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

"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 ?

All Windows Vista editions have the same core, so the on-line security is
almost the same. In addition a 64bit version gives more protection thanks to
Patchguard that gives better kernel memory protection of processes

The 32-bit and 64-bit versions are identical in regard to the security tools
and features they offer.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper******.com
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
> 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

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

Only you can . Both versions are the same in this regard. Security depends on the individual and his finger as to where and how he uses the mouse to click to open something's.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
> 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

Bild,

Thank you for your correct response.

Although, 64-bit, as you suggested, does indeed provide additional Security
opposed to 32-bit Vista, thanks to "Patchguard".

--
Firewall

Disclaimer:
Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista


"BillD" wrote:

>
>
> "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 ?
>
> All Windows Vista editions have the same core, so the on-line security is
> almost the same. In addition a 64bit version gives more protection thanks to
> Patchguard that gives better kernel memory protection of processes

Hello Richard G. Harper,

As a MVP your knowledge of Vista greatly needs improving,

As MVP, your Post can tarnish the integrity and reputation of Microsoft.

The below is a small excerpt extracted from Microsoft, courtesy Jim Allchin.

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.

• 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


"Richard G. Harper" wrote:

> The 32-bit and 64-bit versions are identical in regard to the security tools
> and features they offer.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper******.com
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
> > 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
>
>
>

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

Hello Peter Foldes,

Respectfully, your knowledge of Vista greatly needs improving.

A MVP Posting *wrong* information can tarnish the integrity and reputation
of Microsoft.

The below is a small excerpt extracted from Microsoft, courtesy Jim Allchin.

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 *** (emphasis
added)

*** 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


"Peter Foldes" wrote:

> Only you can . Both versions are the same in this regard. Security depends on the individual and his finger as to where and how he uses the mouse to click to open something's.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
> > 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
>

You really need to change your tune. Do you really think that all of the
people trying to show you the errors of your perception of the way security
in Vista works are wrong? You need to do some more detailed technical
research rather than relying on press releases for your information. You
quote people you have never met as if you know them personally. When you are
called on this you ignore it and start quoting someone else. Please cease
and desist from posting bad advice and false information.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E7DA9DF7-B5C1-4ED5-ACA9-8B835AB9DCD6@microsoft.com...
> Hello Peter Foldes,
>
> Respectfully, your knowledge of Vista greatly needs improving.
>
> A MVP Posting *wrong* information can tarnish the integrity and reputation
> of Microsoft.
>
> The below is a small excerpt extracted from Microsoft, courtesy Jim
> Allchin.
>
> 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 *** (emphasis
> added)
>
> *** 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
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" wrote:
>
>> Only you can . Both versions are the same in this regard. Security
>> depends on the individual and his finger as to where and how he uses the
>> mouse to click to open something's.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>
>> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
>> > 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
>>

>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

Hello Kerry Brown,

Respectfully, the gross lack of knowledge demonstrated by some MVPs
(not-paid and not-employees of Microsoft) within these Forums, regarding
Vista and BitLocker, is simply appalling and disgraceful for Microsoft's
integrity and reputation.

Something must be done for rectifying that very serious mistake, ASAP !!!
--
Firewall

Disclaimer:
Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista


"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> You really need to change your tune. Do you really think that all of the
> people trying to show you the errors of your perception of the way security
> in Vista works are wrong? You need to do some more detailed technical
> research rather than relying on press releases for your information. You
> quote people you have never met as if you know them personally. When you are
> called on this you ignore it and start quoting someone else. Please cease
> and desist from posting bad advice and false information.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>
> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E7DA9DF7-B5C1-4ED5-ACA9-8B835AB9DCD6@microsoft.com...
> > Hello Peter Foldes,
> >
> > Respectfully, your knowledge of Vista greatly needs improving.
> >
> > A MVP Posting *wrong* information can tarnish the integrity and reputation
> > of Microsoft.
> >
> > The below is a small excerpt extracted from Microsoft, courtesy Jim
> > Allchin.
> >
> > 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 *** (emphasis
> > added)
> >
> > *** 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
> >
> >
> > "Peter Foldes" wrote:
> >
> >> Only you can . Both versions are the same in this regard. Security
> >> depends on the individual and his finger as to where and how he uses the
> >> mouse to click to open something's.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> >> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
> >>
> >> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
> >> > 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
> >>
>
>

Actually, x64 operating systems can leverage the advanced security features
of the newest 64bit cpu's.

"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:%23xp26p8NHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The 32-bit and 64-bit versions are identical in regard to the security
> tools and features they offer.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper******.com
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "FireWall2" <FireWall2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4399B9F2-033C-4434-9058-3C361687666B@microsoft.com...
>> 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
>
>

Hello Robert Firth,

Since http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups is indeed a
Microsoft Based Web Site, the MVPs indeed are ** representatives ** of
Microsoft.

Yes, the MVPs are * not-paid - and - not-employees * of Microsoft.

Instead, MVPs are volunteers; many offering personal dogma, not factual
Technical Information gleaned from Microsoft.

Some MVPs are simply down right arrogant, insulting, and rude when they do
not have the knowledge for addressing specific Microsoft user issues. The
secondary results, an enormous disgrace for Microsoft's integrity and
reputation.
--
Firewall

Disclaimer:
Accept Vista as it is, or, Abandon Vista


"Robert Firth" wrote:

> >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