Giving Norton access to the Kernel - are you mad???

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by intclass, Oct 15, 2006.

  1. intclass

    intclass Guest

    This news is worse than when you dropped WinFS Microsoft! You caved in to
    lazy Norton and you are going to give them access to the Windows Kernel?

    Well there goes all those claims of water tight security, over the next few
    days you'll see what a bad decision this is as every computer 'expert' whines
    about the pure stupidity of letting Norton (and other lazy AV companies) into
    the kernel!

    If Kaspersky, Avast and etc. don't need it, why would you change it for
    intclass, Oct 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. intclass

    ken Guest

    Are they bl************dy mad, I agree if the rest can do then why give it to
    ken, Oct 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Microsoft decided that it was in their best interest to do so or risk
    breaking European and/or South Korean anticompetition behavior laws.
    Remember that because of this you have a choice of how to control your
    security. Either you choose Microsoft or a third party. It's as simple as

    RR Johnson Jr, Oct 16, 2006
  4. Right. So now Symantec has the api's. Do you think that Symantec will
    protect Microsoft property any better than their own. Symantec programs are
    the most pirated and hacked of any company.

    Now, Joe Jones gets disgruntled and leaves Symantec after a big argument
    with management, and he takes those api's with him. Two day later they are
    on the internet, for all hackers to obtain.

    There goes security of any kind.



    Richard Urban
    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
    (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

    Quote from George Ankner:
    If you knew as much as you think you know,
    You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
    Richard Urban, Oct 16, 2006
  5. intclass

    DF Guest

    How is that different from a MS disgruntled employee doing the same?
    DF, Nov 4, 2006
  6. So maybe Microsoft should no longer sell or support its products in
    countries that don't seem to want them there.

    Here's a better idea: stop selling their products in Europe and S. Korea,
    and then rescind all the leases for all the existing products, making it
    illegal to use a Microsoft product. Perhaps then those who seem to not like
    the way the software is written will take a better look at what they really
    Mark D. VandenBerg, Nov 5, 2006
  7. Sorry - gotta disagree with you guys who think MS should not have shared with
    Symantec and McAfee. "Don't sell to those countries?" Come one dude..

    Just as when MS embedded the browser in Windows back when --- and lost in
    court --- this new architecture CLEARLY would have put Symantec and McAfee
    out of business - and would have left the "fox guarding the hen-house" to
    misappropriate an analog... The whole way they architected this is clearly
    anti-competetive. Those two companies, and others, have been MS partners for
    ages - and Symantec alone have done WAY more good for windows security than
    MS itself has. You guys think it's o.k. for Microsoft to make it
    nigh-impossible for them to continue doing business, and at the same time,
    force us - Joe User, to use Microsoft's security product? They're just
    entering the market, for the first time - and given their history, I don't
    much like their resume. Symantec and McAfeee, et al, have been doing OS
    security for years and years now - they're _better_ at it. And yes -
    disgruntled ex-Micro-serfs are far more likely, in my opinion, to go off and
    spread source among the hacker community.

    I'm a s/w engineer - MS and all unix; I like Vista (it _is_ mostly just
    eye-candy, but nice eye-candy). If MS had not given the security vendors a
    level playing field, I for one, would definitely never buy or use Vista
    again. I know many others in the industry who feel the same way. Microsnake
    would like to systematically wipe-out all other windows s/w vendors, and have
    you using only their products. I don't think that'd be good for any of us.
    I agree with all the major technical editors out there (CPU, Max.PC, PC
    world, etc...) - they're not perfect, but they all agree - (original) Vista
    improved security alright - for Microsoft.

    I'll refrain from mud-slinging folks - 'tis a civil forum after all, yes?

    Stephen - aprilia1k, Jan 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.