Security firms skeptical about Vista shift

Security rivals' reaction to word that Microsoft will make changes in Windows Vista to allay competitive concerns: We'll believe it when we see it.

On Friday, Microsoft said it will give security software makers technology to access the kernel of 64-bit versions of Vista for security-monitoring purposes. Additionally, the company said it will make it possible for security companies to disable certain parts of the Windows Security Center in Vista when a third-party security console is installed.

Microsoft made both changes in response to antitrust concerns from the European Commission. Led by Symantec, the world's largest antivirus software maker, security companies had publicly criticized Microsoft over both Vista features and also talked to European competition officials about their gripes.

Security companies are taking note of the changes Microsoft said it would make to the operating system update, but will judge the outcome when they actually see them.

"We have not seen anything yet," said Cris Paden, a Symantec spokesman. "These are technical issues. Until we actually see the APIs, all we know is what they have said in the media. So far they have not done anything yet."

APIs, or application program interfaces, are the actual parts of Vista that Microsoft on Friday said it would make available so that security companies can access the Vista kernel and disable parts of Windows Security Center.

"If it is true, then it would be a step in the right direction for giving customers the choice to use whatever solutions they would like," Paden said.

The technology to suppress Windows Security Center alerts should be available next week, but APIs related to kernel protection still need to be developed and may not be ready before Microsoft ships Vista to PC makers and CD factories, said Adrien Robinson, a director in Microsoft's Security Technology Unit.

"We do not want vendors... accessing the kernel through unmodified approaches or modifying the kernel," Robinson said. "We will not allow them to go on the fly and modify the kernel, basically circumventing PatchGuard. We need to work with them on the right approaches to work with PatchGuard."

Points of contention
Kernel protection and Windows Security Center were two of the main points of contention between Microsoft and its security rivals. Symantec, McAfee and others had charged that Microsoft was hurting the competition and creating an unfair advantage for its own products through these features.

In 64-bit versions of Vista, the kernel protection, or PatchGuard, not only locked out hackers but also prevented some security software from running, security companies have said. They had asked for a way to access the kernel, which Microsoft insisted would hurt the security and stability of Windows. Microsoft now says it will provide that access, albeit in a controlled way.

"We have committed to create a new set of APIs that will enable third-party security products to access the Windows kernel in a secure manner," Microsoft said in a statement on Friday.

Windows Security Center, a key piece of Windows Vista real estate, tells people the status of security on their Vista PC, such as whether antivirus software or a firewall is installed and running. Security rivals have asked for a way to disable the Windows Security Center in favor of their own security dashboards.

Microsoft appears to be granting some, but not all, of that wish. "We are creating a new set of APIs to ensure that Windows Security Center will not send an alert to a computer user when an alternative competing security console is installed on the PC and is sending the same alert instead," Microsoft said in a statement.

Windows Security Center will continue to be running on the system so that a customer can have a cross-vendor, cross-technology view of the security on their Vista PC, Robinson said. In other words, third-party products won't be able to completely hide the Windows Security Center interface, which is what security companies had asked for.

Still skeptical
McAfee and Check Point Software Technologies, maker of ZoneAlarm security software, welcomed Microsoft's announcement, but, like Symantec, reserved judgment.

"We are encouraged by Microsoft's recognition that there is a problem. However, we do not have specific information on the nature of these changes, or their timing," said Siobhan MacDermott, a McAfee spokeswoman. "As more information becomes available, we will study it carefully before forming a view on whether Microsoft's plans provide a reasonable basis for addressing these issues."

Check Point's response also stressed that the clock is ticking on the release of Vista.

"We are encouraged to see Microsoft taking the security industry's concerns seriously," said Laura Yecies, general manager of Check Point's ZoneAlarm consumer division. "Once we have a chance to see what capabilities the new kernel-level APIs will extend to us, we'll have a better idea if they will be adequate. We hope to see those new API's soon."

Timing is of the essence. Security providers, including Symantec and McAfee, want to have products available that work with Vista the moment it is released. Vista, the long-awaited successor to Windows XP, is slated to be available to large business users next month and the general public in January.

"If the APIs exist, then Microsoft should make them available to the security industry immediately," Symantec's Paden said. "We will have Vista compatible solutions when the operating system is finally available for consumers. Last we heard, that was going to be January; therefore, we need these APIs yesterday."

[swvaboy]

If they don't like it, then build their own OS

If these security firms do not like the way Vista will be dealing with security, then let them build their own operating system.

I am so sick of everyone crying monopoly. Maybe Microsoft doesn't always get it right, but if they are so bad why are the majority of people using their systems. There are others...

[dotmike]

Monopoly 101

The vast majority of people use Windows, in the order of
92-95%. Other OSes have a very small market share.

So, for good or bad, Microsoft has a monopoly.

When a monopoly exists, most governments have controls to
limit the company from using their monopoly to benefit its other
products.

A monopoly in the OS allows Microsoft to determine what
software runs on it and gives the company the possibility of
favoring its own products over those made by competing
companies.

There are several ways it could do this: (1) withholding
information about how to write software for the OS, (2) requiring
those who sell the OS to not sell the competing software, (3)
offer sellers a cheaper price if they don't sell competitor's
software, and (4) restricting access of non-Microsoft software to
parts of the OS which only Microsoft has access to.

Microsoft has already used methods 1-3 extensively in the past,
which is why governments have stepped in to prosecute them. It
has used method 4 less extensively and the concern is that that
this what it is now attempting.

Without a level playing field, other software makers cannot
effectively compete with Microsoft.

Hence the concern.

[ScottMo]

Lock it!

Lock the kernal! Lock it! Let Symantec & McAfee pander their security software in some other manner. If the kernal is open to them, it'll (eventually) be open to The Bad Guys. Lock it! As a user I demand security, not an insecure OS that I then have the choice to buy overpriced, bloated "security" suites.

Why must Microsoft make Vista less secure just to please security firms? What screwed up thinking is this?

[bob3160]

avast! is ready now

Who needs McAffee or Symantec. avast! antivirus is Vista compliant right now.

[john55440]

Computer Users Skeptical About Security Firms

Rather than whining about Vista, McAfee and Symantec should concentrate on improving the quality of their products. Their products are currently buggy, bloated, messes.

[Jaeboy]

Security firms should stop whining!

Security firms are like leechers living on flaws that appeared on other organism (Windows in that case). Why don't they sue Apple Mac over antitrust? Isn't Apple worst than MS? everything is made by them, from hardware to software's software; how is that not 'antitrust'?

MS is just taking steps to improve its OS, and now Security firms are forcing MS to reveal how they did it, what if someone from the inside decides to sell or even leak those API to malicious people? (like what happened to the MS Windows 2000 source code). We could all be in trouble.

IF someday MS decides to close down and invalidate and disable all those copies of windows out there, i'd laugh in the face of all those security firms!

[Penguinisto]

About time...

...and before anyone whines, hey - OSX and Linux have very open kernels, and yet their security is miles beyond what MSFT has to offer, even now.

IMHO, it would've been fun to watch MSFT shut tight microkernel-level access, and then watch 'em choke on their own blood the moment some bright spark managed to hose Vista with only "we'll get it fixed four tuesdays from now" as the poor Windows consumers' only response.

/P

[atglabs]

Security Concepts that Microsoft still doesn't "get".

Non-microsoft anti-malware products would not be begging for ways to "hook the kernel" in Vista if Microsoft would supply APIs that properly-signed security products could effectively use.


To implement advanced detection techniques, anti-malware products need to monitor things like File I/O, Registry access, Network I/O, keyboard input streams, Screen Scraper data paths, etc.


In some cases, Microsoft supplies an API for third-party monitoring, but they make no distinction between "Security" products and regular applications using the APIs. For example, the file I/O Filter Manager allows multiple apps to monitor file I/O, but there is no way for a Security app to guarantee it is, say, the first and/or the last app to view the file data. Microsoft can use internal OS knowledge to allow their security monitors to do so, but they don't have a way to let signed, registered third-party security apps request and negotiate the "altitude" of their filter in relationship to other apps.

Microsoft also doesn't provide the APIs, for example, to monitor code that is being loaded and run via complex unpacking and decrypting techniques used by malware, nor can such code be "whacked" if the unpacked code behaves in certain ways. Perhaps it's because OneCare doesn't yet need this capability, but more likely it's because they failed to hear the widespread requests for such things. Again, if Microsoft were to implement the APIs to do this so that security vendors didn't have to hook the kernel to gain access to this functionality, they would likely model it after their existing APIs and thus fail to grant "altitude" negotiation when multiple apps request access to the API functionality.

The best saw that I have heard to describe why Microsoft won't be able to supply usable APIs is this: "Microsoft sees into the future perfectly, but they can't hear others talking, even about the present."

With Microsoft's recent announcement that they will provide "API's" for third-party security apps to use, it will be interesting to see if they "get it" or if they just pass out a few APIs that complicate the problem rather than addressing it.

(I've spent many years writing kernel-level security monitoring and control software to work around these "missing" APIs, so I would be very happy if Microsoft does the right thing!)