3
   

Microsoft just announce that a XP emulator will be in Windows 7!

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:19 am
@Robert Gentel,
Did you ask why I am grateful for the open source free programing people and not the mirosoft programmers?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:29 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Hmm what version of truecrpyt are you using as my complete harddrive including the OS is protected and this feature had been in the last two released 6.0 and 6.1.


I mean't improvements over XP, not advantages over TrueCrypt, my mistake.

Quote:
Sorry bitlock have zero on truecrpyt.


I have already said that I prefer TrueCrypt myself, but the bottom line is that they are very comparable software (both being vulnerable to the same attacks, such as cold booting attacks) and it represents an improvement in Vista.

You should be more concerned about your RAM when it comes to encryption than the choice of TrueCrypt or BitLocker:

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:36 am
Robert we have two issues here one whether vista/window 7 is better then XP in any meaningful way all three being close OSs and second whether a non open source OS is better on it face then a close source OS.

To me Vista/window 7 is in no meaningful way is a better OS then XP. A builded in two way firewall is not an improvement over a one way firewall for the reasons given.

A free and open source encrypting program without any possible backdoor is far better then a builded in program by microsoft and therefore having it does not weight in to the issue of being a better OS.

A very slight improvement in being able to run as less then root is hardly a major issue compare to the far greater overhead of Vista.

Now add to the fact that a majority of users still perfer XP to Vista and would not leave XP unless force to do so for Vista.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:42 am
@Robert Gentel,
Oh ram attack if somene can get to my computer within a minute or so of shutdown open it up and then spray the ram with freeze spray.

That the kind of attack that anyone is likely to need to worry about!

I do not know how your laptop is builded but mine take long then a minute to get to the rams in the best case situation.

No the freeze spary attack is not a real life concern.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:51 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Robert we have two issues here one whether vista/window 7 is better then XP in any meaningful way all three being close OSs and second whether a non open source OS is better on it face then a close source OS.


Yeah, but given your penchant for hyperbole in both cases you find yourself arguing against your own positions.

When you argue against Microsoft in general you portray them as inherently untrustworthy, but then when you argue XP over Vista you deride Vista's security improvements by saying you can secure, and by implication trust, XP just as much as Vista.

Now I agree with the latter part of this for the most part, I personally feel as secure on XP as Vista, but I also personally can secure XP and Vista as well as Linux for all practical matters.

Quote:
To me Vista/window 7 is in no meaningful way is a better OS then XP.


You've made that clear, but opinions are like asses. Everyone has their own. You can't deny that there are improvements in Vista whether or not you find them personally worthwhile.

Quote:
A builded in two way firewall is not an improvement over a one way firewall for the reasons given.


Yes, it is. It's not a huge improvement but it's still an improvement.

Quote:
A free and open source encrypting program without any possible backdoor is far better then a builded in program by microsoft and therefore having it does not weight in to the issue of being a better OS.


BitLocker does not have a backdoor. If you want to keep using this argument you should substantiate it.

Quote:
A very slight improvement in being able to run as less then root is hardly a major issue compare to the far greater overhead of Vista.


That feature has nothing at all to do with the greater overhead of Vista. The greater overhead comes from other features such as the improved graphics engine.

I personally find the improved graphics engine worth the marginal resource use losses. RAM etc is cheap and for any personal computer I use I want enough of it anyway.

If I'm on a netbook that I only use for the internet then I might want less resource use, if I am running a server I definitely want the resource use as low as possible. But for the average end user this is just not a concern that is not taken care of with $30 of RAM.

Quote:
Now add to the fact that a majority of users still perfer XP to Vista and would not leave XP unless force to do so for Vista.


If you are going to make up facts on the spot for your arguments you should at least make them make sense.

Here you are using an appeal to popularity against Vista in your argument that it's not a significant improvement over XP but would you accept that argument against Linux in it's tiny minority?

No, you wouldn't. Why? Because it's a fallacious appeal to popularity. So why are you then turning around and using it on your XP/Vista position? Do you get why I say you argue irrationally? This is the nonsense I disagree with from you. I share your fundamental positions on many tech things, but you can't regulate your extremes and take reasonable positions when it comes to anything about Microsoft.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:54 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Oh ram attack if somene can get to my computer within a minute or so of shutdown open it up and then spray the ram with freeze spray.

That the kind of attack that anyone is likely to need to worry about!


Hey I just showed you a video of an attack that actually works, you are paranoid about a backdoor that doesn't exist and that no evidence for exists.

Which is more silly?

Quote:
I do not know how your laptop is builded but mine take long then a minute to get to the rams in the best case situation.

No the freeze spary attack is not a real life concern.


It's more of a "real life concern" than your backdoor nonsense, which is what the point was. Users of BitLocker and TrueCrypt are about as secure as the other, and the other attack surface of the system like RAM, network logging etc is a far greater threat to the user's security than any of the differences between the two.

And yes, these threats are slight, which makes your anti-BitLocker paranoia all the more silly. Have you heard of "FUD"? This is just baseless "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" you are casting on Microsoft.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:57 am
@Robert Gentel,
Because they aren't batshit crazy like yourself. You have no evidence whatsoever for your claim but think that the strength of your paranoia is a legitimate argument
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do have a long history of companies more then willing to go along with their governments on claimed national security concerns as I had already pointed out a few examples some dating back only a year or so in the past. In fact breaking the law in order to do so.

So why do you consider thinking that Microsoft would do the same as being paranoia?

If you was the CEO of Microsoft and the government came to you claiming that they need a backdoor into bitlock for natioanl security reasons you would turn them away?

And if you did turn them away and they then went to your programmers with the same claims you think that one or more of them would not be willing to place a back door into bitlock?

Western union did not turn the government away in the 1930's and ATT did not turn the government way in the 2000's yet it is parania to assume that Microsoft would not turn the government away?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 10:18 am
@Robert Gentel,
Ok Robert here is part of a story concerning if companies will look the other way when it come to government software keyloggers.

I see no reason why it is not also highly likely that Microsoft would not be willing to go along with NSA concerning bitlock.

My bet is that is would be amazing if they would not do so.





http://news.cnet.com/Will-security-firms-detect-police-spyware/2100-7348_3-6197020.html


Others were more conciliatory. Check Point, which makes the popular ZoneAlarm utility, said it would offer federal police the "same courtesy" that it extends to legitimate third-party vendors that request to be whitelisted. A Check Point representative said, though, that the company had "never been" in that situation.

This isn't exactly a new question. After the last high-profile case in which federal agents turned to a key logger, some security companies allegedly volunteered to ignore fedware. The Associated Press reported in 2001 that "McAfee Corp. contacted the FBI... to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software." McAfee subsequently said the report was inaccurate.

CNET News.com survey
Security firms on police spyware
Will companies that make antispyware software detect key loggers implanted by federal agents? We survey 13 companies and include their answers verbatim.Later that year, the FBI confirmed that it was creating spy software called "Magic Lantern" that would allow agents to inject keystroke loggers remotely through a virus without having physical access to the computer. (In both the recent Ecstasy case and the earlier key logging case involving an alleged mobster, federal agents obtained court orders authorizing them to break into buildings to install key loggers.)

Government agencies and backdoors in technology products have a long and frequently clandestine relationship. One 1995 expose by the Baltimore Sun described how the National Security Agency persuaded a Swiss firm, Crypto, to build backdoors into its encryption devices. In his 1982 book, The Puzzle Palace, author James Bamford described how the NSA's predecessor in 1945 coerced Western Union, RCA and ITT Communications to turn over telegraph traffic to the feds.

More recently, after the BBC reported last year on supposed talks between the British government and Microsoft, the software maker pledged not to build backdoors into Windows Vista's encryption functions.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 10:39 am
@Robert Gentel,
You know Robert if anyone can get their hands on one of my computers when it is on then I am in deep **** if they know what they are doing but not otherwise.

Truecrypt on normal shutdown or hibr mode will wipe the key out of memory so even getting ahold of it within a minute or even seconds of a normal shutdown is not going to help them.

This risk is as near zero as can be.

It go without saying that I do not used sleep mode.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 03:20 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Old Europe we do not live on an island. Right now both my wife and I am moving toward Linux however that leave one hell of a lot of family members that will be running Microsoft software way into the future.

One guess who is the IT guy for my family grouping.


Hopefully, not you.
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 05:45 pm
@DrewDad,
You know - just repeating your whine over and over doesn't convert anybody. If you don't like Windows 7 don't bother with it. Use Linux all by itself and avoid the agita.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Clone of Micosoft Office - Question by Advocate
Do You Turn Off Your Computer at Night? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
The "Death" of the Computer Mouse - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Windows 10... - Discussion by Region Philbis
Surface Pro 3: What do you think? - Question by neologist
Windows 8 tips thread - Discussion by Wilso
GOOGLE CHROME - Question by Setanta
.Net and Firefox... - Discussion by gungasnake
Hacking a computer and remote access - Discussion by trying2learn
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 05:27:04