- Related Stories
-
RSA: Microsoft to shelve token support in Vista
May 2, 2006 -
Microsoft takes down barrier in Vista firewall
April 27, 2006 -
Microsoft: BitLocker key to safe disk disposal
April 26, 2006 -
Microsoft updates Vista test build
April 24, 2006 -
Vista debut hits a delay
March 21, 2006 -
Microsoft security service to ship in June
February 7, 2006 -
Allchin: Buy Vista for the security
January 27, 2006 -
Microsoft revamps its plans for Longhorn
August 27, 2004
Due out early next year, the next major release of Microsoft's flagship operating system promises not only to increase security for consumers, it will also dramatically affect the $3.6 billion market for Windows security products, according to a Yankee Group report scheduled to be published Monday.
"Yankee Group expects Vista to significantly shrink the aftermarket for antispyware and desktop firewalls," analyst Andrew Jaquith wrote in the report. Additionally, Microsoft's first new operating system release in five years may reduce the need for disk encryption, device control and certain types of host intrusion-prevention software, Jaquith wrote.
But Vista won't have any effect on the antivirus software space, which at $2.6 billion is the largest market for Windows desktop security software, according to Yankee Group. Vista does not include antivirus functionality; Microsoft plans to sell its Windows Live OneCare antivirus software separately starting next month.
The impact on the aftermarket depends on Vista's features. Windows Defender, Vista's spyware protection, as well as the improved Windows Firewall are fine for the majority of users, Jaquith believes. However, the BitLocker disk encryption feature and tools to manage devices such as USB keys will work only for some, he said in an interview.
Small organizations may find Microsoft's disk encryption and device management good enough out of the box, but large enterprises will need more management features, leaving room for third parties, Jaquith said. "Companies that can focus on manageability and scalability, even if those products overlap with Vista, will continue to do well."
Faced with many delays, Microsoft scrapped many of its ambitious plans for Vista, previously known by its Longhorn codename. However, the security enhancements have stayed largely intact. Yankee Group believes the number of critical security vulnerabilities that will hit users will be reduced by as much as 80 percent and the impact of the remaining fraction significantly reduced.
But while the changes in Vista should reduce the risk for most users, the security features mean upgrading won't be easy, Jaquith cautioned. "Vista will dramatically improve the security for Windows users, but they have some execution and usability challenges," he said. "It is clear as day that Vista is going to really annoy users."
The annoyance would come from features such as User Account Control, which is to be enabled by default and lets users run Windows with fewer privileges. The intent is to thwart malicious software from gaining a foothold on Windows PCs. "Although the new security system shows promise, it is far too chatty and annoying," Jaquith wrote.
As a result, Yankee Group recommends business users who don't want to be on the bleeding edge to steer clear of Vista until 2008 and continue to use Windows XP with Service Pack 2 until then. "As a hedging strategy, enterprises upgrading their hardware should also take a look Apple's dual boot Intel Macintoshes," Jaquith wrote.
See more CNET content tagged:
analyst report, anti-spyware, Microsoft Windows Vista, firewall, security
How confident are you that Vista security will mean the end of anti-virus and firewall software?
How confident are you that Vista security will mean the end of anti-virus and firewall software?
"insecurity" of OSX. They're being hurt by Microsoft taking their
market and destroying it with free software.
They'll be disappointed to find Apple does the same thing.
"insecurity" of OSX. They're being hurt by Microsoft taking their
market and destroying it with free software.
They'll be disappointed to find Apple does the same thing.
unfortunately by the time it comes out it will be obsolete. the next
generation mac osx will be out even before microsoft releases
vista. the people at microsoft have plenty of examples to work
from, yet they seem to be making an intentionally inferior product.
somebody's pockets are getting lined with tons of cash.
unfortunately by the time it comes out it will be obsolete. the next
generation mac osx will be out even before microsoft releases
vista. the people at microsoft have plenty of examples to work
from, yet they seem to be making an intentionally inferior product.
somebody's pockets are getting lined with tons of cash.
And the fireWall while being better than nothing. only blocks incoming traffic it does not prevent unkown Trogens or viruses from contacting the outside world... No I do not trust My computers saftey to Microsoft.
And the fireWall while being better than nothing. only blocks incoming traffic it does not prevent unkown Trogens or viruses from contacting the outside world... No I do not trust My computers saftey to Microsoft.
And the fireWall while being better than nothing. only blocks incoming traffic it does not prevent unkown Trogens or viruses from contacting the outside world... No I do not trust My computers saftey to Microsoft.
And the fireWall while being better than nothing. only blocks incoming traffic it does not prevent unkown Trogens or viruses from contacting the outside world... No I do not trust My computers saftey to Microsoft.
The bitter-sweet comedy here is that even while the analyst is telling us how much more secure he thinks Vista will be than previous versions of Windows, he's lamenting the projected demise of 3rd-party anti-adware software and he's complaining about the "chattiness" of the current beta release of Vista. And so, amazingly, he recommends users *forego* all of this wonderful security he talks about--until 2008, no less, for some inexplicable reason--simply because he thinks it's too tedious to wade through some "chatty" OS dialogue--"chattiness" that may or *may not* be found in the shipping version of Vista. Even more amazing, he actually recommends that businesses consider buying MacIntels just so that the can use them to run *Windows*. Absolutely brilliant! Sheesh.
With advice like this, who needs the friendly neighborhood quack?
Remember, build 5308 (the current one) is considered by MS to be "feature complete." This means that whatever is there in this build will be in the retail product. No more adding or subtracting features, this build is all about bug-testing and polishing.
Every analyst who has done work on Microsoft products knows better than to use the first release of any MS retail product. Those that do, dont use the first release of retail on any machine that is "mission-critical" until the first batch of patches.
That is why he suggested 2008.
The bitter-sweet comedy here is that even while the analyst is telling us how much more secure he thinks Vista will be than previous versions of Windows, he's lamenting the projected demise of 3rd-party anti-adware software and he's complaining about the "chattiness" of the current beta release of Vista. And so, amazingly, he recommends users *forego* all of this wonderful security he talks about--until 2008, no less, for some inexplicable reason--simply because he thinks it's too tedious to wade through some "chatty" OS dialogue--"chattiness" that may or *may not* be found in the shipping version of Vista. Even more amazing, he actually recommends that businesses consider buying MacIntels just so that the can use them to run *Windows*. Absolutely brilliant! Sheesh.
With advice like this, who needs the friendly neighborhood quack?
Remember, build 5308 (the current one) is considered by MS to be "feature complete." This means that whatever is there in this build will be in the retail product. No more adding or subtracting features, this build is all about bug-testing and polishing.
Every analyst who has done work on Microsoft products knows better than to use the first release of any MS retail product. Those that do, dont use the first release of retail on any machine that is "mission-critical" until the first batch of patches.
That is why he suggested 2008.
The bitter-sweet comedy here is that even while the analyst is telling us how much more secure he thinks Vista will be than previous versions of Windows, he's lamenting the projected demise of 3rd-party anti-adware software and he's complaining about the "chattiness" of the current beta release of Vista. And so, amazingly, he recommends users *forego* all of this wonderful security he talks about--until 2008, no less, for some inexplicable reason--simply because he thinks it's too tedious to wade through some "chatty" OS dialogue--"chattiness" that may or *may not* be found in the shipping version of Vista. Even more amazing, he actually recommends that businesses consider buying MacIntels just so that they can use them to run *Windows*. Absolutely brilliant! Sheesh.
With advice like this, who needs the friendly neighborhood quack?
The bitter-sweet comedy here is that even while the analyst is telling us how much more secure he thinks Vista will be than previous versions of Windows, he's lamenting the projected demise of 3rd-party anti-adware software and he's complaining about the "chattiness" of the current beta release of Vista. And so, amazingly, he recommends users *forego* all of this wonderful security he talks about--until 2008, no less, for some inexplicable reason--simply because he thinks it's too tedious to wade through some "chatty" OS dialogue--"chattiness" that may or *may not* be found in the shipping version of Vista. Even more amazing, he actually recommends that businesses consider buying MacIntels just so that they can use them to run *Windows*. Absolutely brilliant! Sheesh.
With advice like this, who needs the friendly neighborhood quack?
would have to say that the 3rd party vendors have noting to worry
about for at least a couple of years. Not to mention this article
seems to assume that people are going to run out and buy Vista to
upgrade their XP installations. Most folks are going to be happily
running their machines with XP because Vista will not offer any
real incentive for them to buy it. They will wait until they need a
new machine.
would have to say that the 3rd party vendors have noting to worry
about for at least a couple of years. Not to mention this article
seems to assume that people are going to run out and buy Vista to
upgrade their XP installations. Most folks are going to be happily
running their machines with XP because Vista will not offer any
real incentive for them to buy it. They will wait until they need a
new machine.
As for analysts, remember what they are: people who work for stock brokerages (i.e., people who are trying to sell you stuff) who have no particular expertise in the field in question other than specializing in "following" the stock. You never see their names in print, or, if you do, you never see "ph.d" or "MA" after their names or a brief of their academic background. They put together a package of interesting information if they do enough research, but their conclusions are still the conclusions of salesmen moonlighting as experts. Don't assume anything from an analysts' report, especially that they would somehow know anything about technology that a CNET reader doesn't...
As for analysts, remember what they are: people who work for stock brokerages (i.e., people who are trying to sell you stuff) who have no particular expertise in the field in question other than specializing in "following" the stock. You never see their names in print, or, if you do, you never see "ph.d" or "MA" after their names or a brief of their academic background. They put together a package of interesting information if they do enough research, but their conclusions are still the conclusions of salesmen moonlighting as experts. Don't assume anything from an analysts' report, especially that they would somehow know anything about technology that a CNET reader doesn't...
I'm not suggesting that free antispyware applications are poor software but many of the paid-for applications include features that the free stuff simply does not.
For instance nothing you can download for free actually prevents spyware from being installed on your computer. No it doesn't - it sits in your taskbar and does sweet f-all. If you believe otherwise, how come it finds spyware after visiting a dodgy website, if it's resident application did anything at all except take up resources? What these applications can do is scan your computer and remove about 90% of spyware. A couple of them together can remove probably 95% of spyware, but no free application will detect modern keyloggers or rootkits.
The really poor applications simply target harmless cookies and maybe some of the more easy to find stuff. The good ones largely ignore those shopping cookies and can remove some of the more harmful malware.
The top quality software, and not everything you pay for qualifies in this category, can not only prevent spyware from infecting your computer in the first place - in a similar manner to decent antivirus applications putting viruses in quarentine in real time - but will also detect and remove most keyloggers and rootkits.
Microsoft's antispyware product is average at best, and was removed from my PC when I found they'd not only bought one of the worst adware offenders on the market, but then proceeded to downgrade that company's rating so it was no longer removed by default.
Ofcourse the only real way to prevent any form of malware from infecting any computer is to remove any form of connection it has with the outside world.
- Complete Rubbish
- by ajbright May 8, 2006 10:03 AM PDT
- The features of professional antispyware applications such as PC Tools Spyware Doctor are unmatched by any free offering.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (30 Comments)I'm not suggesting that free antispyware applications are poor software but many of the paid-for applications include features that the free stuff simply does not.
For instance nothing you can download for free actually prevents spyware from being installed on your computer. No it doesn't - it sits in your taskbar and does sweet f-all. If you believe otherwise, how come it finds spyware after visiting a dodgy website, if it's resident application did anything at all except take up resources? What these applications can do is scan your computer and remove about 90% of spyware. A couple of them together can remove probably 95% of spyware, but no free application will detect modern keyloggers or rootkits.
The really poor applications simply target harmless cookies and maybe some of the more easy to find stuff. The good ones largely ignore those shopping cookies and can remove some of the more harmful malware.
The top quality software, and not everything you pay for qualifies in this category, can not only prevent spyware from infecting your computer in the first place - in a similar manner to decent antivirus applications putting viruses in quarentine in real time - but will also detect and remove most keyloggers and rootkits.
Microsoft's antispyware product is average at best, and was removed from my PC when I found they'd not only bought one of the worst adware offenders on the market, but then proceeded to downgrade that company's rating so it was no longer removed by default.
Ofcourse the only real way to prevent any form of malware from infecting any computer is to remove any form of connection it has with the outside world.