Microsoft's Security Meeting Causes Unease

Tony Maclennan writes to tell us that there were many mixed feelings at this year's Microsoft Security Response and Safety Summit. Many who attended the conference felt that the presentations were sadly lacking in the technical details that were shared in previous years. With Microsoft entering the arena as a competitor to these anti-virus companies, one has to wonder about the effect on the free flow of information that ultimately benefits the consumer.

Comments

Trade secrets?

[meburke]

C'mon, folks! It is no longer in Microsoft's interest to divulge techniques that may allow a competitor to secure the most profitable OS in History against it's own vulnerabilities.

The security companies will be better off forming their own knowlege pool and inviting Microsoft representatives to learn from them.

from TFA: visitors are those not saying anything

[pimpimpim]

FTA:

You can imagine why everyone kept their mouth shut:

It's especially a concern that Microsoft requires attendees to sign a document that allows the company to use anything that anyone says at the event.

"Having been put into that situation, people will feel more inhibited to say things," said Jimmy Kuo, a McAfee fellow and a veteran of the Microsoft events. "They ask us to sign a nondisclosure agreement, and if we say anything in those meetings that Microsoft is able to use, they have the right to do so." The agreement was introduced in recent years, he said.

Really, what kind of conference organized by a competitor that already puts in a clause that they can steal the ideas presented would actually render useful information? Think of some big pharmaceutical firm letting its competitors come and show their ideas with a clause like the one above. It would be surprising if anyone would actually show up.

Only one A/V vendore currently in MS Vista Beta

[winkydink]

Trend Micro. Perhaps the others are staying away out of fear? Seems shortsighted.

12 Rules?

[tb3]

So, how many of the wonderful new '12 Rules' does this violate? And how many people really believed in the 'Kinder, Gentler, Microsoft'?

Job security, for me

[RickBauls]

Microsofts poor security and anti-virus is what keeps bills paid for me and a lot of people I know. If you ask me, malware can be a good thing in a capitalist run country like USA. If it wasn't for malware, the entry level jobs at a lot of IT companies would be gone.

You forgot the usual course of action.

[twitter]

If Microsoft releases the buggy, hole-ridden mess that so many are afraid of along with functional, cheap, easily obtainable antivirus tools, they're out of a job. If Microsoft were to release an OS as secure as, say, Linux, they're still out of a job.

The second options is impossible for a closed source company.

The first option, less most of the bugs, is what M$ would like you to believe is going to happen.

The usual option is to realease anything they can and then put the others out of business. Price and "free" are only the surface of the attack. The real attack comes from denying the "competitor" needed OS information and outright sabotage. Microsoft's insane complexity and bugs are a legacy of that kind of attack.

No company has a guaranteed right to profit.

M$ is a company too. Vista is the end of the road for them. Their profits and market share will implode soon after they get that buggy junk out the door when no one buys it.