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 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.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki