3 ms·
To us - IT guys - they look alike, and we can stay away from dangers quite easily. To an average user - and I know what I'm talking about, since I've taught IT
by lelele 16y ago
To us - IT guys - they look alike, and we can stay away from dangers quite easily. To an average user - and I know what I'm talking about, since I've taught IT security to those average users - Windows' security architecture - UAC, applications (badly) designed to run as Administrator, ecc.- is full of pitfalls. I guess not everybody at Google is an hacker.
- WalterGR 16y agoBadly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue?
- lelele 16y ago> Badly designed applications have nothing to do with Vista or greater's "security architecture", so that leaves UAC. We agree, from a technical point of view. OTOH, applications are the system, from a user's point of view, and Windows has "taught" programmers to write applications which run under high privileges. A Windows program requiring administrative privileges to run is not seen as defective: just disable UAC and it works flawlessly ;-) I guess a similar behaving OS X or Linux program would not have it that easy. > Do you feel UAC has a worse security design than the privilege escalation mechanism on OS X? I don't know about OS X. Linux user here. If we look at it as techies, UAC is sound. If we look at it as average users, it is not. It's an usability issue. > Or - since you mention teaching end users - are you talking about a user education issue? Exactly. I think that a safe usage of a Windows system requires too much education. That's it.
- lelele 16y agoHowever, my guess is that Google's move is more of a business decision.