McAfee, Symantec Think Vista Unfair 424
davidwr writes "Is Microsoft unfairly locking anti-virus companies out of Vista? Symantec and McAfee seem to think so and they aren't being very quiet about it, placing a full-page ad in the Financial Times. If you've found the ad online, please post a link."
McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (Score:5, Insightful)
Something McAfee, Symantec and all other anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/spam-filter companies should bear in mind, if operating systems, applications and other software had been properly designed in the beginning these companies wouldn't exist. These aftermarket companies are effectively parasites. Once the host changes significantly the parasites advantage is gone. Who can say Microsoft is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train? It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth. If you're a corporate IT officer, would you be comforted to know you only have one place to go for help now, and it's the company which releases extreme high priority bug fixes frequently?
Microsoft was overly optimistic about the true nature of people (they shouldn't as they've proven to be devils themselves), expecting nobody would take advantage of flaws, like giving everyone effectively root on their computers, thus every application, including malicious code. Further, they've been wonderful about hiding the true nature of what's running on your PC. I can see executables, but DLL's, why the hell shouldn't I see those easily? Anything running on my computer should be visible, how else can I tell if there's something there which shouldn't be?
So, once again Microsoft attempts to get it right. Maybe they'll be closer to the mark this time. I don't care. XP was the last operating system I'm ever buying from them and I don't pirate stuff. With Vista promising to be larger than ever, I don't think it's the direction I want to go. As Michael Crichton implied in Jurassic Park, the more complex a system the more likely it is to break down. I don't find the every growing Windows OS/Environment comforting. I'm also tired of the technology tax, I just want something to work, to be able to do mundane things and play a few simple games when time affords. Good luck McAfee, Symantec and all the rest, it was overdue. Don't forget to send your stockholders a "Thank You" for all the money they gave you.
Of course, if it all goes tits-up for Vista, Microsoft have nobody else to blame. Doesn't that at least warrant a warm, cozy feeling?
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be true IF Microsoft had removed the need for av/as/s/sf software but it hasnt. All it has done is changed how the software innterfaces with the OS in an attempt to make it more secure.
Who can say Microsoft is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train?
I can. They *arent* stopping the need for this software, just making it harder for the competition.
It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth. If you're a corporate IT officer, would you be comforted to know you only have one place to go for help now, and it's the company which releases extreme high priority bug fixes frequently?
Fuelled MS's growth in the same way a speed bump helps ford's growth.
This might be true *IF* microsoft was releasing fixes when they're needed but as we've seen lately, they still dont.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with parent. Have we REALLY forgotten our IE/Netscape history so quickly? Microsoft is following their exact same vendor lock-in strategy now as they did then. Integrate the new product with the old and to make matters worse they're doing that instead of 'fixing' the original product (namely windows).
I'll be the first to say that XP was a huge improvement and that worm-spread was much reduced. I'll also say that I'm a developer myself and I understand that saying 'write it securely' is a hell of a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An anti virus isn't part of the default installation. It has to be downloaded seperately and costs $50 a year.
McAfee and symantec are big cry babies. Maybe I might agree with them if thier products weren't so bad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. And we might generalize it a bit. We often read here that old canard "You get what you pay for". With software, not only is this not generally true; what's more common is that with software, price and quality are typically inversely related.
Microsoft is merely doing its part to maintain this situation. They do i
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (Score:4, Insightful)
Speedbumps exist to protect those who live in the surrounding neighborhoods and shoppers in parking lots. Now, if GP's statement about AV companies was that they protect users in the same LAN as a Windows box, your analogy would be correct. Sadly (for you), it was not.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sophos say they have no problem with this (Score:4, Informative)
Ron O'Brien, senior security consultant with Sophos, told BetaNews. "But from what we have learned in our dialog with Microsoft, which is ongoing, the objection on the part of some vendors is that PatchGuard will prevent access to the kernel, which is that very basic level of the operating system where people feel that they may need to go, in order to provide a total security solution."
Conceivably, if Sophos wanted to provide a "total security solution," given this new set of circumstances, wouldn't it need to understand some of PatchGuard's secrets? Surprisingly, O'Brien told us no. "At this point in time, Sophos does not see the need to be able to access the kernel within the Microsoft operating system," he said.
"If there is a point in time where the kernel becomes the subject of malware being written specifically to it, then I would expect that we would go back to Microsoft and tell them we need to be able to access the kernel. But at this point, it doesn't appear to be necessary."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows OneCare is not built into Windows Vista and must be bought seperatly. You can thank Symantec for that. The only thing that is integrated into Vista is Windows Defender, which the AV companies will probably sue MS over, and I can bet that both OneCare and Defender use the same protocol that MS is telling the AV vendors to use.
As For The Competition that MS is trying to "Screw"...
Trend Micro runs on Vista [trendbeta.com]
Compu [my-etrust.com]
Not just MS (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't blame either group. If they had considered all possible future needs prior to creating an implementation they'd still be working on it today and Slashdot would be a pen-pal club.
Re:Not just MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Take for example e-mail/POP. It certainly has it's flaws, but is hugely successful and noone has yet been able to come up with a better system (for example, one that mitigates the spam problem) that doesn't also involve some hefty compromises that would make the whole system less useful to alot of people (and i don't mean just spammers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. Don't get started with the tired "one of us" rhetoric. By comparison, the Internet as a whole has come to grips with the security need a bit more completely than Microsoft. Microsoft's only trying to get it right in Vista so Windows can go out an an upbeat (since they're already laying off Windows developers and not developing another OS after Vista).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they don't. Microsoft's programmers are paid per line of code, and docked pay for not meeting quota. It's cheaper (for the programmers) to write around old code and hope nobody links to it in the future than it is to dike it out in such a situation: Case and paste is a way of life for the Borg.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right when you c
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (Score:4, Insightful)
Many viruses back in the DOS days were spread through BBS systems--not through software holes, but because a user wanted some warez or something. That still happens today, with stupid little flash games like "dwarfbowling" or whatever. No matter how many prompts Windows throws at them, people are going to click. But if their antivirus software throws up a warning and says, "THIS IS A VIRUS." many of them stop.
TPM+proper software design is the only way this can be mitigated. I think most people here don't care for that solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. If the only way software will run is if MICROSOFT signs it, then no.
If I can "accept" trusted publishers and if as an enduser I can sign software so that it runs, then yes.
God knows what will happen with GPLv3 software though if publishers have to hand over the keys. I guess we stick to GPLv2?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confusing the accuracy of my statement with your own opinions on how things should run and what level of control of your own PC that you're willing to give up.
Two solutions: 1) Only signed code is allowed. User clicks on malware, it's not MS certified to run on Windows, it gets denied.
2) User is allowed to run unsigned code or code which is signed but not verified in any way. User clicks on malware. Malware is in
Re: (Score:2)
( Hell, talk about working for the good of the customer here. You imagine a bodyguard pointing its gun at you when you decide to replace the backdoor he was guarding
I wonder where are the open source/free software when you nee
No, that's not correct (Score:4, Insightful)
What virus scanners do is provide a database of known bad code (and check for variants). They are like a bouncer with a list of known criminals. Even if the owner says "Sure, let that guy in," they can check their list and say "Sir, you don't want to do that, he's known to be a bad guy."
Now you are somewhat right that certain kinds of designs make more attacks possible. For example if you have services exposed to the Internet, then a worm can try to get in there without any user intervention. However the fundamental problem of malware is not solvable with any OS I'm currently aware of. Running as a deprivledged user does nothing. Either the malware can just install as the user and wreak havoc on that user's files (which is ultimately what they care about not the OS), or will just ask for escalation, which clueless users tend to grant without thinking, and then do as it wishes.
Unless we move to a trusted architecture, where only signed apps can execute, or we manage to get all users to be highly technically competent, they'll always be a need for virus scanners, at least on the dominant OS. Lock down every other way in all you like, it doesn't matter when you can infect people by sending them an e-mail that says "Hi I send you this file in order to have your advice."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, that's not correct (Score:4, Informative)
A virus infects other files but doesn't actively spread to other systems. They may use exploits to infect the system but they may simply wait for another idiot to click on the exe they infected. So when Bob gets that floppy from you he may get infected.
Trojans do not self-replciate at all and usually are designed to control a computer or steal data.
So neither trojans nor many viruses would be stopped by a secure OS assuming the user ran them as "root" which most users would do. Worms would also not be stopped if they did not use exploits to spread, for example by sending themselves as emails or IMs.
Re:No, that's not correct (Score:4, Interesting)
I really hate this popular Slashdot myth that viruses only exist because OSes are designed improperly. No, wrong.
</snip>
This is why SELinux [nsa.gov] and App Armor [novell.com] exist. With a proper SELinux or App Armor setup you could install Apache as root and all it will be allowed to do is what Apache does normally. So, it would only be allowed to read the
Admittedly this example wouldn't help a desktop user. But, there is no reason why SELinux or App Armor couldn't help a desktop user. One example would be if Firefox was locked down to only allow downloads to the ~/Downloads directory or something like that. Now any hole in firefox would only be able to damage your ~/Downloads directory and presumably your firefox cache directory or something. It wouldn't be able to delete ~/Pictures and ~/Music. The browser example is kind of complicated because it has so many tasks these days. But, the point is that you can prevent a lot of problems by employing some kind of mandatory access control system.
Oh, and it really isn't that hard to use one of these systems either. Yeah, they can be pretty nasty if you really get into it (especially SELinux). But, for a desktop user there really isn't anything to worry about. I use Fedora Core 5 at work and at home and I've kept SELinux enabled on both systems. App Armor is really nice to use for the purposes of locking down a server system in this way. SELinux is more generic but it is much more complex than App Armor.
Re:No, that's not correct (Score:4, Informative)
These are called trojan horses.
Viruses and worms replicate themselves and redistribute through backdoors. Typically "worm" carries connotations of being particularly aggressive and requiring no faults of the user. But I think, originally virus meant little more than self replication, not even necessarily malicious - just that you could be "infected" (hence the term virus). Virus carries connotations of being prolific (even within one host system).
Ones that depend on tricking the user or stupid users are trojan horses.
At least those were the definitions back in the day. The media has done a lot to muddy the waters.
In short (and IMHO):
The problem is many cases of malware combine some or all of these rather than just one of them, and the media flounders without having a short, easily digestable label to slap on them, so they confuse things with generalizations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not parasites, they're symbiotes. In a parasitic relationship, only the parasite profits. As you've said yourself, "It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or as Scotty once said: "The harder they make the plumbing, the easier it is to clog up the drain"
Re: (Score:2)
"Computer users around the globe recognize that the most serious threats to security exist because of inherent weaknesses in the Microsoft operating system."
Aren't they delusional?
Security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, which reputable company makes the security software I need to surf when running Linux?
Re:McAfee, Symantec living on borrowed time (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we've got SuperSuite SystemWorks 2007.3 Ultra ++ Premium Platinum Professional Network Edition, and it's great! It loads a piece of shit e-mail scanner that sucks up 24mb of your ram and only works with two e-mail clients (not web based e-mail like most people assume it does!), some sort of 'worm protection' that succeeds only in disallowing you to connect to any remote machine ever, for any reason, you've got their anti-virus protection which incidently takes about 45mb of ram to sit in the background, double that if it's doing a scan, then you've got the heuristic detection, which is about another 5-10 mb of your ram, you've got the 'Symantec System Center' console, that takes about 10mb of ram just so it can tell you you're running SystemWorks 2007.3 Ultra++ Premium Platinum Professional Network Edition every five minutes in a pop-up window. Then there's Goback, which doesn't work, Ghost Personal 10, which I've yet to get to work properly thanks to its inability to properly clone 'msgina.dll', and an out-dated 'update' to checkdisk that the software doesn't allow you to force a manual run of. Don't even get me started on 'Norton Internet Security' which effectively stops you from transmitting *ANY* data unless the user clicks OK about a thousand times, and also does about 10 or 15 other things to your connection that it will never tell you about that impede normal workgroup/domain traffic. Lovely.
And that's just SystemWorks. Don't forget about how Corporate Antivirus 10 has a nasty penchant for destroying corporate systems (as seen on slashdot here [slashdot.org].)
Maybe I'm just bitter at having to remove all this shit from client's computers who have bought it and spent their $50 or $100 on this software only to have it completely screw them from top to bottom.
I think that Symantec needs to do one of two things: Either drop out completely, admit that their software is a shadow of what it used to be and that they've lost all ability to write any sort of tight and non-resource hungry code, OR re-write their damn software to be functional and not take an average of 100mb of ram to run. I'm fairly certain that properly written code doesn't need direct kernel access to check whether c:\boot.dat is infected with a virus. 'Course, I'm no programmer, so, I don't know that for fact.
But either way, if they did that, I think their cries would fall on more sympathetic ears.
Much ado... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once Vista hits the streets in its final incarnation, and the Bad Guys get to working on it, my money is on the premise that third party antivirus solutions to whatever problems that inevitably must arise, will continue to be a necessity.
After all, it's not like we don't already have a pretty good track record to examine, with the folks who are producing Vista, eh?
Re:Much ado... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Much ado... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, it's not that way. Microsoft is a monopoly and they a
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be more along the lines of GM still leaving exhausts that only last 3 weeks on the car, but changing the design enough so that no current aftermarket exhausts can be installed. Also, a special tool that is not available to any aftermarket dealers is required to remove and install the exhaust system.
That would be a fitting analogy! Nobody told Microsoft not to enter the security market, but they are attempting to actively prevent others from being able to compete with their offerin
Maybe? (Score:2, Insightful)
The new steps in Vista will make the product more secure. In that, it might also make it harder for these third party programs to be as integrated with it.
Justin
http://hatchedeggs.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
BuggyWhips! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Something called Microsoft Windows has been buggy whipped for a long time. Your business is safe.
No particular sympathy (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Release an OS without really beefing up security and watch everything bad about XP and prior releases repeat itself on a larger scale.
B) Release an OS and beef up security and see people who have made a living compensating for your poor coding in the past complain that they can't in the future.
The NAPA analogy is shockingly accurate in my opinion. Like what would happen if all the fast food places discovered a way to make the same fast food, but make it healthier enough that people didn't have to worry about dieting anymore? Who would complain? Diet manufacturers of course...
Re: (Score:2)
The NAPA analogy is shockingly accurate in my opinion.
Why is it that whenever a monopolist abuses their position everyone immediately presents an analogy using a company that does not have a monopoly and calls it the same thing? Here's an analogy that is actually apt. The electric company has a monopoly on local power distribution. For years, third party companies have been selling power converters to get around the low voltage of power delivered by the power company and allow a significant number of app
Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (Score:2)
B) Release an OS and beef up security and see people who have made a living compensating for your poor coding in the past complain that they can't in the future.
Or
C) Release an OS and beef up security. Give hooks into the new arch for outside companies to hook their software into.
This is the problem we are seeing, and primarily why people don't like MS.
Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they release a new OS with beefed up security by the definition of ot being "beefed up" that would mean no need for third party security addons. Actually I believe Vista has a documented API for how they handle security now so Symantex and others can still write security applications. They're just mad because a lot of what they do isn't needed now. So if they do your version C they will still be hated by anti-virus manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Since there's no financial benefit to Company A, and there's no legal reason forcing them to (yet) then the consumer is just SOL.
I don't agree with passing laws to regulate how specific businesses work in most cases, but when there's no way the market (ie, the
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the legal reason DOES exist since MS is (in the eyes of the law) a monopoly. They need to play be different rules. Now if companies B1 and B2 go to court, which they probably will when Vista is released, then they can get some relief AFTER THE FACT.
IMHO, MS isn't being smart. They WILL get smacked by the courts again, and since the consent decree is still in effect, it w
Re: (Score:2)
For what its worth, I hope the EU courts *DO* smack them, and smack them hard, since the US courts won't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its like me avoiding shopping at walmart. I like to think that it hurts their bottom line by taking my dollars elsewhere, but I know that in the end it doesn't really matter since there are many, many more that will gladly keep throwing their money at walmart.
Re:Microsoft in a "Damned if they do.." situation. (Score:2)
why arent they also upset at Mac? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, forgot the actual POINT of that post... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OS X's built-in firewall sucks. And I'm a mac user. Through the interface, click all the security options (and go into Advanced and check stealth mode, etc). Type in 'ipfw show' at the command prompt. Wow! Stealth mode blocks ICMP echo requests! The firewall *still* allows all UDP traffic in, so long as the UDP traffic *comes from* a specific port. In short, the firewall assumes nobody is spoofing packets to get through it, which is retard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically it's true (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, it's like duh etc. I know. But this is ridiculous, if they are a huge corp with mad assets
It's
Another integral part of an OS? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but the 'complaint' fits our culture perfectly (Score:5, Insightful)
Your use of the word "claim" implies that someone other than them should decide what is, and is not, part of their own product. They wouldn't be "claiming" such a thing, but simply stating it. "Yesterday, our product looked like X, and today, it looks like Y." Other companies that glom onto a freight train like MS and get rich doing so can hardly complain (with a straight face) when that other company's products change shape or purpose. Symantec and MacAfee aren't MS's customers, the end users are. If we ever get to the point of killing off most of the spam conduits in the world, we'll probably hear about how the spam-filtering appliance makers are being "unfairly" deprived of a living.
This all derives from the pervasive sense of entitlement that's drenching our culture. MacAfee and Symantec know the score, but they're playing this card because they know it will resonate in a courtroom full of modern day jurors, should it come to that. Sleazy, but probably clever in real terms.
No Sympathy (Score:2, Insightful)
I just wish Microsoft would take down Quicken. There's another dynasty that ha
Why is Trend-Micro different? (Score:4, Interesting)
Trend Micro is the only (AFAIK) vendor that is certified to produce an anti-virus product for Vista. [trendbeta.com] Are they being given the keys to the castle while McAfee and Symantec are left out in the cold?
Anyone know why this is so? Do tell!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention, Trend has NO issues with being able to disable the Windows Firewall, Windows Defender or anything else. Not to mention it hooks into Security Center with no issues at all. Works perfectly fine. Now Symantec is claiming it CANNOT do all these things, why is it in a Beta that Trend has no issues with all of the above.
Maybe if Symantec got some real programmers that could read Vista's API and basic documentation, which is available for FREE, they wouldn't be complaining so much.
No (Score:5, Informative)
This all reminds me of back in the Windows 2000 days with pro audio cards. So Windows 2000 moved to a new driver model for audio called WDM. While it could use NT drivers, you got none of the features, you needed WDM drivers to be fully 2000 compatible. Well the pro audio companies bitched and whined that WDM wasn't suited to pro audio and that nothing would work and so on. Finally they gave in and released WDM drivers and, what do you know, they work great, better than anything before and that's all that's out there now. However they didn't want to change to a new system so they whined.
That's all that's happening here. Companies are being whiny because they don't want to update. I have no sympathy.
A Ad for Virus (Score:2, Funny)
"Due to lack of sufficient number of viruses our business is not doing well.Please write virus"
No love lost for both of them (Score:5, Interesting)
You are making the WRONG enemy here, Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
If Microsoft was in charge of instituting public health plans, it would introduce new reforms that would get rid of doctors instead of getting rid of diseases.
(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember when water-cooler talk veered from sports to politics to what word processor you liked. (Remember when there was more than one?)
Anyone remember a program called Lotus 1-2-3?
Oh, and what about Stacker? Why, yes, Microsoft stole Stacker's technology, called it DoubleSpace, and drove Stacker out of business despite Stacker's winning their patent infringement lawsuit.
I haven't heard much about GoBack lately, have you? Wildfile GoBack... I mean Adaptec GoBack... I mean Roxio GoBack... I mean Norton GoBack...
Anyone who believes all this was because Microsoft had superior products lives in a logic-tight compartment.
It's too bad that the administration chose not to pursue antitrust in any meaningful way against Microsoft, but they didn't, and these are the consequences. If Microsoft feels like squashing Symantec and McAfee there's nothing you or I or Symantec or McAfee can do about it. Only the feds have enough power, and possibly even they don't have enough any more.
So, let's all hope Microsoft's antivirus component is pretty good, because whether it is or not, in a few years it's all we're going to have.
(Besides ClamAV, of course...)
Re:(Shrug) Result of not enforcing antitrust (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... so, if the very same company happened to have produced an O/S (let's go back to, say, Win98 or something, doesn't matter), that WAS airtight, and wouldn't be materially helped by third-party A/V products... wouldn't you still be saying the same thing? At what point did the publisher lose the right to make their own product better?
At what point did the government, or third parties via the courts, become the best people to decide what features you think should appear in your new software product? Are you really comfortable with that, as a matter of philosophy? If Vista sucks in new and interesting ways, it will either have problems, or a third party will find a new (if temporary) way to make a truckload of cash. If it doesn't suck, all you've got is less trouble on the desktop, and fewer dart-throwing targets for people that don't like MS (um, including the ones who say they don't like MS because their products are secure... the irony is delicious).
So, let's all hope Microsoft's antivirus component is pretty good, because whether it is or not, in a few years it's all we're going to have.
So what? It's also the only thing that's meaningfully doing all sorts of things in its role as your O/S. If you don't like the collection of computer-operating tools that's called Vista... use something else. It's not MS's obligation to provide a platform for other companies to market particular pieces of the desktop and under-the-hood environment. No more than it's Symantec's obligation to open up their products so that MacAffee can make money off of "improving" Symantec's tools with another item you can buy.
Shoulda broke them up long ago (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows OneCare Live (Score:2)
If you've used Vista you might have seen the icon for OneCare Live in the Welcome Center. Currently it's only for XP, but clearly it will be ported to Vista as well. Microsoft clearly is going to be able to make their own antivirus product work with Vista. Thus it is going to be possible for other companies to do the same. I don't see what the problem is.
I also recall the security vendors whining that MS made their own Security Center and they can't crack it. Well guess what... let's say I'm a hacker
If you want to play with the big boys (Score:5, Funny)
less than a week and have microsoft bending over backwards to help them out.
CEO Symantec: Billy you are pissing me off let me have access to what I want.
Billy: No way we are taking over the playground.
CEO Symantec: Well you are going to let me have access to what I want or else.
Billy: Or else what, I am not scared of you I own the desktop.
CEO Symantec: Ok here is what I am gonna do.
Billy: laughs
CEO Symantec: We are immediately updating all of our desktop software.
Billy: yea so
CEO Symantec: Any time a virus is found on the system it will pop up a message to the user. If it
is browser installed malware it will contain the following message "A virus related to your IE installation was quarenteened and removed. To eliminate future possible system infections you can
go to www.getfirefox.com and download a secure browser which will greatly enhance your web surfing experience".
Billy: I don't much care about IE anyhow we don't even make money on it.
CEO Symantec: Any time a macro virus is found on the system it will pop up a message to the user. "A macro virus has been found on your system and it is possible that your personal data could have been stolen. A better office suite that is even compatible with your current documents and is totally fee of charge is available at www.openoffice.org. If you would like this installed press ok and the macro virus will be removed and we will upgrade your system to a better office suite"
Billy: oh crap, please don't do that.
CEO Symantec: Also when it catches a system virus it is gonna point the user to ubuntu and offer to install it.
Billy: Tell you what we will send over a team of developers and help you fully integrate with our system.
Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
"Just fake a demo to the court that proves that it is better"
hmmmm seen that done before!
Re: (Score:2)
norton.sh
-----------contents-----------
#!/bin/bash
echo "scan system" >
Vista is not released yet they have plenty of time to create one hell of alot of problems for MS in a quick hurry well before it is even released...I am not sure what there current install base is but I would guess that a 100 million would at least be close.
Re: (Score:2)
come up with anything new.
Hell they invented this tactic with the ole popping up the msn messanger message once a hour, telling you need to register.
Re: (Score:2)
has nothing to do with tactics.
"Microsoft Business Partner" (Score:4, Insightful)
The list of companies that added value to Microsoft OS products, then watched as Microsoft bundled those products into their offerings (often at no cost to the customer), goes back to MS-DOS. Quicken is the only product I've seen Microsoft take a bead at and not knock them into irrelevence. OS/2, Netware, Lotus 123, WordPerfect, AOL, Borland, several desktop database vendors, DEC, FAX drivers, scanner/OCR software, screen savers, and many others made some cash and then faded into the recycle bin. Now Microsoft is stretching into enterprise applications with their piles of money.
Tough business to be in.
They never should have existed in the first place (Score:2)
There are a lot of businesses that Microsoft doesn't have much reason to enter. I think they should have left web browsers, search engines, media players, instant messengers, etc. to third parties, but I think Microsoft ought to be able to make a secure system. That said, I'm not sure how they're sec
picture of the mcafee ad (Score:5, Informative)
Symantec bitches... (Score:3, Interesting)
Symantec and McAfee are only bitching because their shitty, shitty, shitty products are heavily tied into the old system by way of layer upon layer of cruft, which they don't particularly want to dig through. If Trend can do it, so can they; they just don't want to.
Sue! Sue! But wait 'til I get some popcorn (Score:3, Insightful)
Every single one of those companies took people's money, and then betrayed them. MS, McAfee, and Symantec are only some of the unindicted co-conspirators, of course. But their names are at the head of the list.
GOOD (Score:4, Insightful)
Most virus writers have moved on to even more damaging (trojans, worms) or lucrative (malware) attacks by now, that the major checkers are either too slow to protect against or, in the case of malware, outright refuse to unless the user buys a new product. Meanwhile even Microsoft Word now contains some built-in anti-virus measures, all the major webmail providers have built-in virus scanning, and many new computers don't even HAVE floppy disks.
This is not to discount the dangers of viruses, mind. My dad once took a new computer back to the store because of a virus on it that simulated a memory parity error, and boy was I EVER mad about that. But that was a 486DX running at 66mHz running Windows 3.1, and that was my last personal experience with viruses. They are just not the threat it once was, yet to listen to these guys, you'd think the world was about to explode, constantly, forever.
McAfee was the company that mongered much fear a few years ago about a JPEG virus that was going around. Remember that one? [sfgate.com]
Symantec is so anxious that people continue to subscribe to their highly lucrative virus definition service that they'll use any combination of the words "Urgent" and "Recommended," and red and boldface text attributes, to get people to pony up for another year of protection they probably don't need, and Microsoft themselves is a major contributor to this funding source by including that little Security Center taskbar icon to nag users into putting antivirus software on their machine.
Antivirus software is the kind of thing that should be provided by the OS manufacturer for free, because it makes the OS more secure. Windows could certainly use more of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess CNN should've stopped with the 9/11 coverage after the initial report.
Re:Mcaffe + Norton Licks balls. (Score:5, Informative)
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Microsoft hasn't "secured" the kernel from attackers. They've simply removed any way for legitimate non-microsoft software to monitor the kernel. People have already found ways to attack the Vista kernel, and given Microsoft's history with security I don't feel very good about them being my only defense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why all the fuss. Problem solved.
I'm a vendor, and I've tried... (Score:2)