Ah. I see. No disrespect or anything my friend, but you are a little to "gung-ho" with this brand new OS. You say Vista puts much more effort, compared to XP into making exploitation harder, etc. etc. All that means is, hackers will try harder to compensate. Face it brudda, it is inevitable. Rules are made to be broken for a lot of out of work, lots 'o time on their hands, jelly donut eating hackers.
And no disrespect meant back, but it appears you simply are what us cyclists call a "retro-grouch" It's new, it's hyped, therefore it must be all smoke and mirrors. Even though that world-class rootkit researcher and a bunch of others say it's a major improvement.
I don't want to be pessimistic, but history tells me that I need to be. In this case, being more pessimistic than optomistic is the safer waters to swim in. At least until Vista proves itself. But the only thing I think we will all see proven here, is the talent of the hacker(s).
The problem is that you're looking backwards at several old OSes. If you read the document I linked you to, you'll see that Microsoft themselves has hackers trying to break Vista, as part of their development process.
Ahh, and one final bit here. My reference to the pirating of Vista by that Iranian company was to demonstrate that no matter how diligent, and savvy, and ingenius the copy/anti pirate protection is, or should I say was, on Vista, it only took 6 days (that we know of) to crack it. To me, this relates directly to Microsofts security claims for Vista. Won't take em long to break it. To think otherwise is just, well, wishful thinking.
Nice try, but you're way off base. Naturally they can "break" a computer where
they hold the Admin privilges, where
they have access to the hardware, where
they can run any hacking tools they want to, and where
they can disable all protective measures at will. Go Google "ten immutable laws of computer security." It's not your computer anymore if ______________________.
But they can't do that on
your computer, unless they physically break into your home. Your system plays by your rules, not theirs. It's not their captive that they can do whatever they want to it. They have very limited ways of trying to get a foothold. And as I explained about 5 times now, a foothold on Vista is worth a lot less, because
unlike the previous versions of Windows that you base your opinions on, a successful exploit still isn't usually going to get them Admin privileges,
even if you're logging on as an Admin.
Now, if you actually
are running Remote Desktop and actively letting the Iranians freely log onto your computer as Admins, allowing them to run anything they want, allowing them to visit your home and mess with your computer in person, and turn off all your security... then OK, your Vista installation is going to get pwned See the distinction I'm trying to make here?
If you want to be a pessimist, IMO you're on safer ground by assuming that people will continue to make poor or ill-informed choices. Why try
overcoming increasingly-tough security, when they can still count on eleventy billion horny kids choosing to install "Britney_nekkid_screensaver_HAWT.exe"?
edit: I had to laugh when I scrolled up and noticed
Aikouka and I both chose the same exact topic (Britney Spears) for the hypothetical Trojan Horse :beer: