What is Digg?53 Comments
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+63Okay, i'm going to be rediculous, but i really am seeing this all as a huge way of getting a little bit of pity money out of Goliath.
Look folks, Symantec pitches a bitch because microsoft rewrites the security of the kernel internals and now all of Symantec's products are non-functional. BOO-HOO!!!!
Microsoft has finally addressed the flaws in it's own code for ages, and now the market selling point of Symantec has dried up because they no longer have a kernel to secure.
I'm going to ask the general question, how does our computer security increase by allowing programs into critical kernel spaces?
Well, microsoft doesn't supply a massive API to program for the windows environment for no reason, if that means Symantec has to spend a few million dollars to rewrite it's program for a new OS, that's the cost of doing business. Companies rewrite their code all the time, Symantec in fact dumped 98 and earlier on it's 06+ products, they just stopped supporting the older OS. The street goes both ways to the customer. And if the usefulness of their product goes down, it's merely the consiquence of having less to secure.
I think anti-trust against microsoft "in general" is crap. We don't see anti-trust against Apple's iLife suite, or anti-trust on the diagnostic tools that Dell and HP package. In fact, most HP products come with Norton Internet Security packaged with them. I mean give me a break folks. The concept is quite simple.
It's done for convience, if i don't want to use windows media player, i won't, nothing stops me from buying downloading or writing my own media player.
David needs to quit crying and suck it up and make their product the best it can be. - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Ugh... coming from someone who just discovered some remnants of McAfee garbage STILL on my Dell Laptop, I was all too happy to see these people shut out. :/
- beni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21The guy's username is Celeron. Don't blame him if he's a little slow...
- guttertrash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20couldnt agree more. microsoft should make their kernel locked down tighter than a nuns **** and take the source code and burn it. if they can make a secure kernel they should. and so what if antivirus apps cant run in kernel space, at least nothing else can either.
its not like we need to worry about microsoft not being open source or anything, so the dispute really is just antivirus companys trying to push their *****.symantec makes and sells antivirus products for osx, even tho they admit that there are no osx viruses. crazy. - kalidav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Article should be retitled - "Symantec/EU succeed in making Vista insecure"
----
They should add an option to disable that API if anyone from microsoft is reading this.
My understand is that only Symantec and Mcaffee are using this API, and that others companies aren't have any trouble. Mabye it should only be in the "N" (lol) version. - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@gravis86
It wasn't a matter of allowing anti-virus vendors kernel-level access. They wrote APIs for them to adjust their software accordingly, which a few anti-virus vendors took advantage of. Symantec and McAfee want complete access, though. It's all or nothing as far as they're concerned. - CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Any statistics or is that talking outta your ass?
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14They really should secure the kernels and let Symantec and co rot.
Why dont they just make a secure OS and save people money on Anti-Virus software?
(I dont like Symantec or McAfee or anything btw) - Patmos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@ Celeron
"Microsoft takes forever to decide on things. No wonder they're going down the drain."
All large companies take forever to decide on things. Quick corporate decisions usually are n't wise. Decisions affect thousands of people with hundreds of millions of dollars in consequence. No giant company is agile in their decision making process. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Okay... talking about "anti-trust". Does ANYONE know what "anti-trust" legislation is?!?
Anti-trust legislation is NOT about breaking up monopolies.
Anti-trust legislation says this (in plain english): if one company is (essentially) a monopoly over a market...they cannot leverage their power in that market to take over another market.
WHICH MEANS: the legislation against MS in the 90s...when they were leveraging their market dominance with windows and trying to shut our every other browser out there...THAT is a prime example of anti-trust manipulation.
My whole point is: if MS wants to lock their kernel down tighter than Kermit's ass... let them. For SECURITY: it will be better. Which is a good thing. For anti-virus competitors....you need to find flaws faster or find another business model. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm actually kind of upset about this. Many of these third party security programs such as Norton Antivirus are a complete performance drain for Windows, so now customers are going to have to deal with this crap even further.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I say everybody who doesn't agree with this should e-mail MS and let them know how you feel. I have, I know it won't make much of a difference but at least they'll know users don't agree with caving to those blood suckers.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Too bad.. it sounds like this will allow root kits to continue their reign of terror against Windows users. Good play Microsoft. Good play.
- adiggtion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't see where some Symantec or McAffee products offer much in the way of "extra protection" - in my experience it seems that these integrated antivirus / firewall suites tend to cause more trouble than they're worth.
I can't remember the last time when someone said one of these products "saved them" from some critical windows security flaw or rampant virus; I CAN remember the last time a home or business user started having problems with their applications and overall performance once one of these suites is installed.
And I used to be a Symantec fan ... I just don't see the benefit of these suites anymore. - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Seeing that Microsoft is planning on rolling out its own anti-virus/anti-spyware suite with Vista, I question their commitment to anything more than superficial security. I had hopes that they would have taken security seriously when XP was about to roll off the line, but now that they have a vested interest in selling security software, I fear that it is only a pipe dream.
Symantec's antics have only made things worse. Their business model relies on Windows being full of holes. They stand to lose a lot if Microsoft actually secures their operating system. I'm not surprised that those charlatans threw a hissy fit about it. - kaiwai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Oh pulease, cut the crap.
Microsoft has provided the defender API for people to write their anti-virus applications against, they CHOOSE no to use that API, so quite frankly, its tough ***** that they choose not to use the specified API which Microsoft has provided and fully documented.
Microsoft and many other companies use the API, the only thing stopping Symantec and McAfee is their refusal to update their applications, they would much rather just give their application a new interfface than actually doing something substantial to their programmes. - livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Microsoft did an about-face yesterday, agreeing to make it easier for customers of its forthcoming Vista operating system to use outside security vendors"
And with in a matter of days the same security vendors quietly release viruses that cripple the new OS inorder to sell more products which heal the viruses.
/never takes off the tinfoil hat - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I completely agree. But, I do think Windows Vista is step 1 for Microsoft in improving security though, so the OneCare is just a temporary 'help' to keep things secure until they can continue to improve security. Microsoft is definitely commited to improving the security in Windows, Im in Vista x64 RC2 and I currently have not had a single security issue and everything even IE has been safe and I've been running Vista since pre-beta 2 builds. Microsoft has been slacking over the last few years but they are finally starting to improve and catch up, its just going to take more time for them, they have much more to do.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Let me give you my personal perspective. I work for the largest global IT corporation in existence and we do not use these anti-virus products. We use E-Trust.
Why would I do any differently for my personal machine?
I've also worked as a hardware / software tech for years as FT employment plus doing my own contracts. I have never seen a "security" package that did more damage to a computer than Norton/Symantec .
To be honest - this situation sucks. - drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What was the address you e-mailed to? I'm sure that would help your discussion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Symantec doesn't have a easy way to email feedback to the company, they want a subscriber ID.. If anybody else finds one it's all good, I still say 2000 phone calls monday morning will make them think about things though.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed, I have done so. I would also recommend calling symantec (contact information below) and tell them that their actions are unacceptable.
Seriously, I had a lot of hope that in 2 years vista would be usable and stable, let these jerks get their hands on it so that new security holes can be introduced and it'll be win95 redux.
Symantec (norton AV)
World Headquarters
20330 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: +1-408-517-8000 - koh777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@warezappz,
your idea on building an OS from the ground up is good in theory. I'll give you that but the problem with that is that we have to address the least common denominator. That grandma who is just learning how to use the Internets, or the older folks who got started on DOS and haven't kept up with the times. notice that if you ask them what the current mac OS was they couldn't tell you. Microsoft has the power of distribution and that's what makes them such a strong company. they reach a far greater amount of people with their product than, lets say, apple does. So if you were to divide that market between those who would use the "windows" version of this new OS and those that use the new OS it would 1) divide its gains from windows normally 2) have to renegotiate contracts with companies like Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, and others that include their windows software to allow a choice between the two OS's. 3) because of the division itself the customer service and focus of the company would be split in two. It's good for companies to diversify the products they offer but so long as that product is not in the same business as the other.
the multiple OS idea would be similar to the scenario where Nintendo would release two brand new consoles on the same day with totally different specs and in the end the "ends don't justify the means" as they say. - veztar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is ridiculous. The kernel SHOULD be solid. And if not, then it should only allow itself to be edited by a CTRL+ALT+DEL + password + human check + "warning: only antivirus software should need to do this. Continue/Cancel?" Agreed, I should be able to install a program in there if I really want to, and if symantec wants to put its users through that during install that's fine, but it should be done with the maximum possible security and REQUIRE user approval.
- subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Going down the drain? What alternate reality are you living in? I'm not a MS fan by any means (on Linux/Opera at the moment) but they have never been stronger and will certainly be around for decades.
Plus they are serious about desktop security this time and I believe them. We shall see...... - drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Opinions vary.
Pretty well proven... Be a good lad and toss me that keyboard ;-)
Ack. The mouse is good. - pupkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with KillaGoat. I actually don't mind Symantec being prevented from installing their bloated crapware on Windows __at system level__. Perhaps that would force them to pay more attention to the product quality and less to the marketing and user 'education'.
- audiocollective, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I heart rootkit
- dotcom101010, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry but can you say Windows XP 2. i was going to get vista until i heard about MS giving in to Symantec. I really like the the new lay out of the the OS but there is no point now to get it. i will stick with XP and OSX
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1kapersky said microsofts original plan wasnt a problem. the main problem with norton etc is getting rid of them on a new computer. in effect, they are a fraudulent spyware trojan on new computers to most buyers.
many dell buyers probably dont realise when they buy a dell they dont have to sign-up to the antivirus as well. - koh777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@RIPtechtv
security is paid for in the real world. companies who like to have a secure office back for guards and camaras to guard thier data. The same is true for computers. If you dont want to pay for virus protection and security then by all means either write your own anti-virus program, find a free version that offers slightly lower protection (like me), or go without it. Pirating anti-virus software is somewhat of a double edged sword.
But i must say i agree with you on the paying for mcafee and norton and that stuff. find a reliable less fuss virus program if your gonna pay for it.
and @werezappz. I totally agree with the idea that these should be discussions and not bashings and flamings and in retort to the comparison of automobile makers. It's just a different market with different customers. Net users are usually more fickle than automobile buyers and i agree that the competition is good and the diverse products are good but automobiles, although there are new models every year, do not drastically change the function of it (getting from A to B) as OS's do and truly in automobile purchasing we buy the product, in the buying of an OS all we are really doing is buying the license to use it. (thats how Microsoft broke the Anti-trust suits, threatened to pull its licensing) The point is when we get a new OS we have to "relearn" how to do some things; something the automobile industry doesnt need to worry about. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More article links and discussions in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17082368 ...
- Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Wonder how much Symantec payed them to make the change.
- RIPtechtv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I fell you should never have to pay for security. You bought (unless you are a pirate like myself :) the stupid OS and you shouldn't be paying for problems that where not likely your fault. I cant stand people like my friend who pays for all this security garbage like Norton and Mcafee.
- SecureXeC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Awesome comment man. :-]
/dugg up - psilanthropist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Im going to digg your comment up because you actually took the pain to write so much.
- Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How long before that API is readily available on IRC and usenet?
Then, idiot users just click yes to everything UAC asks them... it's just going to go back to the time when XP had a flood of exploits and this time it's thanks to Symantec. That and MS now being wary of the EU (*****). - OAKsider, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2A 'secure' OS would be equal to perfection. I don't see a time in the future where the most-used OS in the world (from MS, Apple or anyone) will NOT need some type of extra security. Locking out or cheating expert third parties who are dedicated to securing your OS would be insane. I hope there's more to the story.
There are smarter, better performing options out there than those from Symantec and McAfee, btw. Check out ESET's NOD32 Antivirus or upcoming Security Suite, COMODO's Personal Firewall (free), Agnitum's Outpost Firewall Pro, and tons more. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1NOOOOO!
Damn! That means that everyone and their grandmother will be installing ring zero drivers in Vista too, just like they have in XP, and that, in turn, means that Vista can never be stable and secure. Expect most device drivers, and all stealth-installed DRM drivers, to run at ring zero.
DAMN! - drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2How many Linux Kernels are out? Probably don't have to worry about upsetting big things during a kernel change.
Microsoft finally followed the experts for security purposes. I'm shocked. They buy out giant antispyware corp and suddenly they figure out security. Perhaps M$ listened.
To the company they bought.
That would be shocking. - yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1So because the security companies are idiots people should switch to inferior products?
- joel8x, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1So now, can somebody give me a reason to upgrade to this *****? It seems like XP sp3 at this point, only more crippled than SP2.
- WarezAppz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@koh777,
I see your point, but I believe GM - FORD - Chrysler and a multitude of others do offer diverse products that are in the same business and it doesn't weaken them it strengthens them if anything.
I am by no means a Business major/graduate but I can definitely see some benefit in this all. I am thinking outside of the box (of the company) and thinking in a broader spectrum. If this happened another company could indeed rise up to fill in the gap (so to speak). More or less - the new OS could be targeted for business only - or home only thereby limiting the impact initially - then branch. It's just a conceptual opinion, and this is just a discussion so feedback and more discussion is a welcomed thing.
Totally appreciate your thoughts, there needs to be more 'discussions' and less bickering in the digg community! Kudos on perpetuating that! - koh777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I dunno much of the technical issue but I mean I for one have never trusted windows, no matter what the anti-virus/adware/spyware i had installed, for security. I have a PC for gaming and my mac for personal stuff/ business. I get the best of both worlds.
- gill1109, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2this is all so funny. all these big companies crying because they are making all this money off patching the gaping holes in a cobbled together walking disaster. then microsoft tries seriously to redesign things from the ground up with security in mind (like unix was designed), so these companies have no purpose any more! i'd suggest to switch to mac or linux
- stockjones, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Lol beni! I was thinking the same thing.
- WarezAppz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Opinion:
Microsoft gets a lot of well deserved slack for a lot of things, however, granting access to the kernel when they have clearly written API's for work-around for all who may have needed a way to implement their applications, is not one of the things that they should be given slack for.
Where-as I do think the OS in question poses several more problems while 'seemingly' cleaning up a lot more, I more-than-likely won't be switching to it any time soon.
Microsoft should be innovative, such as another post-er said earlier about Symantec & etc, and not base 'everything' (windows related) on 'Windows' (the way it is now).
Personally - being that they have the money to do so, I could see them doing things the right way by building another OS from the ground up while still offering a 'backward compatible' OS (seperate from the new one) - and informing the public that in x amount of years they will be discontinuing 'Windows' as they once knew it. I believe this would be a great win situation for the company to: Turn around popular/public opinion about them as a company; Create a product that genuinely has the customer in mind; and force (for once) real competition in the market. Even further yet still, it is my belief that if that was accomplished, they'd still have a lead in the market just from the massive PR accomplished by showing the public that they are attempting to (so to speak) right-a-wrong.
But that is strictly my opinion - others (I am sure) may vary. - drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I have a phone. Should anyone intimidate me in order that I not use that phone because they know how to. I bought a phone, and people are very tired of the phone doing things other than what it was purchased for. I didn't buy a baby with Children's services and antispyway and antivirus attached and govn't attached at the hip when I bought the phone.
I bought a ***** phone.
I buy a DVD player, I don't wan't it investigating my PC.
I buy a USB Cam, I don't want it looking at me because the PC got hacked.
Microsoft is protecting their product, and when everyone screams "security" and when they do something about it, the other side screams.
Maybe the govn't is influencing MS to produce a less secure system for their own personal gain. The only thing I know is that the govn't required MS to make their OS less secure. - iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Microsoft can't handle their security issues. The whole OS in insecure ASWELL as their apps. Better let someone else take care of it. Windows is the most overrated operating system ever. *****.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is