×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

424 comments

McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278617)

Something McAfee, Symantec and all other anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/spam-filter companies should bear in mind, if operating systems, applications and other software had been properly designed in the beginning these companies wouldn't exist. These aftermarket companies are effectively parasites. Once the host changes significantly the parasites advantage is gone. Who can say Microsoft is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train? It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth. If you're a corporate IT officer, would you be comforted to know you only have one place to go for help now, and it's the company which releases extreme high priority bug fixes frequently?

Microsoft was overly optimistic about the true nature of people (they shouldn't as they've proven to be devils themselves), expecting nobody would take advantage of flaws, like giving everyone effectively root on their computers, thus every application, including malicious code. Further, they've been wonderful about hiding the true nature of what's running on your PC. I can see executables, but DLL's, why the hell shouldn't I see those easily? Anything running on my computer should be visible, how else can I tell if there's something there which shouldn't be?

So, once again Microsoft attempts to get it right. Maybe they'll be closer to the mark this time. I don't care. XP was the last operating system I'm ever buying from them and I don't pirate stuff. With Vista promising to be larger than ever, I don't think it's the direction I want to go. As Michael Crichton implied in Jurassic Park, the more complex a system the more likely it is to break down. I don't find the every growing Windows OS/Environment comforting. I'm also tired of the technology tax, I just want something to work, to be able to do mundane things and play a few simple games when time affords. Good luck McAfee, Symantec and all the rest, it was overdue. Don't forget to send your stockholders a "Thank You" for all the money they gave you.

Of course, if it all goes tits-up for Vista, Microsoft have nobody else to blame. Doesn't that at least warrant a warm, cozy feeling?

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278843)

I laughed at your retarded Jurassic Park reference.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279059)

I laughed at your retarded Jurassic Park reference.

Off the cuff it was the best I could come up with, but the idea was there -- create a complex system and it will inherently have weak links. The more complex, the more weak links. Microsoft wants Windows to be the BE ALL, END ALL of operating/environment/user interfaces, in so doing have created a long chain with many forks and many, many weak links.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279499)

Crichton discusses Chaos Theory [wikipedia.org] in JP, of which operating systems in general are not a bad application, IMO.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278877)

Something McAfee, Symantec and all other anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/spam-filter companies should bear in mind, if operating systems, applications and other software had been properly designed in the beginning these companies wouldn't exist. These aftermarket companies are effectively parasites. Once the host changes significantly the parasites advantage is gone.

This would be true IF Microsoft had removed the need for av/as/s/sf software but it hasnt. All it has done is changed how the software innterfaces with the OS in an attempt to make it more secure.

Who can say Microsoft is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train?

I can. They *arent* stopping the need for this software, just making it harder for the competition.

It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth. If you're a corporate IT officer, would you be comforted to know you only have one place to go for help now, and it's the company which releases extreme high priority bug fixes frequently?

Fuelled MS's growth in the same way a speed bump helps ford's growth.

This might be true *IF* microsoft was releasing fixes when they're needed but as we've seen lately, they still dont.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1)

weave (48069) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279247)

I see it differently. Microsoft helped create an environment where these things are possible, therefore they should do whatever it takes to fix it, whether it's providing their own anti-virus or making it harder to have a virus to infect in the first place.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (2, Interesting)

Howserx (955320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279339)

Not going to happen but I'd love to see the 3rd party AV companies say "Alright then suit yourself" and close up shop. Leave MS to handle AV by itself. It's already been demonstrated how easy it is to bypass the new "security" that is making life hard for symantec et al(no link, I'm lazy). It'd be interesting to see the ramifacations of such an action. I know I'd be surfing using a Live CD with no drives mounted (normally an XP/2000/server 2003 user I guess I'll get what I paid for!) . I also know I'd sleep better knowing I'd never have to fix a screwed up windows installation because of a McAffee/Norton glitch(rnav is your friend).

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (2, Interesting)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279531)

I agree with parent. Have we REALLY forgotten our IE/Netscape history so quickly? Microsoft is following their exact same vendor lock-in strategy now as they did then. Integrate the new product with the old and to make matters worse they're doing that instead of 'fixing' the original product (namely windows).

I'll be the first to say that XP was a huge improvement and that worm-spread was much reduced. I'll also say that I'm a developer myself and I understand that saying 'write it securely' is a hell of a lot easier than actually doing it. So, lets give MS the benefit of the doubt and presume that they're writing their OS even more securely than before. What are we left with, then? A very expensive to write program integrated with the OS for free. I'll again point out my parallel with IE, which was also a very expensive to write program integrated with the OS for free.

Now maybe I'm mistaken in my understanding that the anti-virus software is part of the default installation and if it is, my argument is admittedly all shot to hell and that Symantec and McAfee are big cry-babies. Given Microsoft's history, however, I doubt it.

Not just MS (4, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278891)

Those who designed the Internet were also overly optimistic about the true nature of people and didn't really consider security issues either.

I really don't blame either group. If they had considered all possible future needs prior to creating an implementation they'd still be working on it today and Slashdot would be a pen-pal club.

Re:Not just MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278935)

But it's so much easier to point fingers with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight than to understand all the complications and considerations that have gone into something to that point. After all, any given poster here could do a better job than anyone working for Microsoft at everything they do, right?

Yes, but... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279297)

Those who designed the Internet were also overly optimistic about the true nature of people and didn't really consider security issues either.

That's where I alluded to email other applications and software. To be brief: The interenet isn't completely re-written by one company every few years. Microsoft has the ablility and market position which guarantee to some extent they can re-write their OS every few years and make billions doing it.

Re:Not just MS (3, Insightful)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279347)

I think it's better to create a moderately 'insecure' system (What exactly is insecure about the Internet's infrastructure anyway?) than to impose a grand overly complex security scheme on it to find it becomes a hinderence later (20 years later for example).

Take for example e-mail/POP. It certainly has it's flaws, but is hugely successful and noone has yet been able to come up with a better system (for example, one that mitigates the spam problem) that doesn't also involve some hefty compromises that would make the whole system less useful to alot of people (and i don't mean just spammers :P).

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278951)

Furthermore, Symantec and McAfee produce the "Internet Explorers" of antivirus products. Because their apps are so popular, virus authors target their software specifically, disabling them or even making them a vector for further distribution. Microsoft is doing these companies a big favour by locking them out of the kernel core because one nasty widespread virus could lead to thousands of comprimised systems, and ultimately a class-action lawsuit by furious PC owners.

You're absolutely right when you call AV companies bottom feeders (though not in those words) who rely on an insecure product for their relevance. Hopefully with Vista's increased security implementations (like running admin consoles in a virtual session) viruses will be downgraded from a danger to an annoyance.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278953)

Except that there is no effective way to prevent social engineering.

Many viruses back in the DOS days were spread through BBS systems--not through software holes, but because a user wanted some warez or something. That still happens today, with stupid little flash games like "dwarfbowling" or whatever. No matter how many prompts Windows throws at them, people are going to click. But if their antivirus software throws up a warning and says, "THIS IS A VIRUS." many of them stop.

TPM+proper software design is the only way this can be mitigated. I think most people here don't care for that solution.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279283)

TPM+proper software design is the only way this can be mitigated.

Depends. If the only way software will run is if MICROSOFT signs it, then no.

If I can "accept" trusted publishers and if as an enduser I can sign software so that it runs, then yes.

God knows what will happen with GPLv3 software though if publishers have to hand over the keys. I guess we stick to GPLv2?

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279061)

From the article:
"It says that it should be able to improve Windows without harassment by governments and has made a court challenge to the Commission's 2004 decision"

So let me see if I have this correctly... McAfee and Symantec want access to the OS core so they can figure out how to make it more secure? These are the same companies who are perfectly happy milking the "update your virus definitions" security method rather than actually PREVENT infection. These are the same companies who like most of the Windows software world simply cannot conceive of how to write their code in such a way as to run ideally in a limited user mode. I'm sorry but Norton of all companies needs to be hauled off their pedestal and flogged for their bloatastic piece of steaming poo they call a security suite. If they were serious about securing data, they'd be promoting the living daylights out of striped arrays and using Norton Ghost regularly. But no, they're too busy milking the "update" cow to show any real insight and bring the collective knowledgebase of their customers up a notch.

I think subscription-based systems are how everyone wants to push their software in the future (gotta keep paying the developers to do *something*, right?) and it is just the antivirus companies who designed that system with no thought towards the inevitable obsolescence inherent in all computing systems. Want to charge everyone for updates and then just sit back and fail to innovate? Okay, but you've just nailed your coffin shut with your belief that nothing fundamental about your 3rd party software dependancies will change.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (3, Interesting)

adamdrayer (1006631) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279341)

There is nothing wrong with signature-based virus protection. It is very difficult to design systems that can pre-emptively determine good code from bad. Heuristics has a place in security, but its not as accurdate, IMHO, and contending with flase positives would be more annoying to home users than paying the nominal fee. For corporations, you have IDS/IPS systems, and they are trying to develop this for the desktop (Host-base IPS or HIPS), but confuring them properly can be extremely difficult, and allows for more user error, which can negative the entire effect.

And striping drives won't help fight off malware, that's for redundancy and performance. And frequent ghosts aren't the answer either. I would recommend users backup data and not installations or partitions. You can be backing up an already corrupt/infected system.

It amazes me how little people are willing to pay for their computer. Its easily a gigantic part of many people's lives, however, they'd rather spend more on their dishware and drapes than they would on the thing that they use to do just about everything including personal banking.

Mcaffee and Symantec are important to the security industry, and help drive it. MS would be stupid to squeeze them out. Every computer should have a reputable company's security software installed or their ISP shouldn't allow them on the internet. Kinda like how cars need to be insured. The thing is, however, they should have the choice of what security company they trust.

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279185)

That's also a measure of the lack of interest for security Microsoft has had for years ! Those parasites companies, only living from the weakness of their host, have created a huge market, powerfull enough to threaten Microsoft.
( Hell, talk about working for the good of the customer here. You imagine a bodyguard pointing its gun at you when you decide to replace the backdoor he was guarding ... that's mafia "protection" we, customer, are buying. )

I wonder where are the open source/free software when you need them. Their only reply was that windows user needed to change their behavior completely and use Linux. That's sad because if there is something where the open source community is really efficient is with security related software.
Why haven't we got a firefox-equivalent security suite, while it is probably one of the most important sofware on a Windows computer nowadays ?

No, that's not correct (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279233)

I really hate this popular Slashdot myth that viruses only exist because OSes are designed improperly. No, wrong. Most viruses are just malicious programs that get executed by the user. They don't hack in to the system, the are downloaded with another program. They come in the front door not the back one. There isn't an OS level defense for this short of an Orwellian trusted computing scheme. If I sent you a version of Apache with malicious code in it and you installed it as root, I could do whatever I wanted. Doesn't matter how secure your OS is, you gave it the permissions it needs.

What virus scanners do is provide a database of known bad code (and check for variants). They are like a bouncer with a list of known criminals. Even if the owner says "Sure, let that guy in," they can check their list and say "Sir, you don't want to do that, he's known to be a bad guy."

Now you are somewhat right that certain kinds of designs make more attacks possible. For example if you have services exposed to the Internet, then a worm can try to get in there without any user intervention. However the fundamental problem of malware is not solvable with any OS I'm currently aware of. Running as a deprivledged user does nothing. Either the malware can just install as the user and wreak havoc on that user's files (which is ultimately what they care about not the OS), or will just ask for escalation, which clueless users tend to grant without thinking, and then do as it wishes.

Unless we move to a trusted architecture, where only signed apps can execute, or we manage to get all users to be highly technically competent, they'll always be a need for virus scanners, at least on the dominant OS. Lock down every other way in all you like, it doesn't matter when you can infect people by sending them an e-mail that says "Hi I send you this file in order to have your advice."

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (4, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279263)

Something McAfee, Symantec and all other anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/spam-filter companies should bear in mind, if operating systems, applications and other software had been properly designed in the beginning these companies wouldn't exist. These aftermarket companies are effectively parasites.

They're not parasites, they're symbiotes. In a parasitic relationship, only the parasite profits. As you've said yourself, "It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth."

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279459)

Ah, maybe we're seeing coral bleaching due to global warming?

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (2, Informative)

discord5 (798235) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279275)

As Michael Crichton implied in Jurassic Park, the more complex a system the more likely it is to break down.

Or as Scotty once said: "The harder they make the plumbing, the easier it is to clog up the drain"

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (1)

deviantphil (543645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279525)

From the article:

"Computer users around the globe recognize that the most serious threats to security exist because of inherent weaknesses in the Microsoft operating system."

Aren't they delusional?

Security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect (2, Interesting)

Gastrobot (998966) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279605)

IANAM (I am not a mathematician) but I once attended a lecture where the speaker was an expert on Kurt Gödel. He claimed that Gödel's incompleteness theorem can be applied to prove that one cannot make perfect antivirus software. Either it will be too strong (imagine labeling everything a virus) or it will not be strong enough. If, therefore, Microsoft can't prove that their security is perfect then one might argue that competitors should be allowed their crack at it. I say security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect because they could obviously make it secure by removing internet support and so on, but that wouldn't be reasonable. It is my understanding that Microsoft feels allowing competitors to override their security system would pose a security risk itself. If that's the case then there are merits to both points of view to debate, but at the end of the day I believe that this would just strengthen Microsoft's monopoly.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278631)

We [slashdot.org] know [slashdot.org].

Re:Yes (2, Insightful)

SpiffyMarc (590301) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278921)

There's a difference between a dupe and a story staying in the news.

I guess CNN should've stopped with the 9/11 coverage after the initial report.

Microsoft, McAfee and Symantec lol... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278637)

They are only going at it over this (and only in business) because Windows is a broken, buggy OS. You can spin it any way you like, but that's what it comes down to. They are all fighting to provide security to Windows users, who wouldn't have to deal with this crap if Microsoft actually took the time to fix their products rather then rush to market.

NEXT DECADE: Auto makers provide security from thieves for cars they didn't bother putting working locks in.

*waits for the MS nubs to say anti-virus competition is a good thing and how I'm a troll while the botnet installed on their XP install spams me and millions of others*

Common Sense crits you for 5469056 damage
You die.

Much ado... (5, Insightful)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278667)

about nothing.

Once Vista hits the streets in its final incarnation, and the Bad Guys get to working on it, my money is on the premise that third party antivirus solutions to whatever problems that inevitably must arise, will continue to be a necessity.

After all, it's not like we don't already have a pretty good track record to examine, with the folks who are producing Vista, eh?

Re:Much ado... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278723)

Once Vista hits the streets in its final incarnation, and the Bad Guys get to working on it, my money is on the premise that third party antivirus solutions to whatever problems that inevitably must arise, will continue to be a necessity.

And if McAfee, Symantec, et al have been locked out of the loop so long there's a great lag in developing security products, doesn't that make Vista the literal Albatross?

Re:Much ado... (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279395)

If anyone is, um, silly enough to run Vista without waiting for at least 6 months after SP2, then they probably are not really concerned about security, compatibility, and reliability anyway. It's pretty standard practice to wait.

Re:Much ado... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279463)

If anyone is, um, silly enough to run Vista without waiting for at least 6 months after SP2, then they probably are not really concerned about security, compatibility, and reliability anyway. It's pretty standard practice to wait.

Cue: The Microsoft Marketing Engine to leap into action, contacting PC Makers and PHB's the world over, offering sigificant discounts for early adoption.

I saved our department a million dollars. I deserve a raise. What's all that screaming and swearing out in Cubicle City?

Re:Much ado... (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278817)

McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that MS made their OS really secure, and as such, have nothing left to protect against. What they are complaining about is that MS has made it impossible for any program to run at a low enough level (except MS programs of course) to be able to work effectively as an antivirus/antimalware application. They've made is so that it's impossible for anybody but MS to make a proper virus scanner. Well, they could make a tool that would get down to that level, but it would have to be through some security hole in the code, and MS would most likely patch it to prevent hackers from using it. So i think that Vista will be more insecure than ever, because MS will be the only ones able to provide security tools.

Re:Much ado... (5, Insightful)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279223)

I'm not disagreeing with you, you're bang on, but you raise an interesting point in "MS has made it impossible for any program to run at a low enough level (except MS programs of course)" that I want to expand on. MS doesn't sell open source software. They've never once said "do whatever you want with our OS". They don't provide source code to build your own kernel. So why the big stink by these companies? This is the nature of closed source software platforms. You're at the mercy of their creators. This turn of events for the anti-V companies is EXACTLY the reason why I no longer use or recommend closed source software to my board. Microsoft has ALWAYS owned the key to Symantec's and McAfee's business models. They've just decided to close that door now and these guys will now have to pay the price for the choice of platform they made. This same fate could happen to ANY windows-only software maker. It's the nature of dealing with a platform over which you have zero control.

Re:Much ado... (1, Troll)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278895)

... my money is on the premise that third party antivirus solutions to whatever problems that inevitably must arise, will continue to be a necessity.
Which begs the question, why continue to use an OS that requires antivirus software to be installed sucking the resources from your system?

Re:Much ado... (1, Insightful)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279091)

Maybe you could point us to this wonderful OS that is totally secure? Keep in mind I don't want to hear about some OS that holds 1% of the market and has never been affected by a virus. That just means no one cares enough to write one for it. You need to show in some way that you have proof no virus could ever compromise this OS you wish us all to use (there is no way IMO to show something is perfectly secure). Oh, on top of that please be sure to demonstrate that this uber-OS functions on a level equal to that of the current mainstream OS (windows, linux, OSX, etc).

I won't be holding my breath for your response.

Re:Much ado... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279411)

Because users are stupid, because we make mistakes, because hackers sometimes replace valid executables with trojan horse'd versions.

AV companies were in business long before the internet or even Windows was around. Personally, I take my chances. Most of the AV software out there was so bad for awhile that for the past 5 years I didn't use any on my home machine, until I tried AVG and found it acceptable. AV software does not have to be a resource sucking hog, why it has evolved into that is beyond me.

Even under the Unix security model, you could easily run an executable that will wipe your home directory, and every other directory you have access to.

In other news... (5, Funny)

jfclavette (961511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278675)

Smalltown, US - NAPA says increased quality in GM exhausts unfair. A representative is quoted saying: "GM is in the business of building cars. There's no reason for them to build quality parts for their cars. It's absolutely unfair that the default exhaust lasts more than 3 weeks without needing a replacement. They're trying to drive us out of business."

Re:In other news... (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278761)

I think your comparison would be more accurate if GM made a car that got 5 miles per gallon on gasoline and 50 miles per gallon on 'GM signature gasoline', then told the oil companies that they were just trying to provide their customers with better fuel efficiency.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278839)

Actually a better analogy would be that GM produced cars that you couldn't remove and bolt on 3rd party alternative parts... Not that they wore out or were more efficent...

Re:In other news... (2, Insightful)

nizo (81281) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278825)

But what if GM manufactured parts that only lasted 3 weeks and also made it impossible to use parts made by anyone else?

Re:In other news... (2, Insightful)

madhatr (1008443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278909)

I think you missed the point of the article. McAfee's biggest gripe wasn't about being put out of business, it was the fact that an agreement held between them and Micro$oft allowing them access to the kernel wasn't being upheld. If you think that Vista is going to be secure, I believe you're mistaken. BTW aren't we still patching IE6? And these same people are going to keep the us secure? I think not.

Re:In other news... (1)

pottymouth (61296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279159)

You missed the point. This isn't about Vista eliminating all or most security flaws making AV software obsolete. It's about MS breaking yet another agreement for access to their code and using it's monopoly to kill ancillary businesses.

It's funny how other monopoly's have been slapped for this while MS sales right along. I worked for Xerox in the 80's and they were forced to sell toner, developer and fuser oil because of a monopoly suite they lost (these items used to be included in your contract or rental fee). The argument being you can't sell it if Xerox gives it away so they forced Xerox to sell these items and they fixed the minimum price at which they could be sold. Same thing here but uncontrolled. MS gives it away (ie. just like IE, they build the price into the product) so no one else can sell it. It's a good business strategy but when you're a monopoly it kills free enterprise and stops inovation dead in it's tracks. A free market can't work this way.

My question is, why this wasn't ended when MS faced the courts years ago?

Re:In other news... (1)

LoSLapPy (865798) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279503)

you analogy is completely wrong.. "GM building a car claiming the exhaust will last forever..and it uses bolts that have a patent thread and only GM can produce" ...is much more closer to what is actually going on here... I say.. if M$ is going to make the claim that Vista is secure and no viruses can attack it... or its less prone... or whatever they are claiming these days... then WHY NOT let McAfee and the likes produce virus scanning software..... would be pretty nice to throw on TV that a year into the deployment of Vista, McAfee can confirm that there are no known viruses...

Maybe? (2, Insightful)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278725)

I'd have to take anything that security solution companies say with a grain of salt. I am sure that most of these companies are a bit pertubed with MS getting into an area that they consider to be traditionally theirs.

The new steps in Vista will make the product more secure. In that, it might also make it harder for these third party programs to be as integrated with it.

Justin
http://hatchedeggs.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

BuggyWhips! (4, Funny)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278791)

My buggywhip business has been unfairly targetted by these so-called horse-less carraiges! I demand Mr. Ford require buggywhips in all his model-T vehicles!

Re:BuggyWhips! (1)

four2five (645777) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279047)

Mmmmm, funny > accurate I guess ;) The big complaint from AV firms isn't that Vista is more secure but, as others have pointed out, that MS has locked all other software out of their issue ridden kernel except their own. The replies to the first post along the vein of this one ( the napa post ) were correct, it's not that the AV companies are complaining about the competing AV product from MS, although I'm sure they don't appreciate it, but that they are being locked out. They at least want a chance to compete against MS's product, but as Vista stands now, it looks like they can't even do that. MS not only tried to take them on in the free market, but also took their ball ( the kernel ) and went home before they really had a chance to see how they faired in open competition.

Re:BuggyWhips! (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279093)

My buggywhip business has been unfairly targetted

Something called Microsoft Windows has been buggy whipped for a long time. Your business is safe.

Mcaffe + Norton Licks balls. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278821)

I will be thankfull if i never see another home user product from either company. So far im please with windows defender, if a windows ant-virus is similar i would be happy. After working a number of years on a workbench fighting with the awful software those two companies shit out to the home user. I can say that I welcome our new OS bundled anti-virus overlords.

Too complex for consumers, too bloated for computers, too un-reliable to be usefull. I prefer Avast! for my customers, and not just because it's free.

Re:Mcaffe + Norton Licks balls. (5, Informative)

Grand V'izer (560719) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279311)

Well Avast! is going to get screwed just like Norton and MacAffee. All those free AV products are going to become a lot less useful when they can't detect unauthorized actions on the kernel.

I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Microsoft hasn't "secured" the kernel from attackers. They've simply removed any way for legitimate non-microsoft software to monitor the kernel. People have already found ways to attack the Vista kernel, and given Microsoft's history with security I don't feel very good about them being my only defense.

Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation.. (4, Insightful)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278831)

They are damned either way.

A) Release an OS without really beefing up security and watch everything bad about XP and prior releases repeat itself on a larger scale.

B) Release an OS and beef up security and see people who have made a living compensating for your poor coding in the past complain that they can't in the future.

The NAPA analogy is shockingly accurate in my opinion. Like what would happen if all the fast food places discovered a way to make the same fast food, but make it healthier enough that people didn't have to worry about dieting anymore? Who would complain? Diet manufacturers of course...

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279115)

The NAPA analogy is shockingly accurate in my opinion.

Why is it that whenever a monopolist abuses their position everyone immediately presents an analogy using a company that does not have a monopoly and calls it the same thing? Here's an analogy that is actually apt. The electric company has a monopoly on local power distribution. For years, third party companies have been selling power converters to get around the low voltage of power delivered by the power company and allow a significant number of appliances to work. All of this is because the power company refused to provide higher power services. Now, the power company is still refusing to provide higher power services, but saw how much these companies were making and figured out a way to break their power converters by sending power spikes at pre-designated intervals they won't disclose. They have also entered into the power converter business, selling converters that know when the spikes are coming and can thus handle them, Gee, why would the existing companies complain?

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279177)

A) Release an OS without really beefing up security and watch everything bad about XP and prior releases repeat itself on a larger scale.

B) Release an OS and beef up security and see people who have made a living compensating for your poor coding in the past complain that they can't in the future.


Or
C) Release an OS and beef up security. Give hooks into the new arch for outside companies to hook their software into.

This is the problem we are seeing, and primarily why people don't like MS.

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (3, Insightful)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279315)

No,

If they release a new OS with beefed up security by the definition of ot being "beefed up" that would mean no need for third party security addons. Actually I believe Vista has a documented API for how they handle security now so Symantex and others can still write security applications. They're just mad because a lot of what they do isn't needed now. So if they do your version C they will still be hated by anti-virus manufacturers.

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279375)

Sadly, there's no compelling reason for Company A to allow Company B access to the inner workings of their product. It *MAY* be in the consumer's best interests, but it doesn't benefit Company A's bottom line, so the consumer's interests don't matter.

Since there's no financial benefit to Company A, and there's no legal reason forcing them to (yet) then the consumer is just SOL.

I don't agree with passing laws to regulate how specific businesses work in most cases, but when there's no way the market (ie, the consumer) can do anything to provide a financial incentive, then maybe thats what it will take -- either symantic buys a new law, or they sue and get a court order.

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279217)

No, as someone else pointed out, the analogy only works if Napa is unable to make parts for other cars. The analogy doesn't work if parts are simply unneeded. To use your fast food reference, it's like saying if you eat at McDonald's you can only exercise by playing in their ball pit, and not anywhere else. MS has not made their OS impenetrable, they've made it impossible to tack on third party tools to protect against the bugs/holes/social-engineering-exploits that will inevitably be there.

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279289)

Yeah yeah, the NAPA analogies. And yours about fast food.

Even better one: A technology company releases an OS that is locked so that 3rd party software can't get as deep as it likes.

Was that a good one? Because if not I submit that anyone who needs an analogy or a metaphor to understand this is too stupid to comment on the subject and should go outside and play while the adults try to have a conversation.

How it works (0, Redundant)

aiyo (653781) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278833)

1. Exploit faulty work by covering it up.
2. Profit.
3. Act to stop fixing the faults.
4. Progress!!

why arent they also upset at Mac? (5, Insightful)

ClassicComposer (916856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278835)

Why arent they attacking OSX as well? I mean it has a built in firewall that is actually semi decent and not many other widely exploited vulnerabilities... Wouldnt that mean that OSX has been for a long time shutting out companies like this?

Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? (3, Insightful)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278955)

They're trying, but most of the mud they try to kick up doesn't stick because Mac OS X was designed as a much more forward-thinking system than Windows. At least as importantly, it also isn't saddled with hideous mounds of backwards compatibility issues, which also contribute tremendously to the chinks in Windows' armor. Security on Mac OS has generally been superior to what's existed on Windows/DOS for at least the last fifteen years; the cottage industry providing security for Microsoft's products didn't take hold on the Mac side in the same way because it generally wasn't needed.

Right, forgot the actual POINT of that post... (2, Insightful)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279051)

My point is that Symantec, McAfee, and various and sundry others can't make the argument that they're being locked out of the MacOS space because they were barely in it to begin with. A specious, shrill argument could be made on their behalf in the Microsoft-owned space because Microsoft has historically been so bad at security that any substantial long-term improvement by the company represents a very real threat to their presently thriving business model. More to the point, such an improvement will make their products seem less like beneficent caretakers and more like resource-hungry, inefficient parasites. To say that this development is overdue is a massive understatement; this niche in the marketplace should have been largely wiped out with the advent of Windows XP, if not Win2000 before it.

Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? (1)

madhatr (1008443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279011)

Mcafee and Symantec already have such a small audience on the Mac end. Really the only reason to even have an antivirus package installed on an OSX machine is in the chance someone sends you an infected file, (which won't affect OSX), if you send the file to someone else, it helps to keep it from spreading to a windows based machine.

Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279027)

Add on to that all the media and other functionality that they were all about touting at the last Apple Developers Conference thing... The real answer is that Apple doesn't have enough market share to be worth going after for parasitic money, and doesn't have the lingering specter of anti-trust actions to make it an easy target.

Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? (2, Informative)

giminy (94188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279171)

I mean it has a built in firewall that is actually semi decent

OS X's built-in firewall sucks. And I'm a mac user. Through the interface, click all the security options (and go into Advanced and check stealth mode, etc). Type in 'ipfw show' at the command prompt. Wow! Stealth mode blocks ICMP echo requests! The firewall *still* allows all UDP traffic in, so long as the UDP traffic *comes from* a specific port. In short, the firewall assumes nobody is spoofing packets to get through it, which is retarded. A firewall that makes that assumption may as well be turned off.

Wouldnt that mean that OSX has been for a long time shutting out companies like this?

Mac OS doesn't shut people out. It offers a free SDK, and (mostly) follows published standards. Bastille Linux [bastille-linux.org] is a fine example of a hardening system/firewall enhancer for OS X. Check it out.

Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279295)

Because it's possible to build a different firewall for OSX and use that. It's the same reason why they aren't complaining about Windows XP. Vista has made it impossible (without exploiting a hole that will probably be fixed) to run code at a low enough level such that it can be an effective firewall/viruscanner/anti-malware tool.

So basically it's true (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278849)

The AV and anti-spyware companies don't want you to have a secure experience.
I mean, it's like duh etc. I know. But this is ridiculous, if they are a huge corp with mad assets ..once the primary "corporate mission" of securing people is accomplished .. then DO SOMETHING ELSE. If you have smart engineers as assets, figure out a way to use them!! Are their CEO's this short sighted? Let me guess they'll have layoffs of really smart folks and then blame Microsoft instead of doing something else innovative.

It's like Measles treatment sellers getting pissed off at vaccine manufacturers for cutting into their market.

This crap is why people believe pharmaceuticals dont want to cure anyone when the truth is that a cure for cancer would cause a massive boost in stock price and shareholder dividends. And the billions of company assets can then be used for other things (new markets etc.). Not to mention it's better to find a cure before a competitor does (even if you are colluding with them, how do you trust they aren't secretly looking for the cure and may suddenly release it for a huge influx of cash). But I guess if the CEOs dont see things this way, it's a problem.

Another integral part of an OS? (2, Insightful)

marlinSpike (894812) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278859)

I suppose Microsoft will claim that this is another integral part of an OS. While my first reaction is to scoff, I can imagine how that could be a good argument. I mean, Microsoft gaffs aside, any OS as popular as Windows will invite viruses, and not patching and protecting every Windows OS just opens all the others to attacks via trojans and bots. However, this is a really tough one for the lawyers to argue. If today Messenger is shipped with windows as a communication tool, then can a virtual VoIP client be shipped tomorrow as an updatd communication tool? How about a middle of a road version of SQLServer, with licenses that would fit the needs of small and mid-sized business just fine? Our anti-trust laws obviously need to be updated. I don't think for a moment that Apple is any better than Microsoft. In some ways, they may be worse. But, how can one stop them when our current anti-trust laws were made for steel an railroad barons? Are there any other countries that have better ideas of how to approach anti-trust in the digital age? Any examples of how it's been applied successfully?

No, but the 'complaint' fits our culture perfectly (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279181)

I suppose Microsoft will claim that this is another integral part of an OS. While my first reaction is to scoff...

Your use of the word "claim" implies that someone other than them should decide what is, and is not, part of their own product. They wouldn't be "claiming" such a thing, but simply stating it. "Yesterday, our product looked like X, and today, it looks like Y." Other companies that glom onto a freight train like MS and get rich doing so can hardly complain (with a straight face) when that other company's products change shape or purpose. Symantec and MacAfee aren't MS's customers, the end users are. If we ever get to the point of killing off most of the spam conduits in the world, we'll probably hear about how the spam-filtering appliance makers are being "unfairly" deprived of a living.

This all derives from the pervasive sense of entitlement that's drenching our culture. MacAfee and Symantec know the score, but they're playing this card because they know it will resonate in a courtroom full of modern day jurors, should it come to that. Sleazy, but probably clever in real terms.

If I were these guys... (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278903)

I'd start working on residential-level network security appliances. Get ahold of D-Link, Linksys, Buffalo Tech, Netgear, etc., and work with them to implement virus/spyware/spam filtering on their routers. It's not going to take care of the people still on dialup because they want to live 50 miles from the nearest city with >10,000 people, but it's a good start.

Re:If I were these guys... (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279673)

We ignorant outcast hillbillies use Wild Blue, our packets are blasted straight up into the heavens, god itself is our gateway (and DHCP server).

At least when we are staying at our hunting cabins. Back in the city we use Comcast.

ta30 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16278923)

Schemes. Frankly you can. No, isn'7 a lemonade Moans and groans comprehensive I have a life to be in a scene and contact to see if

For Satan's sake (0, Flamebait)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278957)

how many times will ./ repeat the samearticle in thousand variations? Get a life , please!

No Sympathy (1, Insightful)

humankind (704050) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278983)

If Symantec and McAffee actually made decent products these days, they might have a point. If they actually hired Americans to do most of their development, I might be a tad more sympathetic, but I don't have any sympathy for them. Microsoft has destroyed far more worthwhile publishing companies than those two. Seeing their core business hit doesn't bother me a bit. The truth is their products started sucking a long time ago.

I just wish Microsoft would take down Quicken. There's another dynasty that has outlived its value and become bloated and mercinary like Symantec and McAffee.

Why is Trend-Micro different? (3, Interesting)

PoconoPCDoctor (912001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278985)

Trend Micro is the only (AFAIK) vendor that is certified to produce an anti-virus product for Vista. [trendbeta.com] Are they being given the keys to the castle while McAfee and Symantec are left out in the cold?

Anyone know why this is so? Do tell!

Re:Why is Trend-Micro different? (1)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279377)

Because in the consumer-grade market, Trend's PC-Cillin is about the only decent product. McAfee and Norton are bogged down with crap left and right, and Trend is slim and trim. Try the consumer-grade stuff out, and you'll see that I'm right. Now, in the corporate sector, SAV and Trend Micro Officescan are gods. McAfee Enterprise is still crap. I'm honestly surprised that they're sill in business - guess those OEM deals must make them a lot of money.

Re:Why is Trend-Micro different? (1)

JazzyJ (1995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279505)

I haven't heard Grisoft (AVG) complain about this either.

Makes one wonder...

Re:Why is Trend-Micro different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279601)

Avast isn't having any problems either.

A Ad for Virus (1, Funny)

in2mind (988476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16278993)

Looks like these companies would place a ad if there were a dearth of virus too

"Due to lack of sufficient number of viruses our business is not doing well.Please write virus"

Re:A Ad for Virus (1)

Slovenian6474 (964968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279397)

Good point. I wouldn't be suprised if Symantec & Mcafee turned around and started writing Vista specific viruses just so Microsoft comes crawling back to them. It'd be a dirty way of business.

No love lost for both of them (4, Interesting)

Nanite (220404) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279007)

Personally, I wouldn't care if both Mcafee and Symantec went bankrupt tomorrow. Both feature bloated, buggy software, and symantec's sales pressure to 'Upgrade' to newer buggier software rather than renewal of the old software is just disgusting. Granted, I don't know if MS could do a better job, given their abysmal track record on security and virus prevention. They love to just leave the barndoor open for stuff like that. But they may be able to produce a spyware/virus solutions that works better within their systems, better than the monkeys at Mcafee and Symantec anyways.

Love Hate (0, Redundant)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279105)

While in general I'm not sure I like it when Microsoft locks out thrird-party software, I've got no warm feelings for Symantec and McAfee, who I see as little better than pushers.

You are making the WRONG enemy here, Bill (2, Insightful)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279151)

Bill, why not instead show us an OS where the spamlords, virusjacks, malware-hounds, and other cyber-creeps cry "foul"? Instead, you are angering the virus fighters!

If Microsoft was in charge of instituting public health plans, it would introduce new reforms that would get rid of doctors instead of getting rid of diseases.

(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust (3, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279163)

I hope McAfee and Symantec were around pushing for the administration to enforce antitrust back when it might have mattered. It's too late now. This is what you get when a company acquires monopoly power.

I remember when water-cooler talk veered from sports to politics to what word processor you liked. (Remember when there was more than one?)

Anyone remember a program called Lotus 1-2-3?

Oh, and what about Stacker? Why, yes, Microsoft stole Stacker's technology, called it DoubleSpace, and drove Stacker out of business despite Stacker's winning their patent infringement lawsuit.

I haven't heard much about GoBack lately, have you? Wildfile GoBack... I mean Adaptec GoBack... I mean Roxio GoBack... I mean Norton GoBack...

Anyone who believes all this was because Microsoft had superior products lives in a logic-tight compartment.

It's too bad that the administration chose not to pursue antitrust in any meaningful way against Microsoft, but they didn't, and these are the consequences. If Microsoft feels like squashing Symantec and McAfee there's nothing you or I or Symantec or McAfee can do about it. Only the feds have enough power, and possibly even they don't have enough any more.

So, let's all hope Microsoft's antivirus component is pretty good, because whether it is or not, in a few years it's all we're going to have.

(Besides ClamAV, of course...)

Re:(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279417)

This is what you get when a company acquires monopoly power

Um... so, if the very same company happened to have produced an O/S (let's go back to, say, Win98 or something, doesn't matter), that WAS airtight, and wouldn't be materially helped by third-party A/V products... wouldn't you still be saying the same thing? At what point did the publisher lose the right to make their own product better?

At what point did the government, or third parties via the courts, become the best people to decide what features you think should appear in your new software product? Are you really comfortable with that, as a matter of philosophy? If Vista sucks in new and interesting ways, it will either have problems, or a third party will find a new (if temporary) way to make a truckload of cash. If it doesn't suck, all you've got is less trouble on the desktop, and fewer dart-throwing targets for people that don't like MS (um, including the ones who say they don't like MS because their products are secure... the irony is delicious).

So, let's all hope Microsoft's antivirus component is pretty good, because whether it is or not, in a few years it's all we're going to have.

So what? It's also the only thing that's meaningfully doing all sorts of things in its role as your O/S. If you don't like the collection of computer-operating tools that's called Vista... use something else. It's not MS's obligation to provide a platform for other companies to market particular pieces of the desktop and under-the-hood environment. No more than it's Symantec's obligation to open up their products so that MacAffee can make money off of "improving" Symantec's tools with another item you can buy.

Re:(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust (1)

AVonGauss (1001486) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279615)

I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch of the imagination, but this constant Microsoft bashing just gets plain old... The poster is saying the only person with enough power or control over Microsoft is the feds - that's just wrong. Microsoft, like any other corporation for that matter relies on the marketplace for its existence. If you don't like Microsoft or their products, don't buy them - simple. If you feel really strong enough about it, convince your friends and colleagues also to not buy Microsoft products - provide alternatives rather than just bashing if you really want to get some results.

Shoulda broke them up long ago (2, Interesting)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279201)

This wouldn't have been a problem now if the DoJ had broken MS up into smaller units back when it had the chance. MS/OS division would have no incentive to favor MS/AV over any other.

Windows OneCare Live (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279261)

If you've used Vista you might have seen the icon for OneCare Live in the Welcome Center. Currently it's only for XP, but clearly it will be ported to Vista as well. Microsoft clearly is going to be able to make their own antivirus product work with Vista. Thus it is going to be possible for other companies to do the same. I don't see what the problem is.

I also recall the security vendors whining that MS made their own Security Center and they can't crack it. Well guess what... let's say I'm a hacker, and MS lets security vendors modify or replace the Security Center in Windows. I am now VERY happy, because I can now trick any user (even, for a short while, experienced system administrators) into thinking their anti-malware/badware solutions are working, when I've just turned them off and replaced the Security Center with my own fake one which lies through its teeth.

If you want to play with the big boys (5, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279343)

If you want to play with the big boys you got to play like one. They could fix this situation in
less than a week and have microsoft bending over backwards to help them out.

CEO Symantec: Billy you are pissing me off let me have access to what I want.

Billy: No way we are taking over the playground.

CEO Symantec: Well you are going to let me have access to what I want or else.

Billy: Or else what, I am not scared of you I own the desktop.

CEO Symantec: Ok here is what I am gonna do.

Billy: laughs

CEO Symantec: We are immediately updating all of our desktop software.

Billy: yea so

CEO Symantec: Any time a virus is found on the system it will pop up a message to the user. If it
is browser installed malware it will contain the following message "A virus related to your IE installation was quarenteened and removed. To eliminate future possible system infections you can
go to www.getfirefox.com and download a secure browser which will greatly enhance your web surfing experience".

Billy: I don't much care about IE anyhow we don't even make money on it.

CEO Symantec: Any time a macro virus is found on the system it will pop up a message to the user. "A macro virus has been found on your system and it is possible that your personal data could have been stolen. A better office suite that is even compatible with your current documents and is totally fee of charge is available at www.openoffice.org. If you would like this installed press ok and the macro virus will be removed and we will upgrade your system to a better office suite"

Billy: oh crap, please don't do that.

CEO Symantec: Also when it catches a system virus it is gonna point the user to ubuntu and offer to install it.

Billy: Tell you what we will send over a team of developers and help you fully integrate with our system.

Problem solved!

Re:If you want to play with the big boys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16279473)

A better office suite that is even compatible with your current documents and is totally fee of charge is available at www.openoffice.org.

Aren't there laws about truth in advertising?

Re:If you want to play with the big boys (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279599)

Easy to get around that if it becomes a problem.

"Just fake a demo to the court that proves that it is better"

hmmmm seen that done before!

Re:If you want to play with the big boys (1)

Slovenian6474 (964968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279607)

2 quick problems, how is Norton going to popup with these messages if it's locked out? Secondly, why would an Antivirus recommend someone going to a less virus-prone OS like Ubuntu? Isn't that like shooting itself in the foot?

"Microsoft Business Partner" (3, Insightful)

Mr. No Skills (591753) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279357)

is a synonym for "someone we haven't figured out how to screw out of their VAR market share yet."

The list of companies that added value to Microsoft OS products, then watched as Microsoft bundled those products into their offerings (often at no cost to the customer), goes back to MS-DOS. Quicken is the only product I've seen Microsoft take a bead at and not knock them into irrelevence. OS/2, Netware, Lotus 123, WordPerfect, AOL, Borland, several desktop database vendors, DEC, FAX drivers, scanner/OCR software, screen savers, and many others made some cash and then faded into the recycle bin. Now Microsoft is stretching into enterprise applications with their piles of money.

Tough business to be in.

Waaaah (1)

Jaansen (1006739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279367)

Call the wambulance. If they really cared about user security they'd be happy that someone is doing something about it :P

code your applications properly (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279383)

microsoft arnt locking just competitors out, they are locking EVERYONE out, thats what the anti-patch stuff is for, its just alot stricter in vista, its the reason demon tools stopped working a few weeks/months back.
the reason is, sloppy coding, relying on undocumented, internal-only, kernel "api" that isnt actualy an api.

instead of them complaining and spending money on full page adds, they should spend money on coding their applications properly, and coding them so they dont eat 99% of your system resources while they are running.

No sympathy here (1)

riversky (732353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279393)

I must say Microsoft has behaved poorly in the past but to basically say, "you must have a insecure, hole filled operating system so we can sell our security packages for more money from the consumers pockets" is asinine. Anyone that supports these companies can NOT at the same time bash MS for security flaws. Hey the best thing would be for MS to have a completely secure Windows OS (impossible for any OS really). Of course that would put those companies out of business. Tough I say.

Idiots! (1)

Tinned_Tuna (911835) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279455)

Symantex et al. have made a living moping up one companies spills. Maybe they should've considered that the business could stop spilling their drink?



Does this also mean that every patch to the OS (thereby making the os more secure) was anti-competitive?



Maybe, Vista will be crap (thinks of shiny new network stack) and the AV/AS companies will be in there, making more money than ever?

It's About Choice (1)

SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279507)

Some people would rather not have to trust Microsoft to provide security for their OS.

What Microsoft seems to be saying is "Use our security or use another OS."

User choice? (1)

Ougarou (976289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16279523)

I can't see why everybody is focussing on security. Shouldn't this be about user choice? If I want to install a virus, security risk or spamming server, I should be able to. Even if I need to overwrite parts of the core system.
To me, this looks more like Microsoft is trying to protect the users against there own choices again. Sometimes, this might be good, but it should never go further then some emphesized text in an alert window.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...