McAfee, Symantec Think Vista Unfair

McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by ackthpt · 2006-10-02 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

This would be true IF Microsoft had removed the need for av/as/s/sf software but it hasnt. All it has done is changed how the software innterfaces with the OS in an attempt to make it more secure.

Who can say Microsoft is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train?

I can. They *arent* stopping the need for this software, just making it harder for the competition.

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?

Fuelled MS's growth in the same way a speed bump helps ford's growth.

This might be true *IF* microsoft was releasing fixes when they're needed but as we've seen lately, they still dont.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by Sancho · 2006-10-02 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except that there is no effective way to prevent social engineering.

Many viruses back in the DOS days were spread through BBS systems--not through software holes, but because a user wanted some warez or something. That still happens today, with stupid little flash games like "dwarfbowling" or whatever. No matter how many prompts Windows throws at them, people are going to click. But if their antivirus software throws up a warning and says, "THIS IS A VIRUS." many of them stop.

TPM+proper software design is the only way this can be mitigated. I think most people here don't care for that solution.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by kalirion · 2006-10-02 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

They're not parasites, they're symbiotes. In a parasitic relationship, only the parasite profits. As you've said yourself, "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."
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by discord5 · 2006-10-02 05:19 · Score: 2, Informative

As Michael Crichton implied in Jurassic Park, the more complex a system the more likely it is to break down.

Or as Scotty once said: "The harder they make the plumbing, the easier it is to clog up the drain"
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by adamdrayer · 2006-10-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

There is nothing wrong with signature-based virus protection. It is very difficult to design systems that can pre-emptively determine good code from bad. Heuristics has a place in security, but its not as accurdate, IMHO, and contending with flase positives would be more annoying to home users than paying the nominal fee. For corporations, you have IDS/IPS systems, and they are trying to develop this for the desktop (Host-base IPS or HIPS), but confuring them properly can be extremely difficult, and allows for more user error, which can negative the entire effect.

And striping drives won't help fight off malware, that's for redundancy and performance. And frequent ghosts aren't the answer either. I would recommend users backup data and not installations or partitions. You can be backing up an already corrupt/infected system.

It amazes me how little people are willing to pay for their computer. Its easily a gigantic part of many people's lives, however, they'd rather spend more on their dishware and drapes than they would on the thing that they use to do just about everything including personal banking.

Mcaffee and Symantec are important to the security industry, and help drive it. MS would be stupid to squeeze them out. Every computer should have a reputable company's security software installed or their ISP shouldn't allow them on the internet. Kinda like how cars need to be insured. The thing is, however, they should have the choice of what security company they trust.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by TheGreatOrangePeel · 2006-10-02 05:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree with parent. Have we REALLY forgotten our IE/Netscape history so quickly? Microsoft is following their exact same vendor lock-in strategy now as they did then. Integrate the new product with the old and to make matters worse they're doing that instead of 'fixing' the original product (namely windows).

I'll be the first to say that XP was a huge improvement and that worm-spread was much reduced. I'll also say that I'm a developer myself and I understand that saying 'write it securely' is a hell of a lot easier than actually doing it. So, lets give MS the benefit of the doubt and presume that they're writing their OS even more securely than before. What are we left with, then? A very expensive to write program integrated with the OS for free. I'll again point out my parallel with IE, which was also a very expensive to write program integrated with the OS for free.

Now maybe I'm mistaken in my understanding that the anti-virus software is part of the default installation and if it is, my argument is admittedly all shot to hell and that Symantec and McAfee are big cry-babies. Given Microsoft's history, however, I doubt it.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by TheoMurpse · 2006-10-02 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fuelled MS's growth in the same way a speed bump helps ford's growth.
That analogy makes absolutely no sense. GP was saying that AV software has fueled MS's growth by effectively being the QA dept., providing a much needed service to users of the OS. If your analogy is assumed to be valid, this implies that your analogy states that speedbumps provide a necessary service for users in operation of their vehicle. This is absolutely not the case, and so by reductio ad absurdum, your analogy is not valid.
Speedbumps exist to protect those who live in the surrounding neighborhoods and shoppers in parking lots. Now, if GP's statement about AV companies was that they protect users in the same LAN as a Windows box, your analogy would be correct. Sadly (for you), it was not.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by Peteee · 2006-10-02 06:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Now maybe I'm mistaken in my understanding that the anti-virus software is part of the default installation and if it is, my argument is admittedly all shot to hell and that Symantec and McAfee are big cry-babies. Given Microsoft's history, however, I doubt it.
An anti virus isn't part of the default installation. It has to be downloaded seperately and costs $50 a year.
McAfee and symantec are big cry babies. Maybe I might agree with them if thier products weren't so bad.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by SyncNine · 2006-10-02 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly! I remember when Norton Utilities for DOS was a set of near-impossible to replace system tools that were undeniably useful to anyone with the inclination to use them.

Now we've got SuperSuite SystemWorks 2007.3 Ultra ++ Premium Platinum Professional Network Edition, and it's great! It loads a piece of shit e-mail scanner that sucks up 24mb of your ram and only works with two e-mail clients (not web based e-mail like most people assume it does!), some sort of 'worm protection' that succeeds only in disallowing you to connect to any remote machine ever, for any reason, you've got their anti-virus protection which incidently takes about 45mb of ram to sit in the background, double that if it's doing a scan, then you've got the heuristic detection, which is about another 5-10 mb of your ram, you've got the 'Symantec System Center' console, that takes about 10mb of ram just so it can tell you you're running SystemWorks 2007.3 Ultra++ Premium Platinum Professional Network Edition every five minutes in a pop-up window. Then there's Goback, which doesn't work, Ghost Personal 10, which I've yet to get to work properly thanks to its inability to properly clone 'msgina.dll', and an out-dated 'update' to checkdisk that the software doesn't allow you to force a manual run of. Don't even get me started on 'Norton Internet Security' which effectively stops you from transmitting *ANY* data unless the user clicks OK about a thousand times, and also does about 10 or 15 other things to your connection that it will never tell you about that impede normal workgroup/domain traffic. Lovely.

And that's just SystemWorks. Don't forget about how Corporate Antivirus 10 has a nasty penchant for destroying corporate systems (as seen on slashdot here.)

Maybe I'm just bitter at having to remove all this shit from client's computers who have bought it and spent their $50 or $100 on this software only to have it completely screw them from top to bottom.

I think that Symantec needs to do one of two things: Either drop out completely, admit that their software is a shadow of what it used to be and that they've lost all ability to write any sort of tight and non-resource hungry code, OR re-write their damn software to be functional and not take an average of 100mb of ram to run. I'm fairly certain that properly written code doesn't need direct kernel access to check whether c:\boot.dat is infected with a virus. 'Course, I'm no programmer, so, I don't know that for fact.

But either way, if they did that, I think their cries would fall on more sympathetic ears.

--
To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I uhhh, I think you completely misunderstood this guys statement: Fuelled MS's growth in the same way a speed bump helps ford's growth.

Here's his analogy: Ford is #1 auto maker on the planet, and they make vehicles held together by bubblegum and ductape. When someone hits a speedbump they fall apart. A 3rd party company (Symantec and McAfee) repairs your broken vehicle for you. This is such good business that they create huge corporations just by fixing broken Fords.

Ford releases a new vehicle held together by tack welds and zipties, and the 3rd party company complains because there is less for them to fix...

Now, I didn't read TFA so I have no idea if this guy's argument even really pertains to it, but that's what he was saying and I think the point was missed. His statements of living on borrowed time are on a much grander scale then an IE/Netscap type thing here. ...just my take on it.

-AC
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by ElephanTS · 2006-10-02 09:05 · Score: 2, Funny

I thought car/computer analogies were made illegal back in 2001?

--
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by Deathlizard · 2006-10-02 10:43 · Score: 2, Informative

They *arent* stopping the need for this software, just making it harder for the competition.

Windows OneCare is not built into Windows Vista and must be bought seperatly. You can thank Symantec for that. The only thing that is integrated into Vista is Windows Defender, which the AV companies will probably sue MS over, and I can bet that both OneCare and Defender use the same protocol that MS is telling the AV vendors to use.

As For The Competition that MS is trying to "Screw"...
Trend Micro runs on Vista
Computer Associates runs on Vista
Avast runs on Vista
Sophos Runs on Vista
AVG Runs on Vista
Mcafee runs on vista
Symantec runs on vista

--
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time by jc42 · 2006-10-03 03:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think it's a bad thing that Microsoft has made it impractical to charge for a web browser. How is it a bad thing if they make it impractical to charge for anti-virus software?

Good point. And we might generalize it a bit. We often read here that old canard "You get what you pay for". With software, not only is this not generally true; what's more common is that with software, price and quality are typically inversely related.

Microsoft is merely doing its part to maintain this situation. They do it in a somewhat subtle way: They pretend that much of it is free, but you do in fact pay for IE and for MS's anti-virus software, as part of the price for their entire "system". You get crappy, poorly-functioning software, of course, in agreement with the price-quality rule. If you want quality, you have to download and install either shareware or free software.

Actually, there is somewhat of a parallel for this outside of computers. It's well known that, if you want quality audio or video equipment, you don't buy the all-in-one "systems". Those are simple purchases, and the components do work together (and are typically integrated into one box so that they appear to be a single product). But to get quality, you have to buy individual components, and interconnect them yourself. This takes time for study and wiring, but the end result will be much better quality.

Microsoft systems are like this. They sell as a "system", but the overall quality is low, especially since the components generally don't inter-operate nearly as well as advertised. Like A/V equipment, if you want quality, you'll just have to spend the time to install the quality components yourself.

The difference is that, with quality A/V equipment, the good stuff usually costs more than the crappy "integrated system" box. With software, the good stuff is usually a lot cheaper than the integrated junk. And when you look at all the hair-pulling and time-wasting futzing you've gotta do with MS software, the "component" software is often easier to get running right. So with both price and time, the quality stuff is cheaper than an all-in-one "system".

But with software, nobody much knows how to make things interoperate well.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Much ado... by DoraLives · 2006-10-02 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:Much ado... by CastrTroy · 2006-10-02 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that MS made their OS really secure, and as such, have nothing left to protect against. What they are complaining about is that MS has made it impossible for any program to run at a low enough level (except MS programs of course) to be able to work effectively as an antivirus/antimalware application. They've made is so that it's impossible for anybody but MS to make a proper virus scanner. Well, they could make a tool that would get down to that level, but it would have to be through some security hole in the code, and MS would most likely patch it to prevent hackers from using it. So i think that Vista will be more insecure than ever, because MS will be the only ones able to provide security tools.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Much ado... by molarmass192 · 2006-10-02 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not disagreeing with you, you're bang on, but you raise an interesting point in "MS has made it impossible for any program to run at a low enough level (except MS programs of course)" that I want to expand on. MS doesn't sell open source software. They've never once said "do whatever you want with our OS". They don't provide source code to build your own kernel. So why the big stink by these companies? This is the nature of closed source software platforms. You're at the mercy of their creators. This turn of events for the anti-V companies is EXACTLY the reason why I no longer use or recommend closed source software to my board. Microsoft has ALWAYS owned the key to Symantec's and McAfee's business models. They've just decided to close that door now and these guys will now have to pay the price for the choice of platform they made. This same fate could happen to ANY windows-only software maker. It's the nature of dealing with a platform over which you have zero control.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Re:Much ado... by apt142 · 2006-10-02 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I agree with you that Microsoft has had the keys forever and that they've never been very encouraging about allowing people to do what they want with Windows, it's a bit different than you detail. It's all about unfair market share. If MS had the market share that Linux or OS X does, then it's all fine and dandy. I'd be the first to tell Symantic and McAfree to stop crying in their beer and go back to work and figure something new out.

But, it's not that way. Microsoft is a monopoly and they are clearly leveraging it here under disguise of securing their OS. The thing I can't get is why Microsoft would want to do this. It's quite clear that a windows computer without a good firewall and an antivirus is useless to the average user. And it's not like Microsoft has been on the spot about patching their OS or building a good built in firewall. Those new boxes will be open season after the first exploit is found.

--
Star Pirates

In other news... by jfclavette · 2006-10-02 04:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Smalltown, US - NAPA says increased quality in GM exhausts unfair. A representative is quoted saying: "GM is in the business of building cars. There's no reason for them to build quality parts for their cars. It's absolutely unfair that the default exhaust lasts more than 3 weeks without needing a replacement. They're trying to drive us out of business."

Re:In other news... by nizo · 2006-10-02 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:In other news... by madhatr · 2006-10-02 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Maybe? by HatchedEggs · 2006-10-02 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

BuggyWhips! by bigattichouse · 2006-10-02 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny

My buggywhip business has been unfairly targetted by these so-called horse-less carraiges! I demand Mr. Ford require buggywhips in all his model-T vehicles!

--
meh

No particular sympathy by Colin+Smith · 2006-10-02 04:55 · Score: 3, Funny

When you dance with the devil...

--
Deleted

Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation.. by Churla · 2006-10-02 04:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 also upset at Mac? by ClassicComposer · 2006-10-02 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? by FreonTrip · 2006-10-02 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're trying, but most of the mud they try to kick up doesn't stick because Mac OS X was designed as a much more forward-thinking system than Windows. At least as importantly, it also isn't saddled with hideous mounds of backwards compatibility issues, which also contribute tremendously to the chinks in Windows' armor. Security on Mac OS has generally been superior to what's existed on Windows/DOS for at least the last fifteen years; the cottage industry providing security for Microsoft's products didn't take hold on the Mac side in the same way because it generally wasn't needed.
Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? by giminy · 2006-10-02 05:13 · Score: 2, Informative

I mean it has a built in firewall that is actually semi decent

OS X's built-in firewall sucks. And I'm a mac user. Through the interface, click all the security options (and go into Advanced and check stealth mode, etc). Type in 'ipfw show' at the command prompt. Wow! Stealth mode blocks ICMP echo requests! The firewall *still* allows all UDP traffic in, so long as the UDP traffic *comes from* a specific port. In short, the firewall assumes nobody is spoofing packets to get through it, which is retarded. A firewall that makes that assumption may as well be turned off.

Wouldnt that mean that OSX has been for a long time shutting out companies like this?

Mac OS doesn't shut people out. It offers a free SDK, and (mostly) follows published standards. Bastille Linux is a fine example of a hardening system/firewall enhancer for OS X. Check it out.

--
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Re:why arent they also upset at Mac? by supasam · 2006-10-02 05:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Just to clarify: Windows was first designed in the early to mid 80's. OSX, built on top of BSD, developed in the 70's from UNIX. ARPANET was designed in the mid 60's to connect the computers of the country (usa) in the event of nuclear war. Thats right, people have been connecting computers into networks for some 40 years. Windows just was not designed to be connected to the internet. OSX was designed to never be without the internet.

--

Suck a lemon?

So basically it's true by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-02 04:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The AV and anti-spyware companies don't want you to have a secure experience.
I mean, it's like duh etc. I know. But this is ridiculous, if they are a huge corp with mad assets ..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.

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.

Another integral part of an OS? by marlinSpike · 2006-10-02 04:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Not just MS by ClosedSource · 2006-10-02 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Not just MS by baadger · 2006-10-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think it's better to create a moderately 'insecure' system (What exactly is insecure about the Internet's infrastructure anyway?) than to impose a grand overly complex security scheme on it to find it becomes a hinderence later (20 years later for example).

Take for example e-mail/POP. It certainly has it's flaws, but is hugely successful and noone has yet been able to come up with a better system (for example, one that mitigates the spam problem) that doesn't also involve some hefty compromises that would make the whole system less useful to alot of people (and i don't mean just spammers :P).

Re:Yes by SpiffyMarc · 2006-10-02 05:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Why is Trend-Micro different? by PoconoPCDoctor · 2006-10-02 05:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Trend Micro is the only (AFAIK) vendor that is certified to produce an anti-virus product for Vista. Are they being given the keys to the castle while McAfee and Symantec are left out in the cold?

Anyone know why this is so? Do tell!

--
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington

Re:Why is Trend-Micro different? by MSFanBoi2 · 2006-10-02 05:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

No love lost for both of them by Nanite · 2006-10-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Personally, I wouldn't care if both Mcafee and Symantec went bankrupt tomorrow. Both feature bloated, buggy software, and symantec's sales pressure to 'Upgrade' to newer buggier software rather than renewal of the old software is just disgusting. Granted, I don't know if MS could do a better job, given their abysmal track record on security and virus prevention. They love to just leave the barndoor open for stuff like that. But they may be able to produce a spyware/virus solutions that works better within their systems, better than the monkeys at Mcafee and Symantec anyways.

--
God is real unless declared integer.

Right, forgot the actual POINT of that post... by FreonTrip · 2006-10-02 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

You are making the WRONG enemy here, Bill by krell · 2006-10-02 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust by dpbsmith · 2006-10-02 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!

Re:(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust by ScentCone · 2006-10-02 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is what you get when a company acquires monopoly power

Um... so, if the very same company happened to have produced an O/S (let's go back to, say, Win98 or something, doesn't matter), that WAS airtight, and wouldn't be materially helped by third-party A/V products... wouldn't you still be saying the same thing? At what point did the publisher lose the right to make their own product better?

At what point did the government, or third parties via the courts, become the best people to decide what features you think should appear in your new software product? Are you really comfortable with that, as a matter of philosophy? If Vista sucks in new and interesting ways, it will either have problems, or a third party will find a new (if temporary) way to make a truckload of cash. If it doesn't suck, all you've got is less trouble on the desktop, and fewer dart-throwing targets for people that don't like MS (um, including the ones who say they don't like MS because their products are secure... the irony is delicious).

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.

So what? It's also the only thing that's meaningfully doing all sorts of things in its role as your O/S. If you don't like the collection of computer-operating tools that's called Vista... use something else. It's not MS's obligation to provide a platform for other companies to market particular pieces of the desktop and under-the-hood environment. No more than it's Symantec's obligation to open up their products so that MacAffee can make money off of "improving" Symantec's tools with another item you can buy.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

No, but the 'complaint' fits our culture perfectly by ScentCone · 2006-10-02 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Shoulda broke them up long ago by drdanny_orig · 2006-10-02 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

This wouldn't have been a problem now if the DoJ had broken MS up into smaller units back when it had the chance. MS/OS division would have no incentive to favor MS/AV over any other.

--
.nosig

No, that's not correct by Sycraft-fu · 2006-10-02 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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."

Re:No, that's not correct by dramaley · 2006-10-02 05:55 · Score: 3, Informative

My understanding (and please correct me if i am mistaken) is that worms and viruses infect a system through self-replication without the user's consent. While trojan horses require action on the part of the user. You seem to be confusing trojan horses with viruses. Granted, most so-called "anti-virus" software developed in the last few years also attempts to stop trojan horses.

--
----- "I'm still sane on three planets and two moons."
Re:No, that's not correct by Markusis · 2006-10-02 06:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

I really hate this popular Slashdot myth that viruses only exist because OSes are designed improperly. No, wrong. ... 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.
</snip>

This is why SELinux and App Armor exist. With a proper SELinux or App Armor setup you could install Apache as root and all it will be allowed to do is what Apache does normally. So, it would only be allowed to read the /etc/httpd directory and the /var/www directory. It would only be able to write to the /var/log/httpd directory and listen on port 80 and 443. So, this could prevent an exploit in Apache from taking over the rest of your system.

Admittedly this example wouldn't help a desktop user. But, there is no reason why SELinux or App Armor couldn't help a desktop user. One example would be if Firefox was locked down to only allow downloads to the ~/Downloads directory or something like that. Now any hole in firefox would only be able to damage your ~/Downloads directory and presumably your firefox cache directory or something. It wouldn't be able to delete ~/Pictures and ~/Music. The browser example is kind of complicated because it has so many tasks these days. But, the point is that you can prevent a lot of problems by employing some kind of mandatory access control system.

Oh, and it really isn't that hard to use one of these systems either. Yeah, they can be pretty nasty if you really get into it (especially SELinux). But, for a desktop user there really isn't anything to worry about. I use Fedora Core 5 at work and at home and I've kept SELinux enabled on both systems. App Armor is really nice to use for the purposes of locking down a server system in this way. SELinux is more generic but it is much more complex than App Armor.
Re:No, that's not correct by Thaelon · 2006-10-02 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative
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.

These are called trojan horses.

Viruses and worms replicate themselves and redistribute through backdoors. Typically "worm" carries connotations of being particularly aggressive and requiring no faults of the user. But I think, originally virus meant little more than self replication, not even necessarily malicious - just that you could be "infected" (hence the term virus). Virus carries connotations of being prolific (even within one host system).

Ones that depend on tricking the user or stupid users are trojan horses.

At least those were the definitions back in the day. The media has done a lot to muddy the waters.

In short (and IMHO):
- virus - prolific replication
- trojan (horse) - tricks the user
- worm - finds its own way in
The problem is many cases of malware combine some or all of these rather than just one of them, and the media flounders without having a short, easily digestable label to slap on them, so they confuse things with generalizations.
--
Question everything
Re:No, that's not correct by danpsmith · 2006-10-02 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
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.

I believe this is definitely true. Most people get viruses out of their own free will and/or stupidity, however, there are ways to make viruses more apparent than other things:
1. Stop hiding extensions. People are less likely to open a file from an email if it is named hello.jpg.exe and they see that in plain view. Even the dumber of users could figure out this very simple thing. However, Windows likes to hide extensions from the user in order to make everything more "simple" by default, and I'm not so sure if there's even a way to turn off extension hiding at all in the email suites that ship with windows. It is evident that these things are viruses to computer saavy people (different looking icon, etc.) but most people don't tend to notice things like this.
2. Stop hiding running processes. I understand that you want system protected threads that you can't end, hidden processes, etc. But the best OS is one that is transparent. It's discouraging to have to download another third party registry editor just to get into the even more hidden elements of the registry. I understand that registry hacking is something that's pretty common even among people who don't know what they are doing, but don't hide stuff from the people that are supposed to be using the registry editor. And stop, stop, hiding running processes from administrator users. It's a little bit hard to get something to quit malware wise without first knowing how and where it is running.
3. Stop legacy support for strange script files which hide their extensions (even when "show extensions" is on. I was appalled to find out that even with show all extensions enabled, there were types of scripts that could be made to look like .jpg if they used certain old script types. (.clp, I don't remember what it was exactly)
4. Prevent applications from tacking themselves onto other executables not in their space without warning. If an application is trying to edit critical parts of the registry, I'd like to know about this. There should be something that makes sure this happens. If things want to change what extension runs them, etc. this should all be done.
5. Limit script scope. .doc files shouldn't be able to touch things outside of their scope, macro viruses shouldn't be able to harm anything because they shouldn't have access rights. You are dictating the scripting language in this case, quit allowing it to do things you don't want it to ever. Is there even a reason a macro should be able to write to the disk? Why not try a java approach on these things.
I'm sure there are more beefs here that I'm not looking at but would be able to identify if I think about it more. I'm appalled that certain activities (such as simply viewing a page) can cause malware to take over the machine. Honestly, I think that's the major problem with windows today. IE + Windows allows you to gather a whole host of spyware simply by clicking the wrong link.

I'm also irritated by the lack of trust that MS has for the user. I'm sure that nobody really knows what processes are, etc. in a very popular way, but that shouldn't prevent someone who knows what they are doing from seeing everything. The system needs to be more transparent. Stop pretending we can't be trusted with our own computers, and stop with the dumb dialogs on C: drive talking about how editing these files could kill us all. Don't treat us like children because you sell to them.
--
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Re:No, that's not correct by Rakishi · 2006-10-02 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative

A worm spreads on its own, by say scanning the network or sending emails to everyone in your address book.

A virus infects other files but doesn't actively spread to other systems. They may use exploits to infect the system but they may simply wait for another idiot to click on the exe they infected. So when Bob gets that floppy from you he may get infected.

Trojans do not self-replciate at all and usually are designed to control a computer or steal data.

So neither trojans nor many viruses would be stopped by a secure OS assuming the user ran them as "root" which most users would do. Worms would also not be stopped if they did not use exploits to spread, for example by sending themselves as emails or IMs.

Re:Mcaffe + Norton Licks balls. by Grand+V'izer · 2006-10-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Well Avast! is going to get screwed just like Norton and MacAffee. All those free AV products are going to become a lot less useful when they can't detect unauthorized actions on the kernel.

I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Microsoft hasn't "secured" the kernel from attackers. They've simply removed any way for legitimate non-microsoft software to monitor the kernel. People have already found ways to attack the Vista kernel, and given Microsoft's history with security I don't feel very good about them being my only defense.

--
Not all random numbers are created equally.

Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. by Churla · 2006-10-02 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

If you want to play with the big boys by codepunk · 2006-10-02 05:22 · Score: 5, Funny

If you want to play with the big boys you got to play like one. They could fix this situation in
less than a week and have microsoft bending over backwards to help them out.

CEO Symantec: Billy you are pissing me off let me have access to what I want.

Billy: No way we are taking over the playground.

CEO Symantec: Well you are going to let me have access to what I want or else.

Billy: Or else what, I am not scared of you I own the desktop.

CEO Symantec: Ok here is what I am gonna do.

Billy: laughs

CEO Symantec: We are immediately updating all of our desktop software.

Billy: yea so

CEO Symantec: Any time a virus is found on the system it will pop up a message to the user. If it
is browser installed malware it will contain the following message "A virus related to your IE installation was quarenteened and removed. To eliminate future possible system infections you can
go to www.getfirefox.com and download a secure browser which will greatly enhance your web surfing experience".

Billy: I don't much care about IE anyhow we don't even make money on it.

CEO Symantec: Any time a macro virus is found on the system it will pop up a message to the user. "A macro virus has been found on your system and it is possible that your personal data could have been stolen. A better office suite that is even compatible with your current documents and is totally fee of charge is available at www.openoffice.org. If you would like this installed press ok and the macro virus will be removed and we will upgrade your system to a better office suite"

Billy: oh crap, please don't do that.

CEO Symantec: Also when it catches a system virus it is gonna point the user to ubuntu and offer to install it.

Billy: Tell you what we will send over a team of developers and help you fully integrate with our system.

Problem solved!

--

Got Code?

"Microsoft Business Partner" by Mr.+No+Skills · 2006-10-02 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect by Gastrobot · 2006-10-02 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

IANAM (I am not a mathematician) but I once attended a lecture where the speaker was an expert on Kurt Gödel. He claimed that Gödel's incompleteness theorem can be applied to prove that one cannot make perfect antivirus software. Either it will be too strong (imagine labeling everything a virus) or it will not be strong enough. If, therefore, Microsoft can't prove that their security is perfect then one might argue that competitors should be allowed their crack at it. I say security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect because they could obviously make it secure by removing internet support and so on, but that wouldn't be reasonable. It is my understanding that Microsoft feels allowing competitors to override their security system would pose a security risk itself. If that's the case then there are merits to both points of view to debate, but at the end of the day I believe that this would just strengthen Microsoft's monopoly.

No by Sycraft-fu · 2006-10-02 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative

It's because they've shut the fuck up and updated their product while Symantec has been bitching. MS is not locking out 3rd party virus scanners or 3rd party anything. They know that would get them sued in a hurry. They've just changed the way things work, and you need to update your software accordingly. Vista has all kinds of changes like that. For example PDFcreator no longer works. MS lockout? No, security change. Used to be services could directly interact with the desktop. Well I guess that makes you venerable to a certain class of attacks called shatter attacks. I don't know the details of what they are, but at any rate. So Vista changed the model. Now you have to have the service separate and then a program that interacts with the desktop and controls it. An MMC control would work fine, or your own app, whatever. Just a new way (hopefully more secure) of doing things.

This all reminds me of back in the Windows 2000 days with pro audio cards. So Windows 2000 moved to a new driver model for audio called WDM. While it could use NT drivers, you got none of the features, you needed WDM drivers to be fully 2000 compatible. Well the pro audio companies bitched and whined that WDM wasn't suited to pro audio and that nothing would work and so on. Finally they gave in and released WDM drivers and, what do you know, they work great, better than anything before and that's all that's out there now. However they didn't want to change to a new system so they whined.

That's all that's happening here. Companies are being whiny because they don't want to update. I have no sympathy.

picture of the mcafee ad by graucho · 2006-10-02 06:08 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77014820@N00/25883676 2/

Symantec bitches... by jb.hl.com · 2006-10-02 06:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

...and Trend Micro has no problems converting their AV suite over to the Vista model. Hmmmm.

Symantec and McAfee are only bitching because their shitty, shitty, shitty products are heavily tied into the old system by way of layer upon layer of cruft, which they don't particularly want to dig through. If Trend can do it, so can they; they just don't want to.

--
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --

Sophos say they have no problem with this by EqualSlash · 2006-10-02 06:34 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.betanews.com/article/Sophos_on_Symantec s_Vista_Complaints/1159472882

Ron O'Brien, senior security consultant with Sophos, told BetaNews. "But from what we have learned in our dialog with Microsoft, which is ongoing, the objection on the part of some vendors is that PatchGuard will prevent access to the kernel, which is that very basic level of the operating system where people feel that they may need to go, in order to provide a total security solution."

Conceivably, if Sophos wanted to provide a "total security solution," given this new set of circumstances, wouldn't it need to understand some of PatchGuard's secrets? Surprisingly, O'Brien told us no. "At this point in time, Sophos does not see the need to be able to access the kernel within the Microsoft operating system," he said.

"If there is a point in time where the kernel becomes the subject of malware being written specifically to it, then I would expect that we would go back to Microsoft and tell them we need to be able to access the kernel. But at this point, it doesn't appear to be necessary."

Re:Mcaffe + Norton Licks balls. by Shotgun · 2006-10-02 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

The ad online by Zamolx3 · 2006-10-02 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative

You can find the ad on mcafee's homepage. http://www.mcafee.com/us/local_content/misc/vista_ position.pdf

Sue! Sue! But wait 'til I get some popcorn by HiThere · 2006-10-02 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

GOOD by MilenCent · 2006-10-02 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:I see the problem! by ClosedSource · 2006-10-03 02:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

McAfee, Symantec Think Vista Unfair

63 of 424 comments (clear)