- 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
A number of companies, including perhaps unexpected ones such as AOL, are readying security and maintenance packages for home computers, following Microsoft's launch last week of Windows Live OneCare.
It's hard to pick an outright winner, but one thing is clear: Health care for your Windows-based PC is getting easier, cheaper and more comprehensive.
"Microsoft's official entry into the consumer security protection market will dampen prices," Gartner analyst Arabella Hallawell said. The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant is poised to take a big chunk of that niche, she said. "Existing vendors must converge their offerings to warrant premium pricing and survive."
The introduction of OneCare is the starting gun for heightened competition for consumers' security dollars, with Microsoft taking on incumbents Symantec and McAfee. There's a lot at stake. Last year, the worldwide market for consumer antivirus software reached $1.95 billion, up 17 percent year-over-year, according to research from Gartner. Symantec dominated the space, taking a 70 percent piece of the pie.
Microsoft isn't just a newcomer to consumer security; it's also taking a different tack. The OneCare software and service package aims to be comprehensive, whereas Symantec and McAfee have traditionally charged for additional features. OneCare includes the security basics--antivirus, anti-spyware and firewall--found in the products sold by its rivals, but adds backup features and tune-up tools for Windows systems. It's being touted by Microsoft as "a pit crew for your PC."
"We believe we're creating a new category," Dennis Bonsall, Microsoft's director of product management for OneCare, said in an interview last week. "It is not about security anymore, but it is about holistic PC care."
Symantec and McAfee have both announced that they are preparing integrated packages to go up against OneCare. The planned releases will incorporate components of their current security, PC optimization and backup products, the companies have said. So far, however, they have shown only product plans, not actual software.
This summer, McAfee plans to ship four products based on its integrated security technology, code-named "Falcon." Symantec's Norton 360, previously known by the code name "Genesis," is set for release by the end of March next year, having originally had a September due date.
The lack of a rival product on the market, or even available in a test version, doesn't bode well for the traditional security players. "Microsoft has the first-mover advantage by having a managed consumer security service ready to go first," Hallawell said.
There are some limitations to OneCare in early comparisons of features. For example, Symantec promises to deliver online backup capabilities in Norton 360, which will let people store their critical data on a Symantec server. Right now, Microsoft does not offer that feature in OneCare, where people can only back up to external hard drives, CDs or DVDs.
Additionally, OneCare lacks spam-filtering capabilities and doesn't offer protection against information-stealing Web sites used in phishing scams. Those features will be part of Symantec and McAfee's PC care suites, the companies have said. Microsoft, meanwhile, offers a phishing shield in its toolbars in Windows Live and in the MSN Search Web browser.
"Symantec will likely have a managed service with more bells and whistles," Hallawell suggested.
But the incumbents will have to cut their prices, as they face off with Microsoft and one another, analysts said. Symantec and McAfee have not announced pricing for their new products yet, but Microsoft will undercut them, no matter what, Forrester Research analyst Natalie Lambert said.
"Microsoft is going to win on price," she said. And with consumers being very cost-conscious, that's going to be half the battle, Lambert said.
OneCare costs $49.95 per year for use on up to three PCs that run Windows XP with Service Pack 2. That's less than Symantec and McAfee charge for three-user editions of their existing security suites--$119.99 and $129.99, respectively. However, those are full prices for the packages, which don't have as wide a range of tools as the upcoming products and which are often heavily rebated.
See more CNET content tagged:
Symantec Corp., online backup, McAfee Inc., Gartner Inc., Microsoft Windows Live
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.
- 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