Security Companies Tussle With MS Security Center 225
hey0you0guy writes, "The large security firms such as Symantec and McAfee want Microsoft to allow them to replace Microsoft's Windows Security Center. Microsoft is refusing these requests. 'By imposing the Windows Security Center on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at security,' Bruce McCorkendale, a chief engineer at Symantec, said in an interview. 'How do we trust that Microsoft knows what all the important things about security are to warn users about?' Given Microsoft's past, with vast piles of security flaws and patches, they should at least cooperate with these companies. A dispute still exists over PatchGuard, a security feature that Microsoft says is designed to guard core parts of the 64-bit version of Vista, but which critics say locks out helpful software from security rivals."
Bad track records all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad track records all around (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they said that about other things too...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993 and was definately designed with security in mind. Windows NT(and its derivatives)'s security issues stem from misuse and implementation errors, not design flaws. Unfortunately, NT requires about 4x the memory of Win95, and didn't have as good compatibility with Win16 and DOS apps (due to strict memory protection), so wansn't marketed as a consumer OS un
Re: (Score:2)
I had an IBM laptop with Windows 2000, and I liked the OS quite a bit. I ran as a priveleged user or some such title, not administrator. Until... wireless ethernet came out. I would happily take my laptop down to the pub and try to plug in my PCMCIA 802.11b card. Which I couldn't install or use as a regular user, only as administator. EVERY TIME I wanted to use it, I had to be administrator.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the print spooler runs in the Spooler service hosted by the user-mode spoolsv.exe process. I agree that having printer drivers running in kernel mode is ugly, but only NT4 required such an arrangement. It was done because printers are just another type of display device that has to talk to GDI, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently, with several months remaining til the promised ship date, Microsoft have decided to 'reset' Vista, again.
Along with the 'reset', the product name has been tweaked to "Vista by MicroSoft", which by a startling, and some may say planned coincidence spells 'VMS', exactly one letter back from the previous versions' WNT.
Details about the new system are sketchy, but removal of several problematic features such as graphics support and UI are promised to lead to vastly improved st
Arrrrr! (Score:2)
What's the harm in running both at the same time? From a technical perspective, I don't see one. From a money-making stand-point, of course, I see one
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever run two anti-virus programs on a computer at the same time? More often than not your file system performance completely tanks because every time a file is accessed you have two programs trying to scan it and verify it's integrity. You will also frequently run into problems where one AV program will label the other AV program as a virus.
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:4, Funny)
That's not a bug, it's a feature. It's called 'competition'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of Darwin, without the reproduction part.
Re: (Score:2)
Dual dashboards (Score:2)
From a UI perspective, it's like the old joke about the man who buys a second clock and is never sure what time it is afterward. If they agree, the user gets the uncertainty of trying to figure out which one to use. When they disagree it will be worse.
It's Microsoft... (Score:2)
I think their strategy is "do what we want until we get told off." Even then they could just pay a hefty fine and it still wouldn't hurt them one bit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Symantec and Mcafee don't like it because they want their own branding there taking up taskbar real estate with their fancy shield icons that say "hey look we're protecting you! we're so nice!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways. If Microsoft makes their OS secure and bundles anti-virus/anti-spyware you may put companies that make their livings off of Windows insecure nature.
Wheee.
Dancing with the devil (Score:5, Insightful)
By imposing the Windows UI on all Windows users, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at UI.
By imposing the Win32 API on all Windows developers, Microsoft is defining a template through which everybody looks at development.
If you sell software to help manage Windows, Microsoft will define your business plan. Those are the consequences of dancing with the devil. Not that they should be happy with it, but you can't expect any less from Microsoft.
It's worse than that (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't trust either side in this argument -- Micrsoft has long proven itself incapable of understanding comptuer security (at least compared to any other OS competitors), and the anti-virus guys have a business model that relies on Fear of Viruses.
Neither is in a position to earn any trust from anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
> understanding comptuer security
That's funny. My understanding was that "Writing Secure Code" was among the best books of its kind. Are there better ones?
Re:It's worse than that (Score:4, Informative)
Also flight control systems and medical devices have to be RELIABLE.
Reliable != Secure.
They're different dimensions on a multi-dimension graph of software qualities.
Some of the dimensions on the graph:
Security (the ability of a system to prevent a hostile attacker from compromising the system)
Reliability (the ability of a system to ensure continued functioning, regardless of operating conditions)
Robustness (this one's interesting, because the word "robustness" has situational meaning)
Flexibility (the ability of a system to adopt to new environments).
There are tons of other dimensions.
Software can be evaluated against all of these criteria, depending on the needs of your organization.
One other thing: it's IMPOSSIBLE to have perfect security (well, you might get pretty good security on a black box that accepts no inputs and produces no outputs - a computer that's not powered and has no permanent storage is also moderately secure). Security is about risk analysis and mitigation.
You need to decide what level of risk is appropriate for your data and ensure that you have mitigations in place appropriate for that level of risk. For instance, if the bad guy has physical access to your computer, they own your computer. So if you have critical data on a computer, you need to make sure that the bad guy can't get access to the computer (lock it up in a machine room). The 10 immutable laws of security [microsoft.com] is worth reading.
Microsoft is actually one of the few companies out there that really DOES get security (yeah, you can laugh, but they really do). But it takes a LONG time to turn a ship around, and it's really hard to mitigate the mistakes ofthe past (every user running as an admin is one of those big ones).
Microsoft has adopted a process they call the Security Development Lifecycle [microsoft.com]. The SDL involves a bunch of different processes that ensure that over time security defects in the system are reduced. Other organizations (Oracle and Mozilla, for example) are also adopting similar methodologies. Microsoft did this because they recognised that Windows was a train wreck in progress and that if they didn't do SOMETHING they'd be in even worse trouble than they are today.
So far, SDL has paid off. Every release of Windows since 2002 has been progressively more secure than the last, as have each subsequent release of other Microsoft products.For instance, when was the last time you've heard of a new SQL server vulnerability?
It's not saying that Microsoft is perfect. It's not. But it's progressively getting harder and harder for the bad guys to attack Windows - that's why they're going after other easier pieces of the ecosystem. Vista will raise the bar several orders of magnitude higher.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure that, given the design of Windows - from a security perspective - is *at least* as good as its contemporaries ?
It's how it goes with any full featured OS (Score:2)
Ultimately it kinda has to go that way because that's what users want. They don't want every single thing about their computer experience to be totally different. They want consistency and that's why vendors like MS and Apple offer it. Even some Linux vendors do the same thing, and some apps demand it. Oracle doesn't like ju
Re: (Score:2)
That goes for some distributions, but hardly for all. Even on the distributions that install the distributors choice of desktop environment, office suite, web browser, mail client, theme, yada yada, you can often simply delete the corresponding packages and install others, getting a wholly different computing experience,
Security Centre (Score:2)
I tried disabling the Security Centre in Vista Beta 2; it kept popping up messages in the system tray warning me that I'd disabled the security centre and should re-enable it immediately. Try as I might I couldn't find a way to turn that off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Security Center" is doublespeak (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's why MS will never allow other companies to replace it. It seems to say "this makes the user more secure" but it actually says "this makes US more secure". Notice how that is the vector that allowed Microsoft Genuine Advantage onto all the XP machines. Which is also doublespeak [wikipedia.org] - there is no advantage to the user, only to MS.
If these guys think MS will simply hand over the keys to that much control, they're nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can rail on Windows Genuine Advantage all you want, but if the Security Center has nagged even a dozen people into keep their antivirus up to date or their Windows updates enabled, then it's done it's job.
True. But it's the other things that Security Center does that is the problem. For example, WGA. Exactly which of those functions you listed does WGA fall under? Certainly not 'Automatic Updates'. It stops some machines from getting those updates, making them far more likely to actually become
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting a little tired of hearing this FUD everytime a discussion of WGA pops up. WGA does *NOT* prevent a user from updating Windows.
Well, I wouldn't really call it FUD. From the page itself: [microsoft.com]
Benefits of Genuine Windows: ...
Ongoing Improvements ...
You will get access to updates, enhancements, and innovations that help you protect and do more with your PC.
So...with WGA you get access to Ongoing Improvements, which means access to updates. If the situation is different, then MS
Helpful Software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why you shouldn't give a shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
They think they can add security on, like a product. You can't. You have to design it in. If you had a building with no locks on the doors you wouldn't keep casual visitors out by adding guards before you'd even tried adding locks, even if carrying cards or keys was "inconvenient". So why does Microsoft think they can add security to Internet Explorer that way?
The whole basis of Microsoft's approach to the Internet is fundamentally wrong. They can't fix it by adding products. They can only fix it by ripping out most of the desktop-browser integration they fought the DoJ to a standstill over in the Clinton and first Bush administrations, and making the browser responsible for never allowing an untrusted object out of the sandbox, no matter what. Even if sandboxes are "slow" and installing plugins are "inconvenient".
Same with Windows networking, CIFS, CIFS-authentication for HTTP, and everything else they've done to lower the barriers between local and remote resources. Those barriers, those locked doors, are there for a reason.
Re:Why you shouldn't give a shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a novel idea. Microsoft should implement this!
Oh, wait...
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/msit
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, expect Vista's virginal network stack and 1.0 APIs to get run through the ringer by hackers looking for exploits. I actually fear for Vista users next year.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/securifythis/soa/Why _popular [zdnet.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
It would make far more sense to have tight controls on who is allowed IN.
We all know (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is insecure for good marketing reasons. If your machine slows down with all that malware, you'll be tempted to upgrade to a new computer with a fresh install of Vista. It's an unspoken pact between Microsoft and Intel.
Anti-trust? For real? (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, why don't these 'secu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure that, if Vista is released as Microsoft wishes it to be released, the need for 3rd
Two Problems (Score:4, Insightful)
The second issue, and the bigger issue is that Microsoft seems be denying companies access to the low level hooks that they need to properly integrate their applications with the operating system. I kind of understand where MS is coming from. After all if they allow Symantec access to the system call table and the various other, kernel level hooks, then they might as well allow everyone access. On the other hand, those who want access to the lower level functions of the OS are going to hack them anyway. It's a Catch-22. Personally, I'd rather that EVERYONE have access to the low level functions. That way the market can sort out who will do the best job of securing it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That does seem to be inline with the way Microsoft has developed their other products, most specifically Exchange. There are numerous hooks in Exchange that allow third party developers access to the system. There is the VAPI for anti-virus scanning of messages passing through the MTA and a similar interface that allows anti-spam software to filter incoming messages. Ther
I cry not for McAffee and Symantec. (Score:5, Funny)
Has actual PC security actually interested you in the past, say, decade? I was of the impression that you just paid some second rate programmer in bangalore a load of bananas to churn out any old crap that had the following requirements:
1. we must be able to sell it in regular, deluxe, gold, platinum, internet, special edition, international, lite, and fat free versions. after all, this allows the user to pay for the exact level of security they need. consumer choice, right! some people only want to pay a little and thus be protected only against some vague subset of last year's threats, while others want to pay more and thus be protected a bit more against some vague subset of last year's threats.
2. as in #1, the software must be sold in yearly versions. this allows users to respond to the cutting edge threats of 2003 by buying the 2005 version, still on sale in CompUSA (probably).
3. we must really focus our efforts on getting this shiat pre-loaded on as many chain store PCs as posslbe. WARNING YOUR COMPUTER IS AT RISK! DO YOU WANT TO PAY $99.99 PER YEAR NOW TO UPGRADE? Your choices are [ Yes ] and [ Ask me again in 5 minutes with a big ass system modal dialog box ]
4. The software must be impossible to uninstall, for Sound Business Reasons (tm). Well, we should include an uninstall routine, but ensure that it does not work if the software is modified in any way.
Let's not forget... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Microsoft point of view: (Score:2)
I suggest a compromise: create a method of adding widget-like components to WSC, so that Symantec and others can interface with it seamlessly and add information without Microsof
Silly question (Score:5, Insightful)
From a busines perspective, this may be the same as bundling IE, but from a security perspective this is the exact opposite: removing security holes rather than adding them (in the name of "functionality").
Yes, Microsoft is likely being monopolistic, but I think I'd rather worry about all the Windows zombies populating the web rather than the profit margin of particular security software companies, especially when said companies rely on the inherent insecurity of Windows installations for their income.
Re:Silly question (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if they only give the method to approved companies... What's to stop some nut job programmer for Mcafee or Symantec creating a piece fo code that only disables WSC and letting/allowing/or causing writers of malicous code that same ability... I doubt theyed be able to track such a thing back to a single programmer working for either company and I can imagine some large slices of change from places that want to write malicous code for such an ability...
Also wants there is a way to turn it off (without user intervention), then what stops someone from accidentally stumbling across it?
But they really aren't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the first two, I would hope third-party consoles would say something about that, unless they don't like people seeing just how long after startup it takes for their protection to kick in. As for
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it isn't really that either, because Vista doesn't bundle an antivirus tool, which is the flagship product of these companies. They do seem to include a simple antimalware thing though, but I fail to see the big deal about that, especially when it's about helping to protect clueless users installing random "funny applications" from the web. So I don't really see what the big deal is. Microsoft isn't bundling an antivirus tool. They do
i dont see the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
ultimately its windows' product, their space, and it is not their fault another company has based their en
Some things only the OS should access (Score:4, Insightful)
Spin... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. If the user wants to modify those files (eg. to install a third-party firewall because the build-in Windows firewall lacks functionality they need, or to install a custom boot screen because I hate watching the Windows XP logo), then preventing that modification is not a good thing. I'd note that Microsoft's chosen path is typical of them: given several ways to achieve a result, they will inevitably choose the one that gives them the most control over the user's system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as I noted, it's completely ignoring the user and what he wants. If I want to completely remove those features, I should be able to. And no malware should be able to. It's not that hard: any program wishing to do that needs a password entered to do this. That's how my Linux box works: if I fire up the program to install new software or the one to modify start-up services, the first thing I get is a dialog "This program requires root privileges. Please enter the root password." and if I don't enter the r
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so how do you determine whether what the user "wants" to install is malware? This is a non-easy question. (In fact, impossible generally.) Because we all know that the average user pays a lot of attention to the dialog boxes that opo up and would discriminate appropriately, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say, if the user wants to install it and knows they're installing it, it doesn't matter whether it's malware or not. If I want to install software that'll route my Web browser through an advertising server, I should be able to do that. If I want to install spamming software, I should be able to do that. The system should be protecting me against unwittingly installing stuff. And if I have to enter an administrative password to install something, that should be proof enough. Users may have to learn that
First they came. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they came for the internet browsing companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't an internet browsing company.
Then they came for the media playing companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't a media playing company.
Then they came for the security software companies. But I said nothing because I wasn't a security software company.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I suppose some day the sofware companies that do bussiness with Microsoft and so help it consolidate its grip on the desktops of this world will take note and start thinking about alternative platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. They're betting that Microsoft is the best bet and they're going to stick with it. As much as everyone lambasts Microsoft, their software does get the job done for a large segment of the computer using world. I don't think that you're going to see anyone jumping ship until Microsoft makes a
Re: (Score:2)
Rather Microsoft than McAfee... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former McAfee home user, I was rather surprised to see MS' "security center" replaced with McAfee's when I made the mistake of updating their AV software just over a year ago. What McAfee put in place instead was little more than an annoying attempt to sell me McAfee products that I didn't need (such as a software firewall; in addition to a hardware router controlling access in I also had a software firewall from another vendor in place to stop unwanted access out).
I rejected McAfee for home use because of this, and tried to make it is clear as I could to the company why (although I doubt that that got past the poor bloody infantry on the helpdesk). Like many people here I'm sure, I get landed with fixing people's Windows PCs. Recommendations count, and McAfee's home software certainly haven't had any from me over the last year.
Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
What Do These Companies Expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I know Microsoft has a monopoly through Windows, but do these companies really not expect Microsoft to use that against them? These software vendors, between them, do have the power to move people away from Windows and on to a system where they all have a much more level playing field.
Errrrr. I have news for you Mr. Chief Engineer *snigger*. Windows is a closed source operating system designed to make money for Microsoft. They control the software you run your software on, so they have the high ground. Be grateful that you have had a company and a nice salary off the back of that for all these years. Windows is not designed to keep you in business.
Errrr. I have news for you imbeciles. Wait until that is protected by a Trusted Computing system in the hardware and it is difficult, bordering on impossible, to bypass and you are legally [wikipedia.org] prevented from doing so even if you could. See. The whole Trusted Computing thing is most certainly not just about DRM in films and music, and it looks like a fairly big deal for Microsoft.
I mean, I think Windows is a monopoly and Microsoft should be subject to restrictions like all monopolies have been. However, there's a part of me that is glad that idiotic companies like Symantec, other security companies and companies like Adobe will probably go out of business. Many of them go into denial and like to pretend that they don't compete with Microsoft in order to support only Windows (making more money for Microsoft), but it is obvious that they do. When the brown stuff hits the fan they then whinge about it, rather than having put some thought and effort into ensuring their own survival. Digging your own grave must be a fun business endeavour.
You know, Microsoft will argue that all these companies had it within their power, collectively, to go off and bolster the popularity of the Mac, or make Linux a first-rate desktop OS that they could sell their wares on if they weren't happy. And you know what, however much I don't want to really say it? They'll be right.
Whereas symantec only care about my wellbeing (Score:2)
I still remember that their virus scanner used to catch back orifice as a trojan but completely ignore PC anywhere. Both products did pretty much the same thing except one was more extensible than the other. And one was written by the same people as the Virus scanner.
These companies are just whining because Microsoft is now doing to them what it has to Ne
More FUD From Scared Companies (Score:2)
McAfee and Symantec are very scared about this. They know that the mo
MS cannot implement security (Score:4, Insightful)
Fighting security software costs resources. So you only do it if you have to. Many trojans today defend against the most predominant AV software, like the forementioned. Simply because they are widespread and thus do present a threat to the ability of a given malware to spread. How much more effort will be put into defeating a security suit that is invariably on ALL computers you plan to infect?
For reference, take a look at the MS "firewall". Granted, the implementation is shoddy as can be, so defeating it is by no means any kind of feat, but still it HAS to be done. It is on every computer out there, on those computers suffering from clueless owners (i.e. your primary target as a malware writer) it is most likely the only kind of intrusion detection software. Defeating it is the golden key to the computer.
It will be the same for MS AV. So there is NO security to be expected from an MS AV suite. Not because MS cannot do it. Because malware writers will put any effort necessary behind defeating it. Because it has to be done to infect a computer.
Obvious decision by Microsoft (Score:2)
If MS would allow this, you can just as well do a replace of "Symantec and McAffee" with "malware developers" to see the problem.
Future Headlines: (Score:2)
I think given the possibilities I have to side with MS on this one.
"Microsoft Caves In; Allows Third Party Security Centers"
A month later: "Hackers spoof fake Security Center tricking millions of users"
Report (Score:3, Insightful)
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-
Terrorism
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-
*Threat:
The security measures are widely announced and campaigned, terrorists educate themselves and go around the new measures.
*Collateral:
People being frisked, called on "random checks", arrests, disruption of business, spread of fear, rapid increase in intolerance towards muslim religion, rapid increase in muslim radicalists towards western cultures.
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-
Child Porn
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-
*Threat:
Child porn sharers have long since moved to encrypted channels, they are nowhere to be found on public internet.
Data retention can't decrypt strongly encrypted information and can't differentiate which encrypted data contains child porn or just bank data or whatever.
*Collateral:
All those people who think they're safe since they did nothing have their data in the government. Corrupt people in appropriate position accessing private information and issuing arrests based on indirect evidence.
Re:They'll be forced to play due to antitrust laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They'll be forced to play due to antitrust laws (Score:4, Insightful)
And they're bundling security products with their OS. They're not providing a secure OS. There's a major difference between the two. The first is illegal when you're a defacto monopoly. The second would be welcomed by everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
So bundling a firewall (which I might add pretty much every other OS does) falls into which category? It's a bundled application, but it helps make the OS more secure.
I for one would prefer that Windows at least have basic firewall functionality built in for users that don't underst
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vista is Dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell this to everyone who will buy a new PC as their old one becomes so infested with malware that it slows to a crawl. I bet MS will make sure any new computer will come with Vista once (maybe never, I hope) it comes out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vista is Dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right. Microsoft hates competition. Theirs will be the only malware slowing down those new computers. :-)
Re:Vista is Dead (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Vista is DeadDead (Score:4, Informative)
Lesson One.
Vista will be defined by what it offers users in business. Vista will be defined by what it offers users in the home.
The Geek gets the crumbs that fall off the table.
Lesson Two.
The OEM system install is the gold standard in many markets where Microsoft is dominant. The home user doesn't simply buy into the new OS. He buys into the next generation of consumer grade hardware at OEM prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Niche users don't matter wrt new Windows versions (Score:2)
"Many" is a bit of an overstatement. You are describing niche users. These niches existed during previous
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vista is Dead (Score:4, Insightful)
If buying a new PC, you'd want to get Vista. But if you run an existing PC with XP in a non-admin account, fully patched and firewalled, you're not missing much. The initial novelty of Vista wears off once you realize how complicated and inconsistent the interface has become. Some dialogs are in a new Vista style, but then you'll come across old dialogs ripped straight out of XP, such as Display Properties. The Network dialog actually has two Properties buttons on it, each leading to a different dialog. It's something of a mess. I also do not enjoy the new Start menu at all, which is more difficult to navigate. Aero Glass gets tiresome after an hour, and you end up turning off the translucency because it tends to create ugly, blurry window borders that become distracting.
The system-wide search is nice, but it's a little slower than OS X Tiger's, and it's far slower than Leopard's. Anyone using the Leopard WWDC preview has seen how fast Spotlight is. Apparently, the index is now pre-cached in some way, as results now appear instantly as you type in real-time just like iTunes, and there is no longer any hard drive grinding. Leopard's Spotlight will make Vista's search seem poorer in comparison.
I was playing with Cocoa today and rotated a text view by 15 degrees. The text system continues working correctly, including mouse selections, but all slightly rotated, which was hilarious. But it just reminded me that OS X has had a vector-based system going back to 2000, and Microsoft is just now getting around to it.
It's sad that they ended up being three years late with this stuff. That's the perfect way to describe Vista; it feels like it should have been out since 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would usually take this opportunity to call you some well deserved name, but I sincerely believe that you
can figure out what I am thinking of.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft should not add security services to it's operating system because this is anti-trust against companies that make their livings selling security software for the inherently insecure Windows OS.
Yet, Microsoft gets blamed for having an insecure OS. The fact that the OS is insecure causes problems for non-Windows users through the wonders of such things as botnets.
No one can force a user to purchase and install 3rd party software to secure Windows. Most Windows users don't understand that th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
probably argumentum ad ignorantiam (Score:2)
Knowing them kind of gives you an edge.
Re: (Score:2)
YES ! Think of the spyware developers and botnet administrators !