You're right David - that is exactly what Microsoft is doing with VISTA -
that's the whole idea, to allow vendors to not only deactivate the software
on your machine, but even to actually DELETE files from your PC that were
made with that software.
It's true Microsoft made some noises about "cooperating" with TWO security
companies Symantec and McAfee, both producing EXPENSIVE software, which will
likely be made even more expensive by the time MS finishes "licensing" them
to access the kernel (naturally MS doesn't want good FREE security solutions
to have to compete with). However, even these two companies say that all MS
has given them so far are some vague generalities that they cannot possibly
design software around. They don't think MS will cooperate enough for them
to be competitive in any meaningful way.
Langa List and Window's Secrets are not optimistic about the bad guys not
finding a way to access the kernel, but only about MS's keeping the good
guys from getting in there (legally) to root the bad guys out. So far, MS
has not produced any stellar security software and I'm not planning to trust
them with my PC security - hence VISTA avoidance.
MS Firewall still turns itself back on, every time I turn it off. I wish I
had SP1 back.
AnnaSummers
============================================================
From: David Gillett <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2006/11/30 Thu AM 11:08:02 EST
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCSOFT] Spybot Question
On 29 Nov 2006 at 18:14, AnnaSummers wrote:
> You should only run one firewall and not Microsoft's - it does not
> restrict
> outgoing data, which makes it pretty worthless. ZoneAlarm is free and
> works
> just fine!
I don't believe Lewis' issue has anything to do with the MS firewall
"turning itself back on". Rather, his issue is with SpybotSD not
understanding the mchanism by which ZA tells the Security Center NOT to
complain that the MS firewall ISN'T turned on. (As far as SpybotSD knows,
until told differently, some piece of malware has disabled the MS firewall
and tweaked the registry to prevent SC from warning the user about it.)
> P.S. I just got word that Microsoft is restricting third party vendors'
> access to VISTA kernel because they are trying to shut everyone else out
> of
> the security market and will be SELLING (not including with the OS) their
> own security software separately from Windows VISTA. Another reason I
> won't
> be using VISTA.
The latest I've been hearing seemed to suggest that Microsoft has been
negotiating a compromise with Symantec, CA, etc to resolve this. Certainly
there are concerns about things that are changing in VISTA which can be
either very good or very bad, depending on how well Microsoft can make them
work. I would not suggest that anyone try to make a final decision, for or
against, based on beta versions, rumours and speculations. We won't really
know whether they've made it work until after the real product gets released
and used for a bit.
[Hopefully, if it's hard for third parties to install themselves into the
kernel, that will be much harder on malware authors than on legitimate
security companies. On the other hand, Microsoft is working on a scheme to
limit functionality of the system if a chunk of code decides to doubt
whether the copy you're running is properly paid for -- experience with XP
activation and the several generations of WGA should have taught us all that
getting this code right may be beyond Microsoft's (or anyone's) capability.]
David Gillett
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0652-2, 2006-11-30
Tested on: 2006-11-30 4:14:25 PM
The NOSPIN Group has added a new feature on our website,
web based bulletinboard for questions and answers:
Visit our sister website at http://nospin.com
|
