I’ve just come across a Vista article on the BBC web site and I was intrigued to read the opinion of Bill Thompson who is a regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet.
The story headline goes like this:
User pain may mean Windows cracks`
Microsoft's attempts to keep the next version of Windows secure could help promote the free software ethic
I’m not a Vista expert, but I certainly don’t share his opinion on this topic. It seems to me that Microsoft just cannot win when it comes to security. If there are holes in which hackers can access the OS Kernal then it is deemed unsecure. If Microsoft closes everything down thus to prevent such access, it is mocked for not allowing other companies to write software to protect it.
Quote from article
“The new approach should make life more difficult for malware writers, but it is also going to get in the way of legitimate security software vendors such as Symantec, which has already pointed out that its anti-virus programs rely on being able to modify the Windows kernel, something which will no longer be allowed.”
It seems everyone is going to have their own opinion on this and I must say, this seems like a very one sided argument published by the BBC.
To read the article click here