0-day Microsoft DirectX vulnerability discovered for XP

Microsoft warned yesterday that hackers are using QuickTime media files to exploit an unpatched 0-day vulnerability in DirectShow.

In a posting on Microsoft's security response center blog company officials confirmed the new vulnerability affects Microsoft DirectShow in Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, under limited attack.

After initial investigation Microsoft have confirmed that the vulnerable code was removed as part of their work building Windows Vista. This means that Windows Vista and versions of Windows since Windows Vista (Windows Server 2008, Windows 7) are not vulnerable.

An attacker would try and exploit the vulnerability by crafting a specially formed video file and then posting it on a website or sending it as an attachment in e-mail. While this isn't a browser vulnerability, because the vulnerability is in DirectShow, a browser-based vector is potentially accessible through any browser using media plug-ins that use DirectShow.

Microsoft have provided workarounds for the exploit available under the 971778 security advisory.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft confirms Silverlight 3 to launch on July 10

Next Story

Wikipedia bans Scientology

93 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Don't like anything Apple, just don't; have removed QuickTime from both XP machines but keep it on the Vista Notebook for kids Ipods.
I like Vista just as much as XP and when the time comes will love 7 too. I live in the poorest borough in London U.K. where many of my clients use redundant PCs they found discarded on skips, so until 1gHz hardware hits the dumps, XP and, recently Vista, will be relevant here.

Windows ME = Windows Vista

if you like ME....

well, have tastes for everything in this world.
sorry to say that the majority dont like Vista
and micro$oft is interested in selling to the majority

98SExpert said,
Windows ME = Windows Vista

if you like ME....

well, have tastes for everything in this world.
sorry to say that the majority dont like Vista
and micro$oft is interested in selling to the majority

New dumbest post of the day. The majority don't like Vista? Only the idiots. Most of Neowin tends to disagree with you. Also, the $ replacing an S just makes you look ridiculous. Try again.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=776114&hl=

Win 7 RC1 is now available to the public, I've been running 7 since the leaked betas, through the genuine betas, and currently RC1. All in 32-bit flavors (64, while slicker than snot, has compatibility issues with some of my decade-old software).
I'm far from being a M$ fan, and wiped early Vista versions off my boxen, for obvious reasons, but now ... there really are *very* few reasons not to upgrade from XP pro to 7 (unless you're a mega-corporation with sub-par support staff. With the HW costs so low, and driver issues solved by most non-defunct companies (and the possibility to run apps in a "downgraded" environment, all the way down to WFWG), the compatibility is close to a non-issue.
Am I going off on a tangent? Not really. This article discusses the vulnerabilities in an OS which is basically history - MS vowed not to support it for quite a while now. The fact that they still issue security warnings is, basically, a kindness extended to the Luddites still running XP, a favor, a proverbial and redundunt "free gift". Faulting MS on this account is simply ludicrous.
In short, 7 is available, stable, intuitive (sort-a, at least to those who like GUIs over terminal / command line), and ... now get this! is perky on all ancient [read 4yrs +] HW I've subjected it to.
Why not forget about all the tricked-out-stream-lined-stripped-down-tweaked XP variants, forget how cozy you've gotten with XP and all the nifty tricks you've learned to make the old behemoth behave, switch to 7 and let XP RIP in the vaults of yesteryear software, and swap stories with Dr. Dos?
7 is, as far as non-industry hacks like me are concerned, the current OS, though it may not be on the shelves yet, so why not concentrate on the future rather than finding flaws in the land of zombie-ware?

I use XP for one reason.

it does not freeze/crash on my system.

Now XP does freeze and will crash, but with reason.. not just idling and oops, its restart time!

I relentlessly attempted to use vista, I installed every version under the sun.. 32 bit and 64 bit. it would randomly lockup for minutes at a time. Even on a fresh install, slipstreamed to date on drivers. booted without being connected to the internet, and with no AV installed. Just listening to music. bam. gone. rebooting...

Windows 7, also does not crash on my system and its only an RC. All my regularly used programs appear to work with it also, so I am impressed. I still think if I am going to buy a copy of the OS it will be with a system setup, get hardware I can trust as Vista works A1 on my media center retail-box computer - but I only do media on that... I think it crashed once in 3 years, never frozen yet.. Maybe Vista SP2 fixes whatever issue it has with my main system hardware, but WinXP/7 combo are working for me now and can't see why I need vista...

lol... this turned into a 'Vista vs XP' thread.

the way i look at it is XP is good enough to the point where it's not worth shelling out the cash for Vista. but me personally after using Vista i would rather not go back to XP (Vista aint bad as long as your PC is semi-modern and powerful enough to run it) because i like the 'feel' of Vista over XP.

but i can understand why people bash Vista etc etc.. but it seems like once Windows 7 comes out that all the bashing should come to a end for the most part since it appear Windows 7 is a more polished version of Vista basically.

if your software does not work on the newer oses you know you can dual boot say a vista/xp and boot into xp for those that don't work or better yet find an updated copy that does work or have you tried compatability mode? when you move up to a newer os then some software may not work as that is the way it is. anyways quicktime is garbage so use quicktime alternative as it is much lighter.

My favorite thing about XP is the install. I love the hour install that starts in sketchy DOS. Then I love the multiple prompts the keep bugging me during. Then I love how I need to manually install about 20 "Unknown Devices" including both network adapters (which means I get to go to another computer to download the driver). Good Times.

Seriously, if your computer was made in the last year or two, and its not a netbook, and you are running XP, just stop. Install the Windows 7 RC at least if you are so oblivious that your OS sucks and you think Vista is worse. Not even the military or government is going to be using XP anymore. Just let it die.

Chrono951 said,
My favorite thing about XP is the install. I love the hour install that starts in sketchy DOS. Then I love the multiple prompts the keep bugging me during. Then I love how I need to manually install about 20 "Unknown Devices" including both network adapters (which means I get to go to another computer to download the driver). Good Times.

Seriously, if your computer was made in the last year or two, and its not a netbook, and you are running XP, just stop. Install the Windows 7 RC at least if you are so oblivious that your OS sucks and you think Vista is worse. Not even the military or government is going to be using XP anymore. Just let it die.

This about sums it up.

Chrono951 said,
My favorite thing about XP is the install. I love the hour install that starts in sketchy DOS. Then I love the multiple prompts the keep bugging me during. Then I love how I need to manually install about 20 "Unknown Devices" including both network adapters (which means I get to go to another computer to download the driver). Good Times.

We can't help it if you don't know how to make an unattended CD that installs in 15 minutes.
BTW, I run Windows 7 on another partition. It gets very little use but it's there.

Lepton said,
We can't help it if you don't know how to make an unattended CD that installs in 15 minutes.
BTW, I run Windows 7 on another partition. It gets very little use but it's there.


Try telling that to the 90% of people who install an OS from either a pressed retail disc or a untouched burned ISO.

Lepton said,
We can't help it if you don't know how to make an unattended CD that installs in 15 minutes.
BTW, I run Windows 7 on another partition. It gets very little use but it's there.


is this a joke or you actually believe it's easy to make unattended CD?

this site seriously needs an IQ test on the signup page

themailnurse said,
is this a joke or you actually believe it's easy to make unattended CD?

I believe any regular reader of this site is quite capable of making an unattended CD. Heck, anybody who can use Google can find the tools needed.

http://www.nliteos.com/

XP proves for the millionth time what a piece of **** it is security wise. The XP fanboys coming to the rescue is hilarious.

FrozenEclipse said,
XP proves for the millionth time what a piece of **** it is security wise. The XP fanboys coming to the rescue is hilarious.

I agree. The newer MS OSs are more secure. That's why people like my mom need to use them. She also likes all the "pretty" animations and colors.

FrozenEclipse said,
XP proves for the millionth time what a piece of **** it is security wise. The XP fanboys coming to the rescue is hilarious.

There is a way to secure any computer, just follow these steps,
- Turn off and then unplug the PC
- Put your PC in a safe.
- Lock the safe.

Problem Solved; your computer is secure.

Udedenkz said,
There is a way to secure any computer, just follow these steps,
- Turn off and then unplug the PC
- Put your PC in a safe.
- Lock the safe.

Problem Solved; your computer is secure.

I'm sorry you had to dig that joke out of 1996. I'm well aware of how to secure XP. It's just more of a hassle than it needs to be, due to its inherent flaws.

iamwhoiam said,
How much of a hassle is it to install an antivirus app?

None if you don't mind your computer running at like 75% it's former speed!

hotdog963al said,
None if you don't mind your computer running at like 75% it's former speed!

About performance

XP + Antivirus (a good one) > Vista.

XP + Antivirus + Firewall (a real one) > Vista.

C_Guy said,
QuickTime? on Windows?

Makes you wonder how this was even discovered.

I'm confused. I'm assuming you are aware that QuickTime has been available for Windows for many years dating back to at least 1992, right? If you know this, I'm not sure why you're asking "QuickTime? on Windows?".

He was probably trying to say very few Windows users have QuickTime, but that would be very wrong. Don't forget that everyone who uses iTunes has QuickTime, and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few iPod owners out there.

TRC said,
He was probably trying to say very few Windows users have QuickTime, but that would be very wrong. Don't forget that everyone who uses iTunes has QuickTime, and I'm pretty sure there are quite a few iPod owners out there.

Every windows machine I have ever seen in recent years has Quicktime.

I love Windows 7, in my case I just got back temporarily to xp because of some games, like Fallout 3, that dont work quite right in 7 yet

It took me 7 minutes to download this page on my 14Kbps modem on windows 3.11 and all I got was poor comments XD

rakeshishere said,
+1000000000


sorry, but I consider myself to a well technically educated individual and a good while back I switched back to XP. And I instantly regretted it...

There are numerous reasons I didnt like it. Eventually I ended up on W7 and it is far far superior to XP in every manner.. can someone please tell me exactly WHY XP is better than W7? or even Vista?

Dave_ek said,
sorry, but I consider myself to a well technically educated individual and a good while back I switched back to XP. And I instantly regretted it...

There are numerous reasons I didnt like it. Eventually I ended up on W7 and it is far far superior to XP in every manner.. can someone please tell me exactly WHY XP is better than W7? or even Vista?

Exactly, there is NO reason tha anyone should be using XP today unless they have a specific application that calls for it, or a machine that won't run Vista or 7.

Dave_ek said,
sorry, but I consider myself to a well technically educated individual and a good while back I switched back to XP. And I instantly regretted it...

There are numerous reasons I didnt like it. Eventually I ended up on W7 and it is far far superior to XP in every manner.. can someone please tell me exactly WHY XP is better than W7? or even Vista?

Some of my favorite games,apps just dont work on vista. and I dont have enough money to buy latest version of the app just to use it on vista even though my hardware can run the OS easily.

and i'm wise enough to know that following few security guidelines by not visiting lame websites or not downloading trojans from pron sites which might cause problems

rakeshishere said,
Some of my favorite games,apps just dont work on vista. and I dont have enough money to buy latest version of the app just to use it on vista even though my hardware can run the OS easily.

Such as?

Dave_ek said,
can someone please tell me exactly WHY XP is better than W7? or even Vista?

"better" is a matter of opinion. "Why do some people prefer XP over W7/Vista?" is the correct question.

I have many reasons but the #1 reason would be performance. Why do people overclock, upgrade to a faster CPUs, memory, GPUs? Because speed is important to most people. XP is just plain faster in all my tests and most tests I've seen published on the web.

Lepton said,
Because speed is important to most people. XP is just plain faster in all my tests and most tests I've seen published on the web.

This wreaks of garbage. If you actually bothered to read any of the tests published on the web as you say, you would know that XP SP3 and Vista SP1 are practically identical in terms of performance and speed. Taking it one step further, you would have seen that Windows 7 actually outperforms both of the above in nearly every test.

I think it's time you started reading more up to date material. Benchmarks from the early days of Vista are no longer valid.

As for those that require XP to run specific applications, maybe it's time to dump said application. If the developer of that application is incapable of moving forward, as in update their software to accommodate new operating systems, it's clearly not worth the time. There has been ample opportunity for software developers to get their software working under Vista. Let's also remember that Windows 7 boasts compatibility with any software that runs under Vista right out of the gate. It's time to move on, if the developer of your software is unwilling to do so, it's time to stop supporting them.

nekkidtruth said,
This wreaks of garbage. If you actually bothered to read any of the tests published on the web as you say, you would know that XP SP3 and Vista SP1 are practically identical in terms of performance and speed. Taking it one step further, you would have seen that Windows 7 actually outperforms both of the above in nearly every test.

I think it's time you started reading more up to date material. Benchmarks from the early days of Vista are no longer valid.


http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/gener...re-273?page=0,1

But don't take their word for it. Do some benchmark tests yourself. In one of my tests, I timed installing Microsoft Office Enterprise Edition.
Time to install...
XP - 5:06
W7 - 11:06
Smackdown baby!

Lepton said,
Sadly, only the intelligent ones.

Yes, because only the intelligent ones would use an OS that's less secure.

/sarcasm

nekkidtruth said,
You're using an article from January. And you expect me to take you seriously? We're in May, almost June. Time to brush up, (snipped).


No, I don't expect anything from you (snipped). Except maybe to keep living in fantasy land.

Kirkburn said,
Such as?

Games like Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault, Fahrenheit,Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood and many other apps like Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo IX & even X ,Corel draw 8 and so many that i cant list them

Ran them on vista and also vista sp1 with drivers fully updated and with all latest windows updates and still i am unable to run them. why bother wasting time with workarounds when XP can run them fine.

Lepton said,
No, I don't expect anything from you (snipped). Except maybe to keep living in fantasy land.


Yes, because personal attacks are going to get anyone to take you seriously!

It's not my fault you're clinging to a dying operating system. When your OS becomes obsolete and you're whining because software is no longer written to pacify those using a 20 year old OS, we'll see who the (snipped) is then. *shrug*

Grow up.

Lepton said,
No, I don't expect anything from you (snipped). Except maybe to keep living in fantasy land.


STFU XP Fanboy, those of us who are intelligent enough use Vista, instead of using a 7 year old OS that has to use workarounds, because it doesn't get critical security updates!!!!

nekkidtruth said,
This wreaks of garbage. If you actually bothered to read any of the tests published on the web as you say, you would know that XP SP3 and Vista SP1 are practically identical in terms of performance and speed. Taking it one step further, you would have seen that Windows 7 actually outperforms both of the above in nearly every test.

I think it's time you started reading more up to date material. Benchmarks from the early days of Vista are no longer valid.

......


Reading other people's experiences with these Operating Systems is one way of discerning it's comparative performance, but it never compares to using the OS's yourself.

From my own experience I have found XP to have faster performance on my PC than both Vista and 7. Show me all the online benchmark results you like, but it won't change the simple fact that, in many cases (mine included) XP does work better in terms of performance.

neo158 said,
STFU XP Fanboy, those of us who are intelligent enough use Vista, instead of using a 7 year old OS that has to use workarounds, because it doesn't get critical security updates!!!!

I'm not an XP fanboy. I don't really like XP though I have to use it due to some program incompatibilities. I prefer Windows 2000 myself.

And where do you get the idea that XP doesn't get critical security updates?

Why upgrade to Vista or Win 7? There is literally nothing I can find benefiting from it. I can find me loosing all the joy I have customizing my desktop and enjoying a minimal work environment. Btw, I've used Vista since launch and have played with 7 since public beta. If the Vista/7 enthusiasts can give me a good amount of reasons why people should update, then yeah more info for me.

I don't even want to get into this argument, but I do agree with Rev. There is absolutely nothing I do in Windows that requires Vista or 7, and I really hate the new GUIs. As far as security, XP is perfectly fine if you're not completely computer illiterate and stay away from obviously dangerous activities like installing every shiny thing that pops up in your web browser.

Oh and neo158, XP is still fully supported by Microsoft. Your post reeks of ignorance and your personal attacks reveal your level of maturity.

WINDOWS 7 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB RAM (32-bit) / 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

WINDOWS XP SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system)
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Udedenkz said,
WINDOWS 7 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB RAM (32-bit) / 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

WINDOWS XP SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system)
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

This is quite possibly the stupidest reasoning for comparing the two. You're comparing system requirements from an OS that isn't even out yet to an OS that was released in 2001? Wow...

FrozenEclipse said,

This is quite possibly the stupidest reasoning for comparing the two. You're comparing system requirements from an OS that isn't even out yet to an OS that was released in 2001? Wow...

Yes, yes, the hardware resources will magically shrink to XP levels when Windows 7 is released.

Face it, Windows 7 requires much more powerful hardware to run.

Udedenkz said,

Yes, yes, the hardware resources will magically shrink to XP levels when Windows 7 is released.

Face it, Windows 7 requires much more powerful hardware to run.

Naw, rly? Who's disputing that? XP required more powerful hardware than 2000. 2000 required more powerful hardware than NT4. Each version of OS X requires more powerful hardware than the version that preceded it. The mere fact you use it as an argument is ridiculous.

rakeshishere said,
Games like Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault, Fahrenheit,Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood and many other apps like Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo IX & even X ,Corel draw 8 and so many that i cant list them

Ran them on vista and also vista sp1 with drivers fully updated and with all latest windows updates and still i am unable to run them. why bother wasting time with workarounds when XP can run them fine.


Hmm, MOH and Bros in Arms works great for me and I'm running Vista x64...

FrozenEclipse said,
This is quite possibly the stupidest reasoning for comparing the two. You're comparing system requirements from an OS that isn't even out yet to an OS that was released in 2001? Wow...

FrozenEclipse said,
Naw, rly? Who's disputing that? XP required more powerful hardware than 2000. 2000 required more powerful hardware than NT4. Each version of OS X requires more powerful hardware than the version that preceded it. The mere fact you use it as an argument is ridiculous.

You really don't get it do you?
A higher requirement has implications for how fast a OS is. That's why he posted that.

Lepton said,
You really don't get it do you?
A higher requirement has implications for how fast a OS is. That's why he posted that.

Thanks that is what I was going for :)

Also, the differences between 2000 and XP system requirements vs XP and 7 are rather large. It is a significantly smaller leap between 2000 and XP than between XP and 7 - look up system requirements for Windows 2000 Professional if you do not believe me.

2000 - February 17, 2000
--------
133MHz
64 MB
650 MB


XP - August 24, 2001 - 554 days
-------
300 MHz - 75.2% increase
128 MB - 100% increase
1.5 GB - 136.3% increase


Vista - November 8, 2006 - 1902 days - 243.3% as long
-------
1 GHz - 233.3% increase
1 GB - 700% increase
15 GB - 900% increase

Udedenkz said,

Thanks that is what I was going for :)

Also, the differences between 2000 and XP system requirements vs XP and 7 are rather large. It is a significantly smaller leap between 2000 and XP than between XP and 7 - look up system requirements for Windows 2000 Professional if you do not believe me.

*facepalm* Yeah the fact that 2000 and XP were released less than 2 years apart as opposed to about EIGHT between XP and 7 might have just a BIT to do with that.

FrozenEclipse said,
*facepalm* Yeah the fact that 2000 and XP were released less than 2 years apart as opposed to about EIGHT between XP and 7 might have just a BIT to do with that.

Ok, let me explain myself there,

The thing with XP is that, although many individuals would point out that it was released "forever" ago, it had significant amount of improvements implanted through three service packs. DirectX 9.0 March, .NET, Visual C++ 2008, IE8, and WMP11 can be installed on Windows XP without any problems. Those who point this out also forget that XP64 was made much later after XP32, thus it is newer. This is actually a reason that many, I would say, will stay with XP for quite some time - no need. Not everyone is a Halo 2 fanboy, not everyone needs DX10 either, or the extra functionality or pretty effects of Vista/7. The only people that have been using a 7-year old OS are either those without Internet connection, those that do not ever use their computer, or those that just ignored it for some unknown reason.

Next up would be the security. Security problems arise from multiple areas, such as security flaws in Services (which can be disabled or fully removed), applications (which could be updated, tweaked, or replaced), user error (nothing much to do there), weak OS security settings (mmc settings can help there), and other. Statements that say that one should switch Operating Systems due to >ONE< security issue are not that well founded... besides, as if there ain't security flaws in all Operating Systems.

Now after addressing that logical flaws with common pro-7 / pro-Vista arguments, back on topic: the original question was asking whether or not people still use XP, with the implied statement that XP should not be used now. My answer was that the reason why people use XP is the steep incline in the system requirements. The upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP is not as a difficult choice as that of upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7. One requires less of a hardware upgrade to for from 2k to XP than to go from XP to 7. It is harder to swallow going from 64 to 1024 than going from 32 to 64 MB RAM - this is my main point. Also people with 4GB SSDs/8GB SSDs/16GB SSDs are screwed. (Hell I have like 100MB space left on my W7 partition).

Other reasons might include the GUI. For a user that prefers XP, the Windows Vista/7 GUI might seem rather dumbed down (no search options like in 2k / Tweaked XP, does not tell you how much free space is left, searching for "*.html" will give you all the files with html in them instead of just all the .html extension files, GUI feels like it is more FAT/BLOATED/for a higher resolution, etc). Critisicm that Windows 7 is like Windows Vista might come up, or Change For Change's Sake might come up (I find both of them somewhat valid).

You should also read the Microsoft's Technet W7 forum, there are a lot of people complaining about performance and the disadvantage of lacking classic explorer, for example (I am not saying that it is just those complaints). To say that Windows 7's GUI is perfect or that Windows 7 is FASTER than XP might be rather ignorant, especially on the FACT that Windows 7 requires a lot more than XP to run; it seems that somewhere logic fails. Both Vista/XP/7 can take advantage of multiple cores for example and drivers are available for hardware components (from big-time, non-sweat shop Chinese companies) for both XP and Vista In a few years things might change, but currently, this statement stands true...

I have Windows 7 RC at this current moment, and I cannot say that it is faster or that the GUI is better. I noticed much higher read and writes to my SSD (BTW, Writes To SSD = BAD, especially on a 4GB system), longer loading times, slower GUI, etc. Now, just to be clear, I am not saying that Windows 7 is all bad, no - it is pretty with an adequate GPU, it is functional, and an A+ choice for an average user or even an idiot. All I am saying is that there are plenty of reasons to stick with XP. When I will upgrade my summer 2008 laptop, I might consider W7, but hey for the next two to four years, there is no need or logic to it and I hope I have proven this point through this large and boring post.

EDIT: Clarified, Cleaned, Merged Paragraphs.

Lepton said,
Sadly, only the intelligent ones.

Yes, because using an OS that's far less secure, more susceptible to Windows rot, and poorly utilizes RAM to get a 1-2% performance boost on modern hardware is a defining factor in determining one's intelligence. It proves that they're lacking said intelligence.

FrozenEclipse said,
Yes, because using an OS that's far less secure, more susceptible to Windows rot, and poorly utilizes RAM to get a 1-2% performance boost on modern hardware is a defining factor in determining one's intelligence. It proves that they're lacking said intelligence.

I am sorry, but my bull**** detector is tingling.

Udedenkz said,
I am sorry, but my bull**** detector is tingling.

Then it must be broken.

Far less secure: Fact. Default account has complete control over system, and not everybody knows how to run as a limited user.

Poorly utilizes RAM: Fact. Free RAM is wasted RAM, hence it's poorly utilized.

1-2% performance boost: Varies with the hardware.