Almost everyone uses Microsoft Windows as their operating system and Microsoft Office for their office applications, but what about computer security? The firewall thread got me thinking about this, how many of you trust the Microsoft firewall? If Microsoft came out with an Anti-Virus product like Norton or McAfee, would you use it instead, especially if it came pre-installed on your computer? This seems to be the direction Microsoft is heading, so my question is: do you trust Microsoft to keep you computer safe and secure?
No way in hell, DH. I use Zonealarm w/ NAV 2004 and it has helped me avoid all the stress w/ trojans and viruses. So far it's been ok.
I've decided to avoid the Microsoft juggernaught if I can help it. I still have XP and use Microsoft Word, but I've switched over the Firefox and would stick with Norton regardless of the avaliablity of Microsoft Anit-Virus software.
Microsoft used to have anti-virus software in their OS (Windows 3.1/DOS). It used to be a stripped down version of the software made by Central Point way back in the day. That was before they were considered the "Evil Empire" and became the focus of 99% of all virus-writers. Back in those days the virus def files contained info on a few dozen to few hundred virii.
To answer the question - I use whichever virus software and firewalls are considered among the best by 3rd party reviewers. For now I'll stick with Eset and Norton for antivirus and ZoneAlarm for software firewall. I wouldn't switch to anything else at the moment no matter who created it.
Since installing XP, I have received about 50 security related updates from MIcrosoft. MIcrosoft is finally taking security seriously, but they are very in the game. We will see if the old dog can learn new tricks. I doubt it.
That's the real key here. How does it make sense to trust a company to provide virus protection against attacks directed primarily against their own exploitable software? It just doesn't add up.
I dont think anyone that knows anything about computers and computer security would trust MS to provide it for them. They just flatout do not have a proven track record when it comes to secure and reliable software. I do the same as DoD...I check around at all sorts of 3rd party sites and read reviews from people who are on the front lines of security to see what has worked best for them. Then I look at the system I am securing to see if it can handle the larger packages, or if I need to find a reliable software that doesnt take quite as much resources but will still do a good job... thats one of the reasons why I avoid McAfee and Norton....both have become VERY bloated and resource hogs....My current favs are ZoneAlarm for internet security, and Trend Micro's PCcillin...or FProt for antivirus...both do just as well as Mcafee or Norton, but use much less in terms of resources... My actual setup at home is a hardware firewall at my access point...with ZoneAlarm on the individual nodes....currently running PCcillin on all my machines...with a side course of AdAware and Search and Destroy for that extra protection..... I also use group policies for domains to help restrict other unapproved software installations. Even tho MS is starting to appear like they care about security....it is only because they were made to look like fools for so long.....they should have cared about it from the beginning....and they didnt. Long Live Tux!
The problem with Microsoft is that they have a lot of enemies or people who want to hack into them. Microsolft security totally suck and I only wished I know Linux.
I only use Microsoft products I can pirate. So, if I can steal Microsoft but not Norton, then I'll use Microsoft. But, if I can steal either, I'll steal the competitor's.
I try to keep my windows config safe and secure... I don't get any spyware, viruses or anything like that the Windows OS has holes and the patches are released months later do I trust Microsoft as a company..yeah sure do I rely on Microsoft to do a good job on securing their own OS, patching efficiently etc...nope
