>A Post from a MVP, containing *wrong* information can tarnish the integrity
>and reputation of Microsoft.
Remember, MVPs are in no way representatives of Microsoft. In general, they
people who have provided beneficial assistence in the newsgroups over a long
term period.
--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
*
http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
"FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F72A8044-E297-4B06-804E-866664D76724@microsoft.com...
> Hello LoneWolf,
>
> Free speech is just one portion within theses Forums.
> **********************************************
> A Post from a MVP, containing *wrong* information can tarnish the
> integrity
> and reputation of Microsoft.
> **********************************************
>
> The below is a small excerpt extracted from Microsoft, courtesy Jim
> Allchin.
>
> Although, the true purpose for my Post was for deterring how many people
> are
> aware of the inherent Security provided by Vista; and the factual
> differences
> between 32-bit and 64-bit Vista.
>
> Specifically learning how many, if any, MVPs are fully aware of Vista’s
> inherent Security. Seems as if my curiosity has been somewhat addressed,
> also, guessed at, for the characteristic differences between 32-bit Vista
> and
> 64-bit Vista.
>
> Much more specific Vista technology easily could have been included within
> this Post, respecting time and space, for now, this should be adequate.
> Apologize for the loaded (Post) question. My reason, too many people
> within
> this Forum display a great lack of understanding regarding Vista's
> inherent
> Ultimate Security.
>
> Te below is selected text (the gist) for how 64-bit Vista provides the
> highest level of Protections (online or off-line) compared to 32-bit
> Vista.
>
> Below, Microsoft's (Jim Allchin) Response:
> Kernel Patch Protection also makes PCs more secure by helping protect
> against potentially malicious software known as rootkits, which modify the
> kernel in an attempt to hide from detection.
>
> Kernel Patch Protection is not new. Last year it was built into the 64-bit
> versions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. With Windows Vista, Kernel
> Patch Protection will likewise be incorporated into **64-bit versions
> only.**
> (emphasis added)
>
> We have been exploring ways to implement Kernel Patch Protection on 32-bit
> Windows systems, but have not done this yet, although some customers have
> requested it, because of limitations of the 32-bit architecture and
> because
> it will cause compatibility issues for some applications and devices that
> are
> already in use. In adapting applications and devices to take advantage of
> 64-bit Windows, on the other hand, developers have an opportunity to
> resolve
> these compatibility issues.
>
> Some security vendors have asked Microsoft to provide instructions on how
> to
> disable Kernel Patch Protection in 64-bit versions of Windows, because
> their
> products include some features that modify the Windows kernel in
> undocumented
> and unsupported ways. Making exceptions and allowing some vendors special
> access to modify the Windows Vista kernel is unworkable. It opens the door
> wide for malicious software.
>
> For example, rootkits could be designed to present themselves to the
> operating system in the guise of a legitimate application that was given
> special access. Also, making exceptions will prolong the reliability
> problems
> that are caused by unsupported kernel modification, such as when multiple
> applications compete to patch the same kernel interfaces.
>
> In the case of security solutions, unsupported kernel modifications also
> limit your choices, by making it extremely difficult or impossible for
> multiple security solutions to co-exist reliably on a system. We want to
> work
> with security providers to make common extensions available, so that any
> security vendors can use them, and so that security software does not
> itself
> put your security and reliability at risk from malicious kernel
> modifications.
>
> Here is what we are doing to maintain the integrity and security of 64-bit
> Windows, while still addressing the needs of our security partners:
>
> • Contrary to some media reports, **Microsoft will not weaken the security
> of 64-bit Windows by enabling some applications to modify the kernel of
> the
> operating system.** (emphasis added)
>
> • We have applied our no-exceptions policy against kernel patching to
> Microsoft applications as well as third party applications,
>
> *** No application can bypass or weaken Kernel Patch Protection ***—this
> is
> essential to improving security and reliability for you. Note that many
> third-party security companies provide highly competitive products without
> modifying the Windows kernel in unsupported ways. (above emphasis added)
>
>
>
> --
> Firewall
>
> Disclaimer:
> Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista
>
>
> "LoneWolf" wrote:
>
>> FireWall2:
>>
>> The best place to get your answer is "Vista Help &
>> Support". You have told us that so many times, it
>> must be so !
>>
>> In the mean-time, get ride of that 'Disclaimer'. It
>> has absolutely no legal standing, and since you
>> are in the 'legal profession', you should be able to
>> come up with something better than that.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> LoneWolf
>> B.Bus; LLB; M.Bus
>>
>> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
>>
>> "FireWall2" wrote:
>>
>> > Which Version of Vista provides the highest level for online security,
>> > 32-bit
>> > or 64-bit ?
>> >
>> > Or, is each Version, 32-bit and 64-bit Vista equal with providing
>> > online
>> > security ?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Firewall
>> >
>> > Disclaimer:
>> > Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista