Microsoft Blamiing Users for Vista Infections?

[RobRich]

Microsoft TechNET blogger Michael Kleef suggests user "complacency" is a key concern when analyzing the security of Windows Vista. His comments closely follow upon the release of a PC Tools report claiming Windows Vista to be less secure than Windows 2000.

Quote:

"The number of virus infections found by a virus vendor does not necessarily equal poor security," wrote Kleef in a blog post. "In many cases it equals poor user behavior. If I, despite all prompting and consent behavior, choose to go to a (probably dodgy) website, accept the ActiveX control prompts to download (probably dodgy) code and I actually choose to execute that code then I'm hosed."

Kleef claimed the number of infections was not purely the operating system's fault, but said that "in some cases it's the user and their lack of knowledge and their implicit 'it-won't-happen-to-me' complacency" that causes them to get infected.

Source: ZDNet News

[RicheemxX]

Reading some of the info and feedback from Michael Kleef's original post is interesting, I see a lot of good points to be had. I think we can all agree that users need to show a level of accountability as obviously even the most secure OS can be compromised when users use poor judgement.

Is that the users fault or the OS's fault? That I can't say, but an average user doesn't want an OS to be locked so tight that they can't have their normal level of comfort and ease of use. So where do you draw the line?

[DeathWish187]

But they still don't accept the fact that they fucked up with Vista reguardeless of how dumb alot of users are.