October 2, 2006 10:47 AM PDT

McAfee knocks Microsoft over Vista roadblocks

In FT ad, McAfee joins Symantec in accusing Microsoft of hamstringing rivals working on Windows security tools.

The story "McAfee knocks Microsoft over Vista roadblocks" published October 2, 2006 at 10:47 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

38 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Whine, whine, whine.
I think MS is doing the right thing here. The kernel can not be changed by anyone, even Microsoft, and if something does happen to get in and change the code Vista shuts down right away to stop it from spreading. Virus scanner are just a tax on your system resources anyway and a waste of money. There is plenty of free apps that work just as good or better.
Posted by jayman16 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
poor poor McAfee and Symantec
Seems that McAfee and Symantec just to not have there act together. Trend-Micro's PcCillin ver 14 is designed for Vista. How come thay can do it while MacAfee and Symantec can't.

Maybe because there programs have so much overhead?
Posted by bbleecker (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Exactly
"Computer users around the globe recognize that the most serious threats to security exist because of inherent weaknesses in the Microsoft operating system"

And one of the key weakness is access to kernal and MS is now trying to fix that weakness. Too bad for the virus makers and their dependents like Symantec and McAfee
Posted by FutureGuy (742 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good point, and...
Lets not forget that the only reason McAfee and Symantec exist in the first place is because Microsoft, years ago, failed to secure Windows.

Symantec and McAfee sprang up to fill a niche market. Now that Microsoft is actually making some progress in doing what it should've done years ago, the others cry foul.

Lets face it: infected computers are their bread and butter. They don't WANT Vista to be secure, because then no one needs their bloatware.

I don't have a lot of confidence in Microsoft's ability to actually lock down their OS, but at the same time I have NO empathy for Symantec and McAfee.
Posted by Take the Red Pill (46 comments )
Link Flag
Bring it on
"Hacker's have already cracked Vista's kernel."

"No they haven't!"

"Yes, they have!"

Sounds like a bunch of kids on a playground.

I say we wait until MS ships Vista and a bunch of copies are in the hands of Joe Sixpack and his friends.

Then we'll know if Vista is realitively secure or if it will follow in the Microsoft tradition.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Microsoft security domination will be the end of Windows..
What happened after Internet Explorer eliminated Netscape..?
They put further browser development on the back bunner since
there was no longer a need to compete while there was nothing
left to compete against.
Now Microsoft wants to "Netscapetisize" McAfee and Symantec
into obliviation, eliminate the competition and become the soul
provider of security software for an inherently UNsecure OS..!
Once Microsoft rules the security world there will no longer be
any incentive for new development which will only lead to an
even more UNSECURE OS allowing "alternative" (secure) OS's to
flourish the way "alternative browsers" did after the stagnation
of Internet Explorer.
I pitty the fool that jumps on that band wagon..
Posted by imacpwr (456 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Security domination? You sure?
It's about locking down Vista's kernel so that outside apps and programs CAN'T go in there and change it for their own purposes, good or evil (keep in mind, not all programs are in the GOOD category...which, had anyone asked me, would INCLUDE the bloat of MucAfee and Scumantec).

Do I trust MSFT to get it right, even with the locked down core? We'll see, but I'm skeptical. Hell, Windoze Defender on four different machines has YET to find anything questionable on any of them (yet, ewido and ZoneAlarm SS have). ALL these security companies are doing [i]now[/i] are just trying to protect their OWN skins and the lucrative business model that they've had for all these years; they aren't interested in making Windows more inherently secure (because if it was, then more than a few of them would be out hitting the pavement, looking for a new profession that doesn't need their abhorrent programming skills).
Posted by make_or_break (3747 comments )
Link Flag
Well, this will be fun...
I wonder how long it'll take before someone finds a hole in Defender and proceed to obliterate a vast majority of Vista installs once it is released? At least w/ multiple Security vendors you stood a chance that one may catch what others do not. Now? I figure it won't take too long.

At least it'll be nice and quiet for at least a few days w/o all those Windows users clogging up the b/w (evil grin)...

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
security
Problem will be that MS isn't going to admit it when it does happen! It still takes them 30 days to release security fixes, unless someone threatens to release a fix that MS didn't design!
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
whatever happened to two eyes are better than one...
when it comes to debugging software? Whatever happened to the OSS battle cry that open source software is more secure than closed source software?

It would be naive to think that Symantec and McAfee do not have some inkling of ulterior motive for these so called complaints. But they really do have a valid point here. I find it hard to believe that closing off access to the kernel code would make Vista more secure. Security through obscurity has never been a good security model.
Posted by thanhvn (51 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Because
It's not proving out.

Firefox just had a zero day exploit. Linux has a vulnerbility in the kernel CD driver that affects almost every version of Linux.

The reality is many pieces of these products are created by either a single person or a small team with little or no code review if it functions properly.

Operating Systems are extremely complex machines created by humans with tools created by humans. There will always be issues.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Link Flag
Deploy Windows alternatives, OS X, Linux.
Vote with you feet (OS that is).
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This proves that Windows dominates because of its weaknesses
The unspoken truth is that many, many, many businesses, and
in this case whole industries (virus/security software makers),
have made Windows the dominant OS because they can benefit
from either fixing or exploiting Window's inherent weaknesses.
I'm no MS Windows fan, but MS is doing the right thing in
locking their OS down, albeit about 15 years too late. MS didn't
make that decision without knowing that the likes of McAfee and
Symantec would not be too happy about it, but that's McAfee
and Symantec fault. They are the ones that have banked on MS
always getting security wrong. They've been dependent on MS's
mistakes too long. Besides, I'm sure they have SW engineers
fervently hacking together a virus/worm/exploit for Vista that
only they will have the fix for.
Posted by schlegelmc (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Slander against McAfee and Symantec
Symantec and McAfee have NEVER been shown to create viruses/exploits/etc. that only they have fixes for.
NEVER, period and done with.

The one time they WERE linked to an exploit being spread, it was because some idiot accidentally put a virus that they found in the wild onto e-mails sent form them.
Posted by Leria (585 comments )
Link Flag
McAfee & Symantec = Poor Programming
McAfee and Symantec should spend less time whining, and more time improving the low quality of their products.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's true...
Their products are annoying to use and take up a lot of resources and run too much crap in the background. They make boot up times slow and overall, I don't care for either of them.

MS has a responsibility to do what is best for their OS, which is inherently the best for the consumer. Maybe MS should buy out Mcafee or Symantec.

People frickin complain too much about MS. They're just another company trying hard to compete against other companies and entities such as linux. They're more fragile then you'd think. So they add a few more features into their OS... big deal? The SHOULD add more features into their OS, especially if they plan to compete against Apple, which comes loaded with applications as well. I don't favor one OS over another or one company over another, I just think it's natural what MS is doing and too many people and companies and countries are just whining over something they don't understand.
Posted by coryschulz (326 comments )
Link Flag
Truth and Sensibility
Most of the complainers here appear to be clueless, or are just a bit uneducated in reality. Truth is, the security companies complain because core access was taken away in Windows, but they never actually had it in other OSes to begin with.

They also forget NO OS is invincible. If it were, there would be no need for security or AV apps for those OSes to begin with. So they better rethink that mentality.

So why is MS wrong for finally following suit? Because they can't hack into it as easily now? Thats the ONLY reason I could see anyone whining like they are.
Posted by FusedAndCondazed (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Out of the woodwork!
OK, McAfee came out and said what everybody already knows! Lets see just how many of the M$ lap-dogs come out to support their masters indefensible position.

Count the Shills!
Posted by Mister C (423 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ruff, Ruff
It's so funny to me how people fall for the silliest, most basic ploys by big businesses. Do you really think that MSFT wants to make their product less secure? Do you really think this is about anti-competitive practices? Really?

The real issue is that Vista allows for MORE companies to hook into their Security Center fearture in Vista. McAfee and Symantec will now have to compete with 8+ more companies. They HATE this. It will cost them money. That's why they are angry. And, they want to use the "anti-competitive" smoke screen to get people like you confused.

They also want to stop MSFT from giving end users additional security features. Who exactly does that help? It clearly hurts the normal PC user who just wants to use their PC for work/play. It clearly hurts MSFT as their customer sat goes down. It ONLY HELPS people like Symantec and McAfee who sell software to protect PCs.

Who is the real "lap dog" here? Those who want basic security features built into a modern OS? Or, those who will fall for a rich CEO using sensational language to manipulate people like you?

"Here boy, fetch." The Symantec CEO needs another million in stock options for security features that every OS should have natively but they want to force you to pay for.
Posted by dbrightful (2 comments )
Link Flag
It should be fair
Inserting locks into the OS to prevent automatic installation of software into the core? I'm for that. But fair should be fair. If it requires approval from the user to install 3rd party security software, microsoft should not have any advantage where their security software does not, and if security software cannot be automatically installed (via configuration by OEM's) then neither should microsoft's security. Lets level the playing field and let the security software be judged by it's merrits so the best one wins.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Article is wrong on important facts
Espcially like this line:

"Regulators tried to get Microsoft to get changes its business practices, but none has succeeded." (this line is not attributed to anyone)

It's factually incorrect - check out the EC-designed WMP-less version, which has sold only ~1700 copies. Check out the IM changes in Korea. Check out the API and interop protocol licensing in the US, as well as in the EU (as to the latter). Seems those are changes in business practices that were mandated by regulators.

I wish for the industry that I was wrong, but...get the facts straight.
Posted by mwendy (64 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Proprietary right to protect Kernel
In the past we have seen that 3rd party vendors with access to the Kernel wreaked havoc on Microsoft. Let the 3rd party vendors use the designated access points for their wares. Only Microsoft should have access to the Kernel, and protect its integrity. It'll take a little longer for hackers to crack the Kernel this way.
Posted by Des Alba (68 comments )
Reply Link Flag
hackers
No, it won't take the crackers any longer to crack the kernel, we just won't know about it until millions of users have already been compromised, or wiped out!
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
guess what if it so secure and you don't have access?
well we really don't need you anymore do we? I will take a secure machine over crapware by them anyday.

Go protect 95,98 and XP
Posted by mcepat (118 comments )
Reply Link Flag
McAfee and Symantec deserve it......
cause when it suited their purpose they worked the market hand in glove with the monopolist and now cry foul when they get locked out. It was bound to happen (that is what monopolies do, progressively steal market share from their competitors with strong arm and unfair tactics). So who is M$ kidding when they say they are working with their partners.
I believe Microsoft is a threat to the world of innovation and has to be stopped in its tracks and now. So all you M$ lovers be warned for soon your data will not be yours but theirs because they are trying to sew the world up as a M$ extension. So if you value 'freedom' abandon the M$ ship now before it is too late.
Posted by kmashraf (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
extension
...and at the very least, do not store your information online with any MS entity! Keep it safe on your own computer or in a safe, once MS or any other company has that data, they own it, they have access to it at their choosing and there is nothing you can do about it! Think about it, if you go to a site you have stored data on and delete because you don't want them to have it, it's gone right? No because it is on a back-up somewhere, just waiting to be sold, or used in a court of law against you in some way! Just read A.T.&T.'s latest privacy agreement they forced on their customers to see where all of this is going.
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
Desperate ways from desperate people
First off everyone knows that the anti-virus companies that actually charge for their products are out of sink - when its free! I think they should only charge $3-$7 for their products if they are really good - that seems fair - if it worked, but this is not my point.

Secondly Mcafee anti-virus has been so bad for years - plus their firewall is the worst. I remember years ago when i got it for free from comcast it totally messed up my computer - i had to uninstall it. Zone alarm and AVG work great. Norton charges outrageous prices for a product that does not even work - you can not even get a toll free number (it took hours to find) or tech support of any kind. Nortons "Internet package" can be defeated with msconfig and turning it off! Of coarse it also locks up your computer - another waste of money - no refund i did ask for it.

Then the "desperate companies" run to Europeans who can not invent anything -- the socialists to cry foul and demand they open their software up - unbelievable. The same ones that demanded the usa turn over the Internet invented by the usa military. The same Eurpeans who find Microsoft - why don't they invent their own software? If they did it would be like a A380 airplance no doubt or the concord! Please boycott Mcafee and Norton As i did years ago.

Pandas is better - AVG is even better and its free! Norton and Mcaffe are so bugged i can not even believe they are still in business. By the way I build computers and have no vested interest in any of these companies.
Posted by dragonsprayer (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I wonder maybe Mcafee and Norton right the malware?
Your right! I just wonder if Mcaffe and Norton sell the ant-"whatever" by day and right the malware by night! Locking the kernel is best!
Posted by dragonsprayer (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Their prroducts have not worked for years!
McAffe and norton have been last for years! AVG and shareware! gogo!
Posted by dragonsprayer (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.