Talk:Security and safety features new to Windows Vista

message: This article should be marked as "Reads like an advertisement" - because it does.  It doesn't mention its sources, it doesn't mention criticism and it reads like a Microsoft press release.  I would also say that the neutrality of this article should be disputed, again because it only features positive coverage of the 'features' without mentioning or discussing criticism or negative press about anything.  Perhaps someone could look into this and apply the relevant tags? - Whisperwolf 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applied the "unsourced" template to the article at least. I also noticed something weird in that it has footnote references, but no footnotes. Was this copy & pasted from the Features new to Windows Vista article with those parts missed? How much content in addition to that article does this cover? Is this article warranted? -- 213.115.192.29 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a "References" section to reveal the footnote/references. The article was spawned from Windows Vista, but I am not sure whether this was warranted.  Peter Campbell 02:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually came from Features new to Windows Vista, which is in desparate need of WP:SUMMARY-style work.  -/- Warren 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that an explanation is required as to the existence of this article. This article seems unnecessary, as all of the content is duplicated from the Features new to Windows Vista article (see above comment on references). Moreover, the WP:SUMMARY argument does not apply, as the content in question remains unaltered in the original article. Themodernizer 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've rephrased it to make the meaning clearer.  -- Simxp 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: At the very least, there should be a mention that the nice DRM features are considered like plague by some people. If there's a controversy, it should be mentioned as such. Ratfox 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of Windows Vista covers the DRM controversies in greater detail.  -/- Warren 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, added a link Ratfox 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Rights Management 

message: Regarding reverts from user Warrens:
SecurityFocus, involving Symantec , Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures and Bugtraq, is a reference. Touisiau 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SecurityFocus list of vulnerabilities 

message: Any application requesting elevation has to have focus before the switch to Secure Desktop occurs. Else its taskbar icon blinks, and when focussed, the elevation UI is presented.
This reads as though it is supposed to provide a security benefit. In fact, it is easy for an application to silently give any of its windows the focus. This leads to the following attack: suppose that a malicious application, by monitoring the screen content and mouse position, sees that it is likely that the user is about to click on something that will cause an elevation prompt. It brings an invisible window to the top, gives that window the focus, and intercepts the click. Then, it performs its own operation that requires elevation. Since the user will be expecting to confirm a prompt at that point, it is not likely that they will notice any difference in the elevation GUI before they have confirmed it. DavidHopwood 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In mitigation, the different types of UAC dialogue are differently designed probably to combit this very problem: if a user tries to click a link in Windows marked with a shield (i.e. an operation that triggers UAC), which your program notices and intercepts; the UAC dialogue they will see will be this one, wheras the one they will be expecting was this one.  The differences are great enough that most people will realise something's up (even if they don't notice the different wording, the large orange banner and red shield should ring alarm bells).  The 'allow' buttons on the dialogues are even in different places and labelled differently, to prevent people used to clicking straight though the latter kind of dialogue without reading it from doing the same if the former kind pops up unexpectedly.  -- Simxp 19:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of focus requirement is misleading 

message: I moved the page, to correct grammar.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved 

message: The image :Image:Windows Defender Vista.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Windows Defender Vista.png

message: This article needs much more negative statements. Right now it's only positive. It actually needs a more negative POV, NOT a neutral one, because many people do not have a positive or neutral opinion of Vista and Wikipedia should reflect that.71.7.85.97 (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonneutral POV