Most security tools not quite ready for Vista

Microsoft released Windows Vista for businesses on Thursday, but most security companies look like they need more time to deliver tools to protect the new operating system.

Symantec, Trend Micro and CA are still working on products for Vista, representatives for the each of the companies said Thursday. McAfee is the only major security software maker that has products available now for the long-awaited Microsoft operating system.

"The absence of security software from the major vendors will be another reason why business will not migrate to Vista right away," said Natalie Lambert, an analyst at Forrester Research. That's in addition to the lack of support for Vista in general applications, which are the tools businesses need to run their operations, she noted.

Microsoft celebrated the launch of Vista in New York on Thursday. It is the company's first major Windows client release since Windows XP shipped in 2001. On the back of Microsoft's announcement, Symantec, McAfee, Trend Micro and CA all put out news releases promoting software for Vista PCs. Yet none announced actual product availability, except McAfee.

"McAfee is the only major security vendor with products available today that support Vista right out of the gate," said Rees Johnson, McAfee's vice president of product management. McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5 and McAfee AntiSpyware Enterprise 8.5 support Vista and are available now, the company said.

The other large security vendors plan to release their corporate products for Vista over the next months. Symantec plans to release an update to AntiVirus Corporate Edition by December 31; Trend Micro expects to have a new version of OfficeScan ready in the first half of 2007; and CA's new antivirus and antispyware is due out by early February.

"I really expect all vendors to have shipping solutions before the end of the first quarter," Lambert said. "But even then, Vista rollouts will be time-consuming." Forrester doesn't expect mass deployment of the new operating system until 2008, she said.

So, while lack of security tools for Vista could mean some people will hold off from upgrading right away, it is not a major issue for the majority of business users, Lambert said. "This is not a big deal, as we will not see enterprises switching to Vista immediately," she said.

Microsoft is more optimistic. The Redmond, Wash., company predicts that Vista will be adopted by companies at twice the speed as its predecessor, Windows XP. Twelve months after the release of Vista, Microsoft expects that usage share of the oft-delayed operating system in businesses will be double that of XP a year after it shipped, the company has said.

Microsoft has promoted Vista as the most secure version of Windows yet, but has also emphasized that users will still need to run security software to protect their PCs. For example, 3 of the top 10 types of malicious software that hit PC users today can bypass Vista's security defences, security company Sophos said on its Web site Thursday.

"Microsoft continues to encourage customers to follow all of the steps of the 'Protect Your PC' guidance of enabling a firewall, applying all software updates and installing antivirus software," a Microsoft representative said.

[MadKiwi]

But

Windows Vista is the "most secure Windows ever"...

[rcrusoe]

Re: "the most secure Windows ever"

Vista may well be the "most secure Windows ever" and still turn out to be a security nightmare.

After all Microsoft said, "When you install SP2 on your Windows XP-based PC, you can feel confident that you're running the most secure Windows operating system available."

And yet over 50% of the botnets spewing spam at unpresidented levels are running Windows XP SP2.

The only way we will know if Vista is more secure is to look at its record in a couple of years.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/overview.mspx

http://www.secureworks.com/analysis/spamthru-stats/

[pgp_protector]

I thought

I thought Vista didn't need all the new extra 3rd party security software ?

[t3st3r`]

You was wrong...don't trust MS advertisings-they just need to sell Vista :)

You should be pretty stupid to put all eggs in same basket.Windows will be scanned quite well by hackers and they definitely will find flaws soon.Third-party software makes attacks slightly harder since nobody can construct reliable attack against ALL possible 3rd party software.Before completely trusting to MS advertisings please remember:they are interested to sell this thing to you.So, they will advertise it as panacea.However it actually isn't as good as advertising says.Of course if you will disable networking, never use doubtful programs, etc you can live without antivirus and decent firewall.As well as with any other Windows version since WinNT 4.0. But if you have networking, browsing web sites, chatting in IM, opening mail attachments, etc - you better to have some good and proven antivirus.MS attempted to enter AV market since MS-DOS times several times.And always proved it as very weak player in this field.I do not expect this will change too much.You can't buy something and then immediately become expert in this area.Because major players with advanced technologies are usually not willing to sell their *****.

[Walt Connery]

It doesn't...

...and that's what's upsetting the "security vendors" about Vista--Microsoft has made it very difficult for them to hack into the system as they have been used to doing routinely for so many years. And if it's hard for Symantec to hack into Vista, just imagine how much more difficult it will be for John Doe Hacker to hack it...;)

The slant of this CNet article is, as always, one of FUD instead of information useful to its readership. Thank goodness we're approaching a time when the protection racket the "security firms" have got going is nearing an end.

[st.walters]

About time!

Well at least this will be one version of windows that won't be screwed up and have it's processor abilities robed by Symantec and McAfee.

I personally use NOD and the built in XP fire wall with my Linksys NAT router, and I have of years... total number of virus on my system. 0. Total CPU time lost to Antivirus scanners 1-2% unlike Symtantec which was 15 to 25%.

You know, I finally figured out why these security companies like dual cores.. it's so their bloat ware has a cpu of it's own. I'm even more glad that at least for a few months I won't be having to remove their garbage from my clients new Vista computers. (can you tell I really don't like Symantec products?)

[lesliejs]

nod

yes you do sound like you don;t like symantec, understandable though. I've heard that the next release of Symantec (not necessarily vista-specific) will swallow up less system resources.

I had never heard of nod until you mentioned it. Checked it out, looks impressive. But I'm wondering why I haven't heard of it before...

[jevenew]

Most security tools not quite ready for Vista

According to their website, NOD32 has an application that includes Vista. Right out the gate.

[jevenew]

Macafee

I wouldn't install Macafee on anyone's PC. But I get lots of requests to get rid of it.

[aqvarivs]

updates'n security needs

a $400.00 beta. six years on and xp still isn't finished.

[Ryo Hazuki]

Microsoft-bashing and ignorance

Next time, try something out before humilliating yourself with ridiculous comments like that (and I don't know where you're buying Vista, I'll get mine for $99).
Six years on and Microsoft haters are still ignorants.

[wbenton]

Vista not ready for the market

When Vista becomes REALLY READY for the market... the security tools companies will be ready for Vista.

Stop counting your chickens before they hatch!!!

Walt

[kFuQ]

Vista not ready for the market

nothing m$ has ever made has been "really ready"