- Related Stories
-
ZoneAlarm adds ID theft protection
June 5, 2006 -
Symantec challenge to OneCare faces delay
May 31, 2006 -
Microsoft security product makes official debut
May 30, 2006 -
McAfee sends 'Falcon' after Symantec, Microsoft
May 30, 2006 -
Beware the Microsoft 'monoculture'
May 18, 2006 -
McAfee unafraid of Microsoft security push
April 10, 2006 -
Microsoft looks for 'protection' money
February 22, 2006 -
Microsoft security service to ship in June
February 7, 2006 -
New Symantec shield aims to repel Microsoft
February 1, 2006 -
ISPs versus the zombies
July 19, 2005 -
Security gripes? Microsoft feels your pain
May 12, 2005 -
Microsoft moves into antivirus realm
June 10, 2003
(continued from previous page)
However, the battle for customers won't be fought only at Best Buy, Staples and other retailers, whether online or offline. Increasingly, consumers get their security software delivered on a new PC or from their Internet service provider, sometimes at no cost. AOL and Comcast, for example, offer their subscribers various pieces of McAfee software for free.
The ISP channel is growing fast, accounting for about 14 percent of consumer sales last year, compared with less than 5 percent the year before, according to Gartner figures. McAfee is doing well with the ISPs, and Symantec has shunned the ISP channel so far, the analysts said. It is all fairly new to Microsoft, which on Tuesday announced a deal for Net access provider Qwest Communications to provide OneCare alongside its services.
Videos:
Microsoft launches Windows Live OneCare
CNET's Robert Vamosi takes a look.
Security bites: OneCare fails to impress
But McAfee, Symantec and others respond. Also: Vista vs. hackers, and Firefox patches.
Some ISPs are planning to launch their own security tools. These will come either from partnerships with established players or from relabeling no-name security products with their own brand. AOL, for example, has said it will start testing a suite called Total Care in the next few weeks. The software will be sold to anyone who wants to buy it, not just to AOL subscribers.
For now, Symantec and McAfee are allowing Microsoft to put a foot on their turf. But Microsoft's most significant challenge is convincing people that it can be trusted to protect Windows PCs, said Jonathan Singer, a Yankee Group analyst.
"Symantec and McAfee are large, well-established and--most importantly--trusted," he said. "Microsoft's history when it comes to security, on the other hand, is less than complimentary--something Symantec and McAfee will likely be quick to attack them on."
The whole need to secure a PC is annoying to some consumers, including Frank Seichal, of Old Bridge, N.J. "To be honest, I feel victimized," said Seichal, who works in IT at a financial institution. "As a consumer, I have to take the necessary steps to protect my data and reduce threat vulnerability."
An entire industry has been built around PC security. Seichal would rather see Microsoft and others take a proactive approach and eliminate the threat altogether. "It's obvious that there is money to be made if everyone follows the reactive approach--a huge market that Microsoft has created and now is looking to cash in on from their inadequacies," he said.
See more CNET content tagged:
Symantec Corp., spam filtering, online backup, McAfee Inc., Gartner Inc.
I guess I will never be as rich or powerful as a company like Microsoft, I simply could never treat customers the way that they do.
The manufacturer of flawed software makes a security suite to help protect said software? I have to sit down, my brain is starting to hurt.
I guess I will never be as rich or powerful as a company like Microsoft, I simply could never treat customers the way that they do.
The manufacturer of flawed software makes a security suite to help protect said software? I have to sit down, my brain is starting to hurt.
Give this Linux a try if you truly are looking for a more secure system. http://www.ubuntu.com/
simpler, cheaper and more comprehensive products, analysts
say."
You know, I read this article twice and didn't see any quote that
even resembled this "high impact" summary
I hate to be cynical, but the obvious response from Symantec
and McAfee (and others) will imply that this may be another
anti-trust (bundling) violation. Microsoft's position would be to
argue that entering the market INCREASES competition and
BENEFITS the consumer, and thus this is not an anti-trust issue.
How funny then, Joris, that you would provide Microsoft's
defense in your "summary" -- it's hard to believe you didn't get
some "motivation" from MS to do - especially given your
summary comes out of nowhere considering the very text of
your article.
Hopefully, this isn't the case.
a secure OS. Then we wouldn't have to spend so much time and
money trying to protect our Windows boxes like new born babies.
Imagine a world if Windows was even half as secure as OS X. It
would be Symantec who? McAfee software? Never heard of them.
What's spyware?
put OS X on it. Less than 1 month later I knew I wasted 10yrs on
the M$ wholywear. Now I'm the proud owner of a "solid and secure"
(Intel) iMac..!!
I'll NEVER go back to Microcrapware..!!!!!!!
It's likely that OS X isn't half as secure as you think it is. OS 9 was far more secure- There's no lack of holes to exploit in OS X, but if you're someone looking to steal passwords or infect computers are you going to write an exploit for 90% of the market or less than 10%?
Secure by obscurity isn't really secure. In some cases it's less so because the user's smugness causes temerity. On the other hand Mac doesn't seem to be doing anything in marketshare so maybe your smugness is justified...
a secure OS. Then we wouldn't have to spend so much time and
money trying to protect our Windows boxes like new born babies.
Imagine a world if Windows was even half as secure as OS X. It
would be Symantec who? McAfee software? Never heard of them.
What's spyware?
It's likely that OS X isn't half as secure as you think it is. OS 9 was far more secure- There's no lack of holes to exploit in OS X, but if you're someone looking to steal passwords or infect computers are you going to write an exploit for 90% of the market or less than 10%?
Secure by obscurity isn't really secure. In some cases it's less so because the user's smugness causes temerity. On the other hand Mac doesn't seem to be doing anything in marketshare so maybe your smugness is justified...
put OS X on it. Less than 1 month later I knew I wasted 10yrs on
the M$ wholywear. Now I'm the proud owner of a "solid and secure"
(Intel) iMac..!!
I'll NEVER go back to Microcrapware..!!!!!!!
cost a product that aims to implement stop-gap
measures to reduce the impact of flaws in their
product.
There's an obvious conflict of interest there.
If they are competent enough to implement the
measures in an effective manner, then how come
they have not fixed the inherent flaws in their
OS product? Either they are not competent, in
which case the security product would be
expected to be of lesser quality, OR they are
competent, and are intentionally releasing a
flawed product with the intent of selling you
additional products to avoid those flaws.
Neither bodes well for the market or consumer.
I suppose it need not be pointed out too that MS
has a distinct advantage over their competitors
in that their tools can be granted privileged
access to OS resources and features unavailable
to their competitors. Theire products, by
design, can do things the competitors products
never can.
also bolsters the notion that Microsoft
considers the integrity of their systems as an
afterthought. Rather than focus on making a
stable and secure system, they build a capable
system and sell add-ons that claim to make their
systems secure.
Microsoft's competitors, of course, don't do
that. They perceive security to be part of the
core OS product, not a separate product in its
own right.
Windows should have as much security as possible straight out the box. But of course, that's in a perfect world.
Windows should have as much security as possible straight out the box. But of course, that's in a perfect world.
also bolsters the notion that Microsoft
considers the integrity of their systems as an
afterthought. Rather than focus on making a
stable and secure system, they build a capable
system and sell add-ons that claim to make their
systems secure.
Microsoft's competitors, of course, don't do
that. They perceive security to be part of the
core OS product, not a separate product in its
own right.
Operating systems don't "cause" security problems, the "cause" is the crackers who exploit the vunerablities. Anyone who claims that their OS is fundamentally secure doesn't understand the dynamic. It's statitiscally impossible to write error free code once you have a code body larger than a couple hunderd thousand lines. It just takes too long in human terms to prove the code is correct. Doesn't matter who writes the code, it will have errors, period.
Just because *nix and Mac OS don't get hit as often doesn't mean they're less vunerable, it just means the crackers haven't spent nearly as much time knocking them around to find where they break. Imagine the side of a barn with a door and a window. The barn represents all OS's. The big red side it the market space that Win OS occupies, the door is the market space that *nix OS occupies and the window the market space that Mac OS occupies. You start throwing rocks are the barn. Over time, you'll see that you hit more of the red space a lot more than hitting the door or the window. It's as simple as that, security attacks are going to hit the biggest target.
Microsoft isn't a security software company, they're an OS and productivity software company. They have talented people in the security area, no doubts about that, but it's not their strength as a company. Symantec and McAfee have been in this game a lot longer, but both companies have been "resting on their laurel" of late, they haven't been that innovative and they've tended to try to become the kitchen sink for security manangement; they try to everything, doing a fair job of everything but not an outstanding job on any particular aspect.
I don't buy into this "remotely managed security care", at least not yet. This opens a whole other attack vector and no one has of yet really mentioned how much impact this will have on bandwdth consumption or machine resource consumption. Given what I've seen already, it's an interesting idea but won't take the place of a well researched, designed and implemented set of ecurity policies and procedures. The cheap price alone is not enough, and will undoubtedly come around to bite you later.
that offers protection for a faulty product, that just happens to
be their product. Its like selling a house or a car with no
windows or doors then turning around and trying to sell a
security system instead of trying to put in the windows and the
doors before selling it. Even then ca manufacturers go to the
length to offer security systems free of cost (immobilizers etc)
because they recognize you can?t be to sure about things. I think
this is a travesty; they should try to fix the product in the first
place to ensure that little if any security is needed. Instead they
are trying to exploit their shoddy workmanship. Consumers
cannot benefit from this, Microsoft will. They should include this
free, to aid helpless droves of microsoft product users who have
had years of crap and problems. So what is to stop them from
offering a faulty product and provide a certain and definite fix
for a premium? A double whammy if you ask me, so they will be
able to make money two ways...What?s next? They aren't gonna
offer security updates? Just tell you to get their 'one care'
product? Or better yet charge for security updates? This is so
underhand and should not happen.
Has the result of the Browser wars been good for consumers(?!) - the vast majority use IE! And MS has let it languish until it was FORCED, by COMPETITION to update it!!
Wake up!
Seems like an unfair advantage to me (except that MS is incompetent in securing it's products)
Seems like an unfair advantage to me (except that MS is incompetent in securing it's products)
There are few programs and opportunities for consumers to protect themselves from email worms, so we need to expand the knowledge and hopefully force hackers to find other ways into our computers.
http://www.essentialsecurity.com/products.htm
Nkully
- Is this enough though?
- by Nkully86 June 7, 2006 9:58 AM PDT
- Here Microsoft has addressed the common issues relating to online security, but what they still haven't focused on is email security. Most viruses that come via browsers have been taken care of through knowledge and antiviruses and most of the time these programs work great in protecting a PC, but the amount of viruses that come via email has readily increased.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (152 Comments)There are few programs and opportunities for consumers to protect themselves from email worms, so we need to expand the knowledge and hopefully force hackers to find other ways into our computers.
http://www.essentialsecurity.com/products.htm
Nkully