Don't read my comment as a simple "Microsoft Bash" (AFAIK This isn't even a Microsoft product - though zdnet seemed to feel it would help the products credibility to state it is from a company staffed by a handful of ex-"softies")
It is just when such a "noted and respected industry authority" on internet security as zdnet</sarcasm> makes a comment saying users should already be using some early beta security software written by some guys who used to work at Microsoft - I think "don't believe the hype".
...my money is on Microsoft! The rest will just stab you in the back and just steal your money.
Some would say, "Nobody does it better". I'd say BillW50, your money is probably safe with that bet. ;)
Say, BuBBy, are you running Linux by any chance?
At this moment, No. But should I require it for some project work (Because a Win version -of a tool or server- is not available, or for accurate compatibility) then I don't mind setting it up to complete a task. But predominantly I run XP purely because of all the other software (and games) that I like to run. I'm not religious about OS's - they serve a purpose. That's all.
I'm a little skeptical about this program. I can't put my finger on why though... either way, I might try it if it becomes available to other programs - integration into a browser is okay, but this sort of product ought to be a proxy as well as a local service.
The proxy idea makes more sense to me than a plugin for a single browser (or two browsers once they get around to a firefox version). There also seems to be a lot of confusion in how this product is supposed to be better than the existing (and long standing) alternatives.
Finally I found these comments (from the developers?) to be interesting in what they are trying to achieve.
http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/07/11/hautesecure-good-idea-bad-implementation/
