OS and also also
compare my contacts within Microsoft to the names you drop.

Let's see now:
I've worked in the IT industry for something like 18 years now, acheived
pretty much all the Microsoft certification available over that time. I've
previously been a MVP for 8 years, though I left the scheme in October, and
I'm willing to bet that I've had more exposure to big name "players" in
Microsoft because of that than you have despite all the names you drop. Same
for many of the current MVPs I've also seen you sneer at.

I've got several books from various members of the Microsoft security team
sitting on my shelf that are signed to me. Have you?

My main "MVP speciality", incidentally, was OS Security, which means the
majority of my work and the majority of my contact with Microsoft was
focussed on security technologies including file encryption (aka EFS in XP,
Bitlocker in Vista), Firewalls, and methods of dealing with Malware.

I've been a member of the Longhorn testing team since they opened up the
scheme to MVPs, which was considerably more than 1 year ago, I can tell you.
I've also been involved in the betas of Windows 2000 back when it was NT5,
and XP back when it was 'codename whistler'

I've spent a considerable amount of time learning about and testing various
aspects of Vista both for this testing group and as part of the "R&D" type
work I do for my employer, who operates a network for several thousand
users. I'm currently leading our evaluation of whether or not to deploy
Vista to the whole network.

Regards
Rob Moir.

 

[Guest]

Paul,

My Post have been filled with specific ***documented*** technicial details
and additional topic specific information. Seriously, I can't imagine how you
missed the provided technical information, including quotations from
Microsoft Exectutives.

Could it be possible that you intentionally ignored the topic specific
technical details?

More than certain that you have the experience and knowledge for
comprehending what was previously shared. What could possibly be the reason
that you did not recognize the specific detailed information? As the timeless
adage goes, one can lead a mule to water, but one cannot force that mule for
drinking.

Apoligze that you did not distinguish the previously provided detailed
information.

Again, thank you for your politely written Post !

Respectfully,

 

[Paul Adare]

in the microsoft.public.windows.vista.security news group, =?

Paul,

My Post have been filled with specific ***documented*** technicial details
and additional topic specific information. Seriously, I can't imagine how you
missed the provided technical information, including quotations from
Microsoft Exectutives.

You have copied and pasted from various documents on TechNet and
they have all been out of context and irrelevant to the
particular subject at hand. Go look at the recent copying and
pasting you've done in the discussion on encryption where the
content you pasted from TechNet didn't even reference
encryption. Any time you've tried to discuss the issues, without
copying and pasting from some document, you've got the facts all
wrong.

Could it be possible that you intentionally ignored the topic specific
technical details?

See above.

More than certain that you have the experience and knowledge for
comprehending what was previously shared. What could possibly be the reason
that you did not recognize the specific detailed information? As the timeless
adage goes, one can lead a mule to water, but one cannot force that mule for
drinking.

Because what you posted was off-topic and completely irrelevant
to what was being discussed.

Apoligze that you did not distinguish the previously provided detailed
information.

You're the one that doesn't get this, not me. What is your
technical background? You've got recognized industry experts
telling you that you're wrong, yet you continue to insist you're
right without being able to present any technical proof beyond
pasting in text you've copied that doesn't even support your
silly position.

 

[Robert Firth]

No such thing as 'inherent security' in software. In fact, software is
inherently insecure.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */