| Author |
Message |
Brute
#959 Est. 2004
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 1735
Location: New Hampshire
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:50 am Post subject: Vista oversecure? |
 |
|
I bet someone has already made a topic about this, but has anyone else noticed how oversecure Windows Vista can be? I'm really starting to get annoyed with some stupid things. For example, I uploaded some photos from my camera today, and for whatever reason I wasn't allowed to edit them. All I was trying to do was rotate the vertical pictures with Windows Photo Gallery, and it wouldn't let me save them afterwards. I tried changing the properties and moving them to other folders, but nothing worked. I ended up having to upload them again... So then I had them in a subfolder called "03", and I tried organizing them by creating more folders ("04", "05"). I moved them into those folders, organizing them by date. I went to rename the folders, so I could put the date in the name ("03_February16"). However, after moving photos into these folders, I was no longer allowed to change the name. I ended up having to create new folders, with the correct name in place before moving the photos in.
I've had to deal with other issues like this, too. I do like vista for the most part, but things like this really annoy me 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Rashy
Lifeless Person
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 797
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only "security" thing I have ever seen on Vista while I used it for a couple months was the UAC. I never had a problem with file permissions or anything.
From my understanding, even with UAC and I am guessing the problems you are running into there, Vista really isn't that much more secure than XP.
_________________
Rashy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4691
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Technically it isn't significantly more secure than XP.
Vista is quite paranoid, though, but that's just the UAC.
That said, I have no idea why the file permission problem occured to you. All you can do is check if you actually do have the permissions on those files.
But my experience with Vista isn't good enough to help you out, I am sticking with XP until Vista or its successor is better.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Myst
Lifeless Person
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 1008
Location: Somewhere else
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty sure all that happened is that your files/folders were set to 'read-only.' Not a problem with Vista being "oversecure" but probably a quirk in the programming somewhere, or maybe even a setting somewhere.
As far as Vista being "oversecure," I think the only problem I really have (after disabling the UAC) is problems with networking and stuff. I'm guessing that stuff isn't working perfectly for me at the moment because Vista is scared that I'm not actually meant to be on my network... or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Brute
#959 Est. 2004
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 1735
Location: New Hampshire
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Myst wrote: | | I'm pretty sure all that happened is that your files/folders were set to 'read-only.' Not a problem with Vista being "oversecure" but probably a quirk in the programming somewhere, or maybe even a setting somewhere. |
I looked at the file properties and I noticed that "read-only" was selected, so I unselected it, clicked, "apply", then "ok." I tried to change tthe file again, and it wouldn't let me. I looked back at the properties and it had selected "read-only" again. I then looked at the other files I was able to change, and they also had it selected. So, that probably wasn't the problem.
Vista does weird things 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Rashy
Lifeless Person
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 797
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have you tried installing Cygwin and trying to command line it?
Chmod the files to 777 and see if that fixes your problem.
**I have never used Windows command line or Cygwin, but from what I understand Cygwin emulates the *nix CLI, which is what I would use to try and force the issue... as a test only. Wouldn't try and rename 300 or even 20 files that way 
_________________
Rashy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4691
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rashy wrote: | Have you tried installing Cygwin and trying to command line it?
Chmod the files to 777 and see if that fixes your problem.
**I have never used Windows command line or Cygwin, but from what I understand Cygwin emulates the *nix CLI, which is what I would use to try and force the issue... as a test only. Wouldn't try and rename 300 or even 20 files that way |
I don't think that will work. The file mode system used by Vista is probably completely different from Unix and Unix-like environments.
Windows NT and derivatives (like Vista) do seem to have a chmod like tool of their own. Not familiar with it myself, though, but as usual Wikipedia is a good starting point.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8150
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Windows and oversecure in the same line is a joke.
Vista makes the user thing he is secure, not true though.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
krt
...
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 4995
Location: Down Under
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Love the oxymoron, but in all seriousness, what you are referring to is Vista trying to protect their users too much.
Having said that, your problem seems to be a mistake, the permissions for removable drives should be such that any user has control over the files.
If the UAC (the prompts for permission to do admin level tasks) is too much, you can disable it for the mean time. Something to look forward to is more control over the "protection" that UAC offers that will be available in Windows 7.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8150
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
They said they'd put that in Vista, never happened though...
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1535
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | Windows and oversecure in the same line is a joke.
Vista makes the user thing he is secure, not true though. |
Yes, I noticed this oxymoron by the original poster too. Secure in a computer system to me means, among other things, that it runs for long periods of time without crashing or corrupting its data. No Windows system, including Vista, has a reputation for longevity in this regard. I still hear people complain that they have to reformat their hard drives every couple of months because Vista keeps crashing on him and destroying the file system. Definitely not secure.
We all know about the viruses, worms and trojans that plague all Windows systems and Vista's bad design (like all Microsoft software) makes it all too easy to compromise the system. Another reason that Vista is not secure.
Finally, the fact that all Microsoft software is closed source, let alone propriety, leaves open the possibility, some say likelihood, that Microsoft has built-in back doors in all of their software that allows anyone who knows where these back doors are to gain unrestricted access to everyone's computer who run Microsoft software. Whether these exist, as is likely, has been a matter for debate for years. Whether Microsoft management is even aware of them, which also seems likely, at least for some of them, makes them culpable and liable for any and all attacks utilizing these back doors.
A further point with regards to the closed sources for Microsoft software is also the likelihood of back doors into their systems of which management may be unaware. There have been a number of well publicized examples over the years of software being shipped out of Microsoft itself that contain viruses. The most famous incident happened with early versions of Windows 98 that were compromised in this way. It created quite a scandal and I don't know what explanation Microsoft chose to give for the mistake. Knowing Microsoft as I do, whatever explanation they gave, it was probably a lie. In any case, since it has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that compromised software has been able to be shipped from Microsoft itself in their official releases, only to have them recalled after such compromises were belatedly discovered, it is highly probably that there are a number of, maybe many, such compromised releases that Microsoft is unaware of or chose to keep secret.
If Windows and other Microsoft software were open source such problems would be very much less likely to happen as there would be tens of thousands of computer amateurs and experts pouring over the code every day looking for just such weaknesses. Linux has benefited from such scrutiny for over fifteen years now and it has the reputation of being among the most secure Operating Systems in use today.
As we see, no Microsoft software is secure. I have given some very brief examples as to why that is so. If you're interested in secure software, dump Microsoft. I, as a Linux advocate, would recommend Linux but there are other open source Operating Systems out there that are equally if not more secure than even Linux. FreeBSD comes to mind (the OS that Lifelesspeople uses to run this service).
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.
Big business is a disease we will need to cure before we will ever achieve real prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Desbrina
Bored
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: Around Somewhere
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| linuxdoctor wrote: |
Yes, I noticed this oxymoron by the original poster too. Secure in a computer system to me means, among other things, that it runs for long periods of time without crashing or corrupting its data. No Windows system, including Vista, has a reputation for longevity in this regard. I still hear people complain that they have to reformat their hard drives every couple of months because Vista keeps crashing on him and destroying the file system. Definitely not secure. |
I've been using Vista for about a year now, and not once have i had to format my PC because of a Vista crash
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | We all know about the viruses, worms and trojans that plague all Windows systems and Vista's bad design (like all Microsoft software) makes it all too easy to compromise the system. Another reason that Vista is not secure. |
Same as above, not once have i had any trouble with viruses, worms or Trojans in the time ive been using vista. In fact, i've had more trouble with XP than i have with vista
| linuxdoctor wrote: | | If Windows and other Microsoft software were open source such problems would be very much less likely to happen as there would be tens of thousands of computer amateurs and experts pouring over the code every day looking for just such weaknesses. Linux has benefited from such scrutiny for over fifteen years now and it has the reputation of being among the most secure Operating Systems in use today. |
That may be so, but it could be down to more people use windows therefore windows is targeted more. Some people can't get on with linux, i'm one of those. We have to use it in Uni and some of us don't like it. Compared to Linux, windows is simpler
_________________
Midnight Tempest - A Sailor Moon TCG
Calona - an adoptables site
Top Tycoons - Coming soon
My Stories |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
linuxdoctor
Infallible Persona
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 1535
Location: Ottawa, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Desbrina wrote: |
I've been using Vista for about a year now, and not once have i had to format my PC because of a Vista crash |
You are very fortunate. Several IT guys I know who work for a couple of large companies (well one has been laid off thanks to the recession) report they are constantly having to reformat and reinstall Vista onto the machines they are required to maintain.
| Desbrina wrote: |
Same as above, not once have i had any trouble with viruses, worms or Trojans in the time ive been using vista. In fact, i've had more trouble with XP than i have with vista |
Again you are very fortunate; others, dare I say very many, are not so fortunate as you have been. Perhaps your good fortunate has more to do with care than fortune.
| Desbrina wrote: | | That may be so, but it could be down to more people use windows therefore windows is targeted more. |
That's an old argument and it doesn't hold much water. There are any number of reasons why that argument is not a valid argument and two important reasons are (1) who is behind the attacks themselves and (2) the difference in the development models between Windows and Linux and, in general, all Open Source Software.
First, those who perpetrate these viruses etc. on Windows are mostly "script kiddies;" not very bright anti-social misfits who exploit weaknesses in the software that have already been uncovered by researchers and others and turn them into weapons against the unsuspecting public. These people have neither the knowledge, ingenuity or patience to come up with these things themselves so they steal others' work, hence their name, script kiddies. To add insult to injuries these idiots call themselves 'hackers' and are mostly responsibly for giving real hackers a bad name.
The second reason lies in the difference between the closed and open source model of development. In OSS bugs and vulnerabilities are generally quickly uncovered and fixed in short order, often in the order of hours. Vulnerable software does not often stay unfixed for very long. Proprietary software users, on the other hand, have to wait for the software 'owners' to release their fixes and, as a result, software ends up unfixed for long periods of time, if ever, thus contributing to the proliferation of the viruses and other malicious software themselves.
| Desbrina wrote: | | Some people can't get on with linux, i'm one of those. We have to use it in Uni and some of us don't like it. Compared to Linux, windows is simpler |
That is a familiar refrain also. The truth is that it's easier for you because you're just used to the way things are done under Windows and you are too lazy to learn something better. Get over it.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.
If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.
Big business is a disease we will need to cure before we will ever achieve real prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 8150
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well to add to linuxdoctor his comment. Often a patch is included in the bug report of opensource software... Cause a in a lot of cases a whole community has been looking for the bugs and fixed them.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 750
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Windows may not be very secure but propriety software doesn't want hobbyists writing patches that they will be supporting for their software. Windows is just exploited because of it's market share. This doesn't mean linux/unix systems are going to have more bugs. It means they won't be exploited as much.
I haven't run vista ever but really I can run an OEM install of windows XP for 2 years without having a single problem. Sure, it will be slightly slower but 90% of virus's are going to on your system because your an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledgebase 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
