September 19, 2006 1:07 PM PDT

Rivals skirmish with Microsoft over Vista security

Microsoft and its security rivals are feuding over a key piece of Windows Vista real estate.

The fight is over the display of technology that helps Vista owners manage the security tools on their PC. Symantec, McAfee, Check Point Software Technologies and other companies want Microsoft to change Vista so their products can easily replace the operating system's built-in Windows Security Center on the desktop. But Microsoft is resisting the call.

"By imposing the Windows Security Center on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at security," Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, said in an interview. "How do we trust that Microsoft knows what all the important things about security are to warn users about?"

Windows Security Center, introduced with Windows XP Service Pack 2, pops up on desktops to alert PC owners if their firewall, virus protection and other security tools need attention. The version in the Vista update, set for broad release in January, will add new categories and management tools.

It is possible to run third-party security consoles in Vista, said Stephen Toulouse, a program manager in Microsoft's Security Technology Unit. However, people have to manually disable the Windows Security Center if they don't want to use it. And the software giant has no plans to give other companies the ability to turn off the Windows Security Center, Toulouse noted.

"Our main concern is to provide customers with a fall-back option if there is no other security center running," he said.

If the differences aren't worked out, it could spell annoyance for consumers, the rival security companies say. People who choose to use Microsoft's console alone will get a limited view of their Vista PC protection, they suggest. Those who buy competing software will have to run it alongside Microsoft's dashboard, which could report conflicting information. Rivals have charged that the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant is hurting consumers, raising the specter of more antitrust complaints for Microsoft.

"Microsoft's Windows Security Center demonstrates fairly limited sophistication, and having (it) control the console could take away the consumer's visibility into the threats he faces," said Siobhan MacDermott, a spokeswoman for McAfee. "Ultimately, it's something the consumer should decide, not Microsoft."

Jostling for position
Tensions are flying high in the security space after Microsoft, with its $34 billion war chest, entered the market. It launched Windows Live OneCare for consumers and is readying enterprise security products. With its huge presence on desktops, the software giant has a built-in advantage--one that is making other security companies nervous. European antitrust regulators are closely watching Microsoft.

Security companies have already fought several battles over Vista similar to the one about Windows Security Center. Some they won. Most recently, Microsoft added the ability for third-party products to turn off Windows Defender spyware protection in Vista, rather than requiring the PC user to do it. Earlier, it provided the same functionality for the Windows Firewall. In both cases, Microsoft has asked security companies to re-enable the Windows defenses if their products are removed from a PC.

Security centers

A dispute still exists over "PatchGuard," a security feature that Microsoft says is designed to guard core parts of the 64-bit version of Vista, but which critics say locks out helpful software from security rivals.

And then there is Windows Security Center, which sits in the Windows Control Panel and pops up any time there is a security alert, such as when antivirus protection is disabled or the firewall is turned off. Microsoft is beefing up the console in the successor to XP, and refers to it as the "voice of security for Windows Vista."

In Vista, the security dashboard will add reports on spyware protection, Internet security settings, and Windows security technology called "User Account Control."

Another change in Vista is that Windows Security Center will be used to manage the security software, in addition to reporting on it. For example, a PC user could update antivirus definitions or disable a firewall directly from the Windows Security Center, according to a recently published Microsoft document on the feature.

This could give rivals the opportunity to change tack and focus on developing products that plug into Microsoft's security dashboard, rather than continuing to produce their own, Toulouse suggested. "They might not need to have their own security center anymore," he said. "It is our hope that they build products that connect into Windows Security Center."

CONTINUED: Point of focus…
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., security company, Stephen Toulouse, enterprise security, security tool


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Vendor "Agnostic" NEVER
The first thing the console will say is Windows (R) Security Center (TM) and both are registered marks of MSFT. If Norton or McAfee don't want that to be written on their product status pages then they should be able to. Forcing the consumer to turn off the MSFT stuff manually is just a pointless hassle.
Posted by sanenazok (3449 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not pointless
It is not a pointless hassle to force the consumer to turn off Security Center manually. What if I would rather use Windows Security Center over what Norton or McAfee provides? At a minimum, the option needs to be there. Personally, I prefer to use Windows Security Center over Norton's so that if NAV is compromised, the Security Center has a chance of catching it. The security center in Windows XP seems to integrate well with Norton and AVG. I am not sure why this is even an issue.
Posted by eBob1 (188 comments )
Link Flag
Be Fair on this....
Why don't some of you approach Honda Motors, make sure you DEMAND that you be given a FREE way to put YOUR brands on it. Make bloody well sure you file lawsuits over their refusal to provide you, FOR FREE, with complete blueprints so that you can manufacture and replace all the locks, dials, wheels, etc. AND, to reject thier parts from the factory without giving your end-purchaser an option.

Seems to me that NO OTHER INDUSTRY is forced, under point of the judicial gun, to expose it's complete secrets, to give competing companies (AOL and/or Netscape on the desktop instread of MSN & IE.) the RIGHT to rip out parts of a product in favor of it's own, and to have to submit for jusdicial approval almost ANY additions/improvements to a product that may add value and convenience to the consumer.

I say we SUE General Motors tomorrow for refusing to allow me to replace their engines with FORD engines, and still DEMAND that they fully warranty the vehicle.

Sounds silly applied to other industries, yes?
Posted by bettencourtt (14 comments )
Link Flag
... "Microsoft and its security rivals are feuding over a key piece of Windows Vista real estate..."; keep this up and don't allow users to focus on the business at hand and all these companies (Microsoft, Symantec and all) will soon see how quickly "disgusted" users will find alternative solutions like IBM's OS/2 Warp and Linux. Duh!
Posted by Captain_Spock (894 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yes, then my virus could also turn it off !!!
Its over Symantec, pack up and go home. Symantec and other so called security firms are desperately trying to keep Vista unsafe. If MS open up an API to turn off security features it will not be too long before someone writes a virus that would do the same, which by the way is exactly what Symantec wants, more viruses more money. Looking at the way they are dealing with this I wouldn't be surprised if they actually sponsor those virus writers. This virus is brought to you by Symantec, pay us or get screwed!!!
Posted by FutureGuy (742 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Make it sound like Symantec is the culprit?
>>>Symantec and other so called security firms are desperately trying to keep Vista unsafe.<<<

You make it sound like Symantec is the culprit here.

Sure you mentioned others, but you only named Symantec.

What about NetScape? What about Sun's Java, What about WinZIP? What about ZoneAlarm? And what about ALL THE OTHER products which Microsoft continues to trample on?

Are they ALL out to weaken Microsoft? (* ROFLOL *)

On the other hand, what about Apple? What about all the Linux flavors? What about Unix? What about all the other Operating Systems out there?

Are they LESS secure because they don't included other applications with thier operating system?

The inherient flaws in Micrsoft are not that the Operating System doesn't have pre-installed security on it... but the flaws are in the Operating System itself.

Even with Microsoft's Firewall and AntiVirus software and any other security contraption Microsoft wants to include... they still ahve a very security-wise weak operating system.

And every application they bundle on top of that insecure operating system just adds to the number of security flaws of their product.

The END USER should be allowed to determine what applications they want to run and what applications they don't want to run.

For the ones they want to run, they should purchase them separately and install them separately just like the rest of the world's oeprating systems!

Likewise, Microsoft's approach runs counter to C2 security which states that ALL unnecessary applications and protocols should be stopped. For those using NON-Microsoft security products... we must go in and uninstall all of Microsoft's pre-installed crappola to make our systems C2 security compliant!

So if you want to continue bashing Symantec... then (* LOL *) but you're barking up the wrong tree!!!

Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Link Flag
They should play MS's game
When a virus is found they shouldn't share any of the details to the fix with MS. If Microsoft what's the cure for the virus Symantec and McAfee should charge them for it.
Posted by mariusthull (67 comments )
Link Flag
Well personally...
I would rather see Microsoft stick to its guns so that no matter what system you work on with Vista running the security information and controls are the same. If Microsoft allows the other vendors to so what they want then each security program will do something different, clutter it, suck the life from your computer and all of the other things that will make it a living hell. We all know for example how poorly Norton's products work, we don't need them messing up the security center too.

Keep it simple, keep it similar and keep it from sucking the life from our system.

Posted by Heebee Jeebies (632 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Since, according to this article....
... "Microsoft and its security rivals are feuding over a key piece of Windows Vista real estate..."; keep this up and don't allow users to focus on the business at hand and all these companies (Microsoft, Symantec and all) will soon see how quickly "disgusted" users will find alternative solutions like IBM's OS/2 Warp and Linux. Duh!
Posted by Captain_Spock (894 comments )
Reply Link Flag
OS 2 what
Not sure that you can still stick those 720 kb diskettes into anything that will be sold to run Vista.
Posted by gggg sssss (2285 comments )
Link Flag
What is OS/2 ??
never heard of it! is it an operating system?
Posted by cary1 (924 comments )
Link Flag
This sounds familiar...
Oh right remember a company called Netscape??? "browser wars" all over again?

"software giant has a built-in advantage--one"
Posted by brian.lee (548 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Incompetance killed Netscape
Netscape had a mindshare that MS couldn't have broken with IE alone but by failing to update their browser for years and they let the market outrun them and lost their crown.

This is a product category that MS should have made their own a long time ago. Given that there are inevitable bugs in code, louts and unscrupulous people will write exploits and that regression testing a proper fix takes a lot of time MS should have been providing this kind of software to protect against known and unknown exploits years ago. Securing their own OS is a thing MS should be doing instead of leaving it to the user to find someone else to do it.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
The noose is tightening for Symantec
As a PC service professional...I welcome the demise of Symantec in their role as PC security provider. Its only my opinion, but Symantec is more of a problem than a solution. They've enjoyed the limelight, and rested on their laurels, letting their products become increasingly more problomatic, intrusive, and error prone than even file sharing clients. If I get a PC in the shop that doesnt start, and it has Nortons on it..99% of these problems are resolved by removing their(Symantecs) software, and miraculously..the PCs start fine. Some of their other products work fine..Ghost for example. I am a full time anti-Norton advocate...and have yet to have a customer complain when replacing Nortons with Kaspersky. And to take it even further..I have suggested to some of my attorney clients...that it isnt too far fetched to possibly seek punitive damages against Symantec to recoup repair bills caused by their products. Can anyone say "class-action"?
Posted by NerdPatrolAJ (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not just Norton's
You may want to include McAfee as well. I for one am tired of all the apps needed to protect a customers system, and 90+% of those don't have a clue regardless. When Vista sets up, Virus protection is of course missing, and they recommend Trend Micro, however AVAST has just upgraded their FREE home version as well as the Professional Version to work flawlessly with Vista and that's with all 7 full shield protections, and Vista security intact.
Posted by Galt (12 comments )
Link Flag
Have to agree
Symantec products are pure crap, the worst written, worst designed, biggest steaming pile of crapware a user could ever install their pc.
Posted by als (154 comments )
Link Flag
Problem is much bigger than Symantec
As a security professional, I despise Symantec's Norton security products, but I despise them less than Microsoft's security products.

The only reason Symantec became so popular with the CPU and memory hogging security tools they offer is because they were riding on the Microsoft bandwagon.

But as much as I dislike Symantec... they are a security provider. And they are no longer riding the Microsoft bandwagon because Microsoft has kicked them off just like they kicked McAfees off in the past.

Bottom Line: Riding Microsoft's Bandwagon relinquishes a vendor's need to stay sharp and keep towards competition because they're being delivered as a de-factor standard on all shipped Microsoft pre-installed products!

That is anti-competitive for those not riding the Microsoft Bandwagon.

Thus Microsoft stifles their competition by keeping the one's they're interested in close at hand for starters (while pulling them around on the Microsoft Bandwagon) long enough for Microsoft to wean off the information/technology they want/need to come out with their own competitive product. At such time, Microsoft kicks them off of the Microsoft Bandwagon and replaces their own product on that Bandwagon continuing to be anti-compatitive to those not on the Microsoft Bandwagon.

It's just a repeated repeated repeat of Microsoft history all over again, and again, and again.

Why people continue to put up with Microsoft's anti-competitiveness is totally beyond me.

Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Link Flag
Symantec, McAfee - Whining & Incompetence
Symantec's real problem, is that they have zero customer loyalty, due to the low quality of their products.

As for McAfee, a recent IDG News Service article states "McAfee has apologized to users for bugs in the company's new line of client protection software, released last month."

Do we really want these incompetent clowns screwing around with the Windows Vista Security Center?
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
let em whine
Agree, Symantec in the last 2 years with NIS2005 and NIS2006 suck. Issues caught by their built-in error reports have no solutions on their web site, yet you see people with the same issues on the usenet/newsgroups. Those of us still on dial-up spend hours reloading NIS to resolve issues.
McAfee which I haven't tried in 6 years was so bloated it slowed XP.
But I guess its to be expected, big companies with over paid execs and to few talented support staffs.
After 5 years of symantec its time to switch.
as to their complaint, a security system works with a op system, it doesnt control it. an example: if you need to do a restore on xp, you have to turn off the "symantec protection first"

Guess I just feel like complaing today
Posted by sandkicker (69 comments )
Link Flag
anyone want to buy a memory manager?
Where was the EU and antitrust people back during the early 90's. Due to their inattention consumers no longer have worry about purchases a memory manager seperate from the operating system!
Posted by p.shearer (60 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Poor Trumpet Winsock
And remember that anti-competitive inclusion (for free!!) of TCP/IP to Windows 3.11 killed Trumpet Winsock.
Posted by alegr (1590 comments )
Link Flag
as well as
Lets not forget the addition of the following to the operating system... text editor, sound recorder, sound player, terminal program, calculator, web browser... all these items did not exist in the operating system at one time. Technically, you CAN call them applications since they have no direct bearing on what an operating system was originally intended to to. Today, every OS has them. It looks like microsoft is intent on integrating another application into the OS. McAffee and Norton are going to scream bloody murder because this is their lifeblood. Is it going to stop it? Not likely. How many companies exist today that write memory managers or text editors?
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Trust Microsoft? Jumbo shrimp.
"By imposing the Windows Security Center on all Windows users,
That's Monopoly power, abuse of it, and not fair competition.
Wasn't this supposedly resolved in the Antitrust trial that
Microsoft lost? The remedy review/oversight was just renewed
for a few more years, right?

That first quote sounds like what Mac users have said for years.
When it hits your own home, that's when people get a different

This is Antitrust all over. And we thought they were kinder and
gentler. Remember, they are responsible for a large part of the
security problem themselves. So now they !@#$* somebody else
to aleviate
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Reply Link Flag
monopoly and security
sorry but trying to keep your software secure is not being a monopoly

Are you trying to say keep it unsecure to allow competition?
Posted by mcepat (118 comments )
Link Flag
Windows? Security?
When has Windows been secure? No one has been able to make Windows secure not even Microsoft themselves. The problem is the Windows is a insecure 'product' from ground up. I believe 'Vista' would also follow the same tradition of Microsoft Windows products where users have to waste an enormous amount of time in making sure that their 'product' is not going to be taken down by viruses, worms, malware, spyware crackers etc.
Posted by kmashraf (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
lets make it insecure then
by allowing them to open it up to crapware like norton and symantec

maybe if microsoft is allowed to fully control security we would get a secure product?

tell the other vendors sorry but no thanks we can handle it
Posted by mcepat (118 comments )
Link Flag
I run secure Windows machines
Because while the defaults suck, it is actually fairly easy to lock down a Win2K or XP box. Because most don't bother, that means it is insecure 'from ground up'? Have you seen the source code? Have you ever taken a course in CS?
Thought not. Run along little child, stop spouting garbage that you don't understand
Posted by catch23 (436 comments )
Link Flag
Ignorance is not bliss
You said "The problem is the Windows is a insecure 'product' from ground up. "

That's flat wrong and only shows how little you know. Windows NT which all current versions of Windows were based on was written to be very secure from the ground up. It's not the underlying foundation which is insecure, it's all the myriad APIs and the rest which sit on that foundation which have provided so many areas to exploit. The underlying foundation for Windows was actually designed to be more secure than Unix and if they hadn't had to make the system backwards compatible with the older Dos based Windows that security could have been built on to make a truly secure OS. Think of it as lost potential.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
I don't blame Microsoft on this position at all
Most and I say most users do not care how eleborate the security features are, they just want to be protected, and the windows security center will provide this information.

Have the third party vendors just plug into that, thats really all that is needed?

Have you ever seen any of these product suites running fully on a system? Talk about crap bugging the user every 2 seconds saying you need to update or firewall risk please allow, firewall risk please allow.

Its all crap, most users just end up clicking anything that pops up.

Nope sorry but the future of windows security is to have it be simple, non obtrusive and just work.

Red is bad
Yellow is check
green is good

That is all that is needed

Please Microsoft, stand your ground on this and repel the crap overly controlling totally irrating way of handling security

simple is bliss
Posted by mcepat (118 comments )
Reply Link Flag
McAfee on my Dell
Two months ago, I purchased a Dell laptop for my cousin. I got a chance to use it for three weeks and those were the worst three weeks of my computing experience in last five years

This model came preinstalled with a trial version of McAfee security center. Every time I started the computer, it would show a startup screen, would take more than a minute just to load all it's services and would show a warning message every few minutes.

Every time I wanted to disable it, I got a message that I have to register on McAfee website first! Why? Will this give me personalised protection according to my surfing behaviour? I didn't register because it was not my laptop and I had it for few days only, but those popups became annoying day by day.

The worst part was that it managed to get infected by a trojan despite the elaborate services. Finally, I had to reimage it using Dell's built-in norton ghost image.

Whatever the software people use, it should be helpful, not obtrusive... It should not force people to register for no apparent reason, shouldn't slow down my system, during startup or otherwise.

I use a corporate edition of NAV 9 and didn't have a virus in three years since I started using it. I have seen pop-ups only 2-3 times till now, when it found some virus in email attachments. I'm not saying it's the best product to have, but it is much better compared to the fancy software that is sold for home users.
Posted by cary1 (924 comments )
Link Flag
mono-genome, mono-pathogen
If everyone is the same, everyone gets the same flu. If Microsoft is the core provider of security software, then any hole it has, will be a hole everyone will have.

Simple as that.

Yea, I'll probably get Vista, and I'll probably use MS defender, once Zone Labs folds, just because I want a 64 bit system, though probably not on release day; to blasted expensive to afford it just yet.
Posted by H Voyager (38 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No security
Of course it doesn't matter which security product you use the problem is the underlying operating system. And don't say XP say Win2000, you are still working on a 6 year old platform and dare I say there are now more problems than back then. The extra complexity and size statistically introduces more security holes. You are all trying to make money pulling the wool over the customers eyes. Get honest and port all the useful applications over to Unix based OS's <a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a> and we'll remember the "security" corporations as a joke of the past.
Posted by BigTreeMan (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Crapware be gone
One of the reasons Vista has been delayed is Microsoft completely re-architected their software engineering process around security. Anyone who thinks MSFT isn't taking security seriously isn't familiar with MSFT's SDL or lacks the technical expertise to understand it.

The bottom line is the vendor in the best position to secure the OS is the OS vendor. Now that MSFT has finally decided to do that, crapware security vendors need to find a new business model.
Posted by solrosenberg (124 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Lack of understanding...
"The bottom line is the vendor in the best position to secure the OS is the OS vendor. Now that MSFT has finally decided to do that, crapware security vendors need to find a new business model."

That statement just shouts out "I have no idea about security!!!"

One of the most basic ideas behind securing any system is that nothing is secure and everything changes. To harp on about how secure an OS and how "crapware security vendors need to find a new business model" before it has even been released shows a real lack of technical expertise.

A OS vendor who is serious about security would concentrate on securing their underlining OS before wasting time and resources duking it out on firefighting products and gimmicks such as their "Security Center".
Posted by stevejobless (40 comments )
Link Flag
I second that crapware be gone!
stop confusing simple users with pop ups every 2 seconds, firewall decisions every 2 seconds and take up half the machines process

red is bad
yellow is check
green is good

Thats all we need, simple, simple
Posted by mcepat (118 comments )
Link Flag
The bigger picture...
Good lord, this is more then about Microsoft V {insert hated/loved company name here}, this is about your rights as a consumer to choose to use what you wish to use with minimum effort.

Your average Joe wants to be able to install their preferred security software and have full access to its functionality with minimum effort.

If Microsoft force you as a user to use their interface then they are restricting your choice. You should be allowed to choose what you wish to use. I fully understand that companies such as McAfee et al are fighting for their corner and not us as the user, but if the end result is more choice for the consumer then that in my opinion is a good thing.

Before all of you {insert company name here} fan-boys/haters have a go at whats going on here think about yourself as the paying consumer first.
Posted by stevejobless (40 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You can turn it off
You can turn off the Microsoft Security Center if you want to. What the security companies are complaining about is that *they* can't turn it off.
Posted by Brian Grover (19 comments )
Link Flag
Well said
I agree whole heartedly.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
It's Netscape all over again...!!!
May the antitrust suits commence..
Posted by imacpwr (456 comments )
Reply Link Flag
securing your OS is not a monopoly???
I said it before and will say it again

if security can be a monopoly by trying to make you OS as secure as possible by not letting crapware access to vital areas then are you suggesting Microsoft leave holes in there OS in order to be competitive?

Do you really think that if they did and a virus managed to get by and it was AV vendors fault that anyone would listen to that? They would not they would say Vista is insecure! When in reality its the AV

Both symantec and mcafee and trendmicro have let hundreds of viruses by there defenses, its well documented
Posted by mcepat (118 comments )
Link Flag
Microsoft = Insecurity
MS operating systems are good, but they still SUCK at security. The more MS competes with security firms the less secure their operating systems will be. It's in the consumer's best interest not to let MS make that decision for them.

There are enough bugs in all MS software to feed every venus flytrap in the world for the next 100 years. Why would you want MS to protect your personal information from theives when all they do is buy out the court system and politicians everytime they have a legal dispute. Does that sound like security to you?!
Posted by Bush.Sux (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
learning by doing
By doing security, perhaps they will learn better security. The are possibilities to be positive about. It would place microsoft employees on the front lines of the battlefront against viruses, spyware, etc., feedback from those employees to other aspects of microsoft (such as updates, patches) would be quick and direct, and microsoft might actually become more aware about security and do a better job of implimenting it in their new products. It also gives competition to the established security makers (competition=inovation).

On the downside, it could reduce consumer choices should it eliminate McAffee and Norton as security alternatives.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Seriously guys....Why do you put up with all this crap?
I have used Macs for the past THIRTEEN YEARS (My company
employs 700 people - turnover £40M) and I have NEVER, repeat
NEVER, had a single virus or piece of malware.

When is enough enough?
Posted by Europodboy (298 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Read the Story..They DO provide a choice.
Siobhan MacDermott, a spokeswoman for McAfee. "Ultimately, it's something the consumer should decide, not Microsoft."

What a stinking hypocrite. He wants the ability to take my choice away by turning off MS's product, and turning his on. Probably, without teling me that they are going to.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Mr. MacDermott. THE CONSUMER should decide, not Microsoft, and NOT MCAFEE, and NOT SYMANTEC.

That is exactly why MS gave THE CONSUMER the ability to turn it off. ME, and ME ALONE. Not you. If you want to recommend that I use yours instead of the MS version, then ASK ME FIRST, and IF I click &lt;YES&gt; then, ever-so-helpfully, provide step-by-step instructions on how I might go turn it off, and yours ON.

By golly, that actually DOES provide us a choice, doesn't it? But Mr MacDermott would have that choice he is bleating over taken away from us. What a stinking, no-good, snake-in-the-grass, yellow-bellied, shiftless, beady-eyed, four-flushing, HYPOCRITE!!!!
Posted by bettencourtt (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
&lt;&lt;What a stinking, no-good, snake-in-the-grass, yellow-bellied, shiftless, beady-eyed, four-flushing, HYPOCRITE!!!!&gt;&gt;

By golly... if you are going to participate in name-calling, GIVE 'EM HELL!

LoL... that cracked me up... thanks.

(I do agree, BTW)
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
100% Agree!!!
Says it all... Very well said... :)
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Link Flag
Posted by HecticDialectics (38 comments )
Link Flag
This guy gets it.
Well said, and bonus points for comedy.
Posted by news_reader (32 comments )
Link Flag
BRILLIANT solution inside!
Microsoft should remove every single security feature from their entire Vista OS, so that way, the security companies have a purpose! We will just artifically remove Microsoft's right to design their software's security because some other company wants to be able to do it!

Next on C|Net- Joe's Flavored Syrup Stand wins ruling forbidding Jake's Snow Cone Stand from offering flavored syrups and monopolizing consumer choice!!
Posted by HecticDialectics (38 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Come to think of it...
... it's how crazy the world can be when all companies are given that "extra support" just to stay in business.

Most businesses are put up and become successful because they are trying to fill the missing need of the time.

So what happens when the need is no longer missing? These businesses are threatened. But they are also presented with new opportunities.

Consider in the case of Microsoft and these security companies.

The security companies may:

- grab the opportunity to improve based on expertise, track record and credibility;
- grab the opportunity to work around Windows' new limitations and continue to fill new "missing needs"... no matter how small they are;
- bank on the features that are still not present in Windows but available in the current product lines of the company;
- work with Microsoft so that differences can be worked out. The goal is to come up with a solution that is fair to all parties' interests while at the same serving the demands of the customers.

Likewise, Microsoft:

- should cooperate with these security companies who are offering a fair game of competition;
- should help these companies upgrade their products to work well with their new version of Windows;
- should be able to compromise in favor of these long time "partners" versus pushing for their own brand. Microsoft should remember that it is only recently that they become "competitors".

In the end, it all goes back to the customers. What's important here is that the customers still get what they need regardless of which products they'll trust to provide Windows security...
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Link Flag
Microsoft's Rose-Tinted Glasses View of the World
Operating Systems are operating systems and security software products are security software products.

If Microsoft wants to offer users whom have no other security their own security package... then fine. Let them offer it. But they MUST offer it in a non-obtrusive way.

Non-obtrusive meaning that the user doesn't manually have to uninstall it and doesn't have to put up with it's annoying/antagonizing false positive alerts.

I run Frisk Software's F-Prot AntiVirus software, but Microsoft's Firewall consistently tells me that my PC is unsafe and that I need AntiVirus protection and then tries to get me to download Microsoft's preferred brand of AntiVirus software.

Microsoft even has SpyBot Search &#38; Destroy in their pocket. Everytime I run a check of my system using their software, they report a security weakness that Microsoft's Firewall is disabled. But by the same token, when I purposefully disable my ZoneAlarm PRO firewall and re-run SpyBot S&#38;D's checker... it doesn't warn me that my ZoneAlarm PRO firewall is disabled!!!

The way Microsoft looks at security is through rose-tinted glasses. As such, one gets an incorrect perspective of things.

For those too dumb to install some kind of security on their PC's... Microsoft's method will only keep them dumbed down. Those people NEED to be hacked at least once until they learn that they need the proper security installed on their systems.

Thus Microsoft's security applications should be just like ALL the rest of the security applications out there...

If you want to use Microsoft's... then install it. If you want to use somebody else's security software.. then install it. But HEAVEN FORBID that Microshaft FORCE their wet Billy version of what they purport security to be on those whom know that their version doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

It's just another way which Microsoft uses it's monopoly to force others into following.

But IT SHOULDN'T allowed to happen. We need to stand up and tell Microsoft once and for all... NO MORE ANTI-COMPETITION PLOYS like the EU is currently doing and has done in the past!!!

If we all stand up and point fingers at Microsoft for Anti-competitiveness... Microsoft will have no choice but to meed the demands of the majority or face loosing potential Windows users to their rivals such as Linux, Apple, etc.

Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Opt In vs Opt Out
Users should have the option to Opt-In if they want to run Microsoft products.

But Microsoft's method requires them to Opt-Out as Microsoft... by default... automatically Opt's them In regardless of whether they want to Opt-In OR NOT!

Bottom Line: Microsoft is FORCING the market.

SPAM offers the Opt-Out Approach.

Responsible News Services offer the Opt-In Approach.

Microsoft should also become an Opt-In vs Opt-Out provider!!!

Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Instead of spending time on real security solutions-dumping all the crap legacy code would be a good start-they have funneled all their resources into "perimeter" apps.

Even much of their 'perimeter solutions' are easily broken, making the who thing pointless and the OS very vulnerable.

This is why the security of Vista will suck as bad as XP.

Vista is a non-starter and nothing more then an unsecure version of OSX and Linux.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If Government regulators were stopped, antivirus software could be free!
If the market was really free, Microsoft could just give away OneCare for free or include it in the Windows Vista. If Microsoft did that today, they would be accused for being anti competitive and hurting competition. Now the regulators are supposed to protect us and we, the consumers, have to pay the price dearly.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden
Posted by Björn Lundahl (253 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



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.