Security Companies Tussle With MS Security Center

hey0you0guy writes, "The large security firms such as Symantec and McAfee want Microsoft to allow them to replace Microsoft's Windows Security Center. Microsoft is refusing these requests. 'By imposing the Windows Security Center on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at security,' Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, said in an interview. 'How do we trust that Microsoft knows what all the important things about security are to warn users about?' Given Microsoft's past, with vast piles of security flaws and patches, they should at least cooperate with these companies. A dispute still exists over PatchGuard, a security feature that Microsoft says is designed to guard core parts of the 64-bit version of Vista, but which critics say locks out helpful software from security rivals."

Bad track records all around

It's not as though Symantec and McAfee have spotless records on security and especially not fucking up your Windows installation. The more stuff that's in a sandbox the better.

Re:Bad track records all around

And Windows should have been designed with security in mind since '95, when they integrated networking and web browsing. Symantec's MASSIVE business is the result of poor design on Microsoft's part, which is a shaky basis for a business. The fact that Microsoft is at least trying with security is making Symantec nervous...

Of course, they said that about other things too...

Arrrrr!

It is possible to run third-party security consoles in Vista, said Stephen Toulouse, a security program manager at Microsoft. However, people have to manually disable the Windows Security Center if they don't want to use it. And the software giant has no plans to give other companies the ability to turn off the Windows Security Center, Toulouse noted.

What's the harm in running both at the same time? From a technical perspective, I don't see one. From a money-making stand-point, of course, I see one ... because most users will assume that they don't need the 3rd party software. McAfee and Norton will just have to work extra hard at flooding the media with examples of why their 3rd party software is superior to Microsoft's crap.

Re:Arrrrr!

What's the harm in running both at the same time?

Have you ever run two anti-virus programs on a computer at the same time? More often than not your file system performance completely tanks because every time a file is accessed you have two programs trying to scan it and verify it's integrity. You will also frequently run into problems where one AV program will label the other AV program as a virus.

Re:Arrrrr!

You will also frequently run into problems where one AV program will label the other AV program as a virus.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. It's called 'competition' :p

It's Microsoft...

Remember the whole bundling IE with Windows fiasco? Off the top of my head, I remember something about their media player in Europe too.

I think their strategy is "do what we want until we get told off." Even then they could just pay a hefty fine and it still wouldn't hurt them one bit.

Dancing with the devil

By imposing the Windows Security Center on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at security

By imposing the Windows UI on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at UI.

By imposing the Win32 API on all Windows developers, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at development.

If you sell software to help manage Windows, Microsoft will define your business plan. Those are the consequences of dancing with the devil. Not that they should be happy with it, but you can't expect any less from Microsoft.

It's worse than that

It's in Symantec's interest that Windows *remain* insecure forever so they can keep selling workarounds to the broken OS.

I wouldn't trust either side in this argument -- Micrsoft has long proven itself incapable of understanding comptuer security (at least compared to any other OS competitors), and the anti-virus guys have a business model that relies on Fear of Viruses.

Neither is in a position to earn any trust from anyone.

Re:It's worse than that

Umm.. That's a different problem space. Medical devices and flight control systems don't hae to operate in a hostile environment (at least from a software standpoint). Windows (and Linux and OSX and whatever other OS you're running on the internet) does.

Also flight control systems and medical devices have to be RELIABLE.

Reliable != Secure.

They're different dimensions on a multi-dimension graph of software qualities.

Some of the dimensions on the graph:
        Security (the ability of a system to prevent a hostile attacker from compromising the system)
        Reliability (the ability of a system to ensure continued functioning, regardless of operating conditions)
        Robustness (this one's interesting, because the word "robustness" has situational meaning)
        Flexibility (the ability of a system to adopt to new environments).

There are tons of other dimensions.

Software can be evaluated against all of these criteria, depending on the needs of your organization.

One other thing: it's IMPOSSIBLE to have perfect security (well, you might get pretty good security on a black box that accepts no inputs and produces no outputs - a computer that's not powered and has no permanent storage is also moderately secure). Security is about risk analysis and mitigation.

You need to decide what level of risk is appropriate for your data and ensure that you have mitigations in place appropriate for that level of risk. For instance, if the bad guy has physical access to your computer, they own your computer. So if you have critical data on a computer, you need to make sure that the bad guy can't get access to the computer (lock it up in a machine room). The 10 immutable laws of security [microsoft.com] is worth reading.

Microsoft is actually one of the few companies out there that really DOES get security (yeah, you can laugh, but they really do). But it takes a LONG time to turn a ship around, and it's really hard to mitigate the mistakes ofthe past (every user running as an admin is one of those big ones).

Microsoft has adopted a process they call the Security Development Lifecycle [microsoft.com]. The SDL involves a bunch of different processes that ensure that over time security defects in the system are reduced. Other organizations (Oracle and Mozilla, for example) are also adopting similar methodologies. Microsoft did this because they recognised that Windows was a train wreck in progress and that if they didn't do SOMETHING they'd be in even worse trouble than they are today.

So far, SDL has paid off. Every release of Windows since 2002 has been progressively more secure than the last, as have each subsequent release of other Microsoft products.For instance, when was the last time you've heard of a new SQL server vulnerability?

It's not saying that Microsoft is perfect. It's not. But it's progressively getting harder and harder for the bad guys to attack Windows - that's why they're going after other easier pieces of the ecosystem. Vista will raise the bar several orders of magnitude higher.

Security Centre

It is possible to run third-party security consoles in Vista, said Stephen Toulouse, a security program manager at Microsoft. However, people have to manually disable the Windows Security Center if they don't want to use it.

I tried disabling the Security Centre in Vista Beta 2; it kept popping up messages in the system tray warning me that I'd disabled the security centre and should re-enable it immediately. Try as I might I couldn't find a way to turn that off.

They'll be forced to play due to antitrust laws

But we really shouldn't be surprised by this approach, should we?

There is a lot more in the way of precedence and case law nowadays for software companies to cry foul for being cut out of their market by the 800lb gorilla. There'll be lawyers all over the place on this one.

I wonder how much of the growth of the legal profession could be blamed on these large software behemoths and tech companies?

Re:They'll be forced to play due to antitrust laws

It will be an interesting suit with the argument, "They fixed their operating system, so we're not needed any more, but they won't let us in". So, they took the part of the OS most succeptible to being tainted, and shut it off so it can't be. At least they're even handed; "Friend or Foe, Out You Go."

Re:They'll be forced to play due to antitrust laws

If they'd actually fixed it. But they haven't. (See IE7 zero day exploits)

And they're bundling security products with their OS. They're not providing a secure OS. There's a major difference between the two. The first is illegal when you're a defacto monopoly. The second would be welcomed by everyone.

"Security Center" is doublespeak

And that's why MS will never allow other companies to replace it. It seems to say "this makes the user more secure" but it actually says "this makes US more secure". Notice how that is the vector that allowed Microsoft Genuine Advantage onto all the XP machines. Which is also doublespeak [wikipedia.org] - there is no advantage to the user, only to MS.

If these guys think MS will simply hand over the keys to that much control, they're nuts.

Anti-Trust

How is this different from 'bundling' Internet Explorer with Windows to lock-out other web browsers? M$ IMPOSES their security model in an area they are traditionally weak in, removing key players in the business.

Helpful Software?

Last time I looked Norton used more resources and was harder to uninstall than most virii.

Why you shouldn't give a shit.

Microsoft's whole approach to security is backwards. And so is the approach of Symantec and Macafee and the rest... not to mention the EC and everyone who thinks antitrust is even applicable to this whole commotion.

They think they can add security on, like a product. You can't. You have to design it in. If you had a building with no locks on the doors you wouldn't keep casual visitors out by adding guards before you'd even tried adding locks, even if carrying cards or keys was "inconvenient". So why does Microsoft think they can add security to Internet Explorer that way?

The whole basis of Microsoft's approach to the Internet is fundamentally wrong. They can't fix it by adding products. They can only fix it by ripping out most of the desktop-browser integration they fought the DoJ to a standstill over in the Clinton and first Bush administrations, and making the browser responsible for never allowing an untrusted object out of the sandbox, no matter what. Even if sandboxes are "slow" and installing plugins are "inconvenient".

Same with Windows networking, CIFS, CIFS-authentication for HTTP, and everything else they've done to lower the barriers between local and remote resources. Those barriers, those locked doors, are there for a reason.

Re:Why you shouldn't give a shit.

"...and making the browser responsible for never allowing an untrusted object out of the sandbox, no matter what."

What a novel idea. Microsoft should implement this!

Oh, wait...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/msit/ security/IE_protected_note.mspx [microsoft.com]

We all know

Windows is the most secure OS on the planet

Anti-trust? For real?

I'm not exactly sure how this can be considered an anti-trust issue. These 'security' companies have created products and business models around Microsoft's flawed and insecure product. If Microsoft chooses to fix what they can, and beef up the security of their own product, whether it puts other companies out of business or not, do they not have the right to do this? How is it Microsoft's fault if by fixing their product, it renders another company's business model obsolete?

I mean, why don't these 'security' companies just ask Microsoft to conitnue to ship a flawed and insecure product, just so they can have a market to develop software to fix it? It sounds pretty absurd when worded like that, but that's essentially what's going on here...

"In other news, Ford Motor Company has made a deal with Napa Auto Parts to begin shipping all new model vehicles from the factory with head gaskets designed to last only 6 weeks or 1,500 miles. Napa will however provide an upgrade gasket that can be installed at the dealership that will last for 1 year regardless of miles. At which point, you can renew your gasket subscription online, in which case it will be good for 1 more year."

Two Problems

The first issue that I saw companies complaining about is not being able to disable Windows Security Center. I don't see that as being a problem. Right now I run Symantec AV on XP SP2 and Windows Security Center (WSC) identifies Symantec and the two co-exist. WSC doesn't display warning messages about "No anti-virus software installed" because it recognizes that Symantec is an AV program and life is good. It seems to me that Microsoft has a way of extorting money from companies. They will charge companies a fee to develop a WSC compliant application. They won't allow companies to replace WSC because WSC provides "important functionality" to the computing environment. I tend to agree. I'm glad that Microsoft is making sure that the key pieces of protective software (firewall and AV) are installed and running. I don't think it's too much to ask that other 3rd party developers play nice with WSC.

The second issue, and the bigger issue is that Microsoft seems be denying companies access to the low level hooks that they need to properly integrate their applications with the operating system. I kind of understand where MS is coming from. After all if they allow Symantec access to the system call table and the various other, kernel level hooks, then they might as well allow everyone access. On the other hand, those who want access to the lower level functions of the OS are going to hack them anyway. It's a Catch-22. Personally, I'd rather that EVERYONE have access to the low level functions. That way the market can sort out who will do the best job of securing it.

I cry not for McAffee and Symantec.

So, McAffee/Symantec..

Has actual PC security actually interested you in the past, say, decade? I was of the impression that you just paid some second rate programmer in bangalore a load of bananas to churn out any old crap that had the following requirements:

1. we must be able to sell it in regular, deluxe, gold, platinum, internet, special edition, international, lite, and fat free versions. after all, this allows the user to pay for the exact level of security they need. consumer choice, right! some people only want to pay a little and thus be protected only against some vague subset of last year's threats, while others want to pay more and thus be protected a bit more against some vague subset of last year's threats.

2. as in #1, the software must be sold in yearly versions. this allows users to respond to the cutting edge threats of 2003 by buying the 2005 version, still on sale in CompUSA (probably).

3. we must really focus our efforts on getting this shiat pre-loaded on as many chain store PCs as posslbe. WARNING YOUR COMPUTER IS AT RISK! DO YOU WANT TO PAY $99.99 PER YEAR NOW TO UPGRADE? Your choices are [ Yes ] and [ Ask me again in 5 minutes with a big ass system modal dialog box ]

4. The software must be impossible to uninstall, for Sound Business Reasons (tm). Well, we should include an uninstall routine, but ensure that it does not work if the software is modified in any way.

The Microsoft point of view:

Remember that MS has faced years of harsh criticism over the insecurity of their products. They view WSC as a major step forward in combating future criticisms. By allowing someone else to replace WSC, they open themselves up to inferior products disabling it and making Windows in fact less secure, and once again making MS look bad.

I suggest a compromise: create a method of adding widget-like components to WSC, so that Symantec and others can interface with it seamlessly and add information without Microsoft having to sacrifice their (probably false) sense of security from having it there in the first place.

The US Gov't Will Undo It

My bet is that the first time that a major US gov network of PC's gets crippled by a "MS Security Center" vuln, there's going to appear an quick and easy way to kill the MS Security Center, or MS will be told to pack their shit and hit the road.
~

Silly question

If third-party software could automatically disable Microsoft's Security Center, couldn't malicious software do the same?

From a busines perspective, this may be the same as bundling IE, but from a security perspective this is the exact opposite: removing security holes rather than adding them (in the name of "functionality").

Yes, Microsoft is likely being monopolistic, but I think I'd rather worry about all the Windows zombies populating the web rather than the profit margin of particular security software companies, especially when said companies rely on the inherent insecurity of Windows installations for their income.

Re:Silly question

This is the very same thought I had...

Even if they only give the method to approved companies... What's to stop some nut job programmer for Mcafee or Symantec creating a piece fo code that only disables WSC and letting/allowing/or causing writers of malicous code that same ability... I doubt theyed be able to track such a thing back to a single programmer working for either company and I can imagine some large slices of change from places that want to write malicous code for such an ability...

Also wants there is a way to turn it off (without user intervention), then what stops someone from accidentally stumbling across it?

i dont see the problem

if the host system has implemented its own version a security center, like vista, and has essentially blocked what truely is a 3rd party app to help windows do what it was meant to do in the first place, thats fine. i would rather something build into the kernel of the o/s than a 3rd party app that breaks windows when you uninstall it, and when it is installed, it slows your pc down to a grinding hault.

ultimately its windows' product, their space, and it is not their fault another company has based their entire product range on a previous microsoft product with security flaws.

maybe their time has ran out. i doubt it, but i like to know that the people making vista are attempting to fix mistakes from their previous range of products. if this ultimately leads to a more stable, secure product, i dont see a problem.

linux and mac users do not need antivirus, and do not need a 3rd party app to slow down their pc. one of the reasons of this is because on linux and mac you need to enter a administrative password to do anything that is going to affect the operating system. if im not mistaken, vista has also implemented this. if this is the case, what is the need for symantec products

we've had anti virus on windows for so long we've gotten used to the fact that we need it, when truely we shouldnt.

i welcome this. ... and im a mac user, and a IT engineer that works with microsoft products all day.

Some things only the OS should access

If you open up part of the system so that rival security firms can access them, then potentially anyone could access them. Security mandates that there are some things that only the OS can access. So much as I despise M$, I have to agree with them here.

Spin...

Not allowing 3rd party products to touch core OS files without significant hassle is a good thing. Am I wrong?

First they came.

First they came for the office software companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't an office software company.
Then they came for the internet browsing companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't an internet browsing company.
Then they came for the media playing companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't a media playing company.
Then they came for the security software companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't a security software company.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I suppose some day the sofware companies that do bussiness with Microsoft and so help it consolidate its grip on the desktops of this world will take note and start thinking about alternative platforms.

Solution

Get a Mac.

Thank you.

Rather Microsoft than McAfee...

(no, really)

As a former McAfee home user, I was rather surprised to see MS' "security center" replaced with McAfee's when I made the mistake of updating their AV software just over a year ago. What McAfee put in place instead was little more than an annoying attempt to sell me McAfee products that I didn't need (such as a software firewall; in addition to a hardware router controlling access in I also had a software firewall from another vendor in place to stop unwanted access out).

I rejected McAfee for home use because of this, and tried to make it is clear as I could to the company why (although I doubt that that got past the poor bloody infantry on the helpdesk). Like many people here I'm sure, I get landed with fixing people's Windows PCs. Recommendations count, and McAfee's home software certainly haven't had any from me over the last year.

Simple solution

Don't replace, disable! Simply disable the Security Centre service, install your own and you're done. Infact this is exactly what we have done at work, the idea of a security centre is great however we wanted to add our own applications to the security centre. Sadly there is no way to do this with the default security centre in Windows XP SP2. So rather than try and extend it we simply disabled it and replaced it. Doing the job of the security centre is pretty simple as it is documented what applications have to do to be "seen" by the security centre so we just did the opposite to monitor them (Symantec is very difficult about this because it has anti-monitoring tech built in). I don't see why this is a big problem for Symantec. AFAIK there is no reason they cannot disable the security centre service when they install their application.

What Do These Companies Expect?

They've been milking money from Windows lack of security and viruses for years, so it's been good business for them. They have flat out and point-blank refused, along with many other companies, to take a lead in developing another desktop system, and developing for it, so that they won't continue to be at a disadvantage. They want to support only Windows, and develop software only for Windows. Companies like Adobe, with it's suite of software like Photoshop and ex-Macromedia stuff that makes a tidy profit, are going to be next in the Redmond cross-hairs over the next few years.

I mean, I know Microsoft has a monopoly through Windows, but do these companies really not expect Microsoft to use that against them? These software vendors, between them, do have the power to move people away from Windows and on to a system where they all have a much more level playing field.

Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, said in an interview. 'How do we trust that Microsoft knows what all the important things about security are to warn users about?'

Errrrr. I have news for you Mr. Chief Engineer *snigger*. Windows is a closed source operating system designed to make money for Microsoft. They control the software you run your software on, so they have the high ground. Be grateful that you have had a company and a nice salary off the back of that for all these years. Windows is not designed to keep you in business.

A dispute still exists over PatchGuard, a security feature that Microsoft says is designed to guard core parts of the 64-bit version of Vista, but which critics say locks out helpful software from security rivals....."PatchGuard is hurting security vendors more than it is hurting malware writers," said Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, in an interview on Wednesday.

Errrr. I have news for you imbeciles. Wait until that is protected by a Trusted Computing system in the hardware and it is difficult, bordering on impossible, to bypass and you are legally [wikipedia.org] prevented from doing so even if you could. See. The whole Trusted Computing thing is most certainly not just about DRM in films and music, and it looks like a fairly big deal for Microsoft.

I mean, I think Windows is a monopoly and Microsoft should be subject to restrictions like all monopolies have been. However, there's a part of me that is glad that idiotic companies like Symantec, other security companies and companies like Adobe will probably go out of business. Many of them go into denial and like to pretend that they don't compete with Microsoft in order to support only Windows (making more money for Microsoft), but it is obvious that they do. When the brown stuff hits the fan they then whinge about it, rather than having put some thought and effort into ensuring their own survival. Digging your own grave must be a fun business endeavour.

You know, Microsoft will argue that all these companies had it within their power, collectively, to go off and bolster the popularity of the Mac, or make Linux a first-rate desktop OS that they could sell their wares on if they weren't happy. And you know what, however much I don't want to really say it? They'll be right.

ReactOS developer said it best

AV Companies: Learn to CODE! [openrce.org]
This guy probably knows more about Windows' guts that anyone outside Microsoft.

Whereas symantec only care about my wellbeing

Bullshit. They just want to be able to sell a product, and they are mighty pissed off that MS are now bundling software that makes the products unnecesary.

I still remember that their virus scanner used to catch back orifice as a trojan but completely ignore PC anywhere. Both products did pretty much the same thing except one was more extensible than the other. And one was written by the same people as the Virus scanner.

These companies are just whining because Microsoft is now doing to them what it has to Netscape and loads of others since.

More FUD From Scared Companies

I know this isn't the crowd to say this to, but Vista really will be a lot more secure than past versions of Windows. In fact, the mere addition of Protected Mode IE will prevent the VAST majority of Malware from ever getting a shot at most users PCs. (Since IE is the primary attack vector for virtually all of the bad guys, whether that's directly through the browser or via IE components being used in e-mail clients or other applications.)

McAfee and Symantec are very scared about this. They know that the more secure Windows gets the less people are going to want their very, very crappy products.

First they cry foul about Microsoft preventing kernel patching (yet somehow ignore the fact that Windows One Care works just fine without kernel patching by using documented APIs), and now they complain about what amounts to them not being able to plaster their brand and cross sell their other crappy products via the security center.

There is a *LOT* to be said for consistency in UI design. If users always know that you go to the Security Center to make sure your computer is secure, they're at least somewhat more likely to do it.

play nicely with your neighbor

The solution is easy. Symantec and McCafee should plug into the security center. If 3rd party vendors are allowed to replace core parts of the user interface, how are any un-knowledgable users going to find their way arround a system? Let alone the poor tech support guy who has to take their calls.

MS cannot implement security

Not the usual MS bashing, more my usual posting on that topic. MS cannot, by definition, implement security, for the simple reason that their security software will be on every computer. That, in turn, means that, if you want to get spyware on a given computer, you HAVE to circumvent that security system. So this system will be broken by default by every given trojan out there. They might not go to the lengths of trying to defeat McAfee, they might not try to defeat Kaspersky, but they WILL for sure go to any lengths to defeat the MS Antivirus suit.

Fighting security software costs resources. So you only do it if you have to. Many trojans today defend against the most predominant AV software, like the forementioned. Simply because they are widespread and thus do present a threat to the ability of a given malware to spread. How much more effort will be put into defeating a security suit that is invariably on ALL computers you plan to infect?

For reference, take a look at the MS "firewall". Granted, the implementation is shoddy as can be, so defeating it is by no means any kind of feat, but still it HAS to be done. It is on every computer out there, on those computers suffering from clueless owners (i.e. your primary target as a malware writer) it is most likely the only kind of intrusion detection software. Defeating it is the golden key to the computer.

It will be the same for MS AV. So there is NO security to be expected from an MS AV suite. Not because MS cannot do it. Because malware writers will put any effort necessary behind defeating it. Because it has to be done to infect a computer.

Obvious decision by Microsoft

The large security firms such as Symantec and McAfee want Microsoft to allow them to replace Microsoft's Windows Security Center.

If MS would allow this, you can just as well do a replace of "Symantec and McAffee" with "malware developers" to see the problem.

Wobbly premise

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the premise of their argument seems based on the same shaky logical fallacy of the record companies. "This is the way it has always been, so this is the way it must always be." Is there even a name for this type of fallacy, or did I just dream it up?

sigh...

Old news. Old argument. If Microsoft (oh sorry, "M$" - get it? It's a dollar sign! Derp!) does not ship with a firewall and anti-virus, you complain. If they do, you complain. What is the point in even talking about it on Slashdot? Why the hell am I even writing this.

Fact - most home users don't have AV software. Now they will. Horray!

Future Headlines:

I think given the possibilities I have to side with MS on this one.

"Microsoft Caves In; Allows Third Party Security Centers"
A month later: "Hackers spoof fake Security Center tricking millions of users"

Report

Report on our Grand Plan on eradicating terrorism and child porn accross the world:

-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-
  Terrorism
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-

*Threat:
The security measures are widely announced and campaigned, terrorists educate themselves and go around the new measures.

*Collateral:
People being frisked, called on "random checks", arrests, disruption of business, spread of fear, rapid increase in intolerance towards muslim religion, rapid increase in muslim radicalists towards western cultures.

-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-
Child Porn
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-

*Threat:
Child porn sharers have long since moved to encrypted channels, they are nowhere to be found on public internet.
Data retention can't decrypt strongly encrypted information and can't differentiate which encrypted data contains child porn or just bank data or whatever.

*Collateral:
All those people who think they're safe since they did nothing have their data in the government. Corrupt people in appropriate position accessing private information and issuing arrests based on indirect evidence.

You gotta fight for the right to extort money!

Symantec and McAfee are not fighting for the right to sell a security product. They are fighting for the right to sell a subscription to their security services. The fact that both companies' flagship products are bloated crap -- even worse than Windows itself -- should give you some idea of what you'd be subscribing to.

Doing home PC repairs, more than half of my income is from malware... and that doesn't include the problems caused by Norton Internet Security itself, which accounts for about 5% of my initial calls. ("I can't get my mail, and I can't logon to my bank, and [Dell | Verizon | Comcast] says I have spyware!")
When that program, or McAfee's suite, haven't killed the PC yet, I often find well-hidden malware .DLLs loaded that neither program detects or removes. I can't believe that they can't detect this stuff... instead, they won't because they want to sell you additional products and subscriptions, and more bloated crap.

Microsoft stayed out of the antivirus market all these years because they didn't want to be responsible for failing to prevent virus attacks. Now that they're ready to step up to the plate, let them... then we can sue them when the next Blaster worm or "I Love YOU" virus hits.

A single target...

They may provide users with a single area to associate with security, but they also provide malware authors with a single target for their malware to sieze control of and disable and/or modify...

Is there may be a security hole that can be used?

Maybe Symantec can use one of the *many* security holes in MS Security Center to disable it....

Stopping Symantec?

Anything that prevents Symantec's software from getting its evil little hooks into the OS has got to be a good thing, no?

The Way Things Have To Be

In all honisty Microsoft should guard against anyone accessing core parts of the operating system. If you leave system calls available to anyone (read root kit) that allow the average application to either hide itself from the OS or interfere with the operating of the OS then the malware writers will use them too. Software needs to be forced into a sandbox if we ever hope to have secure a OS. I know people will complain and say that Microsoft is being all anti-trustie but everyone complains and says they need to get on the security ball, well they cant complain now that they are trying.

Security Companies should have to tussle with me

If Symantec and McAfee can disable Windows security, so can any passing malware.

I have never had problems with malware anywhere near as troublesome as the problems I have had with so-called anti-virus software that behaves more like a virus itself. My workstation solution is to run only enough of one well-behaved package (F-Secure) to warn me when an application I haven't cleared tries to access the internet. The rest is safe practices and a very effective SPI firewall protecting the LAN. It works.

I want code buried deep in the OS to tell me when some process is trying to disable or bypass security and to give me a choice between letting it, stopping it, or stopping it and wiping the offending process and all of its related code from my system (particularly the last part). It should be so intertwined with the OS that it can't be disabled without killing the OS. If XP had this feature it would have saved me days of effort recovering from the ill-considered installation of virus-like applications such as Norton, McAfee and Macromedia Flash.

the true problem

If M$ integrated a really useful firewall, antispyware etc system into Vista, it would be a huge leap for M$. That being said, they won't. Their "security tools" as of thus far have been second-thought, add-ons, rather then a solid system. They just throw something together so people think they are doing something. Instead of wasting system resources with aeroglass, M$ should be using those resources to have better real-time security tools.

Un needed services

Humm, one of numerous services I disable during install here at work and at home... Are you trying to tell me I'll have to hack it out of Vista ? I will, just watch me do it too, all the FBI on Canadian soil won't be able to stop me from going againts the unread EULA stating that if I defunk the Security Center I'm a bad Luser...c'mon now...hype hype hype.. Let Micro$oft do what they want, and we'll answer that call with low retail numbers. Cheers !

Microsoft's stubborn

Microsoft are too stubborn and think that they are such a big company therefore they does not need any help from others that small scale from them and too young in the industries..