Slashdot Mirror
McAfee, Symantec Think Vista Unfair
davidwr writes "Is Microsoft unfairly locking anti-virus companies out of Vista? Symantec and McAfee seem to think so and they aren't being very quiet about it, placing a full-page ad in the Financial Times. If you've found the ad online, please post a link."
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?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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?
Is it fascism yet?
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/
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
But what if GM manufactured parts that only lasted 3 weeks and also made it impossible to use parts made by anyone else?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
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...
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
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?
The AV and anti-spyware companies don't want you to have a secure experience. ..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.
I mean, it's like duh etc. I know. But this is ridiculous, if they are a huge corp with mad assets
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where were you when the voynix came?
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...)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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."
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.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
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.
Sleep is for the Weak
Agreed.
Not to mention, Trend has NO issues with being able to disable the Windows Firewall, Windows Defender or anything else. Not to mention it hooks into Security Center with no issues at all. Works perfectly fine. Now Symantec is claiming it CANNOT do all these things, why is it in a Beta that Trend has no issues with all of the above.
Maybe if Symantec got some real programmers that could read Vista's API and basic documentation, which is available for FREE, they wouldn't be complaining so much.
People have already found ways to attack the Vista kernel,
Then why all the fuss. Problem solved.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
After l'affair SONY rootkit where all of those companies conspired to exploit the end users in default of their clear obligations, I want to see them ALL dragged through the mud. Thoroughly. And stepped on by swine. And sexually assaulted by hogs.
Every single one of those companies took people's money, and then betrayed them. MS, McAfee, and Symantec are only some of the unindicted co-conspirators, of course. But their names are at the head of the list.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but the major antivirus companies, especially Symantec, have had this coming for a looo-hooong time.
Most virus writers have moved on to even more damaging (trojans, worms) or lucrative (malware) attacks by now, that the major checkers are either too slow to protect against or, in the case of malware, outright refuse to unless the user buys a new product. Meanwhile even Microsoft Word now contains some built-in anti-virus measures, all the major webmail providers have built-in virus scanning, and many new computers don't even HAVE floppy disks.
This is not to discount the dangers of viruses, mind. My dad once took a new computer back to the store because of a virus on it that simulated a memory parity error, and boy was I EVER mad about that. But that was a 486DX running at 66mHz running Windows 3.1, and that was my last personal experience with viruses. They are just not the threat it once was, yet to listen to these guys, you'd think the world was about to explode, constantly, forever.
McAfee was the company that mongered much fear a few years ago about a JPEG virus that was going around. Remember that one?
Symantec is so anxious that people continue to subscribe to their highly lucrative virus definition service that they'll use any combination of the words "Urgent" and "Recommended," and red and boldface text attributes, to get people to pony up for another year of protection they probably don't need, and Microsoft themselves is a major contributor to this funding source by including that little Security Center taskbar icon to nag users into putting antivirus software on their machine.
Antivirus software is the kind of thing that should be provided by the OS manufacturer for free, because it makes the OS more secure. Windows could certainly use more of that.
No, an application doesn't have to go throught the OS to get to the memory or hardware unless there is hardware there it enforce it and the OS has programmed it properly.