Long fuse for Microsoft's security challenge

(continued from previous page)

be hard to overcome. The McAfee president also pointed out that there is cutthroat competition among providers already selling in the space.

"(Microsoft) is absolutely a serious competitor--but so is Symantec, and Cisco is a serious competitor on the network," Hodges said. "This is a 'welcome to the party' (for Microsoft). But let's see what they actually have for a customer in a broad-scale infrastructure."

Hodges said Microsoft was wise to purchase Giant Software to jump-start its anti-spyware efforts. However, he questioned whether the innovative spirit he admired in Giant would continue to flourish under its new owner. He estimated that it would take Microsoft as long as two years to improve on the technology it acquired via Giant but said the quality of its anti-spyware products will ultimately determine its success with customers.

"If it's a good product, it will do well--and I would think that people won't be prejudiced just because it's a Microsoft product, unless they live in Europe," Hodges said. "If the product is not the best, then that will also be known."

"At the end of the day, Microsoft is going to have to compete on how well they do the job, just like everybody else," he added.

Some software makers responded more aggressively to Microsoft's announcement, saying the company was to blame for many of the spyware and security problems consumers deal with.

Richard Stiennon, vice president of threat research at security specialist Webroot Software, said many RSA Conference attendees were "rolling their eyes" when Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates unveiled the anti-spyware push.

"(Microsoft) is trying to take advantage of a space that they're ultimately responsible for creating, so it makes sense for them to give away a product that addresses one of their major failings," Stiennon said. "At the same time, you get what you pay for. The product they acquired through Giant was half-baked when they bought it...There's going to be a learning curve."

Peter Firstbrook, an analyst at Meta Group, agreed that it will take time for Microsoft to polish its security technologies, but he said the company has done well to buy Giant and its latest addition, Sybari Software.

While Microsoft has had limited experience in building security software products, it has historically been hard to predict how the company's dominance of the desktop operating-system market can influence consumers to buy other products. Microsoft has previously utilized its position to package Web browsing and media player software with Windows at no additional cost.

Firstbrook said significant numbers of customers might find the company's products attractive, given that the antivirus industry has maintained pricing that is "artificially high." As a consequence, security protection tools have been slow to catch on, he said.

"What the antivirus companies are saying is that enterprises aren't too fond of the idea of using Microsoft as a security vendor, and they're probably right," Firstbrook said. "But there are also a lot of people, especially in the small and medium-sized business market, that are looking for someone like Microsoft to sell them low-cost product."

[landlines]

Watch for Microsoft to renounce "Active X"

Yes, get r-e-a-l-l-y comfortable so you can endure the wait for Microsoft's announcement that they have discovered that the whole "Active X" concept was a terrible architectural flaw which creates a "virus super-highway" right into the heart of all of their products.

Then wait for the announcement that, from now on, Microsoft products will conform 100% to W3C standards and that no Microsoft scripting features will allow access to critical system resources without passwords and explicit local operator permission.

Make sure you have access to a comfortable place to sleep, many years' supply of food, and lots and lots of things to read while you're waiting.

[sunergeos]

Eventually, they will be able to predict the future.

I remember reading a quote years ago from a programmer who was reflecting on the current comments from Microsoft competitors. The competitors were making accusations that Microsoft was hiding APIs and that they would change things around so that competitor software wouldn't work (think DR-DOS). Anyway, the quote went something like...

"Why would you license a competitor's development environment, install it onto a computer that run's that competitor's operating system, and build software that will eventually have to compete with that competitor's products"?

In other words, it's a losing proposition anyway you look at it. So, will Microsoft overtake the security companies? Of course they will! Microsoft built the petri dish in the first place, you don't think they know more about their own vulnerabilties than the other guys do? Why fix your own software for free when you can increase revenue by making your customers by the rest of the system for security.

Think about it, they will be able to release software with specific vulnerabilities that can be remedied by purchasing additional Microsoft software. They will be first to market with the fix making the competition look inadequate in their response time. After all, response time is everything in security software. It'll be kind of like having the ability to predict the future.

[Ubber geek]

competitor's operating system

http://www.analogstereo.com/mercedes_s_class_owners_manual.htm

[pkscout]

Can You See Free and Pre-installed?

Microsoft doesn't have to compete. They just have to make
something that doesn't actually cause your machine to burst into
flames. Then they can give it away and bundle it with the OS.
Oh wiat, I'm sorry, since they are a convicted monopolist, they
can't bundle it. But since the Justice Department doesn't get
software, Microsoft *can* add it as an "enhancement" to the OS.
How exactly with Symantec, Cisco, McAffee, or anyone else
compete against free and pre-installed?

The answer is they can't. Chalk another one up for the illegal
monopoly. And it's even better this time, because Microsoft
actually *CREATED THE PROBLEM* they are now going to solve.

Did they?

Microsoft created spyware and viruses? I didn't know that.

[EdShaffer]

Security is part of an OS Responsibility

The operating system is responsible for the security of data placed on it. Why does the IT Industry not have the responsibility to make "safe" products?

When you buy a vehicle, you do not have to go somewhere else for bumbers, somewhere else for air bags, etc. It is as though operating system manufacturers have no responsibility for providing a quality product.