Anti-malware Vendors Stare Down Microsoft Threat

Captain Rose writes "Matt Hines at eWEEK has stepped up to report the other side of the story CNET inked recently on the perceived death knell that Vista will deliver to independent anti-spyware vendors. There's definitely a fight in store (David v. Goliath), though who knows how long we'll have to wait to see it play out now that Vista's delayed yet again. Is this a bit of foreshadowing on how the new Microsoft OS will address the self-replicating, zero-day spyware threats?" From the article: "Most industry watchers concede that it will be hard for Microsoft to easily displace the enterprise security businesses of leading vendors such as Symantec, McAfee and Trend Micro, which market integrated packages of applications to companies wishing to solve long lists of problems. However, for firms that are focused on only one of those problem areas, analysts said, Vista and the other Microsoft security products could pose a significant threat."

Comments

There will still be a market

[kimvette]

if history serves as an indicator of future performance. I'm sure that Microsoft will stick to the first Tuesday of every month (or whenever it is) to release signature updates, security patches, etc., which will give third-party vendors the upper hand - or worst case should Microsoft totally blow it, potentially drive up the market share for OS/X and Linux migrations.

Won't the need always exist?

[Tominva1045]

As long as the OS permits users to turn down or turn off security measures- experienced users in order to do something they deem useful and noobs for just not knowing any better- followed by forgetting to turn them back on/up and then surfing to some-malicious-site.com or opening some-malicious-email then the liklihood of an unwanted installl/download > 0 yes?

Sounds like we will always need utilities to help out.

As technology evolves, so will the malware.

Compare this topic to that of graphics- in the beginning there was the .BMP. And Microsoft gave us the Paint program. But images evolved into other formats and movies. And that necessitated all kinds of cool graphics software-- needs not even Microsoft itself could fully imagine or fulfill.

There will always be a market for some next-big-thing.. :-)

It's not Microsoft's fault for once

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Anti-virus companies, ironically, are very much like a parasite that only lives on a specific host. When the host disappears (pre-Vista versions of Windows), the parasite dies. Either they get lucky and they find a new host in the form of Vista with security problems, or they diversify in a hurry.

For once, you can't blame Microsoft for ruining an industry, and I can't say I'll feel sad if McAfee or Symantec dies...

No.

[Flying pig]

Building security into an operating system cannot be bundling, because security is an essential part of OS design (well, for proper Oses it is, anyway.)

However, there is a more interesting issue with things like virus signatures and so on (emerging threats.) IANAL but I do wonder if, assuming that continuous updates are required to identify new forms of phishing, Trojans etc., MS might be required by the EU to open its API so that updates could be bought from different suppliers, on exactly the same basis that you can buy tires and exhausts from sources other than the car maker.

Re:Don't worry!

[fireman sam]

Microsoft has gotten away with the browser bundling because it was a first offence.

I have word that the bigger players in the anti virus/malware markets have preempted Microsoft and are already being advised by relevant legal departments. They (the AV/M companies) cannot do anything unless Microsoft bundles competing software. But as soon as they do, you can be assured that if there is any drop in revenue seen by the AV/M companies, Microsoft will find itself in court again. Next time it will not be a first offence.