RSSMcAfee Joins Anti-Microsoft Security Chorus
By Ed Oswald | Published October 2, 2006, 1:09 PM
McAfee took a full-page advertisement in Monday's Financial Times to level charges that Microsoft is locking security companies out of the Vista kernel in an attempt to "hamstring" them. McAfee says it is the first time that Microsoft has made such a move.
Security firms, such as McAfee and also Symantec, have complained Microsoft has locked down Vista to support its own entrant into the security space, Windows Live OneCare. However, neither company has filed antitrust complaints, and governments like the EU have taken no action as of yet.
By denying security firms like McAfee and Symantec access to the operating system's core files, it becomes harder for these companies to protect users to viruses and malware, they charge. Similar allegations were levied by Symantec in a recent interview with the Associated Press.
In the ad, McAfee said that Microsoft wants to not only control the operating system market, but also the security industry as well. "Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97 percent of the world's desktops," it charged.
McAfee also said computer users know that serious flaws in security exist because of weaknesses within Windows itself. "Microsoft is being completely unrealistic if, by locking security companies out of the kernel (core), it thinks hackers won't crack Vista's kernel. In fact, they already have."
Microsoft defended itself by saying that "partners are at the core of [its] business model," and it would continue working with them throught the Vista development process. Noticeably absent, however, was any kind of denial that the Redmond company was locking security firms out of Vista's core.
As background, McAfee and Symantec are scared, McAfee more so because their products simply do not work as advertised and Symantec less so because their products do work but are often poorly architected (those grown in-house). MS is doing what it has always done, namely giving the user a viable alternative in the OS.
Quite frankly, "security companies" SHOULD be locked out of the kernel - EVERYONE except the OS vendor should.
Score: 0
|I think the problem here lies in the fact that the "OS Vendor" is now also competing in the "Security" market.
Sym and McA, are crying foul because they believe MS will lock all others out of the kernel, but not themselves, giving them a possible advantage in performance and ability.
A baseless claim ATM, but they are being proactive. I wouldn't expect them to sit around to wait and see. That'd be suicide. Scream, yell, and bang pans together now, so that MS isn't tempted to slide one past us.
They are trying to protect their business. Yes, it's a business based on uneasy ground, so no hearts will break if they pass on, but they have to at least try, eh?
This should be expected. For Sym and McA to do nothing...*that* should cause an uproar. Competition = contention = confrontation. Keeps 'em all in line and on their toes.
Score: 0
|I don't think many people are going to shed tears if Symantec and McAfee are negatively impacted by Vista. They both have a reputation for resource hungry, desktop controlling software.
Score: 0
|Is Microsoft's Vista defining "disruptive technology"??
Score: 0
|I just find it interesting that the only companies complaining are the ones that offer the worst products on the market. I wouldn't be surprised if Symantec and McAfee both spend more on PR/Advertising than on product development.
Score: 0
|I agree, Symantec and McAfee both suck. They need to stop crying and start making good software. If MS wants to lock down the Vista kernel I say let them, the less people who can get to the kernel the better. I tell everyone I know not to use Symantec or Mcafee products anyway.
Score: 0
|The ONLY issue is whether the Microsoft AntiVirus products can change the Kernel through inside knowledge. If they can't then it is a level playing field, and let the best AV product win.
Score: 0
|"The ONLY issue is whether the Microsoft AntiVirus products can change the Kernel through inside knowledge."
Although I personally feel that not even that would matter--the law is on your side with that one. However, since the kernel cannot be screwed up (as it is locked), there should be no reason for Microsoft OneCare to access the kernel, no?
Score: 0
|Its just Microsoft playng Monopoly!!!!
Score: 0
|please explain how MS is a monopoly ?
Score: 0
|yeah please explain this.
If you don't like McDonalds go eat Burger King...... If you don't like Windows Vista go bang your head on Linux LOL
Score: 0
|"please explain how MS is a monopoly ?"
Um, the appelate courts here in the US have declared they are/were a monopoly, at least back in 2001. That is actually a losing argument--although I personally disagree.
Still, even if MS is a monopoly, does that make this illegal? I hardley think so.
Score: 0
|"Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97 percent of the world's desktops,"
From the horse's mouth. 97% is a monopoly in most people's books.
Score: 0
|security companies are just whining because they're going to have to find something else to do to make money... this is something ms should have done a long time ago - locking everyone out of the kernel of the os. it's easier to secure it within than to throw loads of bs on top of the os to try and make it secure.
Score: 0
|Stupid morons... I swear Vista is gonna be a very steep drop for Microsoft... Especially that Macs are now quite inexpensive (MacBook starts at 999$ and is pretty good compared to PC laptops for the same price) and that more software is becoming compatible with Macs...
More people will come closer to the light and hopefully make the switch
Score: 0
|well if mac's ever get as populer as windows, i am sure they will have just as many issues exploited
Score: 0
|Mac OS X and Linux both ban you from the kernel unless you have root access (not given by default). I don't think this is a bad idea at all for Microsoft.
Score: 0
|"Mac OS X and Linux both ban you from the kernel unless you have root access (not given by default)."
Why is it Symantec and Mcafee are upset with Microsoft and not Apple, then?
Score: 0
|Because Apple has never been a cash cow for
them. MS Windows becoming secure, on the
other hand, threatens their very industry.
Pity them, for they set up their
entire business model on the failure
of another company's product.
Do you hear that, Symantec/McAfee?
...it's the world's smallest Violin...
...it plays for thee.
Score: 0
|Morons,
Everone should be banned from the Kernel. END OF STORY LOL.
Wassup with symantec and McAfee crying over all this, if you don't like Get out and build your own operating system. Dum ass!!! LOL
Score: 0
|everyone should be locked out of the kernals core. period. if it was "hacked" i bet it was with an admin account on the machine in question. or it required user assistance. so much like spyware it's the users own fault.
Score: 0
|Do you really think that a security firm is going to openly hack an OS and get caught at it? Let alone provide you with a product created in such a manner? Do you bother to count your brain cells prior to typing?
Score: 0
|Did you ever think that a major electronics manufacturer (Sony) would try to inject a root kit into your operating system and get caught at it?
C'mon. There are billions of dollars at stake in this industry. If anyone believes that ANY corporation would forgo profits in the interest of ethics they are seriously delusional.
Score: 0
|If hackers have already cracked Vista's kernel, then why doesn't McAfee do the same so that it's security software can install within Vista?
Score: 0
|That's smart, no legal issues there...
Score: 0
|great question
Score: 0
|Because they don't want to spend the R&D dollars to figure it out themselves. They'll just whine so that Microsoft is forced to supply a documented api; at which point everyone will know how to do it and in return McAfee and Symantec will sell more product due to the known risks created by that api.
Score: 0
|