| 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 |
 |
Symantec: Microsoft won't give us key Vista tech | |
|
||
| Time: 15:23 EST/20:23 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Symantec has accused Microsoft of withholding key information about its upcoming Vista operating system in an attempt to gain an advantage in the security market. The security specialist said this week that Microsoft is refusing to hand over the application programmable interfaces (APIs) for Windows Defender, the spyware product that will be included in Windows Vista. Without the APIs, Symantec contends that it isn't able to ensure that its own security products are compatible with the update. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:05:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (71.251.77.56) at 9/27/2006 3:43:34 PM |
|
This sounds a bit like hogwash.
Why would there be APIs for Windows Defender? Why would Symantec need APIs for Windows Defender? I like Symantec less and less every day, and I didn't like them to begin with (probably ever since they bought Norton). |
| #2 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 9/27/2006 4:44:57 PM |
|
Yep, more BS from Symantec. The OEM angle is especially BS. Even if they didn't have the API, OEMs can turn off Defender.
------------------ Microsoft designed Windows Defender to work well with other anti-malware products. Although Windows Defender provides comprehensive, world-class protection, some customers might want to use third-party anti-malware protection, and Microsoft supports that choice. Users who choose a third-party solution can keep Windows Defender enabled along with their preferred third-party solution, to provide added protection in the event one anti-spyware solution does not identify some spyware but the other one does. Also, if the user’s subscription to the third-party solution expires, the protection from Windows Defender will continue uninterrupted. Of course, users can turn off Windows Defender if they choose. Similarly, network administrators in an enterprise environment can use Group Policy to enable or disable Windows Defender, and computer manufacturers can turn it off by default on new PCs that they ship. http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4069085634675&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/27/2006 5:45:41 PM |
|
#2, Totally correct!!!
Symantec is way off, here. I recall an interview on the old TechTV where in front of Symantec reps, one of the hosts beat the hell out of a Microsoft rep who was there to talk about the new MCE 2004 interim release - and al the hosts did was machine-gun the same question over and over and over and over again.... "IS THE WINDOWS FIREWALL FINALLY GOING TO BE ON BY DEFAULT????" No matter what the Microsoft guy tried to say, the host kept asking that one same question... All were encouraged to laugh and chime in with their comments... - it was trash jounalism. Finally the Microsoft rep stated that, while it was not his area of expertise, he knew that MS was about to ship XP SP2, which featured a number of security features and that MS was working on ways to prevent and cleanse ad-ware. MS Anti-spyware followed not too many months later. Ok, so from where I sit, MS recognized that security in this age of Interent enabled computing required a new and much more comprehensive approach - they do that and now companies like Symantec want to demand what? - that MS just give them money and market? This is nuts and people, whom already dislike Symantec's products are not going to run to them if they keep this sort of behavior up! |
| #4 By 7711 (68.81.118.136) at 9/27/2006 5:51:50 PM |
|
waaaahhhhhh, waaaahhhhh......Symantec whining....
Stop crying and innovate!!!!!! |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/27/2006 6:32:13 PM |
|
#4, No kidding...
"one thing they could all do is add a simple capture and review file: it would go like this... a user hits a secure website - say a banking or commerce site... the INNOVATIVE feature would include a transmission receipt which would simply read, 'REVIEW WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEND' with a reminder about whether the site is secured by a valid SSL Cert, or not... on approval, the next step would be to see what the file would look like as sent - e.g., in its encrypted form." The final step would place such tranmissions in an encrypted locker for later review." In other words.... add some value, Symantec... do something people might want to use, or have. |
| #6 By 7760 (12.155.143.50) at 9/27/2006 7:52:50 PM |
|
I really hate to defend Symantec here, since my first reaction was equal to all of yours, but I think that they may have a point. It may be necessary for anti-virus (and, perhaps, other system software) makers to know how Defender works so that their apps don't conflict with it.
The key thing to remember here is that Defender is an anti-spyware app, not an anti-virus app like Symantec makes. The two need to co-exist, so turning off Defender is a rather pointless solution. If Symantec turns off Defender in order for their anti-virus to work, then they're just plugging one security hole while opening another. Symantec needs their products to work alongside Defender and not for either one to flag the other as a threat or interfere with either's operations. That could be why Symantec would like the APIs. It could be FUD, but it could also be a very valid reason. We want Microsoft and Symantec to work together to protect our systems, afterall. |
| #7 By 61 (71.251.77.56) at 9/27/2006 8:04:14 PM |
|
Osprey, there has never ever been any problem with anti-spyware software conflicting with anti-virus software, they serve and do 2 completely different functions.
BTW, Symantec sells Anti-spyware software, which is why they are whineing. |
| #8 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 9/27/2006 11:04:31 PM |
| Its as if Symantec has lost the will to COMPETE as they have never had true/quality/competent competition. I would expect this from some companies, but I hoped for better from an AMERICAN company. so whiney. |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/28/2006 12:25:11 AM |
|
#7, Defender was specifically designed to work alongside all other such programs - it may ask, one time, if one wishes to allow the other program to run. It identifies that program during the install process and one clicks "unblock." That's all there is to it. In this context, it is less likely to block other anti-malware programs than Symantec's software ever was.
As far as API's are concerned, they were published, as were the API's for the stack. The real deal here for Symantec and many other security vendors centers around Window Scaling [TCP/IP] and full compliance with RFC 1323 [which most are not]. Vista, like a modified W2K3 Server with SP1, is able to auto-tune and auto-manage very fast network segments. Most people do not know a lot about this subject, or how to write apps to take full advantage of what Vista and modified W2K3 can do. For example, an ideal setting would be Twrap/Secs as at 2**31 / B > MSL (secs) for an OC-3 or greater and then one would set, Tcp1323Opts registry value to 1 to 3. Most devs/users have no idea that their throughput is quite low in XP yet designed to scale very well in Vista. Commercial Unices have had this ability for many years [NOTE/NOTE the word COMMERCIAL here and not the Linuces or OSX's BSD]. Very regretfully, many people are going to be in for a nastly surprise if they run Vista behind older routers or secure NAT firewalls - they'll have to disable autotuninglevels as at, netsh int tcp global set autotuninglevel=disabled just to see the cloud at all. The real issue here is that there is a great deal new about Vista - including its stack and devs are going to have had to work all the way through the development process in order to keep up and build software to take advantage of it. Now that said, I have to be fair. So I wrote Symantec and joined their test group to fully evaluate their security suite on Vista bulid 5728 and higher. I'm going to give it a lot of effort and see what one can and cannot do regarding the security center and the entire issue. Like many, I quit using any Symantec products of any kind a long while ago - they were just to buggy and weighty. To speak with any objectivity, I assess it fair to at least test it again. Having downloaded Symantec's Vista IS 2007 Suite, I do have to ask, how did Symantec build it for Vista without API's? For it to exist on one of my test system's at all - how would it be possible otherwise? If you'd like to test, here's the link, https://et.symantec.com/callout/default.html?callid=%7b5FB0B868-987F-4D8A-995C-7925EB89D6DE%7d I signed up some weeks ago when all this mess around Symantec was first reported and only heard back from them [Symantec's Tony Lopez] this evening. I am sure Activewin will have more threads where I can share what I learn from this and we'll see how it goes. Also, please create dumps using tools like, ethereal - http://www.ethereal.com/ - so when you have trouble, you can send a dump to the vendors to help them make better software. There is also a great netmon tool for Vista BETA testors that may be used. I hope that Symantec's suite is less in your face than parts of the new Vista UI are, but I doubt it. This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, September 28, 2006 at 00:48. |
| #10 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 9/28/2006 11:52:28 AM |
| Sell any Symantec stock you might be holding while it still has some value. Their products have been performing less effectively every year since 2003. Now, management is whining. Time to get out while you can! |
| #11 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 9/28/2006 5:09:12 PM |
|
bobsireno, the very day that microsoft announced a onecare product, I shorted both symantec and mcafee. I covered that short about a month ago, at ~20% gain on each.
back to the story... it appears SOPHOS isn't as concerned as symantec... http://www.betanews.com/article/Sophos_on_Symantecs_Vista_Complaints/1159472882 |
| #12 By 8589 (68.184.188.244) at 9/28/2006 10:10:09 PM |
|
I am testing NIS2007 for Vista, and with 5728 Ultimate x86, the system hard freezes before the install completes. Then on hardware reset, when NIS attempts to use Live update, it again hard freezes the computer.
However, it didn't occur to me to uninstall Windows Defender to see if that was the problem. I will do a clean install this weekend of 5728 x86 and then of NIS2007 for Vista this weekend, and see if that was the problem. |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/29/2006 10:49:01 AM |
| lketchum--I always love your posts (and I'm glad to see you back). But man, you must never sleep! ;) |
| #14 By 23275 (209.149.207.40) at 9/29/2006 3:12:47 PM |
|
#13, :) Thank you - nice to see you still in here kicking. No, I rarely do [sleep] - odd as it may sound, or be - only about 2 hours/day [life is just too short and there is so much to do and learn].
Given the restrictions placed on those in the tests - I can say very, very little about NIS2007, publicly. Please do test, or work with those testing and I recommend those considering using it be very careful and that they scrutinize all such products with great care. I will say any product built like this is going to have a long [really long] development cycle before it would be ready for even modest use. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:05:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
