Slashdot Mirror
Concerns Over Security Software
Arthbunot Bullwinkle writes to mention a BBC article exploring concerns about the future of security software. The piece looks at trends toward 'free' security products, such as ZoneAlarm, and wonders aloud about where those products will find themselves after Windows Vista is released. From the article: "'Now maybe the good ones will actually get rid of that attack but at the same time they may drop maybe 10 or 20 other attacks onto your system.' The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get. But completely free security software may be a thing of the past when the new version of Windows hits the shops early next year. "
This is yet another good reason to avoid upgrading for now.
Personally, one of the major reason why I haven't taken RC1 into actual use beyond testing it a bit is lack of compatible 3rd party firewall.
Then again.. situation was pretty similar when Win2K came out - early on nothing was compatible. XP was easier because it is effectively a reskinned Win2K, and 99% of Win2K apps worked out of the box - even security products.
Vista is quite a bit more than a reskinned XP, as lots of stuff under the hood has been reworked, and again it's just like Win2K - nothing works intially, but I'm sure over time the problem is going to be fixed. In fact, it's surprising how good the situation is, considering official launch is still several months away.
It's not like Windows Live OneCare is getting great reviews by anyone who's doing a comparison based off what threats it stops and which ones it doesnt. Even Ziff-Microsoft publications rated it #7th out of 10 a month after its release.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Based on the fact that Vista will have been exploited seriously before it's even released. What M$ product hasn't been hit hard in the first week of release? I still have serious doubts about the ability of anyone in Redmond to spell security, much less do anything about it!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
MS generally provides pretty basic versions of software for their included versions. As you noted, IE is an exception, but things like the firewall, defragmenter and so on are functional and fine, but really don't compete with the stuff you can buy [...] The defragmenter is a great example. Windows 2000 and above have a built in one. It works on NTFS and FAT drives and does an ok job. How then do companies like Executive Software and Raxico survive making replacements for it? Simple: They make more feature rich versions.
Sorry, but this completely wrong. The "built-in" Windows 2000 defragmenter was Diskeeper-lite, licensed for use from (who else?) the folks at Diskeeper. Most people, when discovering the inherent limitations of their lite version (innability to defrag page files, etc.), purchased the full version of Diskeeper or opted for an alternative like PerfectDisk, etc.
In general, the availability of certain third-party replacements for native or included tools has always been a fact of life in Windows, and indeed, is often the prefered choice. As Microsoft typically seeks out the lowest denonimator (if it works, it's good enough), it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that included programs are no different. However, the situation is a bit more complicated than your summary suggests. Licensing is one factor. OS tie-ins are another.
You mean "free" as in speech, right? How much did the P3 box cost, and how much does its electricity cost over its lifetime? Many installations, especially in homes, would do a better job with a firewall/router/NAT appliance with a built-in 100BASE-TX switch and 802.11b/g access point.
I've pretty much lost track of the number of people who think that AVG Free is faster and more effective than Norton's. -- and, of course we all know that OpenBSD can't hold a candle to Windows for security holes.
Even if you could successfully sue MS for $selling you broken software, if you're looking for security (rather than a scapegoat), you're still better off with the the better software than trying (with varying success) to point the finger at the owners of a more expensive (but less effective) product.
A pretty package doesn't indicate the quality of the product -- only the quality of the packaging -- and sometimes not even that.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.