main

Security Vendor Claims Microsoft Is Shutting Out Competition

shishyan   on 30 July 2006 - 23:50 · 61 comments & 16982 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Security solution provider Agnitum claims that Microsoft's kernel patch protection will shut out competing products unless competitors resort to hacker tactics.

In an article posted to the company's Web site, Agnitum said that because of the way Microsoft designed its kernel patch protection "it will be more complicated for third-party security software companies to install and maintain their software on Windows PCs. In some circumstances, kernel patch protection may even block the installation of third-party security software."

The brunt of the complaint centres around the way some vendors hook into the kernel in order to gain enough control to defend the system against attacks. Agnitum said in order to protect a system developers sometimes resort to patching the kernel. Such a patch might involve changing a service number in the system's Service Dispatch Table so that it points to third-party code. Then when that particular service is called by a program the third-party code is invoked instead of the original kernel code.

Read the full article: winsupersite.com

But that method of hooking into the lower levels of the operating system won't be possible with the new kernel patch protection, which will be a standard feature of Windows Vista and the upcoming Longhorn server operating systems. Kernel patch protection was introduced with the release of Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 for x64 platforms and Windows XP x64 Edition.

In closing its article Agnitum said that "Under Microsoft's proposed solution [of using its published APIs], a rootkit that could previously be detected by and remedied with anti-virus software will now cause the [system to crash]. The same result will occur after installation of security software that is not compatible with kernel patch protection technology. [We] believe this move by Microsoft is designed to force users to rely on Microsoft and only Microsoft for Windows security, removing the option to use third-party security solutions that, if past experience is anything to go by, are likely to be more robust and provide better protection than Microsoft offerings."


Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 61 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 trance on 30 Jul 2006 - 23:53
So MS is making their software more secure... "shutting out" 3rd party developers that already use "hacker tactics" to hook the kernel and do stuff they aren't supposed to, and they complain? MS should not be sorry in making their software more secure such that you may not need 3rd party security software.
#1.1 billyea on 30 Jul 2006 - 23:57
Agreed. 3rd parties can mess around with their own DLL files, DAT files, and registry keys, but I ain't happy with them messing with Windows.
#1.2 theyarecomingforyou on 31 Jul 2006 - 01:01
Agreed. Microsoft has changed how programs are allowed to operate, the result being the security firms now have to learn the new approach. The result is that we don't get crap like Starforce or Sony's rootkit messing up systems. Security firms can't just expect everything to work exactly like before, though I can see how it would be annoying from their point of view.
(2 replies) #2 Abnil on 30 Jul 2006 - 23:56
And it will also block Starforce and other rootkits from installing and remaining active.
#2.1 Andareed on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:10
Not really. There are already known methods to bypass this protection.

Further, there are supported methods of registry/file hooking. Using the CmRegisterCallback function, it is possible to hide registry keys. Using file system filters, it is possible to hide files.
#2.2 Xavien on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:19
death to starforce! and all other copy-protections that use stupid low-level driver technology which could seriously mess up a windows installation.
(5 replies) #3 pixels on 30 Jul 2006 - 23:56
Why don't they figure out different methods? I'm no Microsoft fan, but this is a great step in security and it shouldn't be taken away simply because some security vendor (whom I've personally never heard of) is complaining.

Until I hear something from vendors like ESET or Kaspersky, both of whom really know what they're doing, I support Microsoft's decision.
#3.1 boo_star on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:15
Agnitum actually make a pretty decent firewall, but they're fundamentally wrong in this supposition.

Making a more secure Windows benefits the user and not the 3rd party app provider.

Most providers THRIVE on Windows's lack of security.

Now...they may actually have to work for their money.
#3.2 Smigit on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:44
"Until I hear something from vendors like ESET or Kaspersky, both of whom really know what they're doing, I support Microsoft's decision."

Outpost is actually one of if not the best firewalls out there. I dont agree with their stance here but they are a company that knows how to make a good program.
#3.3 DomG on 31 Jul 2006 - 01:54
Quote - pixels said @ #3
Why don't they figure out different methods? I'm no Microsoft fan, but this is a great step in security and it shouldn't be taken away simply because some security vendor (whom I've personally never heard of) is complaining.


I agree. These companies make their money off Microsoft's past mistakes in security, they're just annoyed that they're not needed as much in Vista as they are in other Windows versions.
#3.4 pixels on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:46
Ah, sorry guys, I hadn't heard of it.

In any case, are they known for their antivirus? No.

And if a firewall needs to get into lower levels to do its job, then that's going over the top.
#3.5 Smigit on 31 Jul 2006 - 10:08
they don't make any anti virus pixels, only the firewall. Thats why you don't know them for such a product. They do have a limited malicious code remover but it was integrated with the firewall some time ago and only concentrated on trojans.
#4 Popcorned on 30 Jul 2006 - 23:57
Yay, no more Starforce!
(4 replies) #5 Octol on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:12
I recently tried to install NAV on a Vista box; and while it appeared to install OK, it wouldn't run after reboot. I guess this could be part or all of the problem.
#5.1 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:50
Quote - Octol said @ #5
I recently tried to install NAV on a Vista box; and while it appeared to install OK, it wouldn't run after reboot. I guess this could be part or all of the problem.


No, that is due to the seperation of user and system services; Norton Anti-virus assume that the system services and user exist in the same account, where as in Vista, they've seperated it and lowered the permissions on the default accounts created.

What you need is an anti-virus which is Windows Vista compatible, and recognises those changes which Microsoft has made; I'd say you won't start to see it being released until around 2007, slightly before the release of Windows Vista.
#5.2 PeterTHX on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:14
NAV 2007 and NIS 2007 support Vista (available late Sep/early Oct).
#5.3 Beastage on 31 Jul 2006 - 08:55
Trend Micro is the only av to support Vista at the moment and approved by MS
#5.4 XerXis on 31 Jul 2006 - 09:57
Quote - Beastage said @ #5.3
Trend Micro is the only av to support Vista at the moment and approved by MS


avg works in vista
(1 reply) #6 denzilla on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:30
Don't bank your company on profiting from insecurities of other products. MS cannot be blamed for making their product more secure.
#6.1 Berserk on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:58
agree'd.

unless there going to take away options like personal firewalls.
#7 gxsaurav on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:44
lol, what a bunch of whiners

They have been hacking into the kernal themselves from a long time, & they say Windows is less secure

Now when MS is making the product secure, which will actully make the need of NAV & other antivirus apps low, they are crying that MS is killing bussines

can't they simply talk to MS, & find other method to do so, cos seems now they must have to make good product, cos people will be safe without buying anything too
(5 replies) #8 Shadowdruids on 31 Jul 2006 - 00:58
Quote -
[We] believe this move by Microsoft is designed to force users to rely on Microsoft and only Microsoft for Windows security, removing the option to use third-party security solutions that, if past experience is anything to go by, are likely to be more robust and provide better protection than Microsoft offerings."


Really, do you expect us to believe that after vista launches you will not have a security product that is compatible with it. And also even Symantec seems to claim that their security suite provides better protection than microsoft's offerings, but every year they seem to get worse and worse.

Basically, I think this is trying to hide the fact that they don't like having a microsoft security product, that is actually very good, competing with them...

#8.1 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:58
Quote - Shadowdruids said @ #8
Quote -
[We] believe this move by Microsoft is designed to force users to rely on Microsoft and only Microsoft for Windows security, removing the option to use third-party security solutions that, if past experience is anything to go by, are likely to be more robust and provide better protection than Microsoft offerings."


Really, do you expect us to believe that after vista launches you will not have a security product that is compatible with it. And also even Symantec seems to claim that their security suite provides better protection than microsoft's offerings, but every year they seem to get worse and worse.

Basically, I think this is trying to hide the fact that they don't like having a microsoft security product, that is actually very good, competing with them...


Or the fact that every security and anti-virus product I've ever ran on Windows has caused applications to fail to install properly, destablised Windows, slow game performance down to 386 speeds, slow down internet surfing (can't work out how the hell that happened, but it did) and slowed down the boot up time.

I can't possible think of *one* positive thing that these security people bring to Windows; having kept my Windows XP Pro installation up to date, I don't download and run application from dodgy locations, I've yet to experience viruses and the likes.
#8.2 pixels on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:53
Quote - kaiwai said @ #8.1
Or the fact that every security and anti-virus product I've ever ran on Windows has caused applications to fail to install properly, destablised Windows, slow game performance down to 386 speeds, slow down internet surfing (can't work out how the hell that happened, but it did) and slowed down the boot up time.

I can't possible think of *one* positive thing that these security people bring to Windows; having kept my Windows XP Pro installation up to date, I don't download and run application from dodgy locations, I've yet to experience viruses and the likes.

Have you only tried McAfee and Norton? AVG has some performance hits as well. If you tried a good AV you would see that's not how it is. I use NOD32 and my gaming performance is as good as if I didn't even have it running. My internet surfing is just fine and my boot up time has taken little to no hit because of it. Oh, and Windows is as stable as ever, and I have no application installation problems AT ALL.

Get yourself a good product and you'll see that doesn't happen.
#8.3 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 07:05
Quote - pixels said @ #8.2
Quote - kaiwai said @ #8.1
Or the fact that every security and anti-virus product I've ever ran on Windows has caused applications to fail to install properly, destablised Windows, slow game performance down to 386 speeds, slow down internet surfing (can't work out how the hell that happened, but it did) and slowed down the boot up time.

I can't possible think of *one* positive thing that these security people bring to Windows; having kept my Windows XP Pro installation up to date, I don't download and run application from dodgy locations, I've yet to experience viruses and the likes.

Have you only tried McAfee and Norton? AVG has some performance hits as well. If you tried a good AV you would see that's not how it is. I use NOD32 and my gaming performance is as good as if I didn't even have it running. My internet surfing is just fine and my boot up time has taken little to no hit because of it. Oh, and Windows is as stable as ever, and I have no application installation problems AT ALL.

Get yourself a good product and you'll see that doesn't happen.


This was on a Dell P4 3.2Ghz, Windows XP Professional, 512MB RAM; I tried Norton Security Suite which caused all sorts of problems when running applications, and the constant popups when trying to access a site, or loading up applications that connect to the net; I also gave McAfee and Kaspersky a go; sorry, they're as crap as Norton.

To use an anology; I'd rather get f*cked bareback and ask the guy to pull out, rather than using something that makes the experience completely unworkable (I do use condoms, but this is just an analogy for argument sake).
#8.4 Pegus on 31 Jul 2006 - 08:01
Quote - pixels said @ #8.2
Quote - kaiwai said @ #8.1
Or the fact that every security and anti-virus product I've ever ran on Windows has caused applications to fail to install properly, destablised Windows, slow game performance down to 386 speeds, slow down internet surfing (can't work out how the hell that happened, but it did) and slowed down the boot up time.

I can't possible think of *one* positive thing that these security people bring to Windows; having kept my Windows XP Pro installation up to date, I don't download and run application from dodgy locations, I've yet to experience viruses and the likes.

Have you only tried McAfee and Norton? AVG has some performance hits as well. If you tried a good AV you would see that's not how it is. I use NOD32 and my gaming performance is as good as if I didn't even have it running. My internet surfing is just fine and my boot up time has taken little to no hit because of it. Oh, and Windows is as stable as ever, and I have no application installation problems AT ALL.

Get yourself a good product and you'll see that doesn't happen.


I beg to differ. I'm currently running NOD32 as it seems to be the most performance friendly AV. However it has it's problems too - i notice a significant increased windows boot time (time for desktop to become usable), and significant performance degradation with Outlook. When processing hundreds of emails (eg. move from one folder to another), NOD32 crashes. Full Windows restart seems to be the only real solution, unless i turn off email scanning.
#8.5 Shadowdruids on 01 Aug 2006 - 00:48
Security products do take up a lot of memory. Even though ones like f-secure and windows one care are low in comparison the difference in speed is noticeable.

Hence making windows secure from the core is a lot better than making windows secure from applications.
#9 xxdesmus on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:05
Can't blame Microsoft for trying to "fix" there operating system. These companies are just bitching because heaven forbid people no longer need there crappy security products anymore once they have a more secure OS. *gasp* How dare Microsoft? Give me a break guys.
(1 reply) #10 bangbang023 on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:08
Microsoft is doing what anyone else would when it comes to trying to seal up holes in the system. The only way these guys would be able to complain is if MS doesn't allow them access to API's to get their products to work properly in Vista. With their recent "12 ways to not be evil" thing, I'm pretty sure MS will give everyone a fair chance to access the system appropriately.
#10.1 Blackice on 31 Jul 2006 - 03:29
Exactly. Its not like Microsoft are using internal, undocumented APIs to make their products better and bypass this limitation or something - Microsoft build their products with public Windows APIs.

Vista is a very big step forward in terms of security, and its blatently obvious to everyone here that they can't handle it. Security suites were made because there was a need. Now, the need is lessened, so the solutions are not as popular. That said, many people not knowing just how far Vista is actually protecting them, will probably buy security suites anyway.

Really, the biggest gateway to malware is IE. IE in Vista runs in Protected Mode, which basically means it can't modify or execute anything without your permission first. How on Earth do you get around that? I would call Protected Mode an ingenious an apparently watertight way of sealing Vista. But then, there are many other security improvements which complement it.
(7 replies) #11 eilegz on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:12
the thing its not as easy as that, agnitum its a reliable security provider like eset and trendmicro, of course if m$ its doing this to protect users its a good thing but when they force competition out because its closing the access to windows then its a bad thing.

Also how much reliable its microsoft security its?, i think that they still have a lot of work to do.

As a eset and agnitum user, i tried microsoft one care solution i dont see how much better its microsoft doing to protect us so far the only good thing so far its windows defender.
#11.1 bangbang023 on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:14
Microsoft is going to have to work around this too. It's not forcing you to use their security software, it's simply sealing up Vista's default security levels by closing up an opening that just happened to be used by some legitimate software, too.
#11.2 Abnil on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:19
Quote - eilegz said @ #11
the thing its not as easy as that, agnitum its a reliable security provider like eset and trendmicro, of course if m$ its doing this to protect users its a good thing but when they force competition out because its closing the access to windows then its a bad thing.

Also how much reliable its microsoft security its?, i think that they still have a lot of work to do.

As a eset and agnitum user, i tried microsoft one care solution i dont see how much better its microsoft doing to protect us so far the only good thing so far its windows defender.


Most people stopped reading after you put M$. grow up.
#11.3 machorro on 31 Jul 2006 - 03:15
Quote - Abnil said @ #11.2
Most people stopped reading after you put M$. grow up.


no you stopped, you are the one who need to grow up

so he used the $ symbol, omfg the end of the world is near -_-, if he had trolled or something you would have had a valid point
#11.4 HawkMan on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:09
Writing m$ immediately invalidates any opinion he ever may have ghad as a serius comment.

I'd link to the PA comic that shows my sentiments exactly... if I bothered.
#11.5 stifler6478 on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:27
Quote - eilegz said @ #1
the thing its not as easy as that, agnitum its a reliable security provider like eset and trendmicro, of course if m$ its doing this to protect users its a good thing but when they force competition out because its closing the access to windows then its a bad thing.


Guess what? Because of that quote, you are NEVER allowed to be seen complaining about Windows security holes EVER again. You basically just said it's a bad thing for MS to fix their security holes. Good job.

-Spenser
#11.6 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:06
Quote - stifler6478 said @ #11.5
Quote - eilegz said @ #1
the thing its not as easy as that, agnitum its a reliable security provider like eset and trendmicro, of course if m$ its doing this to protect users its a good thing but when they force competition out because its closing the access to windows then its a bad thing.


Guess what? Because of that quote, you are NEVER allowed to be seen complaining about Windows security holes EVER again. You basically just said it's a bad thing for MS to fix their security holes. Good job.

-Spenser


LOL; true, true; I'll put money on it, if Microsoft made their operating system 100% secure, stable and reliable, there would be whiners, fanboys and paid shills complaining that this 'perfect operating system' has put them out of business! Shock bloody horror, a good quality product!

Here is a suggestion, maybe these companies should invest some money into producing products that provide features which people want and improve productivity rather than relying on the failings of another company to justify a product range.
#11.7 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:07
Quote - stifler6478 said @ #11.5
Quote - eilegz said @ #1
the thing its not as easy as that, agnitum its a reliable security provider like eset and trendmicro, of course if m$ its doing this to protect users its a good thing but when they force competition out because its closing the access to windows then its a bad thing.


Guess what? Because of that quote, you are NEVER allowed to be seen complaining about Windows security holes EVER again. You basically just said it's a bad thing for MS to fix their security holes. Good job.

-Spenser


LOL; true, true; I'll put money on it, if Microsoft made their operating system 100% secure, stable and reliable, there would be whiners, fanboys and paid shills complaining that this 'perfect operating system' has put them out of business! Shock bloody horror, a good quality product!

Here is a suggestion, maybe these companies should invest some money into producing products that provide features which people want and improve productivity rather than relying on the failings of another company to justify a product range.
#12 dagamer34 on 31 Jul 2006 - 02:57
Sometimes I really wonder if security companies would really like a secure Windows. Virtually no one uses virus protection on a Mac. They would all practically go bankrupt in no time!
#13 dugbug on 31 Jul 2006 - 03:46
They can't seriously suggest the kernel be open to patches. ROTFL. This reminds me of google whining that they weren't the default search engine in IE 7.0.
(4 replies) #14 japanesetea on 31 Jul 2006 - 03:54
Also MS babies down their products. bad interface designed for noobs and no configurability make using windows a headache for alot of people. Also the vista "experince" is pretty sad. I also think that shutting out competition is just one step closer to call antitrust on thier ass. I dont think they should be allowed to do that it's the same as the network neutrality issue going on now. This is the same as ma bell at it again. MS is made of the old rich people who want to squyeeze money out of us. By charging an ass load on the OS and software and telling us what software we cant or can use on it. I want to be able to run whatever application I want without OS telling me I cant use it becuase it's not made by a "trusted source" ie, Ms!!!! They are pulling the same thing as the bells who want to tell us what websites we cant and cannot go to. And if I wanna use trend micro antivirus or norton, or macaffe, or computer associates, or any other company I damn well should be able to. Not just use what MS approves of me.

Also they want to instill a fake sense of security and trust, by telling you to "trust" the windows firewall, to "trust" using internet explorer... among other things.... and IE will NEVER beat firefox in security and configurability, etc..... IE is the windows ME of browsers! and you all know how that sorry ass excuse of an OS ended up! And they want you to trust them with thier current insecure reputation and thier current flop of an OS that isnt even out yet, vista...... They put on the flashy interface soley to sell it and nothing more. Like those supermodels out there, what lies beneath the beautiful exterior lies a disturbed and ugly interior. It's all airbrushing and smoke and mirrors. Vista is going to be like this. How could we trust them after the major security faults they have had all this time? They have a centrallized method of messing with windows systems today imagine what they can do tomorrow! Thye will build more "protective" crap into windows that will spy on us and take away our freedoms. I know it will.

Last edited by japanesetea on 31 Jul 2006 - 04:02
#14.1 dugbug on 31 Jul 2006 - 04:08
Quote - japanesetea said @ #14
By charging an ass load on the OS and software and telling us what software we cant or can use on it. I want to be able to run whatever application I want without OS telling me I cant use it becuase it's not made by a "trusted source" ie, Ms!!!! They are pulling the same thing as the bells who want to tell us what websites we cant and cannot go to. And if I wanna use trend micro antivirus or norton, or macaffe, or computer associates, or any other company I damn well should be able to. Not just use what MS approves of me.



Silly.... They stop kernel patching and you liken this to controlling what web sites we can go to? An API should have been there from day one, and all users should rejoice in this stance. And while Im at it, you criticize ms guis and then champion those dreadful security center tools? Come on.

-d
#14.2 gxsaurav on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:27
@ japanesetea

So u r saying that, the interface many of the MS apps have are not made for power users? then I wonder why we see windows classic interface, still running on most of the workstation out then.

Vista experience is sad, have u even tried it

MS is not shutting down competition, these 3rd party companies are freaked out cos now with Vista, no one will actually need their product that much, & with all the automatic updating & other security enhancement, Vista is already pretty secure. But, nothing can be so secure, sure there will be viruses for vista there is no denying it

& what u saying means, that MS should not secure their OS, & let the third party vendors do it for them? they never stop u from using whatever application u want, & even adobe, Autodesk applications also come in the trusted category in Windows

One thing, which OS R U using, Windows? I dare u to switch to any other OS, Linux Mac or anything else, first stop using windows itself, and then blame MS

I think I see a future lawsuit

Symantec, Mcafee, kaspersky & many other such security brands suing Microsoft, the reason "U cannot make your OS secure, it has to be insecure. U cannot make it secure for the average joe out there, else no one will buy our product, which kills competition "


Last edited by gxsaurav on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:38
#14.3 blx on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:11
Quote - gxsaurav said @ #14.2
One thing, which OS R U using, Windows? I dare u to switch to any other OS, Linux Mac or anything else, first stop using windows itself, and then blame MS


The funny thing is that once you make the switch, you don't bother whining anymore. You just laugh at all those poor MS-owned souls and enjoy your life.
#14.4 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 09:45
Quote - blx said @ #14.3
Quote - gxsaurav said @ #14.2
One thing, which OS R U using, Windows? I dare u to switch to any other OS, Linux Mac or anything else, first stop using windows itself, and then blame MS


The funny thing is that once you make the switch, you don't bother whining anymore. You just laugh at all those poor MS-owned souls and enjoy your life.


Interesting, so rather than hearing Windows users moan about problems, you hear Linux users moan about the crap quality ATI and Nvidia drivers, and the fact that they don't work properly with their distribution, then moan and bitch because none of the big commercial software companies and games providers won't provide the latest and greatest games for their said platform.

Sorry, I've lived in the UNIX camp, and sure, its a great operating system for the server or very specialised uses, but for mainstream desktop use, nothing can beat Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS X - they've got their faults, but for the vast majority, they "just work"™
(3 replies) #15 japanesetea on 31 Jul 2006 - 04:09
thats why i lean towards linux!!!

and what if someone cracks this!!! then what and someown will crack it.
#15.1 danlu on 31 Jul 2006 - 04:36
Good luck getting your commercial security products for Linux.
#15.2 Deadpool2k on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:30
Actually there is quite some terrific security products for linux.
#15.3 kaiwai on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:12
Quote - danlu said @ #15.1
Good luck getting your commercial security products for Linux.


Why would a person need a commercial security product with Linux, like Windows, a firewall, spam protection etc is already provided with most distributions as standard; infact, during installation of Fedora, you are asked what level of protection you require from the firewall (IIRC it uses IPFilters) and SELinux.
#16 bilemke on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:03
My AV work in Vista Betas already, thats al I care.
#17 billyea on 31 Jul 2006 - 05:22
Microsoft should be proud security companies are getting angry at them, it means they're getting better at security.
#18 Colin-uk on 31 Jul 2006 - 06:47
yeah i think they're just scared there going to loose business
(1 reply) #19 neoapple on 31 Jul 2006 - 08:10
this is good news me wonders if symantech will die!!!!

But its nice to see that MS has really taken security into thought and that it's stopping most kernal exploits
#19.1 C_Guy on 31 Jul 2006 - 21:39
Vista: The "Symantec Killer"
#20 lwebster_2000 on 31 Jul 2006 - 10:10
surely can only be a good thing - if the security firms are having trouble getting in then i'm a happy consumer
#21 C_Guy on 31 Jul 2006 - 21:42
This just goes to show that when you're as big as Microsoft you can't do anything without making people upset. People whine and cry that Windows isn't secure enough so they beef up security. Now people are whining and crying that it's too secure?

Microsoft is innovating it's operating system. Maybe these security companies should look that word up and give it a try before they complain or launch baseless lawsuits in pursuit of some quick cash.
(3 replies) #22 Croquant on 31 Jul 2006 - 22:09
Third parties that use kernel-level code do so because the kernel-level they are working with is flawed, so they need to modify it to provide their customers with the security they expect. Now Microsoft is saying "Hey, trust us not to build total crap anymore" and Agnitum is saying "hell no."

I'm with Agnitum on this one. If Microsoft thinks it can compete with 3rd part security companies, then it can bloody well do so without shuting everone else out of the market. Once again, anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. Golly gee oh my, what a surprise. :|
#22.1 Danrarbc641 on 31 Jul 2006 - 22:59
They aren't competing with anyone with this move. Do you even have any idea what this story is about or are you just replying cause 'Microsoft is shutting out competition" is in the title?
#22.2 Croquant on 01 Aug 2006 - 01:13
Quote - Danrarbc641 said @ #22.1
They aren't competing with anyone with this move. Do you even have any idea what this story is about or are you just replying cause 'Microsoft is shutting out competition" is in the title?

You appear to be the one who needs to RTFA.
"[We] believe this move by Microsoft is designed to force users to rely on Microsoft and only Microsoft for Windows security, removing the option to use third-party security solutions that, if past experience is anything to go by, are likely to be more robust and provide better protection than Microsoft offerings."
So, what part of "anti-competitive" don't you understand, Danrarbc? Learn how to read and then come back and try to bash me again, OK? I'll have moved on my then, but you can have fun trying to bash me.
#22.3 Relativity_17 on 01 Aug 2006 - 02:54
Croquant casts Shield of Ignorance. -3 points on all attacks for next two turns.
#23 Crucify on 01 Aug 2006 - 01:26
You have to understand that these So-called security company's would not even exist if it were not for the poor coding of windows past.

Time to move on, if say AVG and Spysweeper want to move with Vista they need to come up with a new way of thinking.
I do not want MS to back the truck up just so these clowns can jump on the train to millions at our cost.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)