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

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.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Related Articles













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