backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by JMecc.. on Oct 4 at 3:34 PM

Vendors claim that being denied access to the core of Vista seriously hampers their ability to protect users

McAfee Inc. has thrown down the gauntlet in its dispute with Microsoft's decision to lock down the core of their Vista operating system. The security software vendor has a full-page ad in today's Financial Times which berates Microsoft.

McAfee argues that Microsoft is making its upcoming Windows Vista operating system far more difficult to protect by locking non-Microsoft processes out of the kernel. Symantec had a similar beef with this move by Microsoft which was reported on recently by Windows IT Pro:

Symantec has also complained about a new security feature called Kernel PatchGuard that prevents software--malicious or otherwise--from altering the Windows kernel at runtime. In the past, security companies have been forced to patch the Windows kernel because so much malicious software does so as well. That process will not be possible in Windows Vista, which should make the system more secure. Symantec wants it removed.

Microsoft claims that this will keep Vista more secure by allowing only certified programs to access vital components of Windows, but McAfee openly mocks this in its advertisement by challenging:

"Microsoft is being completely unrealistic if, by locking security companies out of the kernel, it thinks hackers won't crack Vista's kernel. In fact, they already have."

A Microsoft representative dismissed this accusation, citing a close relationship with security partners during the development of Windows Vista. On the other side of the coin, vendor Trend Micro currently has a beta release of their anti-virus software available for Vista, which may have prompted other companies to suspect preferential treatment.

A scan of the article was unavailable at the time of this posting.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By exdeath on 10/2/2006 3:42:03 PM , Rating: 5
Unfair practices?

Should we require auto makers by law to use crappy materials in ther gas tanks so patch companies have a basis to exist?

*rolls eyes*

Lots of things to bust MS for but this isn't one of them.

If you want to choose a crappy OS, go back to 98. McAfee and Symantec will appreciate your business.


By S3anister on 10/2/2006 7:37:21 PM , Rating: 1
lol best saying ever, and yeah i would just LOVE to have my gas tank blow on me lol.

*eyes also roll*


By Hare on 10/3/2006 4:09:01 AM , Rating: 1
Let's just hope that MS won't start charging people for their defender service or offer other commercial solutions. That would be unfair to Symantec etc. With the current situation I'm not sure if MS has done anything wrong.


By exdeath on 10/2/2006 3:44:34 PM , Rating: 1
There is always email, spam and anti-virus software to be written. You just don't have to worry about kernel hooks anymore, so you can focus on other areas of your software.


By stash on 10/2/2006 3:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
OneCare has to follow the same rules that McAfee and Symmantec do. OneCare will not be able to modify the kernel anymore than the third-parties will.


By OrSin on 10/2/2006 4:02:17 PM , Rating: 1
MS is always in a no win sitution. IF thye implement security someone will say they are begin put out of business. They even get sued for having a video player in XP. This is getting little over board. If the product/ feature is free you should be not sued over giving it away. ANd please don't try to use the argue ment that they can always make us pay for it later. That didn't fly with IE 10 years agos its will fly now. I'm writing this on vista PC now and vista offers alot of nice features that double as security enhancements.

One think Microsoft should add to shut up everyone is, for every feature it gives you the option to download someone else free option too. Similar to how they do gadgets now.


By bobdelt on 10/2/2006 6:12:47 PM , Rating: 3
How exactly does Microsoft make more money by not allowing Mcafee full access to their kernal? Um, in order to use Mcafee's software you already had to pay MS anyway...


By PrinceGaz on 10/3/2006 3:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Because in a few years time when McAfee and other third-party security software providers have been driven out of business or had their market share reduced to virtually zero by Microsoft having an unfair advantadge and giving their solution away for free with Vista, then Microsoft will start charging for it and you'll have no one else to choose from.


By Bonrock on 10/2/2006 3:55:44 PM , Rating: 4
"I don't hate M$."

Really? I'm sorry, but in my book, anyone who uses "M$" to refer to Microsoft loses any semblance of impartiality.


By RandomFool on 10/3/2006 9:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
You could give plain old MS a try, it's even faster! No shift key!


By Murst on 10/3/2006 9:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
So, you use caps lock to create the S? =p


By mindless1 on 10/3/2006 12:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
You too lack impartiality if you fail to recognize the state of the industry, that MS had in fact dominated and used monopoly position to their profit. That is not opinion, that is fact. Being impartial requires consideration of this, even if "M$" is a bit flavorful.


By Narutoyasha76 on 10/2/2006 4:02:23 PM , Rating: 5
Even having the latest McAfee and Symantec Updates to their respective Anti-Virus software doesn't guarantee my computer is safe from viruses. Worst of all the 2006+ versions of both programs comes with so much unnecesary additions (in other words..crap!!) that it makes boot time on my PC a hazzle. If I want an antivirus program all that I want is an antivirus program...don't need the addition of big brother firewall nor update/security center crap. If Microsoft wants to close their kernels let them, both Symantec and McAfee are going the wrong way with the do-it all antivirus/firewall/email/instant crap/security center/live center/kernel hogging/boot time sucking ..... need I say more?


By Clauzii on 10/2/2006 4:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
AVG Free does a fine job of being small and pretty effective. And they update allmost every day - ALL for free :)


By Hare on 10/3/2006 5:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
AOL active shield is a lot better. Basically it's kaspersky lite, and kaspersky it the most effective virus shield according to recent tests. F-security is close behind. AVG is "ok". Personally I would take Avast over AVG but since AOL offers free kaspersky I'm currently using it.


By FITCamaro on 10/2/2006 5:28:02 PM , Rating: 4
So McAfee and Symantec just don't have to worry about the kernel anymore. Its a good thing that Microsoft is making it as secure as possible. Jesus. People bitch that Microsoft has security holes. Microsoft tries to fix them and people bitch because now you can't do something you could before.

Microsoft will never be able to win an arguement. So I applaud them for saying "F*** you" to the other companies and doing what is best for their product. The same goes to the EU. If you don't like it, you're free to go to Linux.

And McAfee and Symantec don't give a damn about the security of Vista. They want it to be as security hole ridden as possible so they have a reason for their product to exist. This is just another example of someone not liking something so instead of doing something different, they'll just bash the other guy or sue.

They can still sell their product the same as before, it just won't do as much. I don't see the people at some of the smaller companies like AVG, who have products far superior than the crap that Symantec and McAfee put out and can be free, complaining. They're just going to build software that will further enhance the security of Vista rather than asking to make it less secure just to sell their product.


By dieArmys on 10/3/2006 7:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft will never be able to win an arguement. So I applaud them for saying "F*** you" to the other companies and doing what is best for their product. The same goes to the EU. If you don't like it, you're free to go to Linux.

If EU says "F*** you" to Microsoft, Vista sales will decline by more than 1/3...

USE LINUX


By Saist on 10/3/2006 1:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
already went to Linux. I kinda like not having to run an A/V scan every morning and a spyware scan every night.

I guess my point would be is that Mcafee, Symantec, and "et al" believe that everybody is just going to "buy" Vista, or get it with their computers. Okay, granted when WindowsXp launched most versions of Linux weren't exactly, how we say, user friendly. Now, you have versions like Mepis, Ubuntu, Linspire, and PCLinuxOS that focus on being usable. Other distro's such as Mandriva, Red Hat, and Debian have also jumped light years ahead in terms of ease-of-use.

Now, you really do have a choice about what OS you can use.

Speaking for me, I'd much rather Independant Software Vendors like Mcaffee live up to that Independant tag, and actually platform Independant. Fine, okay, so Vista isn't what they wanted. Linux isn't what they wanted. Get over it, and work to make the product fit a square hole instead of a round hole.


By udontknow on 10/3/2006 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
MS wants to control and monopolize every industry. Myspace does well... Nope cant have that! Get Live Space out now and try to kill it! iPod does well... NOPE! NEVER!!! Kill it with the dumb Zune! Oh... wait.. whats this? Antivirus companies are doing better than our crap? OH NO! NEVER! Lock 'em out! Make it so that no one running windows in the future can run anything but our software. It's sickening. Its okay to be the best at one or two things, look, it has already made MS the god of computers. But why does it have to be EVERYTHING with these people. Too much greed and I hate them for it.


What's the beef?
By Nightskyre on 10/2/2006 4:00:39 PM , Rating: 4
I like the comment "We don't have access, boo hoo" and then the "But the smart hacker people do have access, albeit illegal, boo hoo"

As far as I'm concerned, if a company acknowledges there are people out there smart enough to cause a security issue, and that company isn't smart enough to figure out how to stop it, even though that's the basis of their business, they shouldn't be in business. I am completely in support of Microsoft on this one. I don't really have an opinion of Microsoft in either direction, but those of you who don't like this must understand, we don't live in a communist society. There is no reason whatsoever that Microsoft should be forced to open up any part of anything they do for the good of other companies. As far as I'm concerned, they did McAfee and Symantec a favor with the older systems. Rescinding a favor doesn't constitute doing something wrong.




RE: What's the beef?
By QueBert on 10/2/06, Rating: 0
RE: What's the beef?
By dwalton on 10/2/2006 5:23:18 PM , Rating: 3

Group A. A bunch of people crying about needing MS to give them access to the kernel so their software will work to protect us.

Group B. A bunch of people that need no such help from MS to access the Vista's kernel for malicious means.

How do we really expect Group A to protect us from Group B? Does McAfee and Norton really need MS expressed permission to allow their software to have access to Vista's kernel? If so, then I understand, but if not then I doubt that somebody who can't crack the kernel can protect us from those who can.


RE: What's the beef?
By lemonadesoda on 10/2/2006 5:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think the concern is that if Group A use a "hack" to protect against Group B, then the "hack" or backdoor once discovered by MS will be closed, and the Group A code no longer works.

Imagine buying some anti-virus software, and it only worked for a few weeks until MS closed the backdoor.

Terrible.

However, I think the issue is moot, since, to my understanding, MS will allow some "certified" access to kernal. So McAfee are complaining that they now need "certification" which, I'm sure, costs time and money.

Just wait until the EU hears of this practice. They will insist on an "open" European version.


RE: What's the beef?
By kkwst2 on 10/3/2006 12:17:26 AM , Rating: 3
The Europeans can have their open software. I'll take my secure kernel.

My issue with security software is that the cure is almost as bad as (or sometimes badder (sic) than) the disease. If there's one thing that causes slow downs, annoying behavior, and crashes more than anything else, it's security software. My experience is that Norton is the worst, followed closely by McAfee. I've had better luck with PC-Cillin, although I use McAfee now because it is free with my ISP.

The only program (including malware) that has completely hosed my OS to the point I had to start over and reinstall XP was Norton.


RE: What's the beef?
By BikeDude on 10/3/2006 2:46:08 AM , Rating: 4
I share your observation that the cure is worse than the disease. I have not used security software since... Oh, 1988? Number of infections and problems? Zero. Except that one time I installed some Norton product; Inserting a floppy suddenly triggered a BSOD with NT4. I uninstalled Norton rather than install their hotfix for that particular problem.

Bottom line with most (all?) security products: You're only protected as long as you run with the _very_ latest in malicious code signatures. Miss one signature update and your life is basically hanging in a very thin thread, specially if you think you can relax on the OS updates.

Besides, if you're just a bit careful (e.g. disable ActiveX and Javascript when surfing, and refuse to open mail attachments), you've ruled out pretty much all threats. Add a simple firewall with NAT functionality, and you're for all intents and purposes sealed off from the rest of the world. (yes, there are some exceptions, e.g. the hole discovered in IE's jpeg rendering engine, but these are rare and must be patched by MS rather than Symantec anyway...)

This philosophy may not help the average user, but they're basically screwed in any case. Vista could help a lot since MS finally takes away administrator access from regular users. Protecting the kernel is a nice touch too. (and already being done in x64 XP, no?)

It is a badly kept secret that McAfee and friends are overcharging for inferior software. I hope their ad backfires.

--
Rune


Poor products require more PR
By Trisped on 10/2/2006 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that Norton and MacAfee are both owned by the same company, and they are notorious for high costs, standard service, and major bloat. They are also the major controllers of the PC security market. There problem is that they can't port their software, and their software value is decreased with the new OS. Trend Micro on the other hand changed rather then complained.

Some allege that Trend Micro is getting special treatment. Since they are not considered anything more then a second or third rate supplier I don't see the problem. It would be like Intel giving preferential treatment to Linux or Mac OS systems so they can get a better market penetration and encourage competition.

And they complain that A) they can't change the kernel, but B)They claim that hackers already have. So why don't they just do it the way the hackers did? Sounds like a bunch of fluff to keep people buying their overprice bloat.




RE: Poor products require more PR
By QueBert on 10/2/2006 5:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I hate both companies "notorious high costs" is a bit extreme. I almost always seen NAV or Virus Shield almost free after rebate. And I see it in the $20-30 range without the hassle of rebates all the time. The programs both blow chunks, but are are priced within reason for crap :D

Trend is good sized, almost every MB I've bought in the past 3 years has came with a copy of their antivirus. Typically people I deal with run whatever virus software came bundled on their PC. I'd love to see Norton die. Norton Utilities for DOS was bad ass, the company is as bad as MS now. Just without the juice.


RE: Poor products require more PR
By Omega215D on 10/2/2006 5:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
I remember buying Trend Micro Internet Security due to the tests that it detected viruses much better than McAfee and Norton without slowing my system down too badly. Today I run BitDefender, ZoneAlarm AV and Trend Micro since they all do what they're supposed to do without many issues.

Of course some may say that without access to the kernal the virus scanner cannot detect any malicious activities occuring there.


RE: Poor products require more PR
By Korvon on 10/2/2006 5:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not really sure where you are getting your info from, if Mcafee and Symantech were owned by the same company... then why have two products? If they were owned by the same company... whats the companys name? I smell some BS here.


RE: Poor products require more PR
By Ard on 10/2/2006 10:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you've got proof of that, no, Symantec and McAfee are not owned by the same company. They're both headquarted in different locations and are both separately incorporated in Delaware. All legal information on their respective sites also points to them being individual corporations.


Kernel Mode Processing a Large Risk
By Flunk on 10/2/2006 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 4
Being able to communicate directly with the kernel is an enormous security risk. Windows never should have allowed this in the first place. Locking out this feature locks out a lot of the worst viruses for windows and this is not the only OS to feature this sort of protection. The kernel in Mac OS is so abstracted as to be practically unreachable. MS is not doing this to spite anyone, but to fix an enormous flaw in there software. It's not like MS is allowing their own AV apps to run in the kernal either. McAfee and Norton should go away, you can get protection that is just as good for free now anyway.




By QueBert on 10/2/2006 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 1
I cannot agree, simply because I have read (read, don't know if it's fact of fiction) that hackers have already overcome this. So, basically a touted feature for our "protection" has been destroyed, before the product has even launched? greeeeat!

I remember prior to XP, MS was big on the "must register to use blah blah blah" XP was cracked, and downloadable before it even hit store shelves. DON'T leave it up to MS to make computing safer, as they have proven time and time again they cannot.

Also will this lack of Kernel access effect running a shell replacement? I am not a fan of the gaudy Aeroglass interface, I somehow see MS making it tough, if not impossible to run Litestep. Which they probably view as "unsafe"


RE: Kernel Mode Processing a Large Risk
By FNG on 10/2/2006 5:27:50 PM , Rating: 1
Are you mad? Kernel mode is not the reason for most of the flaws. Unnecessary privileged access by users and services is. Do you think that every time IE falls victim it is because it runs in kernel mode? That's a big-fat-negative, keep on truckin' sister. Oh, and find me some free protection that has the ability to roll to 1800 desktops and keep corporate policy and definitions synced during extended disconnects from the corporate network.

I do not see how software can easily and efficiently do real-time file scanning or apply heuristics without access to the kernel. I am guessing to be efficient said software would need to install in the layer above the block device drivers. But I won't pretend to be a hard-core programmer, just attempting some logic here. I am also "ass"uming that doing network activity checking would suffer from the same problem.

I have to guess that there will be some sort of access to the kernel. But as a software/driver vendor will you have to pay big bucks to get a sign off by Microsoft? What does this mean for third-party drivers? Will they all have to be WHQL certified?


By exdeath on 10/3/2006 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Being able to communicate directly with the kernel is an enormous security risk"

Yeah lets can int 2e (KiSystemService) lol.


Let me get this straight...
By JWalk on 10/2/2006 5:13:12 PM , Rating: 5
Ok. This has finally gotten truly ridiculous.

Everytime I hear about a new feature in Windows Vista, I hear some company crying because Microsoft is (or isn't) including a piece of software. Now the anti-virus companies are whining because MS has locked the kernel? Something that experts have been saying they should have done years ago??

At this point, it has become obvious what all these companies really want. They want Vista to be a big blank canvas of an operating system.

No browser. No Anti-virus. No firewall. No media player. Nothing but a start button and some folders to neatly tuck their 3rd party software in. 3rd party software that they will be happy to charge you for. That way you can buy every single program separately. Yippee!

And yet, people keep saying that MS needs more substance to compete with Apple's OS-X. That Vista doesn't have enough value included in its price. Hmmm...I wonder why.




By GhandiInstinct on 10/2/2006 5:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Norton is a rip-off, it doesn't work, I don't know what does really, I need to run spyroot, hijack this, ewido, norton and windows defender in order to keep my computer safe, it is ridiculous indeed, and I'm an advanced user, imagine what people who know squat are going through...

These days we need to up the ante.


RE: Let me get this straight...
By KHysiek on 10/3/2006 2:40:45 AM , Rating: 1
I wonder if you would say the same if MS would ruin you several years work almost instantly with releasing their 'solution'.

If you have to pay extra for LiveCare MS service, why we can't have A CHOICE. But we will not get any in Vista. I don't get you people.

Since when "secure" and "free" words go well with Microsoft. Don't make me laugh, if you are believing that MS product ideally perfect product ruined by vicous hardware manufacturers, software makers, hackers and dumb users. You will cry quickly on your Vistas full of holes and beg you beloved MS for help (which you won't get).
Keep your dreaming until painful wake up.


Go figure...
By DigitalFreak on 10/2/2006 2:59:46 PM , Rating: 3
Makers of the two shittiest (is that even a word?) anti-virus products on the market are whining again. People should do themselves a favor and switch to Trend Micro. By far the best non-free anti-virus product on the market.




RE: Go figure...
By Xavian on 10/2/2006 6:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
NOD32 is also good too. Low resource usage and picks up anything i throw at it.


RE: Go figure...
By Chillin1248 on 10/3/2006 4:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
I have personally used many AVS/Firewalls, mainly:

Zonealarm
Microsoft Firewall
Norton Firewall
Mcafee
(and several other exotic ones)
===
Mcafee
AVG
NOD32
Norton
(and several others I can't recall)

The best firewall was Zonealarm, however it was too good at its job and sometimes became a pain to use on my non-work machines, so for my home PCs I just use Microsoft which does the job well.

For Anti-Virus, the most secure seemed to be NOD32, but not by much over AVG which used around the same or less resources and was much less intrusive. Hence I stick to AVG now.

-------
Chillin


Consider the source...
By Bonrock on 10/2/2006 4:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I don't know which side is telling the truth here. In fact, I don't think any of us can tell at this point. But just consider the following:

-The antivirus products from McAfee and Symantec currently operate by patching the OS kernel. Disallowing kernel patching would force these companies to rewrite their antivirus software, which is probably a substantial cost they'd rather not undertake.

-The more secure Windows becomes, the less money McAfee and Symantec stand to make from selling security software.

-McAfee and Symantec are directly competing with Microsoft now that Microsoft makes antivirus and antispyware products. Microsoft's antivirus product will have to be rewritten just as its competitors will, but they're probably farther ahead of schedule since they got started on this right away instead of trying to persuade the Windows team not to prevent kernel patching.

When you consider those points, it's obvious that McAfee and Symantec have many possible motives for opposing Microsoft's decision to disallow kernel patching. As such, it's hard for me to take their words at face value, since they're clearly not just guardian angels looking out for the best interest of consumers (as they claim to be).

I'll take a wait-and-see approach before I decide who's right and who's wrong in this situation.




RE: Consider the source...
By Kougar on 10/2/2006 8:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have links to MS's anti-virus product? As far as I know they don't have a anti-virus utility. Windows Defender is only for anti-spyware, and Vista even prompts the user to install a 3rd party AV utility.


RE: Consider the source...
By Bonrock on 10/2/2006 10:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft's antivirus product is called Windows Live OneCare and the web site is:
http://www.windowsliveonecare.com/

Vista prompts you to install an antivirus utility because OneCare doesn't come with the OS; you have to buy it separately (probably due to antitrust concerns). There's a 90-day free trial on the web site and then it's $50/year for up to three computers. If you're considering buying it, I would recommend you check out Amazon instead of buying it directly, since Amazon sells one-year/three-computer subscriptions for just $20.

Oh, it also comes with an improved firewall, improved backup utility, and automatic hard disk defragger. It's actually a surprisingly good deal for what you get.


NOD32
By Vesuvius on 10/2/2006 3:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
NOD32 from ESET. Started using it 6 months ago, better than the rest by an easy mile.




RE: NOD32
By Xavian on 10/2/2006 6:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
agreed completely. Also good for its low resource usage.


RE: NOD32
By 0blivious on 10/3/2006 4:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly it's perfect.

I somehow missed your comment. There's something wrong with this comment system. It seems like it's reordering stuff.


They already have....
By crystal clear on 10/2/2006 4:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Microsoft is being completely unrealistic if, by locking security companies out of the kernel, it thinks hackers won't crack Vista's kernel. In fact, they already have."

Then let MS be concerned about this as its their responsibility not these anti virus companies.
Going public shows other motives ,other than the user.




RE: They already have....
By Clauzii on 10/2/2006 4:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
If it's already hacked, we are all doomed...


RE: They already have....
By dieArmys on 10/3/2006 7:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
Only those of you who use Windows...

;-)


Fiscal responsibility?
By FXi on 10/2/2006 7:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
So now that MS is taking on kernel protection all on its own, does that mean they'll take fiscal responsibility if it is cracked and harm comes?

This certainly makes legal ground for same. It's not open and shut, but it's a pretty bold move. In the past there have been so many possibly responsible companies that blame would have been impossible to assign. Now, if this protection fails, there is only a single company responsible for the failure. And if that failure costs money, you can expect that there will be parties with the legal muscle to expect to be compensated.

Good luck MS. You are definitely not the only corporation with a competent legal team...




RE: Fiscal responsibility?
By MrDiSante on 10/2/2006 7:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
No. It expressly states just in every single EULA that Microsoft does not provide any guarantees as to the functioning of the product and that any damage direct or otherwise that is caused by any flaws in the system are not their problem; they're yours. Furthermore if Microsoft or any other company got sued every time a piece of software got cracked and harm ensued (forgive the pun), we would have precious few pieces of software and even few companies.


RE: Fiscal responsibility?
By Strunf on 10/3/2006 7:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
"we would have precious few pieces of software and even few companies."
Not really, we would probably just as much... companies release bugged software cause there's no problem for them, many even take the final for a beta tester... also just look to all the other industries they are responsible for what their products do and have to pay for any malfunction, the software companies are just too lucky, they make a nice EULA taking any responsibility out of their shoulders and since all the software companies do the same we don’t really have a choice.


Survival
By FightingChance on 10/2/2006 2:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious to see if this is legitimate criticism or a frenzied grab for continued product life due to obsolescence.




RE: Survival
By exdeath on 10/2/2006 3:18:35 PM , Rating: 3
It's a 'we demand you leave holes in your software so we have a legitimate reason to exist' cry.


Norton sucks
By exdeath on 10/2/2006 3:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
Does anyone ever willingly use the Symantec/Norton crap? We get brand new Dell PCs here at the office and you can't do anything the first 10 minutes the machine boots because of all the Norton stuff popping up on the system tray.

Then when there is a network problem you can’t diagnose it because there are 20 Symantec services hooked into the network stack that you have to disable to remove them from the troubleshooting equation, and then disabling those leaves disconnected gaps in the stack so it doesn’t function like normal, only real option is to uninstall.

That shit is the first thing I uninstall when optimizing a new OEM machine





RE: Norton sucks
By Ard on 10/2/2006 10:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Can't say I agree. Now, I'm a home user, not a corporate one, but I've never had any issues with NIS 2006 (whether we're talking about resource use or system slowdown). I recently purchased NIS 2007 and I love it even more. It's incredibly streamlined and far less intrusive. So yes, there are those of use who use it by choice.


Wow, yet another reason not to buy vista!
By captchaos2 on 10/2/2006 10:25:05 PM , Rating: 1
I can see I will be keeping win XP pro for another few years at least!




By shamgar03 on 10/3/2006 9:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
You my friend, are an idiot. Do you actually use symantec's products? Or Mcafee's? Have you ever tried to uninstall those products. Last time I had anything more than their anti-virus I had to reformat my computer to get them off. Thats what I call a virus.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/3/2006 10:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
I hope that's sarcasm.


Soo....
By Chadder007 on 10/2/2006 3:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
So McAfee is mad that Microsoft made their OS more secure by locking down a lot of the Core??




RE: Soo....
By Griswold on 10/2/2006 3:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
Thats certainly the main motivation over there at McCrapee and YellowPlague.


kaspersky FTW
By solgae1784 on 10/2/2006 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
I would put Kaspersky as one of the best antivirus vendors. Mcafee and Norton lost my trust since their 2006 version.

But then, no antivirus/firewall can protect against user's studipity or lack of common sense.

I feel sorry for Microsoft taking all the merciless bashing here and there nowadays. Not that everything they are doing is commendable, but this is getting way out of hand.




RE: kaspersky FTW
By 0blivious on 10/3/2006 4:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
You should try NOD32. I've had kaspersky on my system. I mean you can't even compare those two, thats how good nod32 is.

I mean if you don't it's your loss, but be sure to check it, you won't regret it, you'll actually love it.

A fresh intall is recommended though.


Microsoft has suffered enough
By soydios on 10/2/2006 10:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think the Microsoft hating has gone far enough.
Let's compare Windows XP and Apple OSX 10.4:
- security: Mac OS is very secure because it locks almost everything out of the kernel (Microsoft is being blasted for this)
- disc features: Mac OS can play back DVDs and burn CDs/DVDs straight out of the box (Microsoft cannot do this, presumably because third-party software must be given a chance to compete, at the expense of Microsoft and the consumer)
- internet/media: Mac OS comes preloaded with iTunes and Safari (in Europe, Microsoft is being sued for preloading Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer)

I think Microsoft has gone a long way towards helping its competitors. Even with WindowsXP, it's absurdly easy to change program defaults.
Concerning Symantec and McAfee, Microsoft has made Vista's Security Management panel incredibly customizeable by third-party security software vendors, and they are STILL complaining about it!




RE: Microsoft has suffered enough
By Ard on 10/2/2006 10:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your post to some extent, I think the analogy to Apple is flawed simply because Apple isn't even close to MS' position. Apple can get away with locking others out of the kernel and bundling tons of software because they have a very small share of the market. Their business practices aren't going to affect other companies that want to interoperate with them. If MS does this, it naturally runs afoul of anti-trust laws because MS already damn near has a monopoly.

Bundling software and locking other companies out of the kernel only furthers that monopoly. After all, the majority of PC users aren't enthusiasts but average Joes and the Joes aren't going to look for other software (media players, AV software, firewall, browser, etc.) if it's all bundled with Windows from the get-go. That's part of McAfee/Symantec/EU's point.


Erm... ok.
By 0blivious on 10/3/2006 3:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Ok people i just want to mention 'Nod32'.

IMO the best AV one can buy. Hard to find, though they are getting more popular for some reason (hmm i wonder why, would it be because it's light, fast, updates like five times a day and just plain good and reliable). I have tried absolutetly every other anti virus out there (after a clean install of course, don't ever install an AV after removing another), and none will actually detect as accurately as NOD32 does.

ESET has got a winner on theire hands, i mean for years now.

So there is a reason why MS uses NOD32 in theire testlabs.

Ps sorry for my english.
Ps² I have absolutly no relations with ESET the company or the developpers themself, i just love NOD32 so much i want to share it with everyone.
Ps³ I am not biased in any way, like i sai i used every anti virus with the same thought in mind " this will be the one " until one actually was the one!. But ever since i discoverd NOD32 i stopped looking, how can something be better than this? It's like when i discoverd µTorrent, i mean how can you beat that, you just know it when it can't be better than it is.

Thx goodbye.




RE: Erm... ok.
By 0blivious on 10/3/2006 4:01:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes i was so caught in the antivirus talk that i forgot to say what i was about to say.

I have tried Vista RC1 but i'm not so really fond of it so to speak.

Partly because you have to search what you before knew exactly where to find.

There has to be an option where you can set vista in 'Expert' mode or something. Where before you had to click 2 times to get something, now you have to click 4 times. I don't see this as an improvement. Everything is grouped now.

It's like when you install a fresh copy of XP and you go to your control panel, everything is put into groups. The good thing was that you could switch to classic view.

Also, Switching from win95 to 98 to me to 2000 to xp, it's all about the same, you know where to find your stuff.

This time around it's like having your girlfriend cleaning your appartment, you know where to find that specific item but now you have to turn it all inside out to find it again.

On a positive note, Vista looks amazing, runs smooth on my 3000+ & 2GB & 7800gt. I haven't tried to play games yet cause i'm going to wait until it's out.


Mcafee and Symantec are the virus creators
By rokhound on 10/3/2006 9:00:14 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe this isn't a big relevation for some of you, but it sure makes sence to me why these companies want kernel access. They themselves develope the viri to keep themselves afloat. If the kernel turns out to be truly locked how are they going to release viri and then come up with the fix. You can bet that somewhere, somehow these companies finance the creation and proliferation of these viri in order to keep themselves in business. Microsoft is certainly throwing a wrench into their business plan.




By shamgar03 on 10/3/2006 9:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Not that anyone could ever prove it, but I am sure this crosses all of our minds every once in a while.


similar thoughts
By Insurgence on 10/2/2006 2:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately I do not believe virus scanners and other programs used to keep malware off of a system are going to become obsolete, I do have thoughts along the same lines. Way things are done are constantly changing, and it seems like McAffee and Symantec do not want to change with them.




Hmm...
By Omega215D on 10/2/2006 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that letting software having little to do with the kernal would make the system more stable. At least from what I read.




Preferential Treatment?? Huh?
By Kougar on 10/2/2006 4:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Mcafee themselves had beta anti-virus and anti-spyware for Windows Vista on their website for free download since spring of this year, if not earlier.




After-Marketers on their own!
By JMecc on 10/4/2006 3:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
McAfee & Symantec are providing after-market *parts* for a computer much like many companies do for cars (engine air-fuel tweakers, spoilers, stereos, LCDs...). Do car companies conform to what the after market companies want? Do they even give them a nice interface to work with? Why would they want to do that anyway - manufacturers make a product the way they want and anyone making a gizmo for this product must figure out a way to integrate it. For McAfee & Symantec this means making programs that work on top of Windows (like what ALL OTHER software companies do) or buy the API rights from MS (which MS has FULL RIGHTS not to sell)!




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki