Microsoft Agrees to Changes in Vista Security

An anonymous reader writes "Bowing to pressure from European antitrust regulators and rival security vendors, Microsoft has agreed to modify Windows Vista to better accommodate third-party security software makers. In a press conference Friday, Microsoft said it would configure Vista to let third-party anti-virus and other security software makers bypass 'PatchGuard,' a feature in 64-bit versions of Windows Vista designed to bar access to the Windows kernel. Microsoft said it would create an API to let third-party vendors access the kernel and to disable the Windows Security Center so that users would not be prompted by multiple alerts about operating system security. In addition, Redmond said it would modify the welcome screen presented to Vista users to include links to other security software other than Microsoft's own OneCare suite. From the article: 'It looks like Microsoft was really testing the waters here, sort of pushing the limits of antitrust and decided they probably couldn't cross that line just yet.'"

Comments

testing the waters?

[yagu]

From the article (and /. summary):

It looks like Microsoft was really testing the waters here, sort of pushing the limits of antitrust and decided they probably couldn't cross that line just yet," Northcutt said. "That's a good thing, because it's just too easy for mistakes to happen when you are only left with a single security provider."

It's only an author's surmise, but as I understand and interpret Microsoft's position, there is no line they will be able to cross ever while they are still a monopoly. Microsoft enjoys (immensely) their monopoly position in PC OSes, and as long as they do (immensely), they will continue to be proscribed from using their monopoly to leverage, influence, and otherwise compete unfairly with any other of their products.

There is no line to test.

Re:testing the waters?

[Xiph1980]

may I assume that you took the blue pill?

Re:testing the waters?

[Guppy06]

"Microsoft isn't a monopoly though. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using any number of other x86 operating systems on their PC. Don't like Windows? Fine, install Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc. Hell, buy a Mac and use MacOS X."

We've all been over this before...

1. Computer manfuacturers are bent over a barrel to include an OEM Windows install on every machine they sell. The only realistic way for a user to get a computer without Windows is to build one themself.
2. Since everybody is already getting a copy of Windows, what incentinve is there for the end user to try an alternative OS? Better yet, even if they do, they've already paid for Windows and Microsoft still has their money and their "installed base" numbers
3. People write software for the dominant OS rather than invest even more money into R&D for multiple OSes. Meaning that most applications (read "games") out there are designed for Windows

The 95% of end users out there who don't build their own PCs from scratch are left with choosing to continue running the Windows their machine came with, or to take on the Sisyphusean challenge of working to install their own OS and tailoring their software shopping (if not their life in general) around that OS instead of simply using what they already paid for.

"You know why people use Microsoft Windows? Because they like it."

Microsoft will never allow anybody to test that hypothesis in any meaningful way. You can't say that with any certainty until Dell and HP start saying "Would you like Vista or Fedora with your new computer?"

And how does Microsoft do this? By abusing their monopoly power.

Re:testing the waters?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Because they like it. It's stable, friendly, and well supported from both the vendor and third-party software point of view.

...And well supported by people like me (us IT folks), you forgot to mention. I've yet again had to do a "Standard Windows Cleanup" this past week. My GF'S Dad's XP machine was under the weather (again). He's teh Average, Joe Six-Pack (l)user. Multiple versions of AOL installed (and couldn't uninstall a single one of them), Anti-Virus Defs about a year old, etc.

OK, most of the problems with it could've been fixed or prevented by properly updating the machine over time, but, Windows will happily eat itself alive if it's not properly taken care of. This is something that the target audience you reference has no idea how to do, or that there is even a need to. It's people like Us (tm) that know these things.

I personally find it much more work to keep a Win box running smooth and secure then I've ever had with my *NIX boxes.

Re:testing the waters?

[Columcille]

I used to be quite the anti-Microsoft zealot. Then I realized I was only anti-Microsoft because it was the geek thing to do. Microsoft has its problems, but it really does deliver good products and, IMO, the best OS's out there. In the end that sort of claim is simply a matter of personal opinion, but at the very least it is one of the options on the table.

Re:testing the waters?

[Columcille]

We've all been over this before...

Let's go over it once more...

Computer manfuacturers are bent over a barrel to include an OEM Windows install on every machine they sell. The only realistic way for a user to get a computer without Windows is to build one themself.

Computer manufacturers are motivated to provide a product customers want to buy. The number of people that would buy machines with some flavor of Linux is very small. It would be foolish for computer manufacturers to make computers without Windows. Similar thing to the number of people that would buy computers without an OS. The percentage would be high in geek circles but geek circles don't exactly make up a large portion of the market.

Since everybody is already getting a copy of Windows, what incentinve is there for the end user to try an alternative OS? Better yet, even if they do, they've already paid for Windows and Microsoft still has their money and their "installed base" numbers

True enough but you are forgetting that most people are getting what they want. Windows isn't simply being forced on them - they want Windows and don't want to try an alternate OS.

People write software for the dominant OS rather than invest even more money into R&D for multiple OSes. Meaning that most applications (read "games") out there are designed for Windows

And what is more, people write software for an OS equipped for their software. Most of the games take advantage of many tools provided within Windows - from optimized ways of interacting with hardware to graphic and sound interface libraries. To just code the game for Linux would take significantly more work.

Re:testing the waters?

[Deathlizard]

No, they should have fought the EU to the end on this.

According to the EU, MS apparently has some obligation to keep these security companies leeching off their OS exploits alive, even to the point of opening their system to security exploits in Vista to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand Symantec going nuts about the OneCare advertising, and can somewhat understand the security center, (although I think MS should allow Symantec to write whatever they want there instead of letting Symantec Disable the thing for their own offering, since apparently, I need even more tray icons telling me something I don't know for some reason.) but the kernel access is simply unacceptable.

Basically there are two ways to go here.

1) Lock down the kernel so absolutely nothing outside of a service pack (being some sort of boot disk) can touch it, run everything else outside of kernel space, and have documented Kernel API calls to allow you to search for anything trying to hide outside of kernel space, which will stop many to all Rootkit attacks since nothing can hide and increase kernel stability since nothing can patch it, with the only drawback being some performance loss since low level access is off limits now.

or

2) Do it the EU way and "ensure that consumers continue to have a choice in security software" (which by the way, Isn't a problem) by opening the kernel to third party apps, which will no doubt be exploited regardless of how MS protects the kernel patching by malware and allow most rootkits and the like to latch onto the kernel while these so called security programs happily let the malware run in kernel space because it doesn't even know it's on the PC. That way, the Security companies can claim that Microsoft "Still has a Security Problem" and "need us now more than ever"

I don't know about you, but option 1 is the way to go for me, but since it sounds like their going option 2, then apparently all this security that Vista has will be no better than XP in the long run and I can expect seeing more FU and hacker defender rootkits in the vista future.

Re:testing the waters?

[Stradivarius]

Your last paragraph identified the real issue, which is applications. Most people could care less what operating system they run. They just want to be able to use the computer in certain specific ways - write documents, play games, surf the web, etc. If people could get all their applications and not have to put up with all the Windows spyware and viruses, I bet they'd jump at alternatives. (Just look at the recent upswing in the popularity of Macs, despite the much smaller choice of software available on the Mac. ).

The primary thing that keeps people from switching is the network effects associated with Microsoft's dominant/monopoly position. Since they have 90-something percent of the market, it's often not economically feasible for software companies to provide versions of their application for non-Windows platforms. That lack of applications (or data/format compatible applications) in turn prevents people from choosing alternative operating systems, thus growing the Windows user base more, and making switching even less feasible. It'a vicious cycle (or a wonderful one, if you're Microsoft).

And in fact Microsoft does their best to reinforce that cycle. It's smart business strategy to lock-in your customers. IMO that's the largest reason why MS is always inventing proprietary APIs and formats to replace open standard ones (DirectX vs OpenGL, Microsoft's bastardized version of Kerberos authentication, IE-specific HTML/DOM extensions, XPS vs PDF, etc.). It makes it harder for software developers to port their applications to other platforms, and harder for users to switch. (Sometimes they actually make an improvement over the open standard. Sometimes they don't. But they make their own version nonetheless because people will use what's there, furthering the lock-in).

That's why the move to Web services is a great thing for competition. It increasingly forces Microsoft to compete on the merits of their software rather than on the basis of their monopoly's network effects.

Re:testing the waters?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Computer manufacturers are motivated to provide a product customers want to buy. The number of people that would buy machines with some flavor of Linux is very small. It would be foolish for computer manufacturers to make computers without Windows.

Um, that's because Microsoft has OEM contracts in place that raise Windows license fees if companies ship competing software, even if it's simply provided as an option. Why do you think Dell barely advertises Linux? Yes, it would be foolish for OEMs to cross Microsoft because they risk having their licensing fees raised, or worse, their license revoked, which would be commercial suicide. And so Windows stays firmly entrenched on OEM pre-installations.

True enough but you are forgetting that most people are getting what they want. Windows isn't simply being forced on them - they want Windows and don't want to try an alternate OS. "

This myth needs to die. People don't "want" Windows; they simply use whatever is installed on their computer. They barely even know what version of Windows they're even running. That's why OEM contracts are the lifeblood for Microsoft, because almost all Windows sales come from OEM pre-installations.

Again, people do not WANT Windows. Whatever starts up when they push the power button is what they'll use. Microsoft has spent decades using its power to negotiate itself onto that boot screen.

I don't get it.

[Shivetya]

Sorry but I think the kernel should be off limits. Leave that to Microsoft and hold them wholly accountable to preventing issues with it.

On one hand people bitch about MS's lack of security yet when they do essentially what is asked it is claimed they only did it to be uncompetitive.

Make up your mind. Or is just permanent open season on MS?

Re:I don't get it.

[UnknowingFool]

Here's the crux of the complaint: In Windows, to combat viruses and add security like firewalls, these programs need kernel level access (as many APIs unfortunately do). Now with Vista, MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer). To some that is abusing their monopoly. It would one thing if they closed it totally because of security and that nothing but the OS could access it. But they had set it up to where only their MS programs could access it. It would be no different if Vista had made changes that would allow MS Money to work but not Quicken.

Re:I don't get it.

[s4ltyd0g]

The anti virus companies have made tons of money off of Microsoft insecurties.

Now that there's a chance all those holes might go away, they will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. I'm no Microsoft fan but these companies whining about Microsoft using their monopoly position to shut them out of the market, are in conflict of interest.

Nothing new here, just buisness as usual.

Re:I don't get it.

[jb.hl.com]

MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer)

Lies. Trend and Avast have apparently been able to run on Vista without any problems. They knuckled down and wrote code so they worked on Vista, and indeed Vista has an API called Windows Filtering Platform, which allows anti-virus makers to monitor file activity. Symantec and McAfee, on the other hand, threw a hissy fit.

Microsoft is, for once, clearly in the right.

Re:I don't get it.

[javaxjb]

But the crux of the matter is that the kernel is not off limits. Signed drivers from third parties are allowed to access the kernel. So how is this any different? Why make an arbitrary distinction between say video drivers and antivirus software? Shouldn't we welcome the choice. After all, if Microsoft can actually make a decent security add-on, won't we be better served by the competition between the third party vendors. Maybe then the other players products will be more efficient and less annoying.

Re:I don't get it.

[Allador]

Nearly every single thing you've said is incorrect.

"In Windows, to combat viruses and add security like firewalls, these programs need kernel level access (as many APIs unfortunately do)."

First, an API is what these programs use to access kernel structures and functions, not the other way around.

Second, you're right in that they do need kernel level access, THROUGH the Windows APIs. What PatchGuard does is to stop these companies from bypassing the APIs and directly modifying in-memory kernel structures. This is the rough equivalent of using a database, but instead of using the database APIs and interfaces to modify the data in them, you want to get raw disk access to the data stores, and read/write binary data directly to the files.

In Vista, MS has given 3rd party firewall software unprecedented access to the transport. They can insert filters to the IP stack through a very finely grained API. This is compared to earlier when firewall vendors had to write a full driver to implement this.

To properly implement a firewall, a company in NO WAY needs to directly modify in-memory kernel structures. This is all that PatchGuard stops, is software doing something they have been specifically instructed not to do, because it destabilizes the kernel.

MS software does not modify in-memory kernel structures, because its a horrifically stupid way to insert your software into the kernel. Ever notice how Symantec and McAfee are so commonly accused of destabilizing systems? This kind of crap is why.

"Now with Vista, MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer)."

Incorrect. The MS anti-virus software does not modify in-memory kernel structures. And its not out of generosity or being a good citizens, its because the alternative is stupid, and destabilizes the system.

"To some that is abusing their monopoly. It would one thing if they closed it totally because of security and that nothing but the OS could access it."

Yes, thats exactly what they did.

Blocking the kernel structures from direct access is a decade old security hole that MS _finally_ closed. This was The Right Thing To Do, and benefits everyone except for the incompetent folks at Symantec and McAfee. Why is it that the other firewall companies, and anti-virus companies, and anti-spam companies dont have any problem with these changes. Only McAfee and Symantec, makers of the most buggy, overbloated, system-destabilizing 'security suites', who have both been the cause of security holes that let people own the OS, have a problem with this.

Re:Are the alerts perhaps the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must restart your computer. Would you like to do it now, or would you like me to display this same dialog 30 seconds from now, while you're doing something else like typing a slashdot comm

Most important question

[also-rr]

Is this going to be a backdoor into the protected parts of the kernel that also handle media protection?

It would be nice if one batch of companies out to screw you over had accidentally been defeated by another batch of companies out to screw you over. Sort of collateral rebuilding, if you like.

I find it kind of interesting...

[dghcasp]

Companies like Symantec (aka Norton) have profited immensely from an industry created because Windows wasn't secure.

Now they're upset because Microsoft wants that piece of that market; in other words, Microsoft wants to profit from the fact that Windows isn't secure.

Yet in pretty much every other operating system, the solution is simply to make the darned thing secure.

Now, I realize that the issues are a bit larger than this, but I do wonder: IF Microsoft ever released a truly secure operating system, thus making Symantec and other such companies as relevant as the buggy whip, would they then sue to prevent the release of the O/S?

Re:I find it kind of interesting...

[MalusCaelestis]

You're missing the point that this is exactly what's happening. By implementing PatchGuard, Microsoft was trying to make the OS more secure. But because these "security" companies bitched and moaned that Microsoft shut them out of the kernel (where no software but the OS ought to be), Microsoft must now make the system less secure in order to look like they're not abusing their monopoly powers. No reasonable person can place the blame on Microsoft here. If they don't open up the kernel to Symantec, McAfee, et al. then they'll be opening themselves up to another anti-trust lawsuit, risking billions of dollars in fines and damages in both the US and the EU. Not even Microsoft can afford that.

Re:I find it kind of interesting...

[dghcasp]

There is nothing like a secure OS.

People who forget Multics are doomed to, er, um, forget that it existed.

Re:Microsoft cant win

[pdbaby]

when microsoft makes it secure people go nuts that its tooo secure and they complain

The problem is that Microsoft's record with security isn't great; lots of people (myself included) prefer to trust another company to provide anti-virus and firewall security under Windows. Microsoft will have to work very hard - in an equal arena -- to show that their AV and firewall solutions are as good or better as those of their competition

While I dislike the M$ monopoloy...

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

I personally don't want a crippled OS to accommodate third party security vendors. If Microsoft can make there OS so secure that third party software is not needed I say go for it.

Of course if it turns out that Microsoft was just locking other vendors out to make users use their security software, which performed poorly I applaud the EU for helping the consumers. Because really all I care about is how well the end result is.

Re:You & I Are Smarter Than the Average Bear

[krell]

"These alerts and popups may be the thing needed to prevent my computer ignorant siblings from obediantly installing viruses on my parent's computer."

You mean the ignorant siblings who always click "OK" every time they see a popup, so when you go home you find a desktop filled with bonzi buddies and casino shortcuts, 3 toolbars on the browser, and full-screen ads that pop-up at any time at random?

"I know they're Microsoft and they're stupid/evil but you have to see at least some sort of benefit from these (all be they poorly implemented) security features."

Real security involves preventing the security crisis in the FIRST place, rather than bombarding the user with a blizzard of poorly-worded popups.

3rd parties should protect the OS

[dioscaido]

Why should the OS be secure when I can pay $30 for a 3rd party can do it (and destabilize the system as they do it, since they root the OS in undocumented ways)? This is a bad precedent and a huge loss for consumers.

Just let them have it already

[Temujin_12]

To my own suprise, when I read this I thought, "So, MS is striping away a part of its core security to accommodate 3rd party businesses? What would we say if our favorite *nix distribution started doing this?" Perhaps it is time to just let MS be. Let them provide their own security, their own browser, their own IM, etc, that are all tightly interwoven. Let them squelch creativity on their OS to the point that they either blow us away with what they can do when they lock the doors or alienate themselves from the entire software industry. Let them do whatever they want to lock/unlock 3rd party vendors out/in. We all complain about security, but then come unglued when MS tries to take a hard line to improve it because they close holes. Granted, the way they are closing holes may not be the best approach.

I say, let's just let them do whatever they want. A few things could come of this:
-Nothing really changes, we take off our tin foil hats, and life continues just fine
-Vista may actually be more secure and developers become adjusted to developing for it
-Vista becomes so hard to work with (as a software developer) that no software is written for it and everyone keeps using (developing for) XP, or switches OSes (and Vista becomes one of MS's big blunders)
-Vista becomes hard to work with (as a software developer) and we see more software makers moving over to alternative OSes (OSX, *nix, etc)

Really, what is so wrong with the LONG TERM results of these scenarios? Let's let MS make or break itself. Let's let them "test the waters" and see what happens.

NO NO NO.

[jb.hl.com]

Trend Micro's anti-virus and Avast both work on Vista, because their respective developers spent time developing new software to work with it.

Symantec and McAfee on the other hand, rather than invest money in development for a version of their programs which fits Vista's new security model, decided to bitch and whine loudly about Microsoft's new security in Vista while doing nothing of any value. In a sane and equitable world, Microsoft would have offered to aid them in building their new anti-virus products for Vista, and McAfee and Symantec would have agreed. Instead, probably with the threat of a lawsuit from the two companies, and because of the two launching attack ads, they let them bypass their new security features.

This should not be happening. This is BAD for security, as once you let one program bypass security barriers it's only a matter of time before others do, not all of them friendly. This is STUPID because Microsoft has kowtowed to pressure from two companies far more focused on saving money on developing their shitty, shitty antivirus programs than actually providing any more security.

Fuck Symantec, fuck McAfee.

Re:NO NO NO.

[KarmaMB84]

They kowtowed to a government body that has control of an entire continent. If they hadn't made Symantec and McAfee happy, they'd be right back in the EU courts having even more restrictions they can never meet and fines that will never stop shoved down their throats.

Forced to use

[Mateo_LeFou]

I don't use windows, because I want to control my computer.

I am, however, forced to *buy Windows every time I get a new computer. I could build my own, I guess, but that's quite a bit of work.

Or would you say that the US Postal service doesn't have a monopoly because after all I can drive my letters to Nevada myself if I don't like their product?

Re:What other changes before launch?

[tomhudson]

And there's no reason to believe that Vista will do anything but sell like hotcakes (after all, there are more reasons to go from XP to Vista than there were to go from 2k to XP), so there won't be any of the user backlash that most Slashdotters pretend they see in the future.

For those who missed the "irony" tags - people didn't switch from 2k to XP - they went from Win9x to XP - the 2k users continually dug in their heels when it came to switching. And certainly nobody I know even has Vista on their radar ...

Really, is there ANYBODY who knows a real live "Joe Sixpack end user" who is even aware that Vista exists? Its pretty bad when both OSX and Linux have a bigger awareness in the general community than linux's new flagship.

People will continue running XP long after its end-of-lifed, mostlyt to play games. And the antivirus vendors will cash in on this, by selling patching services to fix bugs in XP long after Microsoft stops supporting it - because its "good enough" for most users.

Its not like you need the source code to patch. Virus writers "patch" XP all the time.

The Wikipedia treatment

[ArikTheRed]

That's because if you hack a Linux box all you get is control a system that belongs to some 28 year old guy who lives in his aunts basement. [citation needed]
The value in finding security holes in a Windows box is that there are millions that can be turned into zombies to be used to crank out spam or worse. There is no money in hacking Linux. [citation needed]
Most of the holes found in Windows come from Linux hackers who rarely take a look at their own OS. While there are many secure features in a standard Linux distro most sysadmins never address them. [citation needed]
The way most people implement Linux is like parking an armored car outside of the bank but leaving the doors open. [citation needed]

Just because you say it in a expert tone, does not make it credible or correct.

Re:Are the alerts perhaps the problem?

[GTMoogle]

In college I worked at a software company where one developer arbitrarily decided that the product needed to restart when first installed. So he activated the standard windows restart routine that gives you a dialog that says "Windows will restart in 30 seconds", a graph that's counting down, and a 'restart now' button.

QA didn't have a cow, they had an entire herd.

Re:Microsoft cant win

[rhendershot]

That trust is severely misplaced. Third-party companies can only play catch-up and do so from the disadvantage of external access to the system.

The parent article misses a beat in that Microsoft has an API to the kernel for their AV needs, by definition. The only issue is should that be public. The EU is making them publish this API (in some form, I don't trust Microsoft to release all their 'goodies'). But should it remain private to Microsoft then the consequence is that virus writer's will de-engineer it as they have done with so much of Microsoft's closed technology. Obviously, then, it benefits the end-users that the API be published and it benefits the end user that third-parties have a better vehicle towards check&balances of their own AV solutions.

But don't ever expect them to be able to produce the tightly-integrated, non-intrusive extensions to the kernel that Microsoft *could* produce, were they sufficiently motivated. To that, having the load-library/file-access hooks published for the kernal and the necessary security credentials to do so is a good thing since various pieces can be compared as to how one or the other of third-parties or Microsoft works better/faster/less problematic. That's good for the end user.

The squeals heard from AV companies are to be expected. Any change affects their income lines. Vista could be remedially-exempt (eg. totally secure) and some form of the same complaints from them, and the EU, would still be heard. That's a case of they're damned if they do and if they don't. My assertion is they created the situation so just have to live with it ;)

blah, EU went too far

[jorghis]

I could understand why the EU was upset about the media player bundling. I can understand them being upset about the splash screen for MSs AV stuff. I dont agree with them forcing MS to get rid of those things, but I understand where they are coming from.

Forcing MS to weaken Vista's security and reliability to accomodate these AV companies sucks though.

This is a -bad- thing. Why are we applauding it on slashdot? Are we so caught up in MS hate that we want the government to force them to weaken their product from a technical standpoint?

Maybe this is an example of how having a reputation for lying will make people think you are being dishonest even when you are telling the truth. I know a lot of people on this website dont totally understand the technical issues involved. But doesnt the EU commission have any experts that can explain to them that they are weakening Vista by forcing this on MS?

Must mean more delays

[OriginalArlen]

Full disclosure: I do security.

This is a major change in the security model of the OS. As such it means the security model must be reviewed and re-evaluated. If Vista is released on the current schedule, that will mean that Microsoft have not done this essential work, which will mean the whole security model of the OS is invalid and (heh heh!) "untrustworthy". Not to mention the knock-on effects of this change on all those comingled applications (Internet Explorer, etc) - their security models are now b0rked as well, as the OS will no longer be behaving as it was expected when the app was designed...

So either there are another 6-9 months' delay (at least), or Vista will be released with it's security fundamentally compromised. Your call, Billy-boy!

Microsoft has NO CLUE AT all regarding security.

[Cap'n Crax]

And I will tell you why. I actually like the NT kernel and architecture. I think it is well designed, and works great when built upon properly. I think Windows 2000 is the probably the best consumer OS ever made, even though Microsoft pointed it at business users. It's what I run, and likely will not switch from, except for (maybe) running XP in a VM to run some games.

    But even with 2000, MS had to insert their boneheaded ideas in it. For example, with "Windows File Protection," which is really the sfc.exe ("System FIle Checker") and sfcfiles.dll (The actual list of files to be protected, stuck in a DLL) it gives an Admin NO WAY to add to or change which files are protected. And it includes things like PINBALL.EXE!!! in the list of protected, undeletable system files. And creates stupid things like "C:\Program Files\microsoft frontpage" when I DO NOT even have Frontpage or IIS installed. And unless you disable SFC (which I did) it will re-create the stupid directory on every re-boot. So what COULD HAVE BEEN a useful feature is more like a "let MS Admin your computer for you" feature, because there is no way for the owner of the computer to manage which files are protected under "Windows File Protection." And guess what, on COMPUTERS I OWN, **I** like to control what directories are created and where they are placed. It's MY computer!!!

    Now I have read, from a recent article by Mary Jo Foley, ZDNET, that some of the new security in Vista will come from "Code protection technologies such as tamper resistance, code obfuscation, and anti-reverse engineering measures..." THIS IS NOT SECURITY. This is HIDING YOUR BUGS. Instead of actually fixing the bugs, or not having them to begin with, they are actively trying to just make them harder to find. But they are still IN THERE!! This is just simply boneheaded. This is not the way to develop an OS.

    With this new WGA crap, they are trying to FORCE users to install (and keep installed) components that NO ONE WANTS (except MS, of course). But guess what, any decent computer Admin **MUST** have the ability to accept or deny ANY update to the OS and have the ability to rollback changes if they cause problems. Just Google for wgatray.exe for many fine examples of the horrible problems their crap is causing.

    With Win 2000 at least, MS created a good OS, once you fix the initial problems. But for me at least, there is NO WAY I will "upgrade" to this Vista shit with requiring signed drivers (what about independent hardware hackers/developers?) or XP with "Activation" (what, I can't swap out my motherboard without CALLING and RE-ACTIVATING?) They have just gone too far with this DRM and Anti-Piracy shit. NOT IN MY OPERATING SYSTEM.

    I need to move to Linux. Kubuntu is looking really good now. If I can just get the couple of games I like working under WINE or Cedega, then F*** MS. It's just too much. I've had enough.

Crax

P.S. The Mary Jo Foley article I quoted from is located at:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?cat=18

Build from Scratch?

[Bilbo]

Build your own system? HA!!! I can do it in about 10 minutes. (Takes me longer to install the OS than it does to put the hardware together.)

However, expecting the average user to know how to do that is like expecting the average person to perform brain surgery. Most people I know have a hard time telling the difference between RAM memory and Disk memory. They think the tower is the "CPU", and that SCSI is what you call gum stuck to the bottom of your chair. It's not that the people aren't smart. It's just that they have no context to work from, and for that matter, no motivation to learn. You could probably learn how to bake bread from scratch, but why bother if you can just go to the store and buy it ready made? Sure, bread made from scratch is better tasting, and probably a LOT better for you, but you don't have time to fiddle around with it. So, you let other people do the baking for you, and you just keep buying scuzzy store-bought bread.

The article worded it wrong

[Eezy Bordone]

MS is not giving access to the kernel. In fact they're doing what they've been doing with V64 all along, providing API's to monitor the kernel but not hooks into it.

Here's an informative link on KPP or PatchGuard.