Vista---beautiful but deadly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OSbandito
  • Start date Start date
Dito.
Click to expand...

Vista is just ugly computing dictated to billy gates by the control
freaks in the government in exchange for a get out of jail free pass
on the trial that he LOST. I think intel and amd learned by
observation and agree to put all their spyware/shareware deep in
their silicon.

Of course no one considers that every country in the world now has a
military warfare computer division and they are all working with
costs as no consideration to crack into the silicon and the vista
operating system hooks, crooks, and spyware, to be able to wreck
havoc when appropriate.
 
Vista is just ugly computing dictated to billy gates by the control
freaks in the government in exchange for a get out of jail free pass
on the trial that he LOST. I think intel and amd learned by
observation and agree to put all their spyware/shareware deep in
their silicon.

Of course no one considers that every country in the world now has a
military warfare computer division and they are all working with
costs as no consideration to crack into the silicon and the vista
operating system hooks, crooks, and spyware, to be able to wreck
havoc when appropriate.
Click to expand...


I think You're confusing Intel with AMD. Intel has been a rat's nest of
intrusiveness for years.
 
Vista is just ugly computing dictated to billy gates by the control
freaks in the government in exchange for a get out of jail free pass
on the trial that he LOST. I think intel and amd learned by
observation and agree to put all their spyware/shareware deep in
their silicon.

Of course no one considers that every country in the world now has a
military warfare computer division and they are all working with
costs as no consideration to crack into the silicon and the vista
operating system hooks, crooks, and spyware, to be able to wreck
havoc when appropriate.
Click to expand...


This just in: Vista invites Hacker Tsunami through the
virtualization gateway in your shiny new cpu.


After years of delays and billions in development and marketing
efforts, it would seem that Microsoft Corp. would want anyone who
possibly can to buy its new Windows Vista operating system. Yet
Microsoft is making it hard for Mac owners and other potentially
influential customers to adopt the software.


Microsoft says the blockade is necessary for security reasons. But
that is disputed. The circumstances might simply reflect a business
decision Microsoft doesn't want to explain.


The situation involves a technology known as virtualization.
Essentially, it lets one computer mimic multiple machines, even ones
with different operating systems. It does this by running multiple
applications at the same time, but in separate realms of the
computer.


Virtualization has long been used in corporate data centers as a way
to increase server efficiency or to test programs in a walled-off
portion of a machine. The technology also has been available for
home users, but often at the expense of the computer's performance.


But now that Macintosh computers from Apple Inc. use Intel Corp.
chips, just like Windows-based PCs, virtualization programs let Mac
users easily switch back and forth between Apple's Mac OS X
operating system and Windows. That could appeal to Mac enthusiasts
who want access to programs that only work on Windows, including
some games.


Consequently, the launch of Vista seemed to be a good opportunity
for Parallels Inc., a subsidiary of SWsoft Inc. that sells
virtualization products.


Unlike Apple's free Boot Camp program that lets Windows run on a
Mac, Parallels' $80 virtualization product for Macs does not require
users to have just one operating system running at a time. Parallels
runs Windows in a, well, window on the Mac desktop.


Parallels also sells a $50 version for Windows PCs — which would let
people run both Vista and its predecessor, Windows XP, so they can
keep programs that aren't yet Vista-compatible.


The price of the virtualization software does not include a copy of
Windows. And to get that copy, buyers have to agree to Vista's
licensing rules — a legally binding document. Lurking in that
14-page agreement is a ban on using the least expensive versions of
Vista — the $199 Home Basic edition and the $239 Home Premium
edition — in virtualization engines.


Instead, people wanting to put Vista in a virtualized program have
to buy the $299 Business version or the $399 Ultimate package.


Macs account for less than 5 percent of personal computers in the
U.S., but Ben Rudolph, Parallels' marketing manager, says they
nonetheless represent a market he's surprised to see Microsoft
present with roadblocks.


"Vista is undeniably cool and undeniably important," Rudolph said.
"This is really an opportunity to reach people who normally wouldn't
be using Windows, whether it would be Mac users or Linux users."


The least-expensive versions of Vista actually would work in
virtualization programs. But Microsoft wants to restrict it because
of new security holes spawned by the technology, according to Scott
Woodgate, a director in Microsoft's Vista team.


Lately Intel and rival chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. have
built virtualization-friendly hooks directly into microprocessors.
The goal was to make virtualization work better, but Woodgate argues
that the move created a security flaw — essentially that malicious
programs can run undetected alongside an operating system.


Indeed, last year a security analyst showed how AMD chips with
virtualization support made computers vulnerable to such an attack.
(That researcher, Joanna Rutkowska, said she presumed it would work
on Intel-based systems as well, but she didn't have time to try).


AMD challenged the feasibility of such an attack and said
virtualization did not decrease computer security. Intel concurred;
spokesman Bill Calder called Rutkowska's claims "overstated."


But Microsoft took notice. Woodgate said Microsoft considered
banning virtualizing Vista entirely, on all versions. But
ultimately, he said, his team decided that the most technically
savvy users, or people in companies with tech support, probably
could handle Vista in virtualization programs, while home users
should be steered away.


The prohibition applies not only to third-party virtualization
products like Parallels, but also to Microsoft's own Virtual PC
software, which is available as a free download. (It does not apply
to Apple's Boot Camp product, which is not virtualization software.)


"We're balancing security and customer choice," Woodgate said.


However, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that technically
savvy people wouldn't want the less expensive versions of Vista.
Rudolph at Parallels said virtualization customers often just need
the most basic version of Windows possible to let some favored
application run.


Plus, even though Microsoft will let virtualization products run the
higher-priced versions of Vista, some powerful features in those
editions are also forbidden in virtualization. The license agreement
prohibits virtualization programs from using Vista's BitLocker
data-encryption service or from playing music, video or other
content wrapped in Microsoft's copyright-protection technology.
Microsoft says virtualization's security holes make those features
dangerous as well.


Rudolph believes many users will be so confused that they avoid
Vista altogether.


Of course, that's Microsoft's decision to make, and it seems logical
if you buy the security argument.


But not everyone agrees a virtualization lockdown is justified. In
fact, virtualization has been considered a security enhancement. If
applications run within their own walls, malicious code can be
confined to that zone and not infect the rest of the computer.


"Nobody's complained to us that there's security issues with our
products," said Srinivas Krishnamurti, director of product
management at EMC Corp. unit VMWare, which plans to release a
product for Macs this summer.


In a statement e-mailed after the interview, Krishnamurti added:
"The Vista licensing limitation is akin to the industry saying,
`Hey, consumer, when you connect your PC to the Internet, there is a
chance you can download adware, spyware or malware so we don't think
you should connect to the Internet using a browser.' The world would
be a very different place if the industry made that decision in the
'90s."


Rudolph acknowledged that "there's always going to be a security
risk in any piece of software." But he added that if Parallels "was
really not that secure, we would have heard about it substantially."


And even Rutkowska, who argued that her virtualization attack last
year — which she called "Blue Pill" — proved a glaring weakness in
the technology, said Microsoft's decision regarding Vista would make
no difference. "I really don't see how Microsoft could use this
mechanism to prevent Blue Pill from loading," she said.


Apple would not take a position: Spokeswoman Lynn Fox said Mac users
who want to run Windows in virtualized programs should ask the
virtualization vendors about security.


Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, said
virtualization may indeed introduce new complexities and security
challenges. "But they're not greater than the technical issues
surrounding some of the other features (Microsoft) decided to
include," he said. "I don't buy that virtualization is dangerous."


Cherry believes what's really going on is that Microsoft wanted to
create more differences between the multiple editions of Vista,
presumably giving people more reason to buy the most expensive
versions.


But Microsoft's Woodgate insisted that this was not a marketing
decision.


"We are absolutely working with our partners to resolve this
security issue," he said.
 
Back
Top