Symantec/EU succeed in making Vista insecure


Recommended Posts

See here is my problem with all of this. Since Symantec makes crappy software, tehy NEED access to the kernel, other BETTER anti-virus companies never needed acccess to the kernel, take Sophos, Trend Micro, etc. as perfect examples.

Blocking access to the kernel would have been a great feature, how long do you think it will be before there is a virus that takes advantage of this new API?

Well, PatchGuard is pretty pointless now, isn't it?

the software it was designed to protect against (rootkits) can now just use the API MS have to include for Symantec, and turn off the protection.

Edit: hmm, easy way for Symantec to get some money, cry Anti-Trust, MS backs down and neuters the feature, neutered feature allows rootkits, Symantec start selling anti-rootkit software.

Edited by The_Decryptor

Couldn't MS just write the API and digitally sign it and then issue it to Symantec, McAfee so that they have to have it at the beginning of there installation, instead of adding it directly to the Vista code so that the rest of us aren't affected.

The United Kingdom Labour party seems to like the US more than the EU perhaps we should just change to become the next US state

Microsoft releasing an API? Hmmm. I seem to recall having heard something similar before. Any bets that Symantec and others will still be waiting for it this time next year? It's just another tried and tested Microsoft strategy: Tell them what they need to hear for a while. Might end up in court one day, but that's what appeals are for. Business as usual, boys.

What ms needs to provide is a stable/documented interface for hooking the kernel (specifically the SDT). If they did this, they could keep patch-guard in place and still keep security vendors happy.

And the statement that patch-guard makes computers more secure is silly. In order to run at kernel-mode at all, you need a signed driver. What malware/rootkit is going to sign their drivers? There's an easy case that patchguard makes computers more stable, since SDT hooking is unstable, since there is no way to unload your hook once installed - the solution is to create a stable hooking api as I've said above.

I think we should give the above some consideration. People seem to have just passed over this.

Edit: hmm, easy way for Symantec to get some money, cry Anti-Trust, MS backs down and neuters the feature, neutered feature allows rootkits, Symantec start selling anti-rootkit software.

You nailed that right on the head. :yes:

I am serious, we should boycott Symantec and McAfee :angry: :crazy:

I dont see the problem myself? Home computing has evolved with two industries, the OS and the security software. For the OS companies like microsoft to continue as they have, would have serious consequences for the security software industry. That cant be allowed, on moral grounds at the very least, and economic grounds. Think of the number of employees of the security software industry?

I dont see the problem myself? Home computing has evolved with two industries, the OS and the security software. For the OS companies like microsoft to continue as they have, would have serious consequences for the security software industry. That cant be allowed, on moral grounds at the very least, and economic grounds. Think of the number of employees of the security software industry?

FIANLLY! Someone understands BOTH SIDES. I've been waiting for you, John.

I posted this in the Main News area, and I'll post it here as well. I invite one and all to dive in an discuss!

-------------------------------------------------

I think alot of you are misunderstanding the issue as a whole. Don't confine your analyses to this single MS-EU-Symtantec/McAfee perspective.

Folks, a whole industry has grown up around Microsoft's horribly flawed operating systems. Companies like Symantec, Norton, et al, have staked everything on the antivirus/ant-malware market, that sprung up in the first place because . . . . . .

***drum roll**

WINDOWS IS (AND WAS) INSECURE BY DESIGN. Period. End of story. I'll get back to this point in a little bit.

And now, after years of serving the Windows community (on which these antivirus companies depend), they are faced with a situation in which they will be locked out. If I was at a board meeting with Norton or Symantec execs and my livelihood depended on feeding antivirus software to consumers, I WOULD BE DAMNED if that board simply allowed MS to suddenly walk away with an operating system which not only locks us out of our current business relationship, but seems to (at least in principle) take away the consumer's choice (which they have had for years) in regard to protective software. Put yourself in the shoes of this antivirus industry, and you'll understand why execs, programmers, and distributors take a dim view of MS giving the virtual finger to 3rd party developers of antivirus software and associated products.

It's simply too late for MS to provide its own security solutions and walk away. Blame Microsoft. MS has blown off security concerns for years, and has happily opened the door to 3rd party developers to come in and fill the need.

One would have thought that security concerns would have been taken care of with Win95 and 98, ME. But Windows XP Home Edition shipped with five ports open!!! And in 2001, no less. Mac OS X, by comparison . . . you guessed it. No open ports. Anything that tried to install itself on Windows, did. Not even a basic password prompt to warn users that crap was being installed onto their hard drive. It's so simple, so basic. But the last thing MS was going to do back then was to provide their own security solutions (as if ! ) when they knew full well that 3rd party developers would pick up the slack and fill store shelves with their own solutions. Far cheaper for Microsoft. Except who ended up paying for it? YOU. The user.

And now, here we are. The move by the EU and the cries of foul by antivirus developers is understandable. MS can't simply walk away from their business model without the interested parties blocking the exit. And only Microsoft is to blame.

As for Vista, I have no vested interest in it, as many of you have come to realize. I run OS X. But my best advice to you is this: either live with the lingering security problems that will certainly exist in Vista (on whatever scale), or just stick with XP for as long as you can before you deem Vista secure enough to use. Time will tell. If all else fails, you know that there are operating systems out there that can serve you just as well, at least in the home.

Edited by LTD

I'm not surprised, there is no money in a safe operating system (when your a security software company) so of cause they will try to make Vista unsafe, so you will need to buy their software...;)

I dont see the problem myself? Home computing has evolved with two industries, the OS and the security software. For the OS companies like microsoft to continue as they have, would have serious consequences for the security software industry. That cant be allowed, on moral grounds at the very least, and economic grounds. Think of the number of employees of the security software industry?

You know what? I don't care! I really don't care about the security industries and software they build. Imagine for one moment that Microsoft could have done a secure OS from the start... This "security" industrie would have never existed in the first place.

Now that Microsoft is trying hard to secure a new OS, it gets shooted down by this industrie because now they are scared of loosing money... What the hell is wrong with the world?

As for EU : Microsoft should just give them a Vista-N version with NOTHING inside, only a core OS with all doors open, no IE, WMP, MovieMaker, Sidebar, Mail, no codec, .... nothing.

It's funny because many Linux distro come preloaded with much more software AND better security and you don't hear a bip from EU about it....

FIANLLY! Someone understands BOTH SIDES. I've been waiting for you, John.

I posted this in the Main News area, and I'll post it here as well. I invite one and all to dive in an discuss!

-------------------------------------------------

I think alot of you are misunderstanding the issue as a whole. Don't confine your analyses to this single MS-EU-Symtantec/McAfee perspective.

Folks, a whole industry has grown up around Microsoft's horribly flawed operating systems. Companies like Symantec, Norton, et al, have staked everything on the antivirus/ant-malware market, that sprung up in the first place because . . . . . .

***drum roll**

WINDOWS IS (AND WAS) INSECURE BY DESIGN. Period. End of story. I'll get back to this point in a little bit.

And now, after years of serving the Windows community (on which these antivirus companies depend), they are faced with a situation in which they will be locked out. If I was at a board meeting with Norton or Symantec execs and my livelihood depended on feeding antivirus software to consumers, I WOULD BE DAMNED if that board simply allowed MS to suddenly walk away with an operating system which not only locks us out of our current business relationship, but seems to (at least in principle) take away the consumer's choice (which they have had for years) in regard to protective software. Put yourself in the shoes of this antivirus industry, and you'll understand why execs, programmers, and distributors take a dim view of MS giving the virtual finger to 3rd party developers of antivirus software and associated products.

It's simply too late for MS to provide its own security solutions and walk away. Blame Microsoft. MS has blown off security concerns for years, and has happily opened the door to 3rd party developers to come in and fill the need.

One would have thought that security concerns would have been taken care of with Win95 and 98, ME. But Windows XP Home Edition shipped with five ports open!!! And in 2001, no less. Mac OS X, by comparison . . . you guessed it. No open ports. Anything that tried to install itself on Windows, did. Not even a basic password prompt to warn users that crap was being installed onto their hard drive. It's so simple, so basic. But the last thing MS was going to do back then was to provide their own security solutions (as if ! ) when they knew full well that 3rd party developers would pick up the slack and fill store shelves with their own solutions. Far cheaper for Microsoft. Except who ended up paying for it? YOU. The user.

And now, here we are. The move by the EU and the cries of foul by antivirus developers is understandable. MS can't simply walk away from their business model without the interested parties blocking the exit. And only Microsoft is to blame.

As for Vista, I have no vested interest in it, as many of you have come to realize. I run OS X. But my best advice to you is this: either live with the lingering security problems that will certainly exist in Vista (on whatever scale), or just stick with XP for as long as you can before you deem Vista secure enough to use. Time will tell. If all else fails, you know that there are operating systems out there that can serve you just as well, at least in the home.

Pretty much as I said on the main page...

Other security companies don't need kernel access, and have already made their software (or are making it) work on Vista with no problem. Symantec are just being lazy about it - they would need to rewrite their security software to run on Vista, instead of just making a few alterations to make it look new.

Personally, it makes no difference to me - I doubt I'll bother with Vista as it now seems to be nothing more than a horrible UI and more "user is a dumb s***" prompts, now that all the decent features have been removed for one reason or another. :(

OSX seems more attractive everyday. :p

WINDOWS IS (AND WAS) INSECURE BY DESIGN. Period. End of story. I'll get back to this point in a little bit.

Lets assume what u r saying is correct for a minute. So now since Windows was insecure, they are trying to fix the problem. But they get sued, cos it's their own OS, & still they cannot make it secure

Now Microsoft should add one sticker to the Windows Vista retail box

Note - Due to European Commission strict rules & regulation, Windows Vista for Europe does not provide any security features at all, you are advised to use a third party security application or suite as per your requirement. Charges may very for these suits

Lets assume what u r saying is correct for a minute. So now since Windows was insecure, they are trying to fix the problem. But they get sued, cos it's their own OS, & still they cannot make it secure

Now Microsoft should add one sticker to the Windows Vista retail box

Note - Due to European Commission strict rules & regulation, Windows Vista for Europe does not provide any security features at all, you are advised to use a third party security application or suite as per your requirement. Charges may very for these suits

what if everyone starts importing US version?

I'm not surprised, there is no money in a safe operating system (when your a security software company) so of cause they will try to make Vista unsafe, so you will need to buy their software...;)

You mean, as opposed to the almost comedy situation of the maker of the O/S then selling you software to cover up the lack of security in their Operating System?

Now I'm no economist but doesn't it seem a tad silly to ship a product which people will only really buy if your core product has security holes in it?

I haven't really been keeping track of the Vista versions. Are the N version basically just watered down proper versions? And are the N versions the only ones being offered to European countries or will the other versions also be offered?

I posted this on the main forum because I think almost everyone posting here has no idea about how programs currently access the kernel:

*sigh*, I wish people would actually understand the implications of a disabled patchguard.

First, all drivers have to be signed to get access to the kernel - that means purchasing a $300 certificate. If malware/rootkits do get signed, ms can easily blacklist their certificate.

Second, drivers already have access to the kernel. It's already possible to hide registry entires and files using fully supported means.

The argument for patchguard should be stability not security. The unsupported patching that many vendors do is inheritely unstable (once you install a hook you can't unload it safely). What ms should do is create a stable api (which they might be doing according to this article) to patch the SDT.

Please understand the implications of patchguard before posting total nonsense!

I'm also curious to know if this will affect only the "N" editions or not. I suspect this will probably go into all versions, as supporting a special kernel with patchguard disabled seems unwieldy.

I dont see the problem myself? Home computing has evolved with two industries, the OS and the security software. For the OS companies like microsoft to continue as they have, would have serious consequences for the security software industry. That cant be allowed, on moral grounds at the very least, and economic grounds. Think of the number of employees of the security software industry?

Symantec is deathly afraid that Windows will be as secure as Linux. Linux makes sure only administrators have access to do certain things. Windows has finally mimicked that behavior with UAC and also prevented kernel access with something that's apparently called PatchGuard. If the new Windows was as protected from viruses as Linux, Symantec would be in a lot of trouble. People don't sue Linux developers for making their OS so secure that they don't need antivirus companies. It's complete BS that people immediately blame MS for killing off competition when they write a secure OS, but the Linux community can make their OS as secure as they want. Why should Windows be forced to be insecure? Why should they be forced to open up the kernel when they don't want to even though Apple and Linux OSes don't have to take orders about their security features??

Symantec is deathly afraid that Windows will be as secure as Linux. Linux makes sure only administrators have access to do certain things. Windows has finally mimicked that behavior with UAC and also prevented kernel access with something that's apparently called PatchGuard. If the new Windows was as protected from viruses as Linux, Symantec would be in a lot of trouble. People don't sue Linux developers for making their OS so secure that they don't need antivirus companies. It's complete BS that people immediately blame MS for killing off competition when they write a secure OS, but the Linux community can make their OS as secure as they want. Why should Windows be forced to be insecure? Why should they be forced to open up the kernel when they don't want to even though Apple and Linux OSes don't have to take orders about their security features??

You don't get it. Read my previous post. This has nothing at all to do with Apple or Linux, either.

Windows has been insecure since 1995. They did nothing in 1998. They did nothing in 1999, 2000, 2001. And meanwhile, all that time, the antivirus industry has gorwn up around MS' flawed design, and both MS and the antivirus indistry have become dependent on one another. Largely due to MS' irresponsibility or ignorance from the very beginning.

And now, all of a sudden, after years and years of giving YOU the shaft and having YOU spend extra $$ on antivirus software, MS has decided it wants control over Windows security, and the antivirus companies can find something else to do.

No way. No dice. MS cannot simply end the relationship without facing possible legal/legislative consequences.

Who's to blame? MS. 100%. When there was a chance to actually address the problem and find viable in-house solutions, they decided to go the cheaper route and farm the security side out to other 3rd parties. And now MS wants to toss them out of the picture after so many years. Do you honestly think these antivirus developers are going to go quietly? Not a chance. More power to them. MS' chickens are now coming home to roost, and alot of you *still* don't understand the economics of the problem.

You don't get it. Read my previous post. This has nothing at all to do with Apple or Linux, either.

Windows has been insecure since 1995. They did nothing in 1998. They did nothing in 1999, 2000, 2001. And meanwhile, all that time, the antivirus industry has gorwn up around MS' flawed design, and both MS and the antivirus indistry have become dependent on one another. Largely due to MS' irresponsibility or ignorance from the very beginning.

And now, all of a sudden, after years and years of giving YOU the shaft and having YOU spend extra $$ on antivirus software, MS has decided it wants control over Windows security, and the antivirus companies can find something else to do.

No way. No dice. MS cannot simply end the relationship without facing possible legal/legislative consequences.

Who's to blame? MS. 100%. When there was a chance to actually address the problem and find viable in-house solutions, they decided to go the cheaper route and farm the security side out to other 3rd parties. And now MS wants to toss them out of the picture after so many years. Do you honestly think these antivirus developers are going to go quietly? Not a chance. More power to them. MS' chickens are now coming home to roost, and alot of you *still* don't understand the economics of the problem.

Neither do you. MS ARE NOT stopping AV companies from making security software for Windows. They simply put protection on the kernel. Not a problem for most of the security companies. They have either worked around it, or it hasn't made a difference to their software anyway. That is what is so silly about this; only Symantec are complaining, and unnecessarily, as other companies have proven that MS has not locked them out, nor made it hard for them to make security software that works with Vista.

As far as I can see, Symantec are complaining because they will have to re-write their security suite to work without kernel access, rather than just altering a few things and changing "2006" to "2007".

Neither do you. MS ARE NOT stopping AV companies from making security software for Windows. They simply put protection on the kernel. Not a problem for most of the security companies. They have either worked around it, or it hasn't made a difference to their software anyway. That is what is so silly about this; only Symantec are complaining, and unnecessarily, as other companies have proven that MS has not locked them out, nor made it hard for them to make security software that works with Vista.

As far as I can see, Symantec are complaining because they will have to re-write their security suite to work without kernel access, rather than just altering a few things and changing "2006" to "2007".

It all depends on how that rewrite will affect them economically. This is a stretch I know, but I'd like to see - maybe you can tell me - just how much this rewrite will affect Symantec's bottom-line.

If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it and do penance.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This could exactly be how our Sun ends but it's not as simple by Sayan Sen Image by Drew Rae via Pexels An international team led by Université de Montréal (University of Montreal) PhD student Érika Le Bourdais has found that the ancient white dwarf star LSPM J0207+3331 is still pulling in planetary debris, even though it has been cooling for about three billion years. White dwarfs are dense, Earth-sized stellar remnants left behind when Sun-like stars exhaust their nuclear fuel and shed their outer layers. The star, located 145 light-years away in the constellation Triangulum, is the oldest and coldest white dwarf known to have a surrounding disk of dust. The star was first spotted in 2019 by a citizen scientist through the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 project. Its cool temperature immediately suggested that it was very old, since white dwarfs gradually lose heat over time. Using the W. M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii, astronomers later confirmed that the star shows infrared signals consistent with dust rings formed by asteroids breaking apart under its strong gravity. Such infrared excesses occur when a star emits more infrared light than expected, often because warm dust surrounding it absorbs and re-radiates energy. “This discovery challenges our understanding of planetary system evolution,” said Le Bourdais. “The fact that we still see planetary debris being accreted three billion years after the star became a white dwarf suggests that asteroids, comets, and even planets can remain in orbit around these stars for a very long time.” Spectroscopic analysis—a technique that studies light to identify the chemical elements present in an object—revealed thirteen heavy elements in the star’s atmosphere: sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and strontium. Normally, heavy elements sink quickly in hydrogen-rich white dwarfs, making them hard to detect. “We expected to see only a few elements, but we found dozens!” explained Le Bourdais. The research paper adds more detail. The absence of carbon features suggests the debris came from a carbon-volatile-depleted source. The abundance pattern shows slight deficits of magnesium and silicon compared to iron but otherwise resembles Earth-like material. This points to a differentiated rocky body—one whose materials have separated into distinct layers such as a metallic core and rocky mantle—with a metallic core fraction higher than Earth’s. In other words, the star is accreting the remains of a large rocky object, similar in structure to Earth or the asteroid Vesta. “White dwarfs offer one of the only ways we can directly measure the composition of exoplanets,” said Patrick Dufour, co-author and professor at Université de Montréal. “When planetary debris come too close, they are torn apart by the star’s gravity and end up polluting its atmosphere, leaving a detailed chemical fingerprint of its composition.” The team also detected weak Ca II H & K line core emission, making this only the second known isolated polluted white dwarf to show this feature. These are specific spectral signatures produced by ionised calcium and can indicate unusual physical activity in a star’s upper atmosphere. The finding suggests that extra physical processes may be happening in or above the star’s upper atmosphere. The study stresses the importance of including heavy elements in model atmosphere calculations, since leaving them out can distort the inferred structure and lead to inaccurate stellar parameters. Earlier work suggested the star’s infrared excess came from two dust rings. The new analysis shows that a single silicate dust disk—a ring composed largely of rock-forming minerals rich in silicon and oxygen—can explain the observed signal at 11.6 μm, simplifying the picture of the system’s structure. The question of how debris ended up falling into the star so late remains open. One idea is that giant planets in the system slowly destabilised smaller bodies over billions of years. Another possibility is that a passing star disturbed the orbits of debris. “Future observations with the James Webb Space Telescope or archival data found in the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission could help distinguish between a planetary rearrangement and the gravitational effect of a close stellar encounter,” said John Debes, co-author and researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Dufour noted that hydrogen-rich white dwarfs are the most common type, and the coolest among them are the oldest stars in the galaxy. “We didn't have the habit of looking for signs of accretion in them. This unique case motivates us to expand our search to more of these stars.” The findings show that even after billions of years, planetary systems can remain active and complex. Substantial accretion events—the gradual accumulation of surrounding material onto a celestial object—can still occur long after a star’s death, offering a rare window into the composition and fate of distant worlds. Source: University of Montreal, IOPScience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Doesn't DDG mainly use Bing?
    • Given the hefty price tag this thing will likely have I doubt many everyday home users will be in the market for one especially given the current climate.
    • ESET 19.1.14 by Razvan Serea NOD32 for Windows is the best choice for protection of your personal computer. Almost 20 years of technological development enabled ESET to create state-of-the-art antivirus system able to protect you from all sorts of Internet threats. ESET Internet Security boasts a large array of security features, usability enhancements and scanning technology improvements in defense of your your online life. ESET Internet Security ESET Internet Security keeps your computer or laptop safe with intelligent multi-layered protection combining proven antivirus, antispyware, firewall, anti-rootkit and antispam capabilities. Based on ESET NOD32 Antivirus, it protects you from viruses, worms, spyware, and all Internet threats. It conserves resources and improves computer speed. You are protected at the highest level while you work, social network, play online games or plug in removable media. ESET NOD32 Antivirus Your best defense against viruses, trojans and other forms of malware—and the top choice for IT professionals. Powered by the ThreatSense® engine with advanced heuristics, which blocks far more unknown threats than the competition. The latest generation of the legendary ESET NOD32 Antivirus takes your security to a whole new level. Built for a low footprint, fast scanning, it packs security features and customization options for consistent and personalized security online or off. ESET Smart Security Ultimate protection for everyday web users, thanks to ESET’s trademark best balance of detection, speed and usability. Stay safe from viruses and spyware. Stay protected from ransomware - Blocks malware that tries to lock you out of your own data. Receive free support by email or telephone in your local language, wherever you are. Bank and shop online more safely - automatically secures transactions on internet banking sites, and helps to protect you on online payment gateways. Stop hackers from accessing your PC - Personal Firewall prevents hackers from gaining access to your computer and keeps you invisible when you use public Wi-Fi. Keep your kids safe online - block unwanted internet content by categories or individual websites and keep your kids safe online with Parental Control. Safer webcam and home router - Get an alert when anyone tries to access your webcam, and check your home router for vulnerabilities. Safely store passwords, and encrypt your data. Safely store, generate and prefill your passwords, and encrypt your files and removable media (USB keys). Includes protection for smartphones and tablets. Protect all of your devices - mix and match security protection for up to 3 or 5 devices. ESET Security Ultimate ESET Security Ultimate offers all-in-one protection with antivirus, anti-malware, and anti-phishing features. It includes a personal firewall, secure online banking, and a password manager for enhanced security. Parental controls and data encryption keep family and sensitive information safe. It also provides regular updates to ensure you're always protected against the latest threats. It's user-friendly and ensures comprehensive digital security, perfect for those seeking reliable protection without complexity. ESET 19.1.14.0 changelog: Fixed: GUI crahes Fixed: IPM issues Download: ESET NOD32 Antivirus 64-bit | NOD32 Antivirus 32-bit | ARM 64 | ~ 80.0 MB (Free Trial) Download: ESET Internet Security 64-bit | ESET Internet Security 32-bit Download: Eset Smart Security Premium 64-bit | Eset Smart Security Premium 32-bit Download: ESET Security Ultimate 64-bit | ESET Security Ultimate 32-bit ARM64: Antivirus | Internet Security | Smart Security | ESET Security Ultimate Link: ESET Home Page Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • +1 for Rufus. I bought NTLite a few years ago to scrape all the bloat out of Windows 11. It is not a perfect solution as there is a steep learning curve if you don't really know what you are doing (me included). I have finally got a Windows install that just works. I only keep things I use and nothing else.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      jefred earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Apprentice
      JoeyNeo went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Week One Done
      oliviaexpo earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      491
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      227
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      66
    4. 4
      Nick H.
      56
    5. 5
      monterxz
      56
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!