>However, the difficulty with Windows has been in the unwillingness of Microsoft
>to abandon the huge base of existing software by moving to a non-compatible
>architecture. Thus, programs continued to have the ability behind the scenes to
>escalate their own access level, all the way up to system access--which is the
>internal level of access even more basic than that of the primary user. That
>problem persists to the present, although it is drastically improved in Windows
>7 (and Windows Vista, although the implementation of UAC there was far too
>intrusive in many respects).
Are you saying the problem is the old programs have too much acess to system files ?
>The original poster is a bit confused about Windows architecture, too. Windows
>2000 was based on NT. XP was a further evolution of the same basic
>architecture--as was Vista and now Win 7. While much has been changed over those
>years, the requirement of being backwards compatible means that a surprising
>amount of the basic framework persists.
Is that why all those OS have problems with malware do to backwards compatible programs and the multi user system in Window vista and windows 7 is okay but no where has good has Unix ,Linux and Mac .And the multi user system in windows NT ,2000 and XP is really really really bad.
>XP was no less secure than Windows 2000
>or NT; quite the opposite, in fact. However, over all those years many exploits
>were developed.
What do you mean.
> > 4.windows NT /windows 2000/ windows XP make use of a account user of levels
of permission for user by the admid
> >
> I'm not sure what you mean. They do allow for granular permissions,
> and, on the Active Directory level at least, sometimes more easily and
> more efficiently than Linux/Unix, which will require some googling and
> studying to get the equivalent of some point and click stuff.
Is that not what Unix ,Linux and Mac do has no one runs has root user? Has it is too dangerous for a user ,program or any thing to run has a root user.
I know full admid mode is easy to use but way too dangerous.
With Unix ,Linux and Mac the user cannot modify, install, or remove
anything with out password is that not best way to stop malware?
Has it is too dangerous to run has has a root user with no password or on screan messages like the UAC asking for permission .
The concept of "root" "admin" and "users" with different levels of system access does nothing on windows do to the way the OS works.That why malware can go from one level to next level system access of with ease.
Look you don't what any thing to run ,install,remove or even acess system setting or system files with out proped like UAC or passward way too dangerous..
And for internet surfing get a limited user acoount never never never ever ever ever run has full admid ( root user ) that way in theory the malware will not have permission to run ,install,remove stuff or even acess system setting or system files. And at the most your limited user account profile is infected in worst case scenario. And you log out and log into your admid (root user acoount ) when not internet surfing.
I hear windows try to do this but no where has good has Unix ,Linux and Mac .Has the big problem is windows was not built on this concept of "root" "admin" and "users" with different levels of system access like Unix ,Linux and Mac are . Well Mac OSx not the mac before.
No comments:
Post a Comment