Print 69 comment(s) - last by PitViper007.. on Oct 20 at 3:32 PM

The kernel fight continues with Windows Vista

We all thought that it was over with Microsoft's announcement that it would create specific APIs to allow security firms to access the kernel in the 64-bit version of Vista. It was thought that the concession made by Microsoft would be enough to quiet Symantec and McAfee who have been quite upset over Kernel PatchGuard. It appears that we've only just begun and Symantec is even more riled up by Microsoft's announcement.

Symantec claims that Microsoft's APIs are a "red herring" being used to fool the press and put them in a good light. The APIs for Vista 64-bit aren't enough for Symantec and McAfee and they want even further access. Symantec VP of Consumer Products and Solutions Rowan Trollope states that Microsoft isn't doing anyone any favors by providing APIs with secure access to the kernel.

The more general problem illustrated by the Tamper Protection example is as follows: Currently when a security company needs to provide security against a certain class of threat, we are able to do so even if Microsoft does not offer an API. With PatchGuard Microsoft is stepping in and changing the rules…We of course cannot pursue a path when Microsoft tells us that they will bluescreen our customers’ machines. Hackers on the other hand have no such issues. Once they workaround PatchGuard (which they already have), they don’t really care if the system becomes unstable or bluescreens or anything else. So in fact PatchGuard works in favor of hackers in this case.

Two smaller companies, Sophos and Kaspersky, are fine doing it Microsoft's way.  Sunbelt Software has joined in with Symantec and McAfee in disagreeing with Microsoft's security approach. Joe Wilcox, a senior analyst for JuperResearch, agrees with Symantec and the gang. "The situation is like this: Before, Microsoft security partners could take whatever path they wanted to climb the mountain and reach the summit. Now, they will have to use Microsoft security APIs, which create a path--and the only way they're allowed to go up the mountain. But Microsoft's APIan Way won't take them all the way to the summit. There is going to be a problem if the hackers can scale up to the summit by another route, while the security vendors are stuck below on the path."

Comments     Threshold

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

By Brainonska511 on 10/17/2006 6:26:25 PM , Rating: 1
Why do people keep talking about how Vista has already been hacked.

Does BETA mean anything to these people?

By Griswold on 10/17/2006 6:29:51 PM , Rating: 1
It's the yellow plague. What did you expect?

By michal1980 on 10/17/2006 6:32:55 PM , Rating: 3
wait, synamtec complaining about stability of windows?

have they ever installed their program suite too see what happens to windows?

unstability = symantec.

my money is on symantec knowing how to crack windows vista and then using the crack to black mail ms

By Griswold on 10/17/2006 6:37:59 PM , Rating: 4
Blackmail MS? If bad comes to worse, MS buys symantec and shuts them down for good - actually sounds like a good plan to me.

By Duwelon on 10/17/2006 6:57:43 PM , Rating: 4
Me too. For my money, Symantec is to Internet Security what AOL is to internet access.

I hope Microsoft says "Ok you don't want it? Then you won't get it."

By PitViper007 on 10/17/2006 7:52:10 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. In MHO MS should have never agreed to supplying the API's to Symantec et. al. From what I understand, not even OneCare is going to be able to access the kernel, so what's the beef? The fact that MS is finally trying to do what it needs to to secure it's new OS? Please. Of course Symantec and McAfee are upset. They've built their entire business model off of Microsoft's OS insecurities. I say to them....GET OVER IT!


By MrDiSante on 10/18/2006 5:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Microsoft should be like: "So, you don't want API calls to the kernel? Wonderful. No kernel patching and no APIs. Now rewrite your IS suite so it doesn't noticeably slow down a Conroe system."

By Etern205 on 10/17/2006 11:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
exceeellleentt! :P

By Christopher1 on 10/17/2006 9:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I have to disagree about the Symantec uninstallation stability thing. I have installed Symantec products before, and 9 times out of 10 unless the program was having a problem BEFORE the installation......... it uninstalled fine and I had no stability problems.

By mindless1 on 10/18/2006 2:03:01 AM , Rating: 3
Is 9 times out of 10 a consolation for the 10th person? The problem was apparently large enough there's been more than one uninstaller updated over time to handle the problems.

By nerdtalker on 10/17/2006 8:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
Since when do people actually understand anything?

If KAV can do it, Symantec certainly can. The big two AV companies are at it again...

By Heron Kusanagi on 10/18/2006 1:39:37 AM , Rating: 1
Why can't they all just...get along?

Besides, it's MS style to solve things after they get hacked. Let's see the AV companies laugh at that. For now, let MS do what they want.

I sure hope not many people will buy Vista at release though...

By blazeoptimus on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
By Laitainion on 10/18/2006 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 3
But none of the others are complaining, that should tell you something about the nature of Symantec's and Mcafee's complaints. Kaspersky iirc actually backed Microsoft up on this one (can't remember where I read it, so no link), and in addition, Microsofts' own AV solution will likely be in the same boat as everyone elses, since PatchGuard will prevent *any* alterations of the kernel at run time, that would also prevent One Care messing about.
It being a monopolistic move doesn't even make sense, have you *any* idea how much crap from the US and EU courts Microsoft would get if that were to ever happen?

By Russell on 10/18/2006 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it's a beta however since it's already past the RC2 stage, I seriously doubt MS will be doing much kernal redesign. If the kernal has already been hacked, then it quite likely will remain hackable via similar means in the final release.

Regardless though, Symantec and co can shove it. MS gave them access like they demanded. They should piss off if that's not good enough.

Stay Strong Vista!
By BillyBatson on 10/17/2006 6:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
Fight them all off.
I am glad these companies do not have access to the core of Vista. Why should they? They claim they won't be able to provide an adequate amount of security without it but wouldn't that also allow others to get into it? And even if not I for one do not want security software integrating into everything. I do not run an antivirus program and i never will!!!!!!!!! I remember YEARS ago when i actually purchased Norton. It was horrible, slowed everything down so much especially startup, and almost impossible to uninstall! Most of these programs are harder to get rid of than the software they are supposed to protect you from. SO which is the virus then!? No access, live with it.

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By Pirks on 10/17/2006 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, give 'em a fat finger Steve! shove it up the Symantec corporate bottom!

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By cnimativ on 10/17/06, Rating: -1
RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By Ringold on 10/17/2006 7:49:34 PM , Rating: 3
I think you've wound up at the wrong news site. sounds similar to Dailytech though, or at least they both start with a D, so I see where you could've got confused. :)

On my X2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz, I notice only a better UI. I haven't tried gaming yet, but since you must be refering to Linux, I'll do you the favor of not trying to compare that aspect. Now, if your Athlon XP 2000+ or Celeron 1.8ghz chugs at Vista, it's because it's not meant for you or that system. That too hard to get?

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By Pirks on 10/17/2006 8:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
it's not necessarily that this particular kind of moron uses Linux too much - as you pointed out he might just have too weak a system with Celeron or Pentium 3, something like that :)

I just recalled my recent wanderings around Russian DIY PC forums and especially their feedback on Vista - you can't think it up on what kind of machines these Russians try to install Vista - you just won't believe people would try THAT!!! trying to install it on some obscure 12 GB hard drive from 1998 is one of the mildest things going on there. I also love their.. uh.. impressions after trying to run Vista on GeForce MX 440 and even on GeForce 2 and Riva TNT cards - that's too hilariuos to read, I had to jump outta there or I'd be dead from too much laugh :)

still (still! would you believe that!) most people there LIKE Vista, most of the time - wow, I'm impressed :)) if MS can pull it off impressing people with Vista on Riva TNT I'd stop to be afraid of competition from OS X, at least for a little while :))

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By cnimativ on 10/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By shamgar03 on 10/18/2006 10:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing Vista brings to the table is its UI

Maybe you should RTFA because if thats all that was in vista then this (referring to the article which you didn't read) wouldn't be an issue. Vista is a COMPLETE re-write of the TCP/IP Stack. You may think its harder to use, but that has NOTHING to do with what the difference between XP and Vista are.
IE7 still crashs every once in a while on Vista RC2

This is your own fault for using IE7 in the first place....
I may not love windows, but I hate ignorance.

Finally don't knock on linux people, its moving and eventually it will become a big player. I honestly don't know how I ever lived without having workspaces that I could scoll through with the mouse wheel over the taskbar.

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By odiHnaD on 10/18/2006 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what world you're living in but my gaming experiences (going back to the vista beta2 release) has been higher frames and better performance in games (I was quite suprised myself)

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By PitViper007 on 10/17/2006 8:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
With your logic, Windows Vista will be the bigger virus because its impossible to install, slows everything down dramatically from XP, and integrated securities into everything.

And how do you figure that Vista is impossible to install? Have you even tried to install Vista? I found it quite simple...Somewhat time consuming, but easy to do. And as to being slow, admittedly, Beta 2 was a bit slow, and I think leaky in the memory department, but it's BETA. RC1 has fixed several of the problems that I saw with Beta 2. Just my 2¢, but Your comment is totally off base with my experience.


RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By hadifa on 10/17/2006 9:30:50 PM , Rating: 2

With your logic, Windows Vista will be the bigger virus because its impossible to install, slows everything down dramatically from XP, and integrated securities into everything.

And how do you figure that Vista is impossible to install? Have you even tried to install Vista? I found it quite simple...Somewhat time consuming, but easy to do. And as to being slow, admittedly, Beta 2 was a bit slow, and I think leaky in the memory department, but it's BETA. RC1 has fixed several of the problems that I saw with Beta 2. Just my 2¢, but Your comment is totally off base with my experience.

Since he was comparing it to viruses, I think he meant to say uninstall Windows.

If that is the case, then he should know that windows is very easy and fast to uninstall, just format.

Of course if he want to uninstall windows without removing any of the programs, then that would be a different story.

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By cnimativ on 10/18/2006 1:25:37 AM , Rating: 2
If that is the case, then he should know that windows is very easy and fast to uninstall, just format.

Except Vista's EULA will give you only one shot of reinstalling.

RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By cnimativ on 10/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: Stay Strong Vista!
By wrack on 10/17/2006 7:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
I recently ditched Norton after using it for 5 years. Screwed my machine one too many times so I am using BitDefender now. Way better than Norton.

By RandomFool on 10/17/2006 7:37:54 PM , Rating: 3
I don't understand why Symantec needs kernel access in the first place. Norton is a slow ugly piece of software. If Symantec can't figure out a way to protect windows with out kernel access then they shouldn't be in the security business. Their job is to make windows safer not demand windows be more insecure so they can save some time programming.

RE: Ugh.
By Dalceon on 10/17/2006 7:52:05 PM , Rating: 3
I worked in a retail store, and shutter every time a customer asked us to install Norton on a computer. Nothing like the customer buying a new machine and having to restore it before it left the store because norton hijacked everything thing on the system.

Norton also likes to tell you there's a virus on the machine, but for some odd reason can't delete the file, yet I can go manually delete it all day. Perhaps if they stopped worrying about the kernal, they could concentrate on making other aspects of the program better.

Mcafee installs easier, just doesn't detect anything.

just my 2.19 cents.

RE: Ugh.
By Christopher1 on 10/17/2006 9:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
When have you gotten that "I cannot delete this file" message from Norton. Usually, when it is giving you that message, it is because it has ALREADY been deleted by Norton's Antivirus software.

Or, it has embedded itself in Explorer or IExplore, which makes it almost IMPOSSIBLE to remove without help.

RE: Ugh.
By Helbore on 10/18/2006 1:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
I had that message LOADS of times when runnning Symantec Corporate on my company's network. Since we switched to Kaspersky I've not seen it since. Its amazing how Symantec could not remove all these things that Kaspersky did without a hitch.

RE: Ugh.
By Duwelon on 10/18/2006 7:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I worked for an IT company and we had two smaller clients who used Symantec Corporate AV 10. At one of the companies there was one computer that I ran norton on a few times. Through their DC they had the Symantec Control panel and I started the scan and came back later. The scan worked but it couldn't remove the infected files. I tried a scan again, this time going to the actual computer. Again, found the files, couldn't delete them. Then I ran Panda's online active scan and it was able to delete them. I don't like Panda's software, but their disinfecter is very good from my experience anyway.

At the other company, same thing. I had to clean up a computer with a bunch of virus files but it just couldn't manage to delete half of them. The scanner was also much slower than Panda's online one as well as Trend Micro's.

Symantec has gotten a big head over the years but their products are crap in my book.

By Ringold on 10/17/2006 7:54:05 PM , Rating: 3
Saw a poll recently and I know I'm not the only one using NOD32, so surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet.. but is ESET among those whining and complaining?

I hold them in high regard, so I'm hoping they're not stooping down to that level, but just curious. If they are complaining about PG, it could portend bad things for future versions if they dont know how to work without circumventing PG. But if they arent complaining, then smooth sailing. Possibly, anyway.

By probedb on 10/18/2006 5:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
I recently started using NOD32 as's excellent. A very small footprint on the system and according to lots of anti-virus testing it's usually in the top 3.

By Fozzik on 10/18/2006 8:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm also a NOD32 user (very happy with it), so I did a Google search to check out what ESET was doing with Vista.

Looks like they are planning to have a Vista version, and are finding ways to work around whatever Microsoft is doing differently. Check out the post by an ESET employee here -

By stash on 10/17/2006 6:41:21 PM , Rating: 1
I wish Symantec would staying saying people have already hacked PatchGuard because that is patently false.

Disabling UAC, logging in as a full admin and then making changes to the kernel is NOT hacking PG.

Nobody is saying it won't be hacked, but it hasn't happened yet, and if and when it does, Microsoft will issue an update.

RE: Falsehoods
By Jkm3141 on 10/17/2006 9:35:15 PM , Rating: 1
It hasnt happened yet because the product isn't out yet. Hard to hack a product that hasn't been out yet. The beta versions have been hacked but of course they are beta. Don't say Vista is secure because it hasnt been hacked when it isnt even on store shelfs yet.

RE: Falsehoods
By stash on 10/18/2006 11:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about Vista, I was talking about PatchGuard.

PatchGuard has been out for two years.

I'm not saying it won't be hacked, I'm saying it hasn't been hacked.

RE: Falsehoods
By Helbore on 10/18/2006 1:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
And, of course, that is the whole point of having a beta; so you can find the flaws and fix them. Microsoft don't release betas so we can all get to play with a half-built OS, but based on what some people say, you'd think it was!

Microsoft want beta testers to try and hack patchguard, so they can inform MS of how they did it and then MS can alter the code to protect against it.

I think the real issue resides in their code base,
By Nekrik on 10/17/2006 6:50:07 PM , Rating: 3
their poor design revolves around modules that require kernel level code and features that should rely purely on user level operations but don't.

By PitViper007 on 10/17/2006 8:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
And I would venture that's why Sophos and Kaspersky don't have a problem with Kernel PatchGuard. They actually have good coding behind their respective products.


get a clue
By cubby1223 on 10/17/2006 8:17:17 PM , Rating: 5
I know this post will get voted down, but I don't care.

People need to actually follow the links, and read what exactly Kaspersky was defending Microsoft of. May surprise a lot of people. And people need to stop assuming Microsoft's approach is perfect just because of a personal grudge against Norton Anti-Virus as a software. There is no logic behind that.

I don't pretend to know how to best secure an operating system, but I've sure been trained over the years never to put all my eggs in one basket. Maybe a little of what Microsoft says is good, maybe a little of what Symantec says is good. I don't know. But I'll never sit here and say "I think NAV is a bad piece of software, therefore I have no problems with MS blocking them out of the market."

RE: get a clue
By RedStar on 10/17/06, Rating: 0
Why arent symantec and Macafee...
By Pythias on 10/18/2006 2:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
suing apple? Surely a system that doesnt need anti-virus is cutting into their profits.

RE: Why arent symantec and Macafee...
By wrack on 10/18/2006 3:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
Very Simple
By othercents on 10/18/2006 10:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Symantec and Mcafee have not found ways to hack into the kernel. Because of this they are not able to make viruses for Vista. This means now they will have less viruses to combat since their own viruses won't be affective anymore. This basically will put them out of business since now instead of making viruses and anti virus software they will only be able to make the anti-virus software.


RE: Very Simple
By Makaveli on 10/18/2006 11:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, the guys they hired in the basement to write viruses are now stuck. Without kernel access to vista its making life difficult for them. There virus writing department has generated the most revenue in the last 10 years, so they are fighting this tooth and nail.

By Trisped on 10/18/2006 2:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
So, Symantec is still not happy. Well, on the positive side this will also open the OS up to legitimate providers of illegal content, as they will be able to alter the kernel and get around things like WHQL certification and HTCP. If all goes well we will be able to continue pirating software and media content for another 5 years! I am sure everyone here is as excited about that as the movie, music, TV, and game people are.

RE: Crying...
By INeedCache on 10/19/2006 1:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
Symantec won't be happy until every PC is running Norton. Oops, that's not quite right. PCs barely run when Norton is installed. They'll be happy when they've brought every PC to its knees.

kernel access for security
By Bytre on 10/18/2006 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
There's certainly a lot of strong opinions pro and con for microsoft, symantec, and mcafee. What there isn't a lot of is understanding of the evolution of threats in the modern world.

Threat scanning is not something that can be done solely in user mode and be 100% successful. Kernel rootkits can completely hide an infection from all user mode protection. Gromozon is one example of a threat which cannot be fully remediated in user mode, and 6 weeks ago was estimated to have infected a quarter of a million machines.

Very few AV vendors have a response to this, because their scanners are limited to user mode. Symantec is an exception, and can provide protection. PrevX has also published a removal tool.

I'm sure this'll be voted down by those who hate symantec and mcafee, love microsoft, or have a year old understanding of the threat landscape.

RE: kernel access for security
By Helbore on 10/19/2006 9:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
And this is exactly why access to the kernel should be restricted. If you can't change the kernel, then you can't rootkit a computer. Yet Symantec want open hooks into the kernel to do just that, making it a breeze for rootkits to be implemented.

this would also be the first time that Symantec had a higher hit rate than other vendors. As it usually stands, Symantec's detection rate is atrocious (but not as bad as McAfee's) I can't count the amount of times Symantec Corporate has glazed straight over blatent spyware and trojans on a computer. It was a real eye-opener, when I first moved to Kaspersky, to discover how much crap was on my computer that Symantec didn't even log the existence of.

By cscpianoman on 10/17/2006 9:13:54 PM , Rating: 3
Vista hurts Symantec's business model. End of story. Symantec sees the end of the company, or at least the end of the business model, unless they raise a ruckos about MS. I agree with another's sentiments that Symantec should not have put all their eggs in the preverbial microsoft basket. Now they realize they didn't plan as they should have. They assumed Windows would continue to have gaping holes. They assumed that their business strategy was sound. They assumed consumers would still go after their products despite the intense competition. How goes the old saying, "Take a long walk of a short cliff?"
However, having said that I don't think MS is out of hot water yet, either. I think they have a long, long battle to fight with companies, the courts and especially the EU.

hey symantec.......
By otispunkmeyer on 10/18/2006 4:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
and Mcaffee... if you guys actually made a product worth the weight of the box it comes in i would agree with your position

but you dont. i shouldnt have to pay for a secure OS anyway, it should come built in, which is what MS is doing and i applaud them for that.

hint: when some one makes something better than you... dont whinge. get your fecking pencils out and get to the drawing board and make something better.

kapersky dont have a problem, but it figures...theyre russian, they have the ingenuity and nouse to work around problems (kinda a definition of what engineers of any type do, work around problems)

mcaffee and symantec want an easy ride, so they can sit back and release more garbage

Goodwill gesture
By crystal clear on 10/18/2006 8:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Microsoft said on Tuesday it would allow anyone to use its specifications for "virtual" drives, which enable one computer to run several operating systems, with the promise never to sue for infringement of its legal rights.

The Microsoft virtualisation software has been available for more than two years, but as computers become more powerful the use of virtualisation is expected to mushroom, the company said at a news conference.

The software permits the easy use of several operating systems on one machine. So, for example, dangerous software could be installed on a virtual machine without affecting the host computer.

The company's specifications will be made available to anyone who wants to use them under an "Open Specification Promise", introduced last month.

The company said the license was "an irrevocable promise from Microsoft to every individual and organization in the world to make use of this patented technology for free, now and forever when implementing specified open standards".


MS really doesnt care what Symantec says ,they rather focus
on the EU,the major hurdle for MS.
The above software is a trade off or a goodwill gesture
to start a new chapter of good working relationships with the EU.


Releasing APIs
By archcommus on 10/18/2006 9:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
Is MS releasing these APIs actually going to make the OS less secure because they'll get into the hands of the wrong people? If so that's really ridiculous and makes me mad MS is even giving up what they are.

But, then again, they do NEED to sell in Europe, and so they MUST appease the ridiculous EU.

By hans007 on 10/18/2006 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
pretty funny i used to work under rowan.

honestly i'd never use a symantec product if they paid me. but yeah , this is ridiculous i think what microsoft is doing is perfectly fine. its one of the few things i actaully approve of in vista as a former security company employee.

symantec, mcafee, stop whining, you're business model just died. deal with it.

By cornfedone on 10/17/06, Rating: -1
By Etern205 on 10/17/2006 11:08:09 PM , Rating: 5
There are other antivirus products out there not just
Symantec and McAfee. According to Vista's antivirus site
the 3 following antivirus that works are CA, F-Secure,
and Trend Micro. Another one that works with Vista is AVG free, you hear that right the free edition. AVG free edition works great in Vista. And do all of them need to access the kernel just to write a proper antivirus program to work on Vista? No! The reason they can while Symantec and McAfee cannot is because Symantec and McAfee can't write for shit!

With that said, stop being a Symantec and McAfee fanboi and

By WxGuy192 on 10/18/2006 1:21:51 AM , Rating: 1
I still don't understand why Apple doesn't get sued for including software that Microsoft got sued for including. Microsoft packaging MediaPlayer? Illegal. An internet browser? Lawsuits all over the place. Yes, last I checked, Apple includes all sorts of software preloaded, including media players, browsers, iLife software, and so forth.

Back to the topic... This whole "you can't lock down the kernel" deal is incredible and ludicris. I agree with the consensus opinion on this board, and I hate the double standard that applies. Just because Microsoft is big does not make them inherently evil.

By WxGuy192 on 10/18/2006 1:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
Neglect my iLife comment. My point still holds -- there seems to be software included in OS X that would be illegal if Microsoft included it in Windows. Double standard garbage. It's easy to keep Apple more secure and stable if you limit the hardware that buy and use by using proprietary tech.

By dead1ne on 10/18/2006 3:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
The reason that Apple can include them is that Apple only has like 2% of the market and is not a monopoly where as Microsoft is. Personally I like the idea of locking all 3rd party software out of the kernel. I do however feel that there should be a way to disable/enable it in safe mode allowing for advanced users to turn it off if they see fit.

By mindless1 on 10/18/2006 2:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
We have yet to see how well these other alternatives protect though. That a product exists does not mean it does as well as it, or another alternative might.

I'm not implying McAfee or Symantec are the answer either, but it does seem reasonable that MS have a program where they can allow these companies the full access.

Historically, MS has not lived up to their ideal of security. Tightening the reins as they are may be a good step, but a little late and now it is only expected people will want more than MS' word that their systems are protected.

By pylonman on 10/18/2006 2:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
Running RC1 now and have not had any problems. In fact, I've been running 64-bit Windows since XP x64 build 1218 without stability issues(~2 years). The only POS here is cornfedone.

Symantec and McAfee are the ones stalling by waiting until Vista is practically RTM to start complaining. Meanwhile, I have functional anti-virus from Grisoft... one company, among a few others, whose software engineering department is more active than their legal department.

By Helbore on 10/18/2006 1:44:53 PM , Rating: 4
It amuses me no end when supposed techies come on here and say things like "naive, gullible, braindead sheep," when they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Its even worse when its all been explained by other posters in this very thread. But then some people are so swayed by the media that they don't bother to research anything themselves.

Let's make this abundently clear. OneCare DOES NOT use kernel hooks to run. Microsoft (yes, its spelt Microsoft, with only the first letter capitalised) are not locking other vendors out of something that they themselves are using in their security software. This is not an anti-trust violation because these companies do not need the level of access they are demanding. They will never file an anti-trust lawsuit because it would take Microsoft all of one OneCare programmer and one other 3rd party vendor (say, Kaspersky) to prove that this is all fud. And Symantec and McAfee know it.

Here's what this is REALLY all about. Symantec and McAfee have operated their products for years by exploiting undocumented operations in the kernel. This was a cheap and nasty way of monitoring operations in the system and they have continued to use variations of their original codebase for each successive generation. But now that the kernel access is being revoked, they will be forced to write an entirely new codebase for their products, meaning it will cut into their profit margins due to the increased time and effort that will be required.

Simply put, McAfee and Symantec wrote bad coe, taking advantage of a serious flaw in the design of Windows. The kernel should NEVER have been open to this kind of abuse. It is not in any other OS. Now that Microsoft are finally closing this hole, they are highlighting the poor programming work of Symantec and McAfee. Its akin to didgy builders putting up badly build houses. Then the government tighten up the building regulations to make construction safer and the dodgy builders are incensed because now they will have to spend more money to build a proper house. Well it serves them right for not doing a proper job in the first place. Other companies have done so and have not had a problem.

Microsoft are not the enemy here. They are trying to improve the security of their OS and Symantec and McAfee are trying their hardest to keep things easy and cheap for themselves. Like I said before, if they had done a good job coding their apps in the first place, they wouldn't be in this predicament now. Just like all those other AV vendors are not in this predicament.

By Nekrik on 10/18/2006 4:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
nice post :)

By PitViper007 on 10/20/2006 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. I couldn't have said it better myself....And I did make a poor attempt above!!


By odiHnaD on 10/18/2006 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's kinda funny how hard it is to take someone seriously who just keeps on repeating the word "MICROSUCKS" over and over again. Doesn't show a biased point of view or anything...

By Etern205 on 10/19/2006 9:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
lol, I actually find this on another site, which I believe it's written by him.

7. I got news for ya... EVERY version of any MICROSUCKS product is still Beta no matter how much hype they use to sell it to naive consumers.

No one with a clue would touch Vista as all online reviews confirm it is a POS.,

He has dubbed himself "badboy"

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

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