Skip to comments.Symantec: Vista probably 'less stable' than XP
Posted on 07/19/2006 5:33:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The networking technology underpinning Windows Vista may be less stable on release that that behind Windows XP, according to an analysis by security firm Symantec.
Microsoft has re-written its networking stack for Windows Vista in order to allow for "easier maintenance, improved performance, and improved stability". But an analysis by security researchers at Symantec found a variety of security flaws with early builds of the OS.
In a white paper based on this research, Windows Vista Network Attack Surface Analysis: A Broad Overview (PDF), the researchers conclude that Vista may be less stable, at least for the immediate future, than Windows XP. They reached this conclusion after looking at the stability of Vista, searching for undocumented or unexpected behavior and probing for the effect of adding support for new protocols, such as native support for IPv6. Researchers also looked for the susceptibility of Windows Vista to well known attacks, fixed in previous versions of Windows.
The Symantec team are careful to note that their tests were conducted on beta code, designed for testing purposes. Bugs are constantly getting identified and fixed with each build. Symantec reckons that the complete rewrite of Windows network stack - along with the introduction of new protocols such as LLTD, IPv6, Teredo, SMB2, and encapsulation - will prove a far bigger security headache for Microsoft and its customers.
"A number of the issues we had identified in the earlier Vista builds have already been fixed in later ones. We fully expect that trend to continue up until Vistas final release. [But] network stacks can take several years of real-world scrutiny before they are battle hardened. It will be interesting to observe to what degree the Windows Vista network stack accomplishes this in such a compressed time frame," Symantec concludes in a posting about its paper on its security blog here. ®
So should I buy a computer downgraded to XP, and wait till SP1?
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
How the heck did M$ manage to do that????
Wow. Making a new networking stack that's *less* stable than the one its replacing is a whole new low. Anyone want to bet that it takes up more resources than its predecessor as well?
Symantec... We make tomorrows bloat-ware available for today's users...
My machine is dog-@ss slow ever since IS installed the latest Symantec on my system...
Granted it will take some time to work out the bugs.
Every single one of the issues Symantec identified were fixed in the last beta, before this was even publicized.
I am running a beta right now. Nothing but problems, had an earlier beta and it was much more stable. I doubt it will be ready until after February.
I would pay more attention if this wasn't released by Symantec.
I've spent more time dicking around with installs and/or upgrades of the SAV products than any other software we run.
Oh, and that's the "corporate" stuff. Good luck to those who run the Norton AV products, especially if you want to get rid of them.
This is that you call FUD.
Get a Mac.
Beyond the graphical eye candy it doesn't really appeal to me very much, but it is still only a BETA so the initial release may prove me wrong, but I doubt it knowing Microsoft.
Do you know of any geophysical interpretation packages written for Mac?
That's a pretty broad category. We have Google Earth for Mac, and I've written 3-D mapping software on Macs. Is there a specific software package you can refer me to for further research?
The new Intel-based Macs can run Windows XP and Linux too, in dual-boot or virtualized environments, so your geophysical interpretation software should work too.
For that sort of software, a Mac Pro would be the best model. It's expected to be announced on August 7th. We don't know which Intel processors it will use yet, but it could be Core 2 Duos, Core 2 Extremes, Woodcrests or Conroes.
I'm not expecting to run Vista, ever.
Pretty much have decided to either change my OS to another brand or go Mac when I upgrade.
1. This is basically version 1, and Microsoft never gets somthing that big right until SP2 (although it might be SP1 for Vista). 2. This is Symantec trying to drum up business for themselves, just like all the virus companies trumping up theoretical exploits for the Mac as if they were a current danger.