Microsoft "taking security risks"

T

The Donut

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
3,121
This is an article that genuinely made me laugh. To me it sounds like McAfee and Symantec are upset that they won't have a product once Vista comes out, which is the wya it should have been in the first place. It really sounds like they are crying.

McAfee said:
It feels the tech giant is increasing risks of hacks and viruses by locking out third-party software firms from its in-built security system for Vista.

"With its upcoming Vista operating system, Microsoft is embracing the flawed logic that computers will be more secure if it stops co-operating with the independent security firms," wrote George Samenuk, McAfee's chairman and chief executive in the advert.
Click to expand...
Now I know there are concerns and in a way I feel they should have access to it, but I applaude Microsoft, or for you avid haters, MicroShaft, M$ and Microblows, for atleast right now, sticking to it's guns and atleast attempting to provide a safer operating system. We all know exploits and such are going to be found, written and documented, but to me this whole thing screams that they are simply upset because they will no longer have a product and/or use on the market, atleast as far as Vista is concerned.

 
The way this country is designed is so that there would be compeition to drive the prices down to reasonable levels for consumes. With Microsoft currently having a monopoly over the operating system industry (as well as a number of others) it drives any competition away, thus making it easy for them to fluxate prices as they see fit. In a capitalist world, this is bad for the industry, making it difficult to compete especially because Microsoft is such a "household" name. Most users computer users are familiar with windows making them a lot more likely to buy it. While I applaud Microsoft taking steps to give us a greater product they are also at the same time driving away healthy compeition and buisnesses.

I really could care less about other security software though, OS's should have their own built-in security features but thats not the way the US works.
 
I feel sorry for many companies, but not really for McAfee or Symantec. They have perpetuated countless infections with their non-updating "value added" demo products they push out on new PCs.
 
Riddlinkidstoner said:
The way this country is designed is so that there would be compeition to drive the prices down to reasonable levels for consumes. With Microsoft currently having a monopoly over the operating system industry (as well as a number of others) it drives any competition away, thus making it easy for them to fluxate prices as they see fit. In a capitalist world, this is bad for the industry, making it difficult to compete especially because Microsoft is such a "household" name. Most users computer users are familiar with windows making them a lot more likely to buy it. While I applaud Microsoft taking steps to give us a greater product they are also at the same time driving away healthy compeition and buisnesses.

I really could care less about other security software though, OS's should have their own built-in security features but thats not the way the US works.
Click to expand...

This will wind up being just another IE, or just another WMP, or just another DX, or in the future just another security center.....

This is not the first time MS has forced its monopoly down our troats.... This is not the first time MS has forced inferier software on us.... Just another.
 
duby229 said:
This is not the first time MS has forced inferier software on us.... Just another.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the move from relying on third party video driver code for rasterization of print output to using an all MS priniting core really made a lot of us sad when 95 came out.

That move alone probably cut GPFs in half even in old 16-bit code...

Now with Vista I don't have to worry about someone, like say Symantec or Sony, patching kernel code to make their software act like a rootkit so that it hides itself from me so far that I can't remove it without booting into an OS where it isn't installed or without running specialized software like Rootkit revealer to detect its presence?

That is a HORRIBLE idea. :rolleyes:
 
duby229 said:
This is not the first time MS has forced its monopoly down our troats.... This is not the first time MS has forced inferier software on us.... Just another.
Click to expand...
And yet again, the uninformed argument rears it's ugly head. If Microsoft leaves out security software, half the people bitch that none is included. If Microsoft puts it in, the other half of the people start screaming about monopoly this, Micro$haft that. So which is it going to be? At some point in time (and rightfully so) Microsoft has to say, screw trying to make people happy, and do what's best for the OS. It's really getting tiresome to read this comments and similar arguments and articles bashing Microsoft when they try to make a decision in a lose-lose situation.
 
djnes said:
And yet again, the uninformed argument rears it's ugly head. If Microsoft leaves out security software, half the people bitch that none is included. If Microsoft puts it in, the other half of the people start screaming about monopoly this, Micro$haft that. So which is it going to be? At some point in time (and rightfully so) Microsoft has to say, screw trying to make people happy, and do what's best for the OS. It's really getting tiresome to read this comments and similar arguments and articles bashing Microsoft when they try to make a decision in a lose-lose situation.
Click to expand...

I agree. However the European Union does not agree (However they probably DO but are just looking to squeeze every last penny out of MS$) and will continue to argue. In the end, the consumers are the ones who get shafted.
 
Riddlinkidstoner said:
In the end, the consumers are the ones who get shafted.
Click to expand...
Always. I worked for a software company who developed primarily in Java around the time Sun was suing to have the MS VM removed. All of the developers were pissed, partly because they liked the Microsoft version better, and partly because it meant they had to always ensure, through software checks and documentation, that each user had the Java VM loaded from Sun.
 
djnes said:
And yet again, the uninformed argument rears it's ugly head. If Microsoft leaves out security software, half the people bitch that none is included. If Microsoft puts it in, the other half of the people start screaming about monopoly this, Micro$haft that. So which is it going to be? At some point in time (and rightfully so) Microsoft has to say, screw trying to make people happy, and do what's best for the OS. It's really getting tiresome to read this comments and similar arguments and articles bashing Microsoft when they try to make a decision in a lose-lose situation.
Click to expand...

I've already stated my opinion on this. They NEED to offer a solution.... But they also NEED to provide a method to allow the user a choice as to whether or not it gets installed at either first boot up for OEM systems, or install time for retail systems.

Simple really. It also eliminates the need for 8 distrobutions.
 
nessus said:
Yeah, the move from relying on third party video driver code for rasterization of print output to using an all MS priniting core really made a lot of us sad when 95 came out.

That move alone probably cut GPFs in half even in old 16-bit code...

Now with Vista I don't have to worry about someone, like say Symantec or Sony, patching kernel code to make their software act like a rootkit so that it hides itself from me so far that I can't remove it without booting into an OS where it isn't installed or without running specialized software like Rootkit revealer to detect its presence?

That is a HORRIBLE idea. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your kidding me right? You may need to look at the history of computer graphics and the contributions of a company called SGI. There are FAR better graphics libraries out there and DX is for damn sure NOT one of them.
 
Riddlinkidstoner said:
I agree. However the European Union does not agree (However they probably DO but are just looking to squeeze every last penny out of MS$) and will continue to argue. In the end, the consumers are the ones who get shafted.
Click to expand...
Unless the idea behind anti-trust rulings actually works and it creates a competitive industry, which is bound to produce better products than if there is only a single supplier.

I have no real oppinion on this situation, but I must say that from my point of view, neither symantec nor McAfee have been extreme innovative in recent history, so I could care less about their demise (though I better check my stock protfolio first ;)). Bottom line is that competition is good for the consumer and therefore for the market.
 
duby229 said:
Your kidding me right? You may need to look at the history of computer graphics and the contributions of a company called SGI. There are FAR better graphics libraries out there and DX is for damn sure NOT one of them.
Click to expand...
When did he ever mention DirectX, I honestly don't think you even read the entire first sentence before responding.
 
Xipher said:
When did he ever mention DirectX, I honestly don't think you even read the entire first sentence before responding.
Click to expand...

Read what he says.... He is clearly saying that is no other alternative. Which is simply not true.

Yeah, the move from relying on third party video driver code for rasterization of print output to using an all MS priniting core really made a lot of us sad when 95 came out.
Click to expand...

This is what he said in a sarcastic kind of way, he is saying that there is nothing else that can do the same job, unless you custom write each game to the hardware.... This is wrong.... There are at least two other technologies that are vastly better, that are both more then ten years old. Seems to me that MS has some major problems if the graphics library they use is behind several 10 year old libraries.
 
duby229 said:
This is what he said in a sarcastic kind of way, he is saying that there is nothing else that can do the same job, unless you custom write each game to the hardware.... This is wrong.... There are at least two other technologies that are vastly better, that are both more then ten years old. Seems to me that MS has some major problems if the graphics library they use is behind several 10 year old libraries.
Click to expand...
nessus said:
Yeah, the move from relying on third party video driver code for rasterization of print output to using an all MS priniting core really made a lot of us sad when 95 came out.
Click to expand...

Read it again, he is talking about PRINTING.
 
Ok, where did he every say to the screen, I see no mention. When I read printing, I think to a printer, not to the screen. So we both are making assumptions, but I would think if he was talking about directx he would have said that.
 
duby229 said:
This is not the first time MS has forced its monopoly down our troats.... This is not the first time MS has forced inferier software on us.... Just another.
Click to expand...

How is refusing to allow vendors to rootkit the kernel monopolistic behavior?

My big complaint with Windows has always been that it's not hardened enough - this is a step in the right direction.
 
Xipher said:
Ok, where did he every say to the screen, I see no mention. When I read printing, I think to a printer, not to the screen. So we both are making assumptions, but I would think if he was talking about directx he would have said that.
Click to expand...

Doesn't rasterization imply printing to the screen? I've never heard it used any other way, but I'm not a graphics expert.
 
duby229 said:
I've already stated my opinion on this. They NEED to offer a solution.... But they also NEED to provide a method to allow the user a choice as to whether or not it gets installed at either first boot up for OEM systems, or install time for retail systems.

Simple really. It also eliminates the need for 8 distrobutions.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, there's nothing preventing Norton/McCafee or any other security system from working. As I understand it, what they've done is prevented the programs from changing the security console (or whatever it's called) and/or turning it off and rerouting it to their own custom consoles. Users will still be able to do this themselves if they so choose.

That doesn't bug me that much.
 
There are plenty of other security software vendors that have products that will work with Vista and I certaintly do not see them complaining. As far as the comment about slow adoption of other alternative OS's (oh wait there are alternatives so I guess that elminates the monopoly theory), the problem with them is that they try to market themselves as being completely different and the community for them come of as being zealots or jerks. IMO the best way to attack MS is to create an OS that is more secure but retains a format similar enough that there is a very small learning curve and is capable of running all of the typical Windows's apps which would mean paying a bunch of money to licence MS technologies (.NET, DirectX, etc), thus eliminating the feasability of open source.

Basically instead of building a "different" OS people who want to compete need to build a better Windows. I am aware of WINE for Linux, but that is a cumbersome approach for 99% of the typical users.
 
Xipher said:
When I read printing, I think to a printer, not to the screen.
Click to expand...
You are not along with that association. I guess that we must be getting old, as young(er) people must not be using printers anymore.
 
Yeah, it sounds like sour grapes from McAfee/Symantec. If MS locks down the kernel so it can't be changed, then why would McAfee need access to it anyway? Surely they can design AV software that can protect against attacks not concerning the kernel

A more secure OS is a lot of these companies' worst nightmare. Thier consumer level products are so bloated that a lot of the time they do more harm than good.

Now if MS was bundeling Vista with it's own security suite and it could access the kernal, they that would put a different spin on it I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top