| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Vista hit by EC fears and McAfee ire | |
|
||
| Time: 12:35 EST/17:35 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Today also saw full-page adverts in the Financial Times from security vendor McAfee. The open letter, addressed to "Dear computer users around the world,", warns that Vista is likely to make security problems worse. The letter says that the best defenders of Microsoft's operating systems have been third party developers and security firms. But for the first time with Vista Microsoft is stopping security companies accessing the "kernel" - the heart of its operating system. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:00:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 10/2/2006 2:34:27 PM |
|
Here comes da judge.
TL |
| #2 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 10/2/2006 2:52:37 PM |
| So McAfee plays its hand. This is disgusting. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/2/2006 3:31:57 PM |
|
#2, Ditto that. Third parties want business as usual - vice making products using the supplied API's and architecture that has been available to them for over two years. They want simple modifications to their exisiting products - so they can continue their indirect taxes on user PC's and business networks.
It is indeed, DISGUSTING! If what is printed here is true and this really represents their position, then THEY are the ones whom are not in the slightest, interested in user data protection. |
| #4 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 10/2/2006 3:37:08 PM |
|
Symantec the biggest crybaby, has the poorest security but fattest cash cow. Number 2 (in many ways) McAfee has poor security products but protecting their cash cow is more important than workign with finding new ways to improve or help make Vista even more secure. What a bunch of losers.
Go Avira! |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/2/2006 3:42:11 PM |
|
Yeah - notice that Trend has no issues? Trend worked and made decent products that DO WORK with Vista just fine.
Note as well..... MS rewarded the crap out of them for that effort and bought huge licenses for their own systems/services!!! My fear is that some dolt Judge akin to Judge Jackson will have his/her head so far up their fourth point of contact, that they'll entertain hearing such nonsense. The EU is a given - anything that will hurt MS, or the US is all they need - they'll be all over this and continue to apply what are in essence, import taxes on MS SW and US intellectual goods. Each of these companies is seeking legal positions in the much more willing EU - to leverage that to help cases they'll file in the US - just as soon as Vista ships in the US to the retail market. |
| #6 By 7711 (68.81.118.136) at 10/2/2006 7:12:09 PM |
|
FUD....
Whine, whine , whine....... |
| #7 By 10022 (69.204.110.203) at 10/2/2006 8:22:55 PM |
|
This is what you should expect from the incompetent and corrupt.
I would really like to know what people really think these half assed attempts at protection really offer. Really, what does anti-virus provide that can't be achieved with a hardened (=less software), least privileged, patched system with an informed user? (And don’t forget Software Restriction Policies) Oh, right- instability and more attack surface. The only benefit is the case where there is no patch, and the exploit is caught BEFORE infection, while the bad code is inert. (After means you lose). But instead, these crappy products scan for every virus since the beginning of time every time you open a file, even if you are patched for it or running a non affected software version, just so they can claim they can detect a million viruses. So what, how many are you actually vulnerable to right now? How many are you actually exposing yourself to right now? The only place for this type of stuff is as mail client or browser plug in- detect it before it becomes "code" and you will be all set (assuming the plug in isn’t vulnerable to malformed packets). But if even if it is, so what- it’s just user mode and you can deal with that appropriately. The push to get useless stuff out of the kernel should be encouraged by all. Users need to understand that security needs to be at every level- there is no way to know where in the system the next attack will come from, and you cannot rely on one defensive tactic. Traditional virus protection needed to be in the kernel because the kernel lacked security- it needed to be as low as possible to "see" everything. Of course we all know this was a flawed theory- everything in the kernel is equal and users that run as administrators can modify the kernel (that how the users installed your kernel patch software, McAfee- and that how hackers do it to) The real fix for this is to make the kernel secure with well defined entry and exit points, and have users use their computers without the power of god behind them. Let the ISP's scan for viruses (I haven’t seen an email virus in hot mail in years and I get a lot of junk mail) And that all Microsoft did- they defined and enforced how the kernel can be accessed and modified and cleaned up some of the past problems. For McAfee to say the things they say shows that they are a bunch of liars- they understand exactly what the problem is- as does everyone here. They're product is, as designed, junk that is no longer needed. If they wanted to do the easy thing all they had to do was re-write the Windows firewall MMC so that it isn’t retarded, or to expand on the base functionality that is all ready there. Ever notice how the best products aren’t the ones that try to completely re-do the Windows version but instead add to it, or the ones that follow the design guidelines. Its time to start boycotting idiots |
| #8 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 10/2/2006 10:06:37 PM |
|
deleted This post was edited by mooresa56 on Monday, October 02, 2006 at 22:08. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/3/2006 12:10:09 AM |
|
McAfee argues that Microsoft "seems to envision a world in which one giant company not only controls the systems that drive most computers around the world but also the security that protects those computers from viruses and other online threats.... Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97 percent of the world's desktops."
And if Symantec, TrendMicro, et al dried up one day leaving McAfee the sole defender of the cause, I'm sure they would immediately feel it necessary to break themselves into two separate companies so that they would not be the "one giant company" left to protect us all.... "Computer users around the globe recognize that the most serious threats to security exist because of inherent weaknesses in the Microsoft operating system." And if Microsoft should ever consider addressing what we are condescendingly calling "weaknesses" (since our products are perfect) in their product instead of letting us--did we mention we're perfect?--do it, we are going to get mighty pissy about it. We might even go so far as to grandstand... ahem, we mean, release a full-page ad in the Financial Times to ridicule publicly the company for even daring to attempt to fix those "weaknesses," and in the same ad, we will also publicly ridicule them for their product having those weaknesses in the first place. We will stand up and publicly ridicule that which has been the very foundation of our business... instead of talking to Microsoft directly about it, because then their investors and the EU couldn't hear us. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/3/2006 1:57:00 AM |
|
#7's post reflects some key insights and truths that have been in practice by good network admins and better ISP's for a very long time. I do have to once again state that an OS as security aware as Vista is, is not needed - not needed, but it's security model is welcome.
Meaning, good admins have long ago secured XP and XP may be run in a manner that is very secure. That said, multiple, dissimilar layers of security are not uncommon - they are the norm. Multiple levels of increasingly restrictive behavioral scanners are in place and used by even small companies and at nearly all ISP's. McAffee, Symantec and perhaps others, are really looking at only one behavior that scares them... user behavior. They look at security software sales figures for OSX [count/aftermarket purchase of security software over renewals], and they are in a panic. They see the user perception in these groups being that they do not need such software and they fear it will spread to Windows massive base of users. They are coming to realize - based upon good and practical decisions or not, that Vista's security model really is that good - and really is easy for home users to manage. It, after all, won't allow an end user to make an obvious mistake and starts their use off headed in the right direction. The systems level admin account is disabled by default - hidden and unknown to most home end users. Their fear is that very soon, people behind decent Secure NAT firewalls, serviced by ISP's that are scanning HTTP/S traffic and sandboxing email inside and outside of at least two layers of anti-SPAM [anti-SPAM alone dumping most email threats], just might skip their third party software entirely. Can users skip it? Should they? That depends largely upon how they use their systems. I don't have that answer, and likely never will, but I am betting that many people who are used to driving and living with less insurance than they need are going to skip AV after a while. I mean, with 15 minute clean installs and 1 for 1 images of their systems and cheap and easy to use backup software/devices... - it becomes a risk management issue for many and I am betting American home users will roll the dice. McAffee/Symantec need to get smart and, dare I say, creative - they need to partner with the likes of D-Link, Linksys and others and begin to sell protections for home edge devices and not just per system bean-counting license managers, either, but real edge scanners. They can dust off their existing versions and run them as embeds and continue to use most of their existing code. Similar partnerships and security can be baked into Main-board and interface chips supported by non-volatile flash memory - in other words, "THINK" and build a better trap. They'll eventually do that, but not because they give a flip about users. They'll do it because those that survive will have to adapt. In the end, none of them - not even MS can "Fix stupid.. - as that one comedian likes to say." In the meantime, they'll dig into Microsoft, its wallet and time, and work like mad dogs to continue digging into each of ours as they try and scare newer and more lay users senseless. And all this while we give the bad guys a pass... - let's not forget to properly blame, find, prosecute and punish those responsible for the root of the problem - criminals of every kind. |
| #11 By 17996 (66.235.19.95) at 10/3/2006 2:25:06 AM |
|
The thing that pisses me off most about articles such as this one, is that they never mention that the kernel patch protection is ONLY present on x64 versions of Windows! I don't know how many times I've pointed this out in talkback/commentary postings.
In Vista x86, the kernel is just as patchable as XP x86's. That means, the Sony rootkit would work just as well on Vista as it did on XP. (An x64 version of the rootkit, however, would fail, because of kernel patch protection--a good thing!) XP x64 also has kernel patch protection. But where were the complaints 1 1/2 years ago when it was released? I don't remember hearing McAfee's outcries. They had to know that Vista x64 would have the same protection. And when they start playing the monopoly angle, that's when it gets even more frustrating. Microsoft does not have a monopoly in the market for x64 operating systems. (Look how much of a head start Linux and others had over XP x64.) If, for some reason, a consumer looks at kernel patch protection and thinks it is hurting competition, then they can elect to install the x86 version of Windows. Yes, the *consumer* should be making that judgment, not McAfee or anyone else! [Edit: changed "buy" to "install" in the second-to-last sentence, since both editions are included when you buy Vista.] This post was edited by PatriotB6007 on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 02:27. |
| #12 By 32132 (142.32.208.238) at 10/3/2006 12:45:55 PM |
|
"I don't remember hearing McAfee's outcries. "
They never made an x64 version that worked (without killing your PC). I'm not sure they even tried. |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/3/2006 7:08:36 PM |
|
"When Leo Laporte, a self-described, 'Apple-Bigot' came out on twit.tv AGAINST McAffee and Symantec, who can assume that any person capable of reason will have to conclude that in this case, any claims against Microsoft are baseless - www.twit.tv see/hear the Windows Weekly show. "
This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 19:08. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:00:36 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
