Without diversity in security software for Windows, computers running the Microsoft operating system will be sitting ducks, Symantec CEO John Thompson warns.
Symantec will beat Microsoft by building better products and taking advantage of its security reputation, Thompson has said repeatedly. On Wednesday, while speaking at a Gartner event, he added that mass adoption of Microsoft's security tools could have an adverse affect on security.
"If all of a sudden the whole world uses the monoculture of Microsoft and the monoculture of Microsoft security capability, I am not sure we would create a more secure world," Thompson said. "Diversity in the security platforms supplied on top (of Windows), we think is of great value in protecting that infrastructure."
After his talk at the Gartner event, Thompson sat down with CNET News.com to discuss Microsoft, Symantec's integration of Veritas Software and move to a more enterprise-focused vendor, as well as the future of Symantec and Thompson's own role at the company.
Q: You've said that Microsoft should make its products more secure, but that it would be dangerous if the world relied on Microsoft's upcoming security software. Would it become a major target?
Thompson: Look at what's happened in the Windows world. Hackers have decided that there is a very large, target-rich environment here. If all of a sudden now the infrastructure that is being attacked also becomes the common infrastructure for securing the environment and the attackers decide to attack that too, what does that say for computer users around the world who have embraced this monoculture?
I would argue the world is safer when you have diversity, not when you have a monoculture that is common that when one exploit is delivered, it can literally wipe out millions of machines around the world. Hence, we believe the world is safer with us and other security vendors adding capability on top of the Windows platform.
Microsoft should do more to protect Windows. They can and should protect the kernel of Windows, make it less vulnerable, and respond more quickly to vulnerabilities. They are doing a better job, but to suggest to the world that they are going to deliver all the security, we don't think that?s appropriate.
Video: Why Symantec will prevail CEO John Thompson speaks about software and more with CNET News.com.
People always ask how you will counter Microsoft's upcoming entry into the security space. You've said that you'll beat them with your reputation and innovation. How are you going to out-innovate a company that has over $6 billion in R&D spending, more than your annual revenue?
Thompson: Microsoft spends its $6 billion on a wide array of things. They have a large R&D budget; it is spread very thin across a lot of initiatives. I would be willing to bet that the amount of money they spend on security is not nearly as significant as what we spend, because we're much more focused.
Another part of Microsoft's muscle, besides its R&D budget, is its marketing engine. It has got a big marketing budget and is going to go out there and market its new security offerings. How are you going to respond to that?
Thompson: When Microsoft does enter the market and has their aggressive marketing campaign, the whole world will benefit from that. It will start to create a level of awareness that, quite frankly, must occur.
We protect more people from more online threats than anyone else in the world, bar none. So there is a reputation value that we will certainly trade on as we think about our marketing activities and marketing campaigns over the course of the next year or so.
You don't take a company like Symantec through such a significant transformation without there being some challenges or pains.
Do you feel you have to ramp up your marketing?
Thompson: Certainly, there is no question about that. You can't have Microsoft essentially take all of the oxygen out of the air with their marketing campaign. So we have to have our own point of view that we bring to the market that stresses the history and longevity of Symantec in this space and leverages the more than 50 million users of our security products, leverages the fact that we have shipped more than 200 million copies of our antivirus product around the world.
There are wonderful statements that we can make about not only our pre-existing results in the marketplace, but the future of what we will deliver as the networked world continues to evolve.
Typo - And why Symantec's consumer business is "GAME OVER"
The article quotes the following from Mr Thompson. Was this a typo?
"Microsoft has a formidable franchise in Windows, and they have a formidable marketing capability. I am sure that they will use both of those in an effective way. As long as they are fair, we believe -->THEY<-- can compete and win."
Please tell us that this is a typo. Did their CEO slip up and say "If they execute effectively, they will win"???
It is one thing to talk to the rank-and-file at Symantec, and hear the stories of numerous, behind-the-scenes layoffs and departures of key technical talent (many of whom are heading up to Redmond). It is one thing to hear about the fear and confusion that hovers over the consumer division at Symantec, and hear stories about the "throw it in the air and see what sticks" approach to product positioning and strategy.
It is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to hear the CEO openly say "They will win". Please say it ain't so, CNet! Based upon what I have learned from acquaintances at the company (many of whom are fairly senior at the Santa Monica facility), a show of No Faith from the CEO will be the death knoll for the consumer division's already decimated morale.
What about the numerous other Co.s MS will destroy
All those security software employees will be put out of work in time. They'll join the list of companies that were once product inventors and were put out of business when an MS knock-off was "bundled" or "intermingled" with the monopoly OS.
That's a Monopoly that makes mediocre products, at work for ya.
Norton AV came with windows 3.1 in 19?? It was actually pretty good for its time. How many Norton people are still working for Thompson? How many of the others that Symantec absorbed in its own megalomaniacical fantasies? Its a dog eat dog world, and the best dog wins. I am betting on Bill G.
Apparently Bill Gates looked out his window and saw a few bucks floating around that weren't his and thought to himself "why not"? As if he doesn't own enough things, now he is going to try to take over the anti-virus section of the market. I for one believe there needs to be competition but not for one company to own everything in every section of the market. Enough Gates, you don't need to own everything!
Agreed, the problem is hackers love to go after MS products and services FIRST. A system that relies on only MS security would be the first in line for new hacker attacks. The most secure systems are the ones that use a mix of technology used in a layered defense, like MS Windows security, Symantic anti-virus for incoming email, and Essential Taceo for outbound email protection. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.essentialsecurity.com/products.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.essentialsecurity.com/products.htm</a>
The often used analogy of a biological ecosystem where biodiversity helps the environment to survive does not apply here. Biodiversity helps the whole system to survive, but it doesn't really help much each individual. Diversity can helpr to slow down the propagation of a virus in the biological world because there's no perfect interconnection between all the individuals in the system. In a natural ecosystem a single individual has direct contact with just a few other individuals, and if some of the other individuals have different defenses, the outbreak is contained or at least slowed down. In a computing system environment, EVERY computer has access to all other computers (other than the ones behind a single corporate firewall, and those tend to be unifor for practical, commercial and administrative reasons). So if a computer cannot infect another computer because it has different "defenses" it will just go out and infect another one that IS compatible. The outbreak is not slowed down, it's just segmented. And let's face it, if there's a mass virus outbreak, I don't care if other people are infected I just care if I'm infected. The analogy would only keep some validity if there were hundreds or thousands of different incompatible environments, but just having two, three or even ten different standards doesn't really help much. I'd rather put all the resources in making a single system stronger than in having six or seven weaker ones.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
"Microsoft has a formidable franchise in Windows, and they have a formidable marketing capability. I am sure that they will use both of those in an effective way. As long as they are fair, we believe -->THEY<-- can compete and win."
Please tell us that this is a typo. Did their CEO slip up and say "If they execute effectively, they will win"???
It is one thing to talk to the rank-and-file at Symantec, and hear the stories of numerous, behind-the-scenes layoffs and departures of key technical talent (many of whom are heading up to Redmond). It is one thing to hear about the fear and confusion that hovers over the consumer division at Symantec, and hear stories about the "throw it in the air and see what sticks" approach to product positioning and strategy.
It is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to hear the CEO openly say "They will win". Please say it ain't so, CNet! Based upon what I have learned from acquaintances at the company (many of whom are fairly senior at the Santa Monica facility), a show of No Faith from the CEO will be the death knoll for the consumer division's already decimated morale.
of companies that were once product inventors and
were put out of business when an MS knock-off was "bundled" or "intermingled" with the monopoly OS.
That's a Monopoly that makes mediocre products, at work for ya.
Biodiversity helps the whole system to survive, but it doesn't really help much each individual.
Diversity can helpr to slow down the propagation of a virus in the biological world because there's no perfect interconnection between all the individuals in the system. In a natural ecosystem a single individual has direct contact with just a few other individuals, and if some of the other individuals have different defenses, the outbreak is contained or at least slowed down.
In a computing system environment, EVERY computer has access to all other computers (other than the ones behind a single corporate firewall, and those tend to be unifor for practical, commercial and administrative reasons). So if a computer cannot infect another computer because it has different "defenses" it will just go out and infect another one that IS compatible. The outbreak is not slowed down, it's just segmented. And let's face it, if there's a mass virus outbreak, I don't care if other people are infected I just care if I'm infected.
The analogy would only keep some validity if there were hundreds or thousands of different incompatible environments, but just having two, three or even ten different standards doesn't really help much. I'd rather put all the resources in making a single system stronger than in having six or seven weaker ones.