Originally posted by: mechBgon
My point of view is as a user who would never be careless enough to click on a random exe or zip in an email, despite the lure of Anna K. pics. I see the value of UAC for others, but I've never felt its absence in my own use of a PC.
Do you ever visit pics.bbzzdd.com? Check out this archived copy, and read the
News column:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050123023626/http://pics.bbzzdd.com/
Do you ever do Google searches? Adwords hack --> exploit-bearing websites.
Ever go to Asus.com? It was recently hacked, hosting zero-day ANI exploits. Or TheRegister.co.uk with the well-known Bofra incident. Even Microsoft's own sites can get hacked...
IEAK page hacked.. Where I used to work, our own non-profit agency's webserving host got hacked (thanks a lot, Interland) and was trying to feed our own computers malware. And of course I had set our browsers to use our site as the homepage. Because I figured it would be
safe :roll:
The main point isn't whether you've been exposed to those specific threats, but to show the bigger picture:
the bad guys are determined, and they could come at you from a vector you're not expecting. Possibly even one you trust. Not just alluring Zip files with pics of teh sexay. Vista gives people, and clueless newbies especially, a big boost in security. UAC is the most visible aspect of those changes but it goes beyond that.
So I find it a bit aggravating to have people blathering on about how Vista doesn't have anything new. Considering that botnets tripled in size in two weeks earlier this year, I also dispute that there's nothing in Vista that people really need, and that there's nothing wrong with WinXP. It's time to turn the tide on the botmasters, the Spammers, the carders and the phishers, and getting the average folks onto a more secure OS is going to help, whether that means Vista or something else. The realities of the PC market being what they are, that basically means Vista.