Vista less secure in europe ?

Is it in fact true we will get a different version in Europe or is it the
same version all over that is "EU compliant" ?

I'm not sure I like the idea of watering down security so that "security
vendors" can access the Vista kernel.

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6327/53/

Does this mean Vista in europe will be less secure ? If this is true I will
buy my version from the US when the time comes, if at all possible.

KL.

I doubt that Microsoft will 'water down' Vista because they are so
determined to the consumers and not the f***ing EU consuel. Microsoft will
just release the finished version and if the EU moans like they do Microsoft
will just pay the fine.


Wardy_uk1


"KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eJ9vxi77GHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
> Is it in fact true we will get a different version in Europe or is it the
> same version all over that is "EU compliant" ?
>
> I'm not sure I like the idea of watering down security so that "security
> vendors" can access the Vista kernel.
>
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6327/53/
>
> Does this mean Vista in europe will be less secure ? If this is true I
> will buy my version from the US when the time comes, if at all possible.
>
> KL.
>

I'm afraid this subject is not fully understood. However, Microsoft has
agreed several days ago to release to security companies like McAfee and
Symantec and the like the access to APIs they will need to allow their
software to protect the PC and kernel. This was done to ensure compliance
with E.U. law. It will not water down or weaken the protection that
Microsoft gives its customers.

regards
Robert
"wardy_uk1" <wardy_uk1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:667FDA8E-2D59-4407-B9B9-702470063CBF@microsoft.com...

>I doubt that Microsoft will 'water down' Vista because they are so
>determined to the consumers and not the f***ing EU consuel. Microsoft will
>just release the finished version and if the EU moans like they do
>Microsoft will just pay the fine.
>
>
> Wardy_uk1
>
>
> "KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ9vxi77GHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

Well, that depends on if you actually trust Symantec and McAfee, the point
with not allowing runtime changes to the kernel was to make it more secure.

The fact that they now will put in an API to enable this will make it less
secure, that's the only way I can see it.

They should give the customer a choice, for example a runtime flag in the
boot.ini, if I do not want these changes.

KL.

"RR Johnson Jr" <johnson_robert@planet.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:453216ce$0$2021$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl. ..

> I'm afraid this subject is not fully understood. However, Microsoft has
> agreed several days ago to release to security companies like McAfee and
> Symantec and the like the access to APIs they will need to allow their
> software to protect the PC and kernel. This was done to ensure compliance
> with E.U. law. It will not water down or weaken the protection that
> Microsoft gives its customers.
>
> regards
> Robert
> "wardy_uk1" <wardy_uk1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:667FDA8E-2D59-4407-B9B9-702470063CBF@microsoft.com...

>

What would a switch in the boot.ini do? Nothing, because the boot.ini is
not used in Vista.

"KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eQmFNKF8GHA.1492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
> Well, that depends on if you actually trust Symantec and McAfee, the point
> with not allowing runtime changes to the kernel was to make it more
> secure.
>
> The fact that they now will put in an API to enable this will make it less
> secure, that's the only way I can see it.
>
> They should give the customer a choice, for example a runtime flag in the
> boot.ini, if I do not want these changes.
>
> KL.
>
> "RR Johnson Jr" <johnson_robert@planet.nl> skrev i meddelandet
> news:453216ce$0$2021$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl. ..

>
>

No--this is not correct.

--

"KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eJ9vxi77GHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
> Is it in fact true we will get a different version in Europe or is it the
> same version all over that is "EU compliant" ?
>
> I'm not sure I like the idea of watering down security so that "security
> vendors" can access the Vista kernel.
>
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6327/53/
>
> Does this mean Vista in europe will be less secure ? If this is true I
> will buy my version from the US when the time comes, if at all possible.
>
> KL.
>

"David J. Craig" <Dave@yoshimuni.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:eHsc6AI8GHA.568@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> What would a switch in the boot.ini do? Nothing, because the boot.ini is
> not used in Vista.

I do think you got the point of what I was suggesting, of course there is
some boot configuration somewhere.

KL.

The fact of the matter is that in Europe the laws are different. Microsoft
decided it was in their best interest to allow security companies access in
this way or possible go to court again for anticompetitive behavior.

regards
Robert
"KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eJ9vxi77GHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
> Is it in fact true we will get a different version in Europe or is it the
> same version all over that is "EU compliant" ?
>
> I'm not sure I like the idea of watering down security so that "security
> vendors" can access the Vista kernel.
>
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6327/53/
>
> Does this mean Vista in europe will be less secure ? If this is true I
> will buy my version from the US when the time comes, if at all possible.
>
> KL.
>

"KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eQmFNKF8GHA.1492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
> Well, that depends on if you actually trust Symantec and McAfee

If u don't trust those companies, why would u let them secure ur system?
So u trust MS?