Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Symantec Brings Complaint Against MS to EU

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-they-dominate-anything-anymore dept.

linumax writes "Symantec has made a complaint against Microsoft to EC anti-trust regulators over the software giant's entry into the security market. The "informal" complaint allows the Commission to consider whether or not an anti-trust case is merited. The Commission is the executive branch of the European Union (EU)." From the article: "The news comes on the day Microsoft announced plans to begin offering business users an integrated anti-virus and anti-spyware product called Microsoft Client Protection. A beta version of this product is expected to be released by year's end. The company is already offering some customers a beta version of its Windows OneCare consumer security software. At issue is Microsoft's plan to bundle its security software with Windows Vista, the next major version of the Windows operating system due next year."

8 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Mafia by tobybuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I the only one that thinks that MS offering anti virus software is very similar to the mafia offering 'protection'?

    1. Re:Mafia by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's pretty ridiculous to ship an OS with a broken security model AND the antivirus and firewall to fix the problems. Why not just design it right in the first place?

      Well, the fact that the users are broken as well. If linux users ran every funny program that dumped into their inbox or came across on some shady site, they'd be equally screwed. However you want to tell me the linux security model helps, it doesn't. If people were used to sudo as root to install something, they'd install this. If they had to chmod programs +x, they'd chmod this too. The only way you could protect users against themselves is to make it very hard to install software (bad) or lock them in to only use your distro's software (worse). Or run anti-virus. I don't recall the last time my anti-virus warned me about something that I didn't consider obvious, I don't actually need it (but I design security in layers, just in case). Anti-virus is a fix for broken users, not broken software. And Linux and BSD ships with a firewall too, that's hardly a sign of breakage.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. Cry me a river.... by 6Yankee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd feel a whole lot more sympathy towards Symantec if Norton Internet Security 2005 didn't depend on Internet Explorer.

    1. Re:Cry me a river.... by David+Horn · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd feel more sympathy if Norton Internet Security 2005 didn't break everything it touched.

      --
      PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
  3. The price they pay for being monolitic by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for anti-trust laws, but I think this situation is a bit ridiculous -- the complaint is utterly without merit. Symantec and McAfee built their buisness models on Windows being a shoddy, insecure POS. Now, that Microsoft is tightening it down and including a virus scanner, and they are crying foul because it's going to put them out of buisness? I'm sorry, but that's the price they pay for being monolithic, for failing to diversify. Structural unemployment is a bitch.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  4. Just bad business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they should also file a complaint against Apple for not making Mac OS more susceptible to viruses.

  5. the poop factor... by Eggz+Factor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Symantec is clearly crapping it's pants. They have recently been attempting to strike fear of impeding virus doom on the OSX platform, especially since their revenues from that part of the market have dried up significantly. If MS offers a product with hooks into it's OS and attractive bundles, it may very well be game over for Symantec.

    --
    blah, blah, blah...
  6. You confuse "virus" with "trojan". by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, the fact that the users are broken as well.
    Partially correct.
    If linux users ran every funny program that dumped into their inbox or came across on some shady site, they'd be equally screwed.
    Nope. You are only considering trojans.

    While it is correct that the majority of current infections are via trojans, they are not the only problem. Ubuntu handles the issue of worms by just not running any open ports in a default installation. So Ubuntu will not be hit with anything close to Slammer or Blaster.
    However you want to tell me the linux security model helps, it doesn't.
    You are wrong, it does help.
    If people were used to sudo as root to install something, they'd install this. If they had to chmod programs +x, they'd chmod this too.
    SOME people would. But that's because system security is bound by human stupidity.

    But the people who are currently being infected because they double-clicked on "sexy.jpg" which was really "sexy.jpg.exe" would have to go through a LOT more effort to accomplish the same on Linux.

    #1. Save the attachment. (extra step)

    #2. Find where they saved it. (extra step)

    #3. chmod it (extra step) warning

    #4. Double click it.

    #5. Give sudo password. (extra step) warning

    So, all of a sudden, all (99.99%) of the *.jpg trojans are dead. Which means that you have to convince someone to actually run an app on their box, which they know is an app. Some people will still fall for that, but not as many as fall for the .jpg ones.
    Anti-virus is a fix for broken users, not broken software.
    Nope.

    In a correctly designed system, the user will KNOW that s/he is running an app (not thinking it is a graphic) and be ASKED for additional authorization.

    And that only matters with trojans. Viruses and worms are few and very, Very, VERY far between on Linux systems.