Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microsoft One Care

Last response: in Windows XP
December 1, 2005 5:52:04 PM

Anyone signed up for the beta use of Microsoft One Care yet? I haven't bothered but I think I'm going to look into it.. catch is you might not be able to use your current AV with it.

More about : microsoft care

December 1, 2005 5:55:37 PM

I did not think they even had one care, oh yeah, :oops:  one care for you to send them money... :lol: 
December 1, 2005 6:01:36 PM

You know.. every one complains about Microsoft and them making money, but I really don't see them charging anything out of the normal like other companies.

Adobe Acrobat is kind of expensive and lasts a few years.. so an OS costs $199..

Macromedia Fireworks, flash, etc.. $100 a piece or so?

Adobe Photoshop.. $$

They're a business and they're doing good at it.. now if no one knew how much money Gates had made, I wonder if people would still carry the same attitude towards Microsoft? :?:
Related resources
December 1, 2005 6:36:09 PM

Let me put it this way...

If you've ever used M$'s WinXP-SP2 firewall, you'll have noticed that when it pops up a window asking you if you want to allow or block an application (done when that app opens a socket) during that time that the pop up window is open, that app can still freely talk over the socket! 8O

If M$'s firewall is that insecure, why on earth would I trust their antivirus or any other security app? Hell, has M$ even stopped using that highly insecure C$ share yet? :roll: M$ doesn't know didly squat about security.

So thanks, but I'll continue to use ZoneAlarm, Grisoft AVG, etc. and actually have security. :mrgreen:

And the cost to me for actually being secure using freeware? Nothing. :lol: 
December 14, 2005 5:03:51 PM

I just got back from a Win2k3 server seminar and a preview for Vista.

Expect some major changes with Vista and a completely different approach with it.

Win2k3 is more like Vista.. Vista is not like XP at all, security and ability wise.

M$ is finally getting into allocating programs memory space.. basically what the as400s and iseries have been doing forever.
December 14, 2005 5:21:15 PM

Okay, so that would what, theoretically fix the buffer overflows that were supposedly already fixed by the non-execute blocks?

What about that big target, the C$ share used on every Windows box by default, that Windows needs to run properly, that you can't change the security options of, that 'hides' itself ever so poorly, and that every hacker knows about?

What about a firewall that when detecting a program using a socket communication will allow it to communicate while it pops up a window asking you if you want to block it?

What about the million and one services turned on by default, that almost no one uses a ton of, that are just waiting for a hacker to connect to?

Need I go on?

M$ knows security like McDonald's knows filet mignon.

Maybe Windows Vista really will be different, but I doubt it. They might fix a few things, but I doubt they'll really make it all that secure.
December 14, 2005 5:31:00 PM

Services by default will be disabled in Vista. You go through a wizard and tell it what you use and it will enable/disable services for you.

I believe he mentioned the C$ and IPC$ are going away.

Vista is supposed to be as stable as win2k3 server, which is damn good.

The firewall has been completely redesigned from what he was saying (he was not a microsoft guy, but MCSE 2k3 and he did bash M$ a lot). It's not a end all solution, nor perfect, but it's a step inthe right direction.

Microsoft - "More secure, less useable. More useable, less secure." What's the happy medium?

Vista is more based off win2k3 server.. he named off a bunch of things that were big concerns.

Vista is supposed to be the most secure out of box Windows home OS.. like Win2k3. Win2k3, by default, has a lot of services disabled.

If Vista comes out anything like 2k3, I'll be impressed.