The Netscaping of Symantec and McAfee 385
rs232 writes to mention a C|Net article about the uncertain future of the popular anti-virus software companies. "I mention Netscape because, if you believe Symantec and McAfee, a similar situation is about to unfold within the security industry. Microsoft, again recognizing late that it had failed to seize upon this thing called security, is now about to bundle its own security solutions within Windows Vista and further enforce new security policies that lock out some third-party security solutions altogether. Vendors Symantec and McAfee have looked into the future and realized that people may one day speak of them in the way that we now speak reverently of the early builds of Netscape."
This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Symantect and McCafe are only parasites, leeching from Microsoft's -mistakes-. It was unevitable that Microsoft would one day try to fix those mistakes, and unlike things like Office Suites, it is Microsoft's -responsability- to fix this mistake, and it is a feature that SHOULD be part of an operating system (aka: security, though Microsoft's implementation is debatable).
Not only that, but McCafe's and Symantec's products are viruses of their own, doing unthinkable things to the operating system and screwing over their users: They are malwares. I, for one, HOPE these 2 companies die soon, or find a new business model.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
As the head of a security company I used to work for used to say: "People would rather take an aspirin for their headache than avoid what gives them that headache in the first place"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if you'd said that signature based antivirus is going to need to change significantly, then I'd be agreeing with you.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, everyone... Let's put on our tin-foil hats now. Seriously, that's probably one of the silliest things I've heard (since listening to coast to coast AM w/Art bell).
Unethical things such as what you are describing are not common business practices, especially when you are talking about a multi-billion dollar software company. Perhaps you small start-up my do some stupid crap like that, but when you are talking about a corporation that employs tens of thousands of employees, it becomes more and more difficult to cover up garbage like you are describing. It would literally be the case of "Killing the goose that lays golden eggs" - for supper.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
My tinfoil hat might be a bit tight, but this does stink a bit. At the very least, what's going on is questionable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of like an Accounting Auditing firm that also sells consulting services to the same clients to reduce taxes or improve investments... while sending a different team of auditors
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it makes business sense for them to use AV as a long-term patch. It takes a lot of time and energy to keep AV signatures up-to-date, which means it costs money. If MS intends to give away or sell below cost its AV software - which it would almost have to do in order to drive McAfee et al. out of business - they could be losing a whole lot of money. And of course, if MS eventually slacks off (as they did with IE) or starts charging big bucks for new signatures, competition will spring back up. Symantec, for example, is a fairly diversified company: I don't see them going broke even if NAV never sells another copy. (They own Veritas now, remember.)
The best use of AV software for MS is as a short-term patch until they can release a real one. Say a zero-day exploit of Outlook is discovered. A new signature can be rolled out in a few days to their AV client, giving them a little breathing room to develop a patch for Outlook and test it to make sure it doesn't break anything else. This way, MS would only have to target the very latest or most serious malware. I expect that would make maintenance of an AV system much easier and cheaper.
Of course, it may not happen that way. This is MS we're talking about. They might be doing this just because it offends their sensibilities to see someone else making money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Combine that with patching the OS like you mentioned and it make them look like they are taking security seriously, while recieving yet more cash from customers... It's a great scheme for MS. The elimination (if you actually beleive it will 'eliminate' anyone) of Symantec and McAfee would be a nice side benefit. Of course the reality is neither copy should worry about replacing MS's built-in controls, since it will have next to zero impact... But they know perfectly well they can use this to hurt MS and make them look poor and defenseless compared to the jugernaught MS represents... So they'll wring this oppurtinty for everything it's worth...
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
How much have they spent propping up XBOX and MSN?
Microsoft isn't afraid to burn a few hundred million bucks if they want to keep a player in a given marketplace.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:4, Interesting)
The best use of an A/V patch would be not to need one in the first place. There is no need for such crap on Mac OSX. How many Mac owners run special anti-virus software? How about Linux users? Why can't MS make their OS at least as secure as OSX? Maybe they don't want to? Security should be built in, not added on by third party software. By reducing the number of services needed by most users and limiting their system access, Apple makes their OSX a much more difficult target in the first place.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The marketshare argument is bogus. Apache server has a a larger marketshare than MS Information server and has fewer security problems. Historically, the largest numbers of computers have been in the business world. MS basically rode in on the coattails of IBM and managed to stay there. Now, with the Internet, the number of computers owned by consumers is steadily increasing. Of that number, Apple is getting an increasing share. I have never seen any market breakdown on systems only sold to consumers by brand.
Neither Apple not MS had a multi-user system since the computers they were run on were PERSONAL computers, which by definition were and still are essentially single user machines. Apple abandoned their single user OS heritage and, as you wrote, bought a UNIX flavor system that was conceived from the ground up as a multiuser computer with a basic security foundation upon which to build. MS Windows is STILL a single user system at heart, with various attempts at security bolted on afterwards. VISTA is not going to change that, because if it did, EVERY single PC program in existence would no longer run under it. Unlike Apple, MS could not, has not and will not abandon essentially their entire application base, especially in the corporate market. Apple's emphasis on the consumer segment, as well as the fact that they build their own hardware gives them a much larger latitude to radically change their application compatibility structure. The processor switch to INTEL, for example, it means that not even ONE OS9 program or earlier will run on their current crop of machines. There are too many legacy programs in much of the enterprise establishment that are still in daily use. MS cannot afford to break them all overnight and therefore cannot ever provide the kind of security that Apple and Linux can bring to the table. In view of their difficulty, MS is doing remarkably well and will likely be the cornerstone of computing, at least in the enterprise, for a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
That is actually a good thing. Keep in mind that no general malware author targets anythign BUT windows due to the ease of doing so. If Windows ever becomes more secure than Linux/Mac/*nix/Mainframes/etc., then the malware will target everything BUT windows.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If a botnet creator could break in to Linux servers he most certainly would.
Millions of high powered servers with big fat net connections. The net would tremble in fear.
Instead they are forced to infect crappy home computers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a botnet creator could break in to Linux servers he most certainly would.
Millions of high powered servers with big fat net connections. The net would tremble in fear.
Most of which would be detected and repaired in a matter of hours (if not minutes).
"High powered servers with big fat net connections" are incredibly poor targets for people trying to create botnets, which is why they aren't targeted for them.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
If the virus spread itsself (which by definition it must) then it wouldnt matter at all if it was removed within hours. It only takes 30 seconds to wipe a website off the net for hours with that amount of cpu and bandwidth.
You're missing the point. A botnet that can't be relied on to be working for more than a day or two before falling apart is worthless. Thus, botnet farmers target home Windows machines, where problems are rarely noted *at all*, let alone promptly chased down and fixed.
Managed server machines are incredibly poor environments for the types of malicious code that typically infest desktop PCs. They (relatively) are too well configured and too closely watched.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: Since moving over to a Windows PC, I have only ever used Netscape, then Mozilla, then FF as my main browser. I have never and probably will never use IE.
That said, Netscape 3 was better than IE 3. Netscape 4 was better than IE 3. Netscape 4 was worse than IE4, and wasn't even in the same league as IE 5. NN4 was slow, bloated, and crashed at the drop of a hat. IE4 was faster and much more stable, and IE 5 was better again. There were browser torture tests released during Mozilla development that IE 5 had no trouble with that utterly choked Netscape. Hell, you couldn't even resize Netscape's window without it having to re-request the page from the server!
Don't get me wrong, I used NN4 right up until around about the time that Mozilla M8 or M9 was released, but to say that NN was superior to IE because of Composer is one hell of a stretch, given that Navigator was barely usable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McAfee's software crashed your XP install, and you had to buy a new HARD DRIVE?!
How does an OS install getting fucked up mean you need to buy new hardware? And how the HELL is the power supply failing the fault of SOFTWARE?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
And no, the fact that in this analogy the end-user is getting screwed either way is not lost on me.
Bemopolis
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This IS the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as antivirus software goes, Microsoft are charging for OneCare, just like Symantec and McAfee, whereas in the web browser market, IE and Netscape were given away for free. That is a significant difference. When people pay for something, they need to make a choice; just using the free web browser already installed on their computer isn't a choice, it's a default that people barely notice. Now, when people must make a conscious choice, it is harder to win them over. So, in this respect Symantec and McAfee seem safe. However, they will, at the minimum, need to share the market with Microsoft. And there is always the chance of Office repeating itself - a paying product in which Microsoft won a monopoly. Really, Wordperfect is the example we should have before our eyes, not Netscape, as far as antivirus software goes.
As for antispyware, Defender is given away for free. This is exactly like Netscape, and I expect the antispyware market to die out, except for antispyware that lives as part of a bundle with an antivirus, which is not free.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
But Microsoft gave away its browser for free - to steal market share. That stopped that market to developed and Netscape could no longer sell its browser and forced Netscape to give Navigator away for free.
So yes its basically the same thing with Microsoft killing another market by its dominating force.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Even under this situation, MS didn't start really gaining share until late IE4 Early IE5, and code quality was the reason Netscape started slipping market share. Not Win98 or Free browsers like Netscape would like you to believe. By that logic, Linux with Apache is just as guilty with doing Netscape in as Microsoft with IE, Since most of Netscape's money was made on Netscape's Web server software and not their browsers.
Navigator was absolute junk by the time Netscape was done with it. They kept claiming that MS was purposely denying access to windows so they couldn't code it better, well then explain why the Sun terminal I used to use at school had the same Netscape "crash after 1 hour use" bug that windows had, In fact, when they created mozilla.org and open sourced the thing, the first thing the Dev's for mozilla.org did was chuck the code and started from scratch.
Netscape could have saved their product, they could have diversified into other markets, they could have recoded it to work better, they could have did a ton of things, but in the end while Opera with their pay browser was still keeping their business going, Netscape decided that suing MS was the easier of all the other options. pure and simple.
Simply put, Microsoft did not Kill off Netscape. Netscape killed off Netscape.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Symantect [sic] and McCafe [sic] are only parasites, leeching from Microsoft's -mistakes-.
No matter what you think of them as companies, Symantec and McAfee were indeed fulfilling a need that Microsoft was ignoring.
It was unevitable [sic] that Microsoft would one day try to fix those mistakes, and unlike things like Office Suites, it is Microsoft's -responsability- [sic] to fix this mistake, and it is a feature that SHOULD be part o
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Informative)
No they'll always be virus scanners (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No they'll always be virus scanners (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I can do the rm -rf / on Linux, I just need to get the user to give it admin access. When dealing with a clueless user, this is easy. Most viruses get in via stealth or social engineering. They either infect another file you want, or they pretend to be something you want. So the user goes to install the infected software and the system asks for root. Well they give it root, since they want it to install and don't take the time to consider if it should really need it. Virus gets on as root and does as it pleases. Watch the average user use a computer, they just answer yes to everything. They just want the computer to shut up and give them what they want, they never consider that these security warnings mean something.
Also FYI Vista does just as you suggest. You run dopriviledged and have to escalate.
2) Data is WAAAAY more important than system and apps to just about everyone. Whenever I get called in to do data recovery at $100/hour do you know what it is that the client wants? It's not their OS or their apps, no it's their data. That's all that matters. They won't pay that kind of money to get their OS back, a system restore disk does that. It's the data that despite being so valuable was never backed up that they want. Deleting a user's data is in every way as bad as blasting their whole system to them.
I mean think about it. Your data is what's unique and it's what really takes time. Right now if you were to hose my OS install completely I could be back up and fully running, apps and all in 3-4 hours. Inconvenient, but no big deal. However if you were to blast the big project I'm working on and all its backup copies. Shit, I'd be out at least 200 hours of work so far. My concern isn't that a disk might drop and I'd lose my system. Big deal I'll fix that. My concern is that my data might get corrupted/lost.
The idea that a computer is more important than the data is only true in a limited capacity on multi-user systems or servers or the like. Yes, if I run a webserver with 50 users I'd much rather 1 user lose their data than the server get waxed. However on a home computer that's used by 1 person the data and the computer are essentially synonymous. The computer's reason to be is to hold that person's data and let them use it. If the data goes, the computer is damn near worthless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We're supposed to feel sorry for them? Urm... no. They will not be mi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And by definition, signature-based AV requires at least one customer organization getting infected before the signatures can be distributed to customers. How many customers will be dumped on before they wake up and realize that taking an in
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Speak reverently of Symantec? (Score:5, Funny)
Speak reverently of Symantec...... Bwahahahahaha
Re:Speak reverently of Symantec? (Score:4, Interesting)
Norton, maybe. Norton Commander and Norton Tools were excellent, but once Symantec absorbed Peter Norton & Co., it was a quick downhill ride from there.
Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By early, I'm assuming they meant before 4.x, where Netscape started sucking horribly.
We've been before.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Antivirus [wikipedia.org]
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So b/c MSFT is actually doing some stuff to try and protect themselves from outside code (in addition to outside vendors) we're supposed to feel sorry for these people? Either revamp your products and find different stuff to fix or move along.
That or stop whining about MSFT locking you out of the kernel and concentrate on them selling software that "fixes" problems in their own buggy OS.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at Creative. At one point the realized that the Sound Blaster brand was not going to get them very far once generic sound cards found their way into every PC that gets manufactured. What did they do? Well, they gave graphics cards a try. I remember back in the 90s when you could get a Voodoo2 chipset from them. Now? They were one of the first to enter the MP3 player markets and continue to have *some* success despite Apple dominating that arena.
Get a life McAffee and Symantec, your days of being a market bottom feeder are coming to an end.
Death of Symantec et al a Good Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft wants to see the number of exploits impacting its operating system disappear to zero. Only if they are successful will they kill the security vendors. And if not, the security vendors will prosper.
Netscape netscaped itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Netscape netscaped itself (Score:5, Informative)
what changed was not the salary status of the developers, but the managment style guiding the devolopment.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are already unusable monsters... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But they are already unusable monsters... (Score:5, Funny)
But that is security! Studies have shown that a system brought to a complete 100% standstill is impervious to malware and virus infection.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never encountered a virus as terrible as Norton Antivirus.
Sure, Microsoft might kill Symantec with shady monopolism, but I think we should me more angry with the free market, which has kept these leeches alive for this long.
What's truly maddening about this is... (Score:3, Funny)
People look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them their paid antivirus software is causing their computer to suck, and I need to replace it with free antivirus software. Their poor little heads just spin as they smile, nod, and slowly back towards the exit.
And the amazing thing (Score:5, Informative)
The threat to Symantec isn't MS making Windows unvirusable, that's not possible (barring trusted computing), the threat is that there are new AV companies that make good, fast, cheap products that beat the crap out of symantec's offerings. AVG and Kaspersky are two excellent choices. Also I hear lots of good things about Bitdefender though it leads to bluescreens on my (and other's) system.
Yes (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.bitdefender.com/site/view/Download-Fre
ClamAV is great for scanning email, but when scanning for system viruses it's really not that good. I've seen it miss dozens of viruses that BitDefender, AVG, and F-Prot picked up.
Haven't we seen this before... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see a problem with that since I don't use either product and wouldn't mind seeing these two outfits go into the software oblivion. Microsoft will get lazy about updating the features on its security software and open source will come to the rescue with something better. It'll be IE vs. Firefox all over again. Ultimately, the consumer will still win out.
Perhaps not in the EU though (Score:2)
In the meantime, and as I have posted before, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is going to verify that Microsoft's security solutions perform as expected? Would you, if you were a CIO, be happy believing that the same company that designed your deskt
This isn't really competition... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's use an analogy. Let's say I build an automobile and it's famous for having fuel injectors that clog up. People begin getting annoyed as the engine runs worse and worse until they get stuck on the side of the road. Along comes WidgetX. They invent a device that attaches to the engine end somehow "prevents" the problem. The downside is that the efficiency of the engine drops and you burn a LOT more gas, but your odds of getting stuck on the side of the road are greatly reduced. The next model year, the car company redesigns the engine so that the injectors no longer get clogged. WidgetX cries foul because now their product has become both unecessary and it has become obvious how wasteful of resources it was. So WidgetX demands the EU authorities to force the car company to go back to selling failure prone injectors instead of coming up with another innovation that actually helps consumers.
Call me crazy, but I don't see Microsoft as the "bad guy" here at all.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anot
No. No, we won't. (Score:5, Informative)
As for Symantec, , I had a computer at work with a copy of Symantec Corporate AV 10.1 (the latest version) still installed after we chose to migrate away from it due to ever rising costs and poor support. I tried to uninstall it. The uninstaller crashed. Then, every time I tried to right click, it tried to reinstall itself. Yes, you read that right - Symantec's antivirus installs a handler that traps every right click within Explorer that runs a check to see if files are missing. After two hours on the phone with a Symantec rep who didn't know what they were talking about, I finally had it cleaned off the system.
What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that the original Netscape, while not perfect software, had the right vision behind it. Symantec and McAffee don't. Both companies have gone downhill, and I'm absolutely sure it's for reasons completely unrelated to Vista's new kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all (Score:3)
Second, Symantec and others are doomed partially because of their products.
Finally, they are doomed anyway because it fulfills so many objectives at Microsoft. The potential for revenue is too great to turn away and the only path to desktop revenue growth for the OS is to tighten the DRM noose until it is the equivalent of your cable/satellite set top box. Any other path is too risky/difficult.
Re:First of all (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no consumer market for an OS distribution that doesn't support DRM'd media play out of the box.
Apple understands this. Microsoft understands this. Linspire -- which has a modest presence in big box retail -- understands this.
The only one with his head still stuck in the sand is the Geek.
Market forces will speak clearly (Score:5, Insightful)
The OS is changing, and the nature of threats are changing. These companies started by writing software to protect against disk-to-disk threats, then file infectors, then worms, and so on. Each has changed their business model as the needs of the market have changed, and I'd be hesitant to casually write them off just yet.
The market will decide things in the end. Either the companies change and continue to meet customer demand, or they won't, and they'll fade away. My money is on smart people staying fresh and changing based on their past history.
The alternative is to essentially say "Netcraft confirms that security software companies are dead!", with just as much legitamacy.
Microsoft shooting itself in the foot (Score:3, Insightful)
The one thing that has made Microsoft's products at least somewhat secure are the third party security products. If Microsoft shut out these security products, it is unlikely they could provide the same level of security that users expect from their O/S's. Take away McAfee, Norton, and the other security vendors and Microsoft's profit and revenues would be impressive until users became tired of the constant security breaches and holes.
If Microsoft moves forward with shutting out 3rd party security companies, Linux vendors and Apple will be the big winners, not Microsoft
What is Microsoft's alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't a Windows system with proper security be just as damaging to these anti-virus makers as Microsoft bundling anti-virus software? And isn't the OS maker the proper responsible party for system security?
I'd say a comparison with Netscape is a bit off.
The writing was on the wall... (Score:4, Interesting)
Next victim? Adobe: with its PDF and Flash.
Open sourcing these products, and creating decent interfaces for their PDF reader are the only feasible things [for Adobe] to do in my opinion. QT would be better than using GTK. You might wonder why: I cannot type or paste a link in the file selector dialogue of Adobe's PDF reader, in this day and age!! Think of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've done document generation for companies. PDF is extremely flexible, gives guaranteed layout and because it's open, you aren't using tools that have reverse engineered the format. You know the files are going to be readable. There are huge numbers of 3rd party tools for generating and processing PDFs.
The reason they don't want to open source is that Adobe Professional is how they make their money out of the open format. Give the format, encourage peopl
Cry more (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, Symantec and every other virus scanner makes use of non-approved APIs in win32. They were not documented, and not approved for the use that security companies gave them. Vista is finally removing deprecated APIs and replacing them with documented, hopefully bug-free versions. They have said numerous times in their blogs and elsewhere that they will help existing companies convert existing API calls into standard calls. Symantec et all are complaining because they make such liberal use of these APIs that they are facing a huge challenge to get their product on the market quickly, if at all.
Note that one-time file scanners will still work, e.g., what your e-mail client does with received messages. That can all run just fine in user space. The pervasiveness of anti virus clients, though, would require complete administrator access, something Microsoft has been trying to get rid of for every day use (as they should!). If you allow Anti virus software to run in administrator mode while in user mode, you also open the door to viruses easily being able to do the same.
And interesting enough (Score:5, Informative)
So it seems that whatever the problem that Symantec and Mcafee are having, it's not universal to virus scanners. Seems more like they are lazy and don't want to do any rewriting whereas their competitors are on the stick.
Re:And interesting enough (Score:4, Insightful)
McAfee and Symantec are whining about 64Bit Vista. Kaspersky & co are talking about the 32bit version, which has no PatchGuard.
Of course this is all mostly academic. PatchGuard will ensure that 64bit Vista will be marginalized. Numerous apps will fail because of it - you only need a thing like DaemonTools not working, and big portion of MS home target market will drop the 64 bit version like a rotten fruit.
Control freaks running corporate envinroments will use 64bit, as will users that specifically need more than 4 gigs of ram. Rest won't. Major system builders won't put 64bit Vista as preinstalled, as it would generate a big pile of extra support calls for no tangible benefit.
Symantec and McAfee are pissed if they have to release their security products with 'wont work on 64bit vista' stickers. Especially if at the same time OneCare will work fine. It will imply inferiority, even if in the real world there is no difference, because home users won't adopt the 64bit version, at least not until major home apps start asking for more than 4 gigs of ram (and we're still at least 4-5 years away from that)
Progress!? (Score:5, Interesting)
No danger in the near future (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Microsoft's marketing will change this perception in the next few years, so many computer users will still believe what the traditional security software vendors tell them.
Its so true (Score:2)
MS Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
good (Score:4, Insightful)
Both of these products, and Norton too, piss me off to no end when trying to debug problems on my friends' computers. I would never install them on my own computer, and haven't needed anything like it in ages on any other operating system. Since I end up having to reinstall Windows ANYWAYS, I always just tell people not to worry so much about viruses. I just tell them, don't click something stupid, don't use IE, you'll be fine. It's just one more "fear factor" that is so abundant in people's lives these days. Viruses are the last thing anyone should be afraid of.
Anti-virus software is nothing but leeches on CPU time, memory, and network speed.
News Flash! (Score:2, Funny)
I'm no fan of Windows, you'll never see me use an OS that requires fifteen free gigs just to install, but if they're finally getting their security right then I guess the security vendors are S.O.L.
Yes, well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Netscaping of Symantec and McAfee (Score:5, Insightful)
Symantec and McAfee will find new lines of business or fade away because they are selling products that shouldn't exist at all.
These products are based on identifying any of hundreds of thousands of programs and stopping them from executing—in an environment containing a few dozen programs the user actually wants to run. It's far easier to allow the few dozen and deny access to anything that isn't on this short list than to check everything against a very long and growing longer list of signatures and behaviours.
In the fullness of time, MS operating systems will fully implement Default Deny security, a path they have already started down; PatchGuard is part of it. When this is done, there will be nothing for anti-virus software to do.
I run my systems using just this part of F-Secure (Application Control enabled, everything else disabled) and the occasional scan. Same approach to browsers: all is forbidden unless expressly allowed. Scan results are always zero hits.
I look forward to the day when this is written into the OS code. Vista security is a good start.
That's gratitude for ya (Score:3, Informative)
Virii, worms, and malware all exist because MS makes famously insecure products. Symantec and McAfee exist because virii, worms, and malware exist.
Symantec and McAfee need to at least acknowledge that their business models are based on design flaws, poor implemetation, and bad coding practices within MS. They should thank Bill and crew for the ability to complain when a fraction of these inadequacies are fixed after many years.
I'm not defending MS and their monopolistic procatices, but this isn't simply another Netscape crushing. Netscape was a user space product. This is about fundamental flaws at the core of the Windows OS: about as faw away from user space as you can get. That these flaws permeate into the userspace is beside the fact.
Symantec and McAfee (and many others) have spent the past decade or more cleaning up after MS in terms of security. Now they want to bitch when their lazy benefactor decides to take some responsibility? But, the issue isn't the mere taking of the responsibility, it's more about the monopolizing of that responsibility. No one has any reason to believe that MS' anti-crapware will be more effective than any third party solution. MS allowed security to become a third party market, now they want to be that market.
MS is wrong for closing out vendors from providing a complete third party security solution. However, MS is more wrong for not writing secure products in the first place, and certainly for not understanding what comprises an operating system.
Windows security vendors only have something to worry about if MS actually produces a secure operating system. I don't believe they think this is possible, which is why they haven't broadened their product lines. Until hell freezes over, Symantec and McAfee should all but shut up and enjoy what MS has given them.
Everyone is forgetting something... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you think about it, this ITSELF introduces another vulnerability. Another point of failure. Why bother exploiting the OS, when you can use the nice convenient path provided to you by the AV software? Everyone seems to forget this.
Microsoft gets bashed for their 'insecurity' and the moment they try and IMPROVE that, they get flamed, and people cry foul and start throwing around such words as 'monopoly', 'abuse', 'lock-out', and the tin-foil hatters come out of the woodwork and start bashing MS security, while somehow totally missing the absurdity in what they're saying!
Other AV companies have managed to adapt to the kernel lockouts, why can't Symantec and McAfee do the same? Instead, they'd rather keep their grubby paws hooked into the OS as deep as they can be, so that they can effectively hose a user's installation, then charge them $80 for phone support to resolve the issue.
People can't have it both ways. You have to give credit where credit is due. Windows One Care is not installed by default, it's a FOR PAY product (which totally differentiates it from IE vs All) that you have to buy IN ADDITION to the OS. Windows Defender is free, and protects against spyware, and comes pre-installed. While I don't particularly like that, it doesn't really bother me either. People install Yahoo Messenger, and it wants to install a Toolbar with Yahoo Anti-Spy. The same goes for Google, AIM, MSN(yes I know that's redundant), and a plethora of other IM options, and even just generic toolbars. Most ISPs now days 'give' you AV/AS to use. So Windows Defender doesn't bother me, there's already another 50 billion people trying to give me spyware protection (none of which I use, the standard Windows Firewall is quite sufficient for me thank you), so why not MS too?
I had the opportunity to participate in the beta for OneCare (wasn't hard, they offered it free, and I liked that idea, since people were inevitably going to ask me about it). I found it to have a rather large footprint, and be fairly slow. Given it's competition in the form of Symantec NIS, and McAfee's Internet Security Suite, and Trend Micro's Internet Security Suite, it's performance was roughly average. It wasn't as fast as TM, but was quicker than NIS and MIS in most cases. What struck me was only TM had a better detection scheme, and even then it was marginal (though I know a single thing getting through can mean the difference between being completely hosed, and being OK, never knowing how close you came to Virtual Armaggedon). MS One Care did a MUCH better job of catching/stopping spyware then all of them (Windows Defender gets lumped into One Care installs generally).
Think of these things from the USER'S perspective. NOT from YOUR perspective. For people who are WAAAAY non-tech savvy, One Care offers a one-stop-shop for performance tuning (uncomplicated), AV, and AS and Firewall protection. It's easier to use than NIS, WAAAY easier than MIS, and TM rounds out the list of being the least user friendly. Bottom line is this is just one more cool way to bash Microsoft for trying to improve things. Do you think they're using kernel hacks for One Care? Probably not right now, as people would LOVE to find a way to exploit One Care to compromise a machine. Will it remain that way? Probably not, because I see things getting into the kernel eventually, and requiring that the kernel be accessible, at least to be scanned and locked so that it can be replaced. But still, NO AV/AS program should EVER be hacked into the kernel. Period.
It opens up the doors for too many things. OneCare also doesn't bombard the user with useless popups and notifications like the others often do, which aids in hosing the system as they USER tells it to do something bad.
One Care is a LEGITIMATE software release by Microsoft, and not at all a surprise. What is surprising to me, is that it took THIS long for it to resurface.
That is all. Please return to your normal dailty activity.
The _very_ early builds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because I was dual-booting Coherent unix the first half of the 90s, OS/2 the 2nd half of the '90s and linux now, I often feel like I'm the only person left in the world who can still feel a pure warm feeling for the 80s garage software that was the original McAffee.
Everybody else invariably seems to echo, "Die McAffee, Die! Die! Die!" Which I guess is OK with me since it's just been a corporate brand name for ages anyway.
Windows _____ - now with more security! (Score:3, Funny)
Windows 3.1 - no real security, but it's prettier than DOS!
Windows for Workgroups 3.1.1 - now with a login screen (but still no real security)!
Windows NT 3.51 - now with ACL's (and mostly not compatible with Win3.1 apps)!
Windows 95 - also has a login screen! no real security, but prettier than WfW!
Windows NT 4.0 - now with shared ACL's (domains) - the most secure Windows ever!
Windows 98 - Slightly less likely to crash than Win95! No NT security features!
Windows ME - Now with some system-software protection, but still no ACL's!
Windows 2000 - An improved interface and kernel! Active Directory 1.0! Now, the most secure Windows ever!
Windows XP - The successor to the Win2k and Win9x kernel products - super duper secure! Home users still run as the super-user, but it's less likely to crash! ACL's for Professional users and a very limited firewall make this, yes, the most secure Windows ever!
Windows 2003 (server) - The XP kernel in a server! Hardly anything runs by default! The Most Secure Windows Ever!
Windows Vista - Still with ACLs! New ways to limit access! Everyone's running as superuser, but with more warnings!
Windows Longhorn (server) - Not fully designed, but looks a little less secure than Win2003 - possibly *not* the most secure Windows ever!
Weird Business Model (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony here though is that the single software vendor is a monpolist. So, what do we do? Allow Microsoft to continue to produce broken, sloppy-designed software, and thereby prop up an oligopoly of anti-virus vendors, or let them "fix" their software by incorporating anti-virus measure that they should have had in there all along?
I sure as hell wouln't like to be the judge on this one!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Symantec got Netscaped a long time ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Symantec used to sell compilers, developer tools, and even some user applications like ThinkTank, an early outliner. Microsoft pushed them out of the tools field on Windows; Symantec had a more portable alternative to MFC, and Microsoft didn't like that. Outliners disappeared as a standalone product category; Word now does that. All that's left is the anti-virus business. Now that, too, looks like it's toast.
Actually, the OS vendor should be doing the security system. The primary function of an operating system is security and resource management; everything else could potentially be an application. Only because of Microsoft's appallingly bad security does the anti-virus industry even exist.
Re:symantec (Score:4, Insightful)
Any monopoly isn't "good enough" (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of alternative... (Score:3, Insightful)
Several years passed between when the Netscape browser became b0rked beyond usefullness, and before new partical opensource solutions started to rise from the ashes like FireFox/IceWeasel.
This gave plenty of time for the "bundled with and good enough" explorer to gain market share.
In the current situation not only are there already several player with enterprise-wide contracts with big corps, b
Re:symantec (Score:4, Informative)