Windows 8 security: Stronger but gentler

[Renew Deal]

The Metro GUI is the most visible representation of Microsoft's coming operating system. While the release of the tentatively named Windows 8 is still a year away, the company has not been shy about putting the multicolor tiled interface front and center.

Windows 8's security improvements will be much less visible, and that's just the way Microsoft wants it. The company has added a number of protection features to Windows 8 to better protect the system, all the while making the security less intrusive by limiting the number of notifications a user may receive.

For example, the company's SmartScreen technology for detecting potentially malicious sites -- introduced with Internet Explorer 8 -- will be built right into the OS to allow any file downloaded to a Windows 8 computer to be checked out by the system, yet the protection should not alert the average user more than twice a year, Microsoft says.

The higher signal-to-noise ratio will likely make users pay more attention to the truly dangerous incidents, Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft's Windows and Windows Live division, writes in a blog post on Microsoft's Developer Network.
<snip>

The article goes into more of the security changes: http://www.infoworld.com/t/windows-security/windows-8-security-stronger-gentler-174404

Sure sounds interesting for computer users.

[hobbit709]

1. RIGHT!!!

Every version claimed that. And then the patches and fixes come and they all were to fix the same holes in each version. the main problem is in making the browser part of the OS-that gives everything a hole to get in through automatically.

[Renew Deal]

4. Every version claims to be the "most secure ever."

They are making a slightly different claim. This is the most secure, but the security is not in your face as much. This became an issue with Vista and Win 7 to a lesser degree.

[RoccoR5955]

2. That's fine and well now,

but when it comes out, people who write malware shall surely find a way around their security. They said this with previous versions of Windoze, and the result was the same. As soon as the new version came out, someone found holes, and exploited them, thus forcing Microsoft to come out with patches. Patch Tuesday will be with us for quite some time.
It really can't be much different from Windows Vista, because the kernel is essentially the same. You can tell this because the version number, when you bring up a command prompt tells us that it is version 6.2. Vista was 6.0 and "Windows 7" is 6.1. They never changed the kernel, so they more than likely have the same vulnerabilities in it all along.


I have been a computer tech for more than 20 years, and when Windows version 6.1 came out, I went and got a MacBook. I can kick myself in the head, due to the fact that I didn't get one sooner. I still support Windoze at work, but no more at home.

Also, there's another version of Windows that is coming out soon, that they are not telling everyone about. It's called Windows CEMENT. The combination of Windows CE, Windows ME, and Windows NT. This way you get the worst of all worlds, with the exception of Windows Bob. Windows Bob... That's another story!

[ikri]

11. The version numbers

Are a misnomer. Vista is 6.0 and 7 is 6.1 but the reasoning has little to do with the kernel and more to do with lazy programmers who hard-coded OS version checking into their applications and which would have refused to run if the kernel had said Version 7.

I'm not sure which, or how many, applications would be affected by the version number change but either the number is pretty high or the applications are so well used that it would have had a major impact on people running newer versions of Windows.

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Rec'd. I can't overstate how critical to EVERYTHING this is right now.

We are THERE. Up until this point, computers were a tool, an option, an extension to existing capabilities. But now we have arrived, and they are a critical part of the infrastructure which society depends upon to operate. That means hackers, once a playful nuisance, are now a direct threat to human rights and human survival. Its up to the big players, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, with the cooperation of state and federal government, to lay down a framework to protect human rights, in the context of a world that increasingly depends on computers to survive. It's not a game anymore.

[Romulox]

5. Windows 8 is a human rights issue?

Um, LOL? :eyes:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[napoleon_in_rags]

12. Yes, Windows security is a human rights issue.

So long banks use it to control accounts, control over it means you can make money disappear from people's accounts.
So long as medical offices use it, control over it means you can alter medical results and damage people's care.
So long as nuclear stations use it as a control system, it means Fukushima type results could result from its corruption.
So long as businesses use it as a platform, that means all kinds of products and services could be disrupted by disrupting windows, or core systems like it.

As the economy sinks and efficient IT solutions become more critical in filling the gap, then it becomes increasingly clear that this software is no longer a value adding tool for companies, rather its critical infrastructure, companies cannot profitably operate without it. That means its time to start taking software security very, very seriously.

[RoccoR5955]

18. I think it's currently the other way around.

Hackers have to make sure that governments, in collusion with corporations assure that people have human rights, as the corporations will be the first ones to exploit them.

More hacker groups have been laying down the framework to protect privacy and human rights on the Internet for quite some time. Government and business have been quite lax on this. They will only use it to exploit humans' rights, unless they are forced to protect them. Who is better equipped than hackers to help us protect rights, by exposing the methods that business and government use to exploit our rights?

[Romulox]

6. Windows 8 UI looks like crap. My desktop isn't a phone. nt

[Renew Deal]

9. It isn't a touchscreen for now.

But it may be in the future. Remember, XP is still around 10 years later.

But I agree about how it looks. I am not as excited about the look as many other people are.

[Romulox]

13. Sony has a line of Win 7 based touch-screen All in One machines. Dreadful.

Touch screen interface is not an efficient way to interact with a desktop machine. In particular, typing can never be efficient on an interface without tactile cues and feedback. That's setting aside the vertical vs. horizontal plane problem inherent in trying to type on a desktop monitor.

This is an attempt to cut development costs. It is not an answer to any problem.

[RoccoR5955]

17. I doubt it.

Try using a touchscreen monitor ALL DAY. It can become very uncomfortable quite quickly.

[msongs]

8. yes the 99% of users with no touchscreen monitor will run right out and get one lol nt

[Renew Deal]

10. They don't have touch screens as of today.

That doesn't mean that they won't have them tomorrow, or 2, 4, 8, years from now. XP has been around for 10 years with all kinds of forward looking features. Wireless support was part of Win XP even though wireless wasn't that common in 2001. So was IPv6, and we're still not there yet.

[RoccoR5955]

16. How about the companies that will run out and buy THOUSANDS...

because they are a "Windows shop," like the place that I work at.

Have you ever tried working with a touch screen display all day? I'm sure that it would be quite uncomfortable.

[Romulox]

14. Just took another look at the "metro UI". It reverts to "classic windows" when any serious work

need be done. I.e., the control panel.

[RoccoR5955]

15. According to Sophos, it can't even detect EICAR!!!

So they have the appearance of having antivirus in their next version of Windoze, but does it actually work?
NO, according to the World-Class Security solution provider Sophos, who stated on their Naked Security blog today, that it will not detect the industry standard test "virus," EICAR, when downloaded as a text file, and then saved as a .COM file. It did detect the test virus from within Internet Explorer 10.
When the author tested several types of malware, between six and 12 months old, Windoze 8 failed half of the time.

Clearly, this has a long way to go. Not to mention, I suspect that there will be many zero-day infections.

You can see the whole article here: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/09/30/windows-8-anti-virus-has-a-long-way-to-go/

[Romulox]

19. It's not as if Gates et al didn't promise "UAC" would be some miraculous security tool.

Microsoft's "security measures" built into Windows 7 are a joke. The logical inference is that the same will be true in Windows 8. :shrug:

[steve2470]

20. If you're really THAT concerned about security... Linux

Yes, Linux has had at least one documented virus but compared to all other OS'es....no comparison.