Comments on: Symantec: Microsoft won't give us key Vista tech
Security rival says Microsoft is withholding spyware APIs for Windows update, but software giant denies it.
Security rival says Microsoft is withholding spyware APIs for Windows update, but software giant denies it.
January 4, 2010 5:58 AM PST
January 4, 2010 5:56 AM PST
January 4, 2010 4:00 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
On to the story. As much as I hate NA it was my choice to get it and I think it's pretty disgusting that MS won't let another company in because it would compete with their product.
It's too early to teel what will happen next, but I'm sure if this is true other AV companies will complain soon.
http://www.teckmagazine.com/content/view/631/43/
a company system and this program did nothing but make the system vulnerable to every known threat. What a waste of money but I didn't care cause I didn't pay for it.
I switched to Trend Micro and have never had to uninstall and reinstall the product, it uses less system overhead than Norton and I now recommend Trend Micro to all my clients.
Further, when Vista Beta 2 came out, Trend Micro was right there with a free download beta product to protect Vista. It has never given me the slightest problem all through the testing period.
Where was Norton?
Symantec is the WORST antivirus on the market at this point, and personally making it impossible for them to screw with Vista's security settings sounds great to me. The only thing that's better would be making it so it can't install at all!
(snicker!)
/P
Symantec is second
I hope Microsoft does not budge on this one, they really need to stick to there guns, I don't want any average user to have to deal with symantec or any other vendor when the first time they start Vista instead of a clean interface and simple security they are bombarded by messages saying "defender is running" do you want to disable it and run our stuff or warning vista firewall is running click here to disable it and then have 15 icons on the toolbar saying alert alert a change has been made.
sorry but all we need is
Vista Security center with green, yellow and red status
Vista Firewall
and Vista Defender
If they want to plug into the security center this is fine but keep the BS away
The reactivity of virus monitoring is due to the need of Symantec, MacAffee and other vendors to provide the best product.
Imagine MS ripps them off thanks to their near-monopoly in OS... Will your PC be surer than before ????
I don't have any programming knowledge, so correct me if I am wrong...
I assume FF must have knowledge of how to access IE data (given by Microsoft), which is not available to general public, because if it were, people would use that information to write spyware and trojans, to extract the data and send it to a remote destination.
So it is in Microsoft's (and our) best interest that Microsoft doesn't share this information with each and every third party software maker.
This is just like in this case, where, if MS tells other software companies how to shut down Windows defender, the spyware writers might also misuse it.
Windows remains at the bottom of the security heap because MS has never been willing to forfeit backwards compatibility in order to secure the system.
Windows was designed originally as a standalone desktop operating system (non-networked). And that is the old mode where it is half way secure.
Perhaps they will wise up and do it right some day.
AVG and AVast work better and dont intergrate nearly as much.
And both AVG and Avast have Vista versions THAT WORK fine, so I think Symantec's claim is kinda moot myself, but since when do majopr companies and gov'ts listen to common sense or look at facts?
http://www.eset.com/products/compare.php
I tell you one thing, when NOD32 releases the version for Vista it will plug into the Security Center of Vista like Microsoft wants them too and will pretty much leave you alone, unlike the crapware that symantec and other vendors pump out, NOD32 just does its job and only bothers you when absolutly necassary
Feb - 1998
Nov - 2000
Apr - 2002
In all 39 successes and 3 failures.
Not a bad record to be sure....but hardly the impenatrable fortress that you maintain.
When Vista is released and I am asked to do anything I will remove this software from Vista and configure it with a better product like NOD32, or AVG.
If someone just bought Vista and asks me who they should buy for a AV it will not be Symantec or Mcafee etc, I will shoot them down as I always have.
I hope that Microsoft does stick to there guns on this, if they don't the Window with the view of a nice simple, clear Vista will be loaded with crap
If Microsoft is offering a good product at a fair price they have nothing to worry about.
Robert
"If Microsoft is offering a good product at a fair price they have
nothing to worry about."
But that's the rub, isn't it? M$ offers junk that children can hack
in minutes to PC manufacturers so the general population is
either forced to use it or forced to try to remove it and install
and use an alternative (thank GOD for Linux!). Therefore, I'd
argue they have everything in the world to worry about, as it's
neither a "good product" nor a "fair price" (my time to remove
this junkware is worth something, you know).
I agree that Norton sucks and has for years, but I don't think
that should give M$ an "excuse" to try their anti-competitive
tactics on an industry they built themselves by creating an OS
that perpetrates worms, viruses and the like without restraint.
What you're seeing is the beginning. Micro$loth makes more
insecure trashware, then extorts money from you on a monthly
basis to keep you alerted when it's already been violated. Nice
business model, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?
;-)
They are also a monopoly and they have a certain responsibilty because of that.
So in my opinion, MS are wrong to use their monopoly to squash the competition.
Had MS built in security in Windows to begin with, then it would be different because an industry wouldn't have been created.
As it stands now, they seem to be repeating their "lets bundle it, to kill the comp[etition" attitude.
Similarly, had MS put in a Web browser before Netscape, then they would have been fine.
But they put it in afterward and killed the competition.
MS should be taken to court again, or the EU should kick their butt so hard that it makes repeat offending a non-profit strategy.
Microsoft should be broken into 2 companies. The first would be strictly an OS company and the second would be software that integrates into or runs on the OS (like Word, Excel, etc.).
Then, Microsoft would have to reveal all of the APIs to EVERY software vendor or face charges.
The only problem is defining what is and what is not part of the OS.
Point here is, lets go ahead and hash out what is the OS and what is the APP. Just precisely how far are "we" willing to define that? While "we" are splitting OS/App companies, make sure it's fair. Apple, and RedHat, and all the others will also need to spilt thier OS and APP divisions, also, AND, be forced under penalty of law to reveal all API's, Kernel Hooks, etc, so that ANYONE at aANYTIME can write an APP that does sodding well whatever it likes on the OS.
But again, where is the OS line drawn? Do the PC makers ship a computer that gives you naught but a login screen? No file explorer, no network connectivity, not even a Notepad or Solitaire game to while away the hours until your software is all finally installed. After all, "we" would not want to infringe on any of your CHOICES, would we?
I am willing to bet it isn't as bad as Symantec is claiming and they are trying to spin being the victim in advance of future legal action.
I am willing to bet it isn't as bad as Symantec is claiming and they are trying to spin being the victim in advance of future legal action.
Microsoft is only capable of stealing ideas or playing games when it comes to taking your money. They have a lot of nerve making a os with issues and letting a industry worth billions get started, then create there own business model to compete and charge extra to keep the os secure that was messed up to begin with. What they should do is like defender, but unlike it don't bundle it with vista. Just provide a basic free antivirus, people provide free antivirus. They key is dont bundle. Or heck make the os impervious to viruses and worms. How d you do that? Well they could provide a special system like they do with drivers. I thought this is what DEP was supposed to provide? That sure was a load of crap as viruses are just as numerous today as they were before sp2. Hackers are out pacing Microsoft at every turn, and they don't even have access to the source code. Pretty sad if you ask me. Imagine if xp source code was leaked. big Big trouble.
Products like AVG and AVast are so much better than Norton it's sickening. They don't "remind" you to update your subscription every day and they work with Windows APIs instead of trying to take them over.
If McAfee and Symantec do bring an antitrust lawsuit, all Microsoft should do is point to AVG and say "this is how a company should do it." I think that will shut Symantec up with the quickness.
- Litigation maybe?
- by Stan Johnson September 28, 2006 12:32 PM PDT
- I guess this is what litigation gets you.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (75 Comments)If someone is sueing me I wouldn't cooperate with them either. I don't blame MS.
Too bad. I like Norton AV.