Talk:Security and safety features new to Windows Vista
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale. |
 |
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Windows Vista, due to size or style considerations. |
This article should be marked as "Reads like an advertisement" - because it does. It doesn't mention its sources, it doesn't mention criticism and it reads like a Microsoft press release. I would also say that the neutrality of this article should be disputed, again because it only features positive coverage of the 'features' without mentioning or discussing criticism or negative press about anything. Perhaps someone could look into this and apply the relevant tags? - Whisperwolf 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I applied the "unsourced" template to the article at least. I also noticed something weird in that it has footnote references, but no footnotes. Was this copy & pasted from the Features new to Windows Vista article with those parts missed? How much content in addition to that article does this cover? Is this article warranted? -- 213.115.192.29 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have added a "References" section to reveal the footnote/references. The article was spawned from Windows Vista, but I am not sure whether this was warranted. Peter Campbell 02:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It actually came from Features new to Windows Vista, which is in desparate need of WP:SUMMARY-style work. -/- Warren 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe that an explanation is required as to the existence of this article. This article seems unnecessary, as all of the content is duplicated from the Features new to Windows Vista article (see above comment on references). Moreover, the WP:SUMMARY argument does not apply, as the content in question remains unaltered in the original article. Themodernizer 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"To make it easier to find these redirected files has been added a new button to Windows Explorer." Well this makes no sense. Does anyone know what it's supposed to say? 68.50.243.221 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've rephrased it to make the meaning clearer. -- Simxp 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Digital Rights Management
At the very least, there should be a mention that the nice DRM features are considered like plague by some people. If there's a controversy, it should be mentioned as such. Ratfox 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Criticism of Windows Vista covers the DRM controversies in greater detail. -/- Warren 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Okay, added a link Ratfox 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The claim that Vista helps "end-users" to protect their data is ridiculous. Either
a) the data to be protected is on a HD-DVD etc. In that case it is the playing device and NOT Vista which enables copy-protection. If not, the attacker could simply put the data in question in an XP/Linux/MacOS computer and copy it.
b) the data is on the local disk. In that case you protect the data by making them only available with encryption/Admin privileges. Again it is NOT Vista which is responsible for security. --136.172.253.189 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
DRM is not security feature - it does not protect computer or user against anything. (It protects multimedia data from user.) Is there an article about Vista DRM where can be the section merged to? --Alvin-cs ✉ 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SecurityFocus list of vulnerabilities
Regarding reverts from user Warrens: SecurityFocus, involving Symantec , Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures and Bugtraq, is a reference. Touisiau 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Secunia and SF are updated each day, and do not always include the same vulnerabilities, as is the case today, and you acknoledged it. It is very important for users to know all current vulnerabilities affecting their system.
A user opinion about SF is not a reference enough to hide some vulnerabilities from wikipedia readers, which could have some deep consequences.Touisiau
[edit] Discussion of focus requirement is misleading
Any application requesting elevation has to have focus before the switch to Secure Desktop occurs. Else its taskbar icon blinks, and when focussed, the elevation UI is presented.
This reads as though it is supposed to provide a security benefit. In fact, it is easy for an application to silently give any of its windows the focus. This leads to the following attack: suppose that a malicious application, by monitoring the screen content and mouse position, sees that it is likely that the user is about to click on something that will cause an elevation prompt. It brings an invisible window to the top, gives that window the focus, and intercepts the click. Then, it performs its own operation that requires elevation. Since the user will be expecting to confirm a prompt at that point, it is not likely that they will notice any difference in the elevation GUI before they have confirmed it. DavidHopwood 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- In mitigation, the different types of UAC dialogue are differently designed probably to combit this very problem: if a user tries to click a link in Windows marked with a shield (i.e. an operation that triggers UAC), which your program notices and intercepts; the UAC dialogue they will see will be this one, wheras the one they will be expecting was this one. The differences are great enough that most people will realise something's up (even if they don't notice the different wording, the large orange banner and red shield should ring alarm bells). The 'allow' buttons on the dialogues are even in different places and labelled differently, to prevent people used to clicking straight though the latter kind of dialogue without reading it from doing the same if the former kind pops up unexpectedly. -- Simxp 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
