Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Working With Security Vendors
mikesd81 writes "The BBC is reporting on Microsoft's U-Turn. They've now given security vendors some of the information they want to make their products work with Microsoft's new operating system, Vista." From the article: "Earlier this month, security firm McAfee took out a full-page advert in the Financial Times to alert readers to its worries about the way Microsoft was handling the release of its new operating system. 'Microsoft seems to envision a world in which one giant company not only controls the systems that drive most computers around the world but also the security that protects those computers from viruses and other online threats,' the advert said. "
And this is suprising how? Play with the devil...
So MS was considering leveraging Vista for world domination... Who here is surprised?
These security vendors been taking advantage of the flaws in the windows OS's for years and making tons of money doing it. Great someone needed to do it since MS couldn't or wouldn't. However MS is now trying to hardent heir OS and remove the security holes that should have been removed years ago and what happens? People complain. And by people I mean Symantec, McAfee, etc (not the end user mind you).
I for one am pleased to see MS trying to lock down their systems and these other vendors just need to quite whining. I am sure there will still be plenty left to fix. There always is.
___________________________
Free iPods? Its legit and simple. 5 of my friends got theirs. Get yours here!
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6-7
MS is destroying my revenue stream by making a more secure OS!
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Is it only the 64 bit version of Vista that was the problem? Further down in the article we have this:
This makes me wonder what all the complaining is really about. You don't think McAfee and Symantec are just paving the way for future lawsuits when Vista's inherent security renders their products obsolete, do you?
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
They give them SOME of the info they need...
3 months before the OS releases in stores.
I'm sure that they can write a completely new release-ready product in 3 months. Plenty of time for coding, testing and maybe even a beta release...
Yeah, right.
Microsoft makes sure they have an advantage.
OTOH, given the closeness of the supposed release date, it tells me that the requisite holes were likely already there to begin with (and that they can likely be exploited, even if MSFT sat tight and never gave the A/V folks the info anyway). That, or they're burning midnight oil to open up said holes (which would mean that oh damn, here it comes...!)
Man - either way, this doesn't exactly insipre confidence that MSFt, Vista, or it's devs were actually serious about security (save through obscurity) in the first place...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
While I revile MS for their draconian business practices, Mcafee is not much better. The problemm with security is that everyone have (roughly) the same system. There is no variation in the computers on the 'net. A windows box with Mcafee (or Norton, to me they are all the same) is as vulnerable as anyother equivalently equpipped box. So a virus will spread quickly. Imagine every person ob earth had an equivalent immune system. Every mutated bug would render the entire population out for the count.
For Mcafee to raise the alarm that MS was playing fast and loose with security by freezing out security software is just crap. Its FUD just like the crap MS spouts. Although it seems to have worked in this case.
It's nice to know that there's an effort being made to make the general pubic more aware of the Microsoft and its quest for world domination, but seriously, the Financial Times? While I'm sure many /.'s read it, consider the amount of people who use McAfee, use Windows, and don't read that particular paper.. or watch/read the BBC.
Perhaps a full-page ad in the tabloid magazines/newspapers would reach a larger audience.
"Some of the information"? So not all? Will this information be useful or will it be an empty gesture to try and make Microsoft look like a well behaved and caring company?
An old Russian saying: The wolf will hire himself out very cheaply as a shepherd.
My point? None.
Get your own free personal location tracker
So MS try to do "right-thing" by hardening Vista. Due to they arrogance they ignored all 3-rd party security companies while doing it. Now they figure out that they can not ignore them after all. So instead of having properly designed 3-rd party integration APIs they will try to put together something quick -- and most likely undo at least some of the "right-things" in the process.
their OS is....?
... but also the security that protects those computers from viruses and other online threats,'
From the Original post: 'Microsoft seems to envision
Not to be picky, but on my Solaris boxes, I don't call up McAffee every time a security vulnerability is released, nor do I call them to protect my AIX systems from Crackers either. I expect that Sun and IBM, respectively, will secure their OS, issue patches, and provide the appropriate tools to manage security. We've been letting Microsoft get away with fobbing that duty off on third-parties for far too long. Pity if that impacts Symantec's business model, but Microsoft should have years ago either (a) fixed their OS or (b) taken the tcp/ip stack out and stuck a big, neon-orange, sticker on every box and install disk which reads, "This Products Is Terminally Insecure and If You Let It Connect to a Network, 12-Year Old Script Kiddies Will OWN Your Valuable Corporate DATA! Within 20 Minutes Or Less!"
It's hard in a case like this to know which one of them (Microsoft or Symantec) to have less sympathy for.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
It seems to me that lately the large players in the AV world (Norton, McAfee) have been trying so hard to differentiate their product from standard Microsoft offerings (i.e. add value to their products) that the cost/benefit of having one of the major player products is not good. We had a 20 or so copies of NAV 2005 (or maybe it was 2004) and we ordered them through Ingram Micro and we got the licences. So we installed the licences, and then a couple of weeks later they would need to be activated (again) but wouldn't accept the #. So after a month or so of this we scrapped the norton product, went to AVG and have had no problems since. So the moral of the story is that the large players are trying so hard to show that you HAVE TO have their product, and to make sure that you pay for it, that it is not a usable product, IMHO.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Microsoft's security is gonna do a total 360!
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
So Microsoft comes out with a system that isn't riddled with (the standard) security holes, and the third-party companies whose bottom line depends on MS incompetence freak out, because they're no longer needed.
Microsoft can't win for losing.
I really do look forward to a day when a software vendor takes responsibility for the proper functioning of their software. IMHO, Mcaffee, symantec, etc shouldn't exist. They are able to get by because of Microsoft's sloppiness. I don't blame MS one bit for trying to correct years of negligence. (I do blame them for those years of negligence) Making Microsoft Windows work shouldn't have to be a competitive industry, Microsoft SHOULD monopolize that.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
The short answer is that it makes her "feel" more secure. (I'm not sure that she really is though)
www.jmagar.com
-
I would have no objection to to MS totally taking security in house. Locking down the kernel and only allowing API access would eliminate most of the defects in Vistos. The only difference is the end use pays MS a yearly subscription instead of McAfee $274.5, Symantec $4.14 billion) and the rest. Of course charging after the fact for defects in the product is a very odd way of doing business. Myself don't plan to pay either of them a cent for 'security'.
davecb5620@gmail.com
I can understand why Microsoft wants to lock out the third party vendors. These vendors have convinced everyone that Windows is so insecure by default that whenever you buy a copy of windows, or a computer with windows on it, you must automatically buy their product as well as sign up for their subscription services. AV and firewalls are expensive (for a home user, tack on an extra $70 upon purchase on your new computer and another $30 or so every year after) and when Microsoft tries to make its Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) claims (which is total FUD anyway) it looks really bad when you must factor in security services into that cost, while Mac and the *NIXes have not such costs. If Microsoft can convince people that they don't need these third party vendors, they are much better off. I for one would really like to see a Windows release that really does not require third party security and once and for all mitigates the virus threat by design, not duct tape. Sure Windows will be specifically targeted as long as they hold the most market share, but this virus crap is rediculous.
Follow-up question for all of the linux and mac gurus out there. I've always heard that Mac and Linux are inherently protected from viruses, meaning that if one were to actually catch a Linux or Mac virus, the damage done would be very minimal. How true is this, keeping in mind that a lot of viruses today are not necessarily there to vandalize, but to carry out ID theft?
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
Reading the comments here, I think that most people aren't aware of what PatchGuard is.
PatchGuard, quite simply, is "security through obscurity". Basically, while the kernel is running, a hidden background thread continuously hashes the code sections of the kernel and validates that nothing has changed. If something changes, the system bugchecks (blue screens). PatchGuard's security comes from it being obfuscated.
PatchGuard doesn't offer true security. It has nothing to do with escalation of privilege - if you're able to modify the kernel, it's already too late. PatchGuard was intended to stop commercial products from patching the kernel because frequently they do so improperly, and end up causing instability and local privilege elevation exploits. If a company got around PatchGuard, their product would only work until the next second Tuesday. However, rootkit authors may not care about that "time limit".
Certainly PatchGuard helps slightly with DRM. However its more important use is preventing companies from doing improper kernel hacks. With Microsoft bowing to these companies, PatchGuard's only use is now DRM.
By the way, the only reason Microsoft is doing this is because of Europe's antitrust complaints. No full page ad will convince Microsoft of anything.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
-1 Troll?! This is 100% the truth.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I have used computers bogged down with anti-virus software. My work involved a huge amount of disc access. Symantec not only slowed work down, it caused such disc grinding that scrambled discs were not uncommon where I worked. I solved that problem by disabling and banishing the anti-virus software. Yes, everything was behind a firewall and yes, if an computer was infected on the intranet, my box would have been in danger. The marginal protection of the anti-virus was not worth the cost.
Microsoft's security is probably not so easily disabled. It sounds like Vista is already bloated and this is an additional drag on the system. Want to bet there is no off switch? What are the chances this will be on the 'safe side' and slow things down enough to where only the highest power hardware allows for productivity.
Has anybody here actually seen this advert for themselves? I've tried googling around for a picture of it or a link to it, but without any luck. Anyone have a link?
I'm still amazed in some respects that McAfee got away with it. IANAL, but it sounded almost libellous to me.
Even if MS intentionally locked up API, naysayers who trumpet a lesser known antivirus/spyware vendor need to understand that they are of little interest to MS.
They go after the #1 money/volume producer in the category. This is the usual "big fish" strategy. Along the way, a bunch of smaller companies in the same category get eaten alive by the onslaught of lock-in and big-ticket marketing budgets. HP and Apple do the same thing.
Symantec has the most to lose in "security". Just as AdobeMedia has the most to lose in a different category.
DISCLAIMERS:
1. I didn't say symantec's products were good. They've got some real stinkers.
2. It's quite likely MS is intentionally locking the vendors out.
RANT:
A secure OS addresses security issues by design, from the kernel up. (ex. Linux, BSD) MS "security" is an afterthought cobbled together to appear as if it's useful.
Regretfully, I think it will be years before many consumers get tired of the pop up's asking if their sure, or if they want to add this url to their list of okay url's. (IE on 2003 server does this for -every- URL and subdomain unless you turn it off. Now -that's- secure!?)
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I'm glad that Microsoft is being more open, and co-operating more. But I believe the real security improvements are from Microsoft, and the McAffees and Nortons of the world are becoming less relevant"
.. So why waste the time, and money on these things anyway?"
They are becoming less relevent but not for the reasons you suggest. With Vista arriving with OneCare already installed they all will go the same way as Netscape and Wordperfect. Some of the new innovative security features in Vista are Patchlock that works by preventing third party software modifying the kernel and Code Integrity that runs check-sums on code.
. "I installed the latest McAfee "security center" on my mother in-law's PC and the system performance was cut damn near in half. The experience has cemented in my mind that an up to date version of Windows with the latest security patches is the right way to go"
Call me a cynic, but when someone injects a little personal anecdote to bolster an argument I suspect the whole story. It's as in the effort to convince yourself, you over compensate
"and that these third party tools are bloatware, and resource hogs
Ah, I once saw as through a glass darkly, but now I see the light, amen. By the way, those little dot dot dots are a bit of a give away...
was Re:Good news, but not great news...
davecb5620@gmail.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't patching the kernel an administrator-only function anyway?
If this is so, isn't the principal more or less achievable with Linux by installing a modified kernel under root access?
Either way, I wouldn't want anything tinkering with my kernel operation, so I see these API's as a negative thing - I just hope to God Windows will display some absolutely mammoth dialogue boxes should (heaven forbid) anything try and modify my kernel!
throw new NoSignatureException();
"The otherside of the arguement is that the proposed Vista lockout would leave M$ as the only suppliers of anti malware (Ok, so Symantic don't seem to agree, but I'm stating McAfee's aguement, not mine) and we are all aware of the dangers of a monoculture, especially one run by Seatle's finest.
What I want, if at all posible, is the choice to run which anti malware systems I choose."
If this is such a huge problem, as Symantec and McAfee suggest, then why do Avast!, eTrust, and TrendMicro, among others, already have products that work just fine in Vista (I'm running RC2 and have tested them) without needing access to PatchGuard or the kernel?
I'm inclined to believe that McAfee and Symantec are lazy, and want to cobble a new version of their existing products, rather than innovate and create something new. I also believe that MS opening up PatchGuard in this way makes it more vulnerable to any disgruntled programmer on Symantec or McAfee's teams, or anyone who would be prepared to divulge their knowledge of PatchGuard for a price.
Never look down your nose at others. Someday, someone is bound to see your boogers.
Makes it sound like MS suddenly pulled its head out of its ass, which is wrong. The only U-turn they did here was because they went into a dead end street.
Oh ya! Every time an overlord wants to do something there'll be this popup requesting their admin credentials.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
nah... that's not the real story...
The real story is that Microsoft claimed to have made their Kernel completely secure... nobody can touch anything inside... so that means anything that goes wrong with it will be totally their fault. After mulling over it for a while, they then realised that they'd have nobody to blame when some malicious code got up in there and did some hefty damage. So in a genius PR move, they decided to expose an API for security vendors to be able to hook into the kernel. Now when something goes wrong in their kernel they can claim that someone leaked their API or it was exploited by hackers, and that's the reason Vista is just as insecure as previous windows... and had they not been forced to expose the API (due to anti-trust crap in from the EU) this never would have happened.
I'm totally convinced this is the card MS is playing... Anyone who's ever worked in the security field knows that there will always be something that sneaks through... MS is just covering their ass, and setting up the ability for them to pass blame for any issues that come up when their kernel is owned yet again.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Since when was creating a self-mending secure OS that has security tools a big taboo? Grow up McAfee / Symantec. Its like if Micrsofot doesn't do anything about security people blame it, and if it DOES do something, McAfee and Symantec bitch and cry. Oh grow up!
As this does not really concern me, I'll just conclude that I am yet to run any sort of av-software on my linux installs. Thanks, I'll be gone now.
If this is such a huge problem, as Symantec and McAfee suggest, then why do Avast!, eTrust, and TrendMicro, among others, already have products that work just fine in Vista (I'm running RC2 and have tested them) without needing access to PatchGuard or the kernel? Maybe because Trend (I can't speak for the others) doesn't even catch viruses in XP/2000? So if by 'work' you mean they 'coexist with the OS', then yes. They 'work'. Not that I'm touting McAfee or Symantec, but they are definitely a step up from Trend.
...McAfee screaming: "I want some piece of the cake, too?"
Microsoft has made supplemental software (defrag, disk compression, zips, etc.) obsolete in the past by including it into the system. They will do it again.
"working with" has become a cliche for "we tried to screw them, but they screamed out, so now we'll give you the impression we're cooperating with them when in fact we are drawing them close enough to our teat to strangle them."
Companies: all the rights of the individual without the moral repsonsibility.
Gengkis Kahn was "looking after his shareholders" too.