Symantec wants to lend a hand with Vista security

TalkBack 10 of 17:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

No it is the worst idea.

There are alternatives already. You can decide which antivirus firewall or anti spyware product you want to use,

more will come when they learn how to do secure programing, and when sp1 is released.

The UAC is there for a diferent reason, it job is make sure you know what is trying to screw up your machine, it is

an OS secure design requirement, not an ms feature to lock out third parties. Similar feeature can be found in OSX,

Linux and UNIX. In comparison to thies the UAC is still somewhat too forgiving. If security vendors are allowed to overide the UAC, any one can do the same, and since it is an integral part of the operating system your entire os can be compromised. You can turn it of or reduce its functionality like turning of the secure desktop part in the security policies, but overriding it requires almost a new kernel which won't hapen. If ms is forced to do this they will do it in a separate os version which won't get instaled on anyone computer how has some brain.

Besides runing programs as administrator is a bad idea. On xp you don't have to much of a choice, but on vista you

have, as soon as programers learn secure programing. Which is hard at first, but in the end is revarding to the end

user.

I dont trust ms with security either or any vendor how ofer all in 1 integrated solution, but there are things the OS manufacturers needs to be implemented; there are other things which are require third parties. Separating proceses and securing critical components and enforcing user privileges; are the vendors responsibility not third parties. Have you ever considered that if third party security vendors can hack the OS like this by mantaining

compatibility, what the malware writers without the need for compatibility can do to your precious os and computer?! Or what do you prefer buying and instaling third party security products which tries to correct the most basic design flaws, and introducing new bugs and compatibility issues, of the operating system; or instaling an operating system which dosen't contains thies trival security problems, while allowing security vendors to enhance it other security subsystem like virus, spyware and unwanted network trafic protection.

Defending process from each other should be the os responsibility but that would break compatibility with the previous windows version so it will be implemented in the next version, with luck. Yes this greatly hurts security vendors specialized on this field, but thanks to ms there will be still plenty of room for them to operate, since ms still didn't get it right for reasons of compatibility.

As for Symantech they can't even write a decent security software for xp and yet they want to override a critical os security design. Here is the detialed analyisis of the latest NIS:

http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/Norton-Personal-Firewall-2006-version-9.1.0.33/
With Symantech you probably mentioned the most untrustworty company on the security market.

Mcafee is not much better either since their rummored allegiance with NSA.

Posted by: h143570   Posted on: 01/11/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now