Anti-malware company Symantec has accused Microsoft of withholding key information about its upcoming Vista OS, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in the security market. Symantec claimed this week that Microsoft is refusing to hand over the APIs for Windows Defender, its anti-spyware product which will be included in Vista. Without the APIs, Symantec claims that it isn’t able to ensure that its own security products are compatible with Vista. Microsoft, though, insisted on Wednesday afternoon that the APIs are now available.
Naughty Microsoft.
I’m interrested to see how many trojan/worm/virus will appears and exploit these APIs once they are divulged by Microsoft, even under NDA with Symantec
Perhaps Microsoft better not to make them public, if they want to ensure some kind of security…
If Symantec wants to get some sort of control over an operating system (security), why do they not write their own, or bloat a Linux distro ?
Kochise
> I’m interrested to see how many trojan/worm/virus will
> appears and exploit these APIs once they are divulged
> by Microsoft, even under NDA with Symantec
Perhaps
> Microsoft better not to make them public, if they want
> to ensure some kind of security…
Ooooh goody – security by obscurity – all over again.
Security by obscurity is a disproven concept – even inside MS.
API obscurity is about artificial competitive advantage by a possibly malign monopolist. There does need to be a decision of legal principle as to when disclosure should occur – after all Vista has not gone on sale yet.
Oh, I not meant “security by obscurity” let me assure you
I think there are rooms in Vista for everyone to be happy 
I think there would be a public API to use for security third-party supplier, so I don’t understand the point to open-up some sort of hidden places Microsoft keeps in the shadow to avoid too much bloating 
See, why not complaining that Microsoft hasn’t release the APIs of Windows Update so that everyone could make a paying replacement, and also provides updates, gadgets, whatever… Who knows, trojan/worm/virus ? People can scream out-loud, some things have to be close sourced, otherwise everybody will start complaining again that Microsoft’s Windows is unsecure, and thanks to McAfee/Symantec/Norton/… to secure thightly the whole thing
I hope that everyone had learned the lesson once SP2 was released and secured things so much… But obviously not, people are still paranoid !
Kochise
I hope that everyone had learned the lesson once SP2 was released and secured things so much…
The latest MS exploit for which there’s only a workaround works even if you have SP2 and all other updates.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/925444.mspx
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/753044
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/78793
exploit:http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/modules/exploits/windows…
remedie:http://support.microsoft.com/KB/240797
But obviously not, people are still paranoid !
Rightfully so!
Long live ActiveX (not).
Edited 2006-09-28 12:02
OK, let’s all jump in the wagon and make a secure Linux distro, as everybody complains about Windows
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Microsoft freak/guy/addict/fan/whatever, but why See-man-tech/Make-a-fee/Nor-tons/… are so willing to stick with an operating system that does not need them anymore ? Why not securing something else ? If Windows don’t wanna be secured/patched/… and users installation gets bloated, I think it would cause quite some harm to Microsoft and people will soon switch faster than expected to another operating system (MacOS X for the most).
What I want to tell is that it’s Microsoft’s choice to release something secure or not, it’s not third-parties’ task to do this part of the job. If Microsoft don’t wants to open this to other people, I think it’s their right, and they’ll suffer from it.
I also think there is not ‘alternative’ to Windows in term of usability, integration, support, … When you buy your copy of Windows, of course everything isn’t as polished as it could be (otherwise XP would have been released in 1985), but you still have a 10000-man task product in the hands. MacOS X is done with less ? Ubuntu is done with less ? So why people are still sticking to Microsoft ? I thought it’s currently a case being trialed in EU…
Of course, Windows is such a big mess of code that flaws would ever exists. Which code isn’t after all ? It’s not by allowing third-party vendor that are as crappy or even more to replace Microsoft’s components that you will secure things more. It’s forcing Microsoft to stick and respect the standart and pass some unit testing to ensure these are respected. In this case we could ensure the code will behave in such a way that seems secured.
Kochise
Edited 2006-09-28 12:27
>> OK, let’s all jump in the wagon and make a secure Linux distro, as everybody complains about Windows
<<
There are already dozens of quite secure Linux and *BSD distros, why jump?
>> … why See-man-tech/Make-a-fee/Nor-tons/… are so willing to stick with an operating system that does not need them anymore ? Why not securing something else ? <<
As no Linux/*BSD distro has, nor will ever have (GPL/BSD licenses guarantee that), anything near of a monopoly, they can, will, and are perfectly allowed to all provide their own security, for example AppArmor, SELinux, etc.
So there’s only few cents, if any, to be made in the Linux business for corporations like Symantec.
An operating system should be secure by default – disable security if you want. Not the opposite. Ever bought a car and then went to WalMart for a few safety belts? The security market taken up by the Symantecs of this world was created by MS, and is an anomaly. The judicial oddities that now occur due to MS’s monopoly should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.
Why not securing something else ?
There’s Norton Internet Security for MacOSX.Although it’s pretty straightforward to setup a nice firewall from cli.
But i suspect to see increasingly more ISV’s spreading their interests by porting their applications to other platforms.This way any potential customer could notice there’s more behind the horizon and their favorite app is working too one way or another.And i mean not only security apps and suites but allso office,graphics,multimedia applications.I think Mandriva for example has done the right thing to make their new release a lot more attractive for early adopters and maybe switchers by including cedega,LinDVD,etc.
Linux has to be better marketed.And in order to do that it needs showstoppers,preferrably facts.Instead of seeking direct confrontation with MS and throwing mudd.
Linux has to be better marketed.And in order to do that it needs showstoppers,preferrably facts.Instead of seeking direct confrontation with MS and throwing mudd
Just explains one thing : how do you launch any app that MS has (like an OS, an Office suite, a browser, …) without being in direct confrontation with MS, exactly ?
And what is “throwing mud” exactly ? Answering to accusations of being a terrorist, communist, anti-american, cancer, … ?
How do you call people (Gates, Ballmer) that say such things about others ?
Just so that I understand if you live in fantasies or in the same world as me.
And what is “throwing mud” exactly ? Answering to accusations of being a terrorist,
Getting on their low level talk ,responding the way they do.
How do you call people (Gates, Ballmer) that say such things about others ?
demagoog.
Edited 2006-09-28 14:31
OK, let’s all jump in the wagon and make a secure Linux distro, as everybody complains about Windows
No need to. For now, Linux has exactly zero virus in the wild, so no need for Symantec or any other antivirus companies.
Worms and rootkits use vulnerabilities, and these are fixed already by each Linux distro vendor.
So the wagon is gone since a long time, you’re just years late.
why See-man-tech/Make-a-fee/Nor-tons/… are so willing to stick with an operating system that does not need them anymore ? Why not securing something else ?
Because Windows is the only OS that is so bad that it needs these kind of software.
If Windows don’t wanna be secured/patched/… and users installation gets bloated, I think it would cause quite some harm to Microsoft and people will soon switch faster than expected to another operating system (MacOS X for the most)
BS. You forget one big thing : MS is a monopoly and abuse it.
What I want to tell is that it’s Microsoft’s choice to release something secure or not, it’s not third-parties’ task to do this part of the job. If Microsoft don’t wants to open this to other people, I think it’s their right, and they’ll suffer from it.
Agreed. Now, what I don’t agree with, is how come to this day, you never complained about these third parties doing the job of MS.
So why people are still sticking to Microsoft ? I thought it’s currently a case being trialed in EU…
Same answer as above : monopoly and abuse of monopoly. And no, EU is not trialing that at all. EU fined MS because of that, and still investigating other violations.
Of course, Windows is such a big mess of code that flaws would ever exists. Which code isn’t after all ?
The problem of Windows is not that. The problem is that Windows has the worst track record of all OS about flaws, despite the company making it having the most money to put on it.
Microsoft has done stuff like this in the past, but Windows is their (Symantec’s) easiest way to make money; they need to have software available for the Vista launch. The news that MS is trying to provide their own security software must come as a blow to Symantec.
Jesus christ MS I’m all for Vista but goddamn if Symantec wants to release their crappy suite of Security let them use it.
In the end, let your product shine through quality not because of hidden APIs.
This is why only a select few teams at MS produce anything worthwhile.
Well Symantec has always tried to hack their way around the API’s provided. Such as that stupid security center, Symantec turns the thing off for their security products. Both corporate and consumer. However why is it that McAfee always seems to do a good job both corporate and consumer in using the API’s provided.
The Symantec was so upset with the SP2 release was that their process put it self between the kernel and the shell (can’t remember the article but that is all I can remember if that is even right), and McAfee uses the kernel and shell calls via the API to protect the operating system.
I don’t think there is any “hidden” API, I just think Microsoft has done a good job at locking down what can access the kernel and what cannot. And I think Symantec so it doesn’t have to reprogram its whole crappy suite (corporate and consumer) is making complaints.
I just hope Microsoft doesn’t give in and open a door for Symantec that interupts all the work they have been doing on the core of their OS.
API for what exactly? Defender is a program, so what do they need access to it for?
I’m not saying they don’t, I’m just curious what API.
The only information available here is Symantec (who clearly has an agenda here) saying “They didn’t give us the API!” and Microsoft saying they did. I’m not going to make any judgement on this until there is something more substantial available.
Edited 2006-09-28 00:00
Those were my thoughts exactly.
Why do you need an API for something you’ve been writing for years now (no matter how crappy any and all of Symantec’s products are)?
Why would there be an API for Windows Defender? It just doesn’t really make sense.
Symantec gets worse and worse with each passing day.
How many things in Windows are “just a program?”
If Microsoft ever revamped Notepad, it would be tied into major system functionality and listen on a tcp port.
Edited 2006-09-28 00:08
A network-transparent Notepad would be king of the unformatted-graphical-text-editors. With the additional performance and power harnessed directly from the system, it could easily displace all it’s competitors and become one of MS’s leading programs. Could be a positive move.
Why do you need an API for something you’ve been writing for years now (no matter how crappy any and all of Symantec’s products are)?
I’m not up to date with all the Vista stuff, but isn’t it supposed to have an all-new security layer and a brand new way of handling the way programs get/ask for administrative priviledges ? It would be pretty hard to write a virus scanner without those.
Also after the whole XP service pack 2 debacle I don’t think software houses are taking any chances.
I’m not up to date with all the Vista stuff, but isn’t it supposed to have an all-new security layer and a brand new way of handling the way programs get/ask for administrative priviledges ? It would be pretty hard to write a virus scanner without those.
This isn’t about Virus Scanner APIs. Those are the same as in XP. This is about an API to disable Windows Defender.
Also after the whole XP service pack 2 debacle I don’t think software houses are taking any chances.
ISVs had months to prepare for XP SP2, with builds and documentation available on MSDN.
Also after the whole XP service pack 2 debacle I don’t think software houses are taking any chances.
And why should Microsoft be punished because programmers at those said companies give a bullshit story to their bosses about product problems rather than just plain well admitting they’re crap at their job and too lazy to read the relevant MSDN articles.
Microsoft released the details to SP2 changes atleast 12-18months before its release; why should Microsoft be castigated by the morons of the world because there are people too lazy to read the articles.
Microsoft fix problems, they detail the fixes that are made, it is software vendors responsibility to maintain compatibility with the operating system by constantly keeping an eye on changes that are being made to correct problems, and ensuring that their product is compatible.
As for Symantec, they’re just yet another money hungry company despirate to get headlines; quite frankly, I don’t want their shit on my computer, their products cause crashes, open my machine to malware and spyware, their updates are buggy and end up causing major compatibility conflicts when the anti-virus runs, and certain applications/installer tools are running.
Third party vendors seem to virtually want to make Microsoft maintain their own software, if I was Microsoft, I’d turn around and say “hey, if you want us to maintain your software, you start payingh US money and royalties on each product shipped, if you’re so lazy as not to do your jobs”.
If I do purchase an anti-virus in the end, it’ll be Microsoft’s, every move that Symantec and McAfee do, push me closer and closer to Microsoft – good job third parties, you want me to use your products, stop acting like a butch of dickheads, and provide a stable, reliable and secure solution rather than being the epicentre for causing all problems in Windows.
Symantec’s complaint is that they need an API to disable Windows Defender because for some reason they can’t seem to develop an application that is compatible with it as other ISVs have.
Even though Windows Defender was engineered to work with other security applications like those provided by Symantec, and it provides backup security for the user in case the ISV product misses something or your subscription for the ISV product expires, MS says there is already an API to disable Windows Defender and it’s been there since RC1.
Symantec’s claim that they can’t ship to OEMs without the API is simply false as Microsoft allows OEMs to disable Windows Defender on computers they ship.
Windows Defender can also be disabled by the user directly or via Group Policy.
You also don’t need to disable Defender for other anti-spyware apps to work.
Heck, if you are having problems with spyware such that you are buying Symantec’s crap, it would be wise to have more than one scanner active as they will pick up different items.
Perhaps they need it to disable certain functions of Defender so that their product can function fully? I guess what you see on the surface isn’t always what’s happening under the hood.
APIs that expose the functionality that Defender accesses in the OS. I think Symantec is asking for the same degree of understanding/documentation/etc. so that they can have the same degree of access that MS itself has.
Remember folks, Microsoft has promissed to play fair with this item. It seems as though it is blowing smoke here. Symantec deserves complete access to the OS API’s. Everyone deserves that. If my grandma wants access to create her own program, by golly, she should have them. That is fair.
So the “API” that Defender uses is basically just a wrapper to already existing and/or documented API? So Symantec basically wants a free pass to learn how Microsoft’s product works behind the scenes?
“So the “API” that Defender uses is basically just a wrapper to already existing and/or documented API?”
It could well be a non documented API only Microsoft knows how to use. Like it wasn’t ever happened before…
Then it is not the Defender API(s) they seek.
The bit about the grandma–eh, no. Publicly releasing the APIs to disable MS’s antispyware software is about the worst idea I’ve ever heard of. End of story.
The argument you implicitly put forth is that “In order to provide a secure OS, MS must limit [API] access by third parties who might want to provide a competing or better product.” The FUD factor kicks in with this kind of logic: “What’s more important to you, the security of the OS (that MS ensures) or releasing API so that others have a chance to compete and provide a potentially better, more secure environment?” I presume that the Koolaid has worked with you, as you seem to trust in spite of overwhelming data that MS will get it right this time, Vista will be secrue and, oh by the way, to hell with those pesky third parties who want to complete and dare I say it, help patch the egregious security hole that history says are bound to reveal themselves in Vista.
You seem to think that by providing the API documentation that allows third parties to provide a competing product will fatally undermine the OS security architecture – to the extent that it is actually in our (the users) best interest that MS continue to practice monopolistic anti-competitive business practices.
Edited 2006-09-28 16:06
You’re right, I do think the security of the base OS is more important than ensuring that Snortin and McCrappy have a hold in the marketplace. Plus, that’s not even the point. The other antivirus vendors create products that have been tested and work fine on Vista. As far as I can see, Symantec is blowing hot air.
Aside from that, I said that the **PUBLIC** release of the APIs is a horrible idea, because then the hackers and spyware authors would have a front-door entrance all prepared for them. This PUBLIC release (what you refer to with your “grandma” comment) is very different from the private release of APIs to trusted antivirus software providers. This PRIVATE release is in fact all that Symantec is asking for, but in truth it’s just upset because it used to get top priority from MS and now it doesn’t. And you know what, it shouldn’t, because its product sucks and its smaller competitors have proven that this kind of low-level API access does not in fact a better, more secure product make; all it does is make Symantec’s coders have to do less work themselves. But you know what? It’s about time they got off their fat asses and actually wrote some good code instead of hacking together old code into overpriced, unstable bloatware.
I see your point. I was just trying to reconcile MS’s promise as per item 6 at the following URL. Take a look and decide for yourself.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/windowsprinciples…
MS may have now realeased whatever this ‘API’ is thereby covering their backs. BUT the competition is already way behind development schedual. When the first companys switch to vista MS defender will be ahead of the others, if nothing else then thanks to extra dev time MS has had over anyone else in the sector
Um …
It *IS* their operating system. Doesn’t it stand to reason that Microsoft themselves would have a head-start on any and all development of system-level add-ons?
Perhaps Microsoft are still altering the API as we type, or haven’t gotten around to documenting it … neither is without precedent or irony.
Microsofts success is based on the range of third party applications available. Witness the number of users who almost switch to Linux or BSD but cannot live without a particular application. So it is clearly in Microsoft interest to be open with their developers who also provide a convenient group of beta testers.
The facing up between Microsoft and Symantec is curious because they are both megabucks corporations and the rest of us get grandstand views of it. MS have a bad (legally proven) track record of skulduggery with anti virus stuff so this could get interesting.
One could better argue due to it’s ubiquity; unlike the chicken/egg debate, we know which came first. Apps followed. Those apps, and of course – the ‘microsoft tax’, are what help maintain it’s dominance.
One could better argue due to it’s ubiquity; unlike the chicken/egg debate, we know which came first. Apps followed. Those apps, and of course – the ‘microsoft tax’, are what help maintain it’s dominance.
“Um …
It *IS* their operating system. Doesn’t it stand to reason that Microsoft themselves would have a head-start on any and all development of system-level add-ons?”
The Samba team doesn’t seem to think so… :o)
And how long has it taken the Samba team to get to where they are?
Durrrrr.
Ages…because of closed and constantly-changing APIs.
So then I don’t understand the parent’s comment.
We’re back to square one: Microsoft will always be faster than 3rd parties in developing system add-ons for a new operating system of theirs.
No doubt the OP meant that samba is faster than MS’s SMB software *in operation*, even if it takes them longer to *create it*.
If what n4cer says is true, then it seems like a SINGLE API for one purpose and they have plenty of time to put it in now.
if were are honest we dont know what this api contains, much less how long it will take symantec to design, develop, test their software
and its not only symantec that would use this driver its sounds like EVERY security software would need access. If you are late to the game you can miss out on ALOT of sales
A single API means one function call. As a programmer, I tell you it’s not that complicated. Plug it in, test it.
I do have my doubts that Symantec is capable of making even (proper) one function call… it just might be too much for them.
But yeah – it ought to be quite simple – if you read the docs, that is
Norton anti virus and internet security is the chief reason behind why computers running windows are slow. They can actually slow the computer down more than spyware and viruses.
I think Microsoft should not allow Symantec to even release a product for windows vista. Their reputation is being ruined by them.
Symantec Home products do tend to be bloated however considering the number of infected machines I’ve dealt with I think that people should still run it. I do however disagree with many of the home systems requiring a subscription to be updated.
Symantec Corperate products on the other hand are brillant. We utilise them reguarly at work and I have nothing bad to say about them. Yes they do still chew up memory however it is barely noticable on my old Duron 1.3 let alone my current Athlon X2. There are few apps that offer the central management features of SAV, which is required in large organisation to allow staff to protect large computing fleets (my team looks after over 1600 computers on 2 smaller campuses).
At least they have a business. Please see this unfortunate story about Hans Reiser:
http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/09/19/n/HeadlineNews…
I’m normally against MS playing this old game of killing of a business by including a competing product with the OS.
But in this case I hope Symantec don’t get the API. SAV is a creaking old monster of an application that just needs a bullet.
Its like symmantec is crying because, oh wait, thats right, they can’t get documentation from, whats this? A product that consistently screws all the other vendors? nooooo never! Gimme a break… Symmantec’s products aren’t worth a dime anyways, in fact, anti-virus itself is kind of a joke these days all things considered.
Edited 2006-09-28 00:46
I am not a Microsoft fan at all, but why in the heck do people feel that they should provide all of the API’s to _THEIR_ software. I just don’t get it.
“I am not a Microsoft fan at all, but why in the heck do people feel that they should provide all of the API’s to _THEIR_ software. I just don’t get it.”
They don’t have to provide information to access the internals, but an API (application programming interface) is for making applications. If they provide public APIs, they should document them. If they don’t, and only them know how to use those APIs, then only them could make a good use of them to implement better(?) applications and get a grip on competition. That’s what a monopoly does. It’s not fair. It’s wrong.
Microsoft has come to be the most powerfull software company because they provided an API which other companies used to build applications for Windows. Windows is nothing but shit without those applications. So Microsoft is where it is because the utility of Windows is in running applications.
But now Microsoft is turning into a more complex and varied shop. They not only provide an Operating System, they also provide a database server, an office package, middleware, backoffice, web server, programming languages, HRM, graphic applications, etc. They also provide a portal, a search engine, what else? Antivirus, antispyware, Zune, XBOX… bread and butter and if you wait a couple of years internet TV, newspaper, furniture, computers, shoes, imagine… A corporation.
Because _THEY’RE_ a monopoly and the rules are different when you totally control a market. It’s called abusing you market position to control a new market.
I suppose if Microsoft managed to make a genuinely secure, virus-free reliable operating system, Symantec would sue and demand they put all the bugs back… how dare they unfairly squash Symantec!
Guess more users will switch to AVG and Avast.
Symantec’s gonna loose this battle… Why?
Avast and AVG the 2 main lightweight virus protections that i use both work in Vista (ok they have small bugs but they will be fixed for RTM they have already said, no stupid api complaints)
Spybot works in vista…
So why exactly is it that Symantec thinks it needs full access to a piece of software that could hamper microsofts protection of the OS. Addon protection should be exactly that… AN ADDON!!!!!!! Symantec is supposed to add security to the OS not replace already existent security!
I might not be so negative if it wasnt for the fact that Symantec and “suites” like it, that pretend to be the “big AVs” that are supposed to be all wonderful end up slowing down the computers beyond the viruses and malware that they are trying to protect you against… i swear uninstalling Norton (when it lets you considerings it ends up so intwined like cancer) is like giving the person a new computer… they think you upgraded the CPU and RAM or something.
Everyone that is saying “Microsoft don’t have to give ISV’s sh*t” are idiots. MS agreed in a legally binding contract with the DOJ that it wouldn’t involve itself in activities that could be considered anti-competative.
By not providing ISV’s with the correct/requested API, they are forcing software developers to write hacks and workarounds to get what they need, making their software buggy and infirior to MS’s Defender.
BTW, Defender is a whole security layer… not just a single program. So all programs that want to do system level stuff have to go through it first. If you don’t interface with it properly your program will suck… of course symantec doesn’t want that (although it would make no difference, Symantecs products blow)
Thats the whole bloody point; you build your security applications onto of that said defender api, and expand it in areas where it is lacking – why the hell are Symantec whining about it? they can now throw out half their code, reduce their work force and make bigger profits!
I don’t know about you, but if an operating system company was offering an even easier way to write applications which allow me to create stuff with less code, I would be the first inline to to celebrate.
What next? Adobe whining about Apple including CoreAudio, CoreVideo and CoreImage in their operating system rather tha providing low level access to all the things which allowed Apple to make those higher level API’s possible?
Symantec is doing nothing more than some high profile grandstanding – they have no legitimate complaints, they’re like all anti-Microsoft people, they have no case, its nothing more than a ‘we make a crap product, Microsoft makes a superior product, therefore, we’ll complain that they’re anti-competitive’.
Anyone who has ever used Netscape Communicator 4.x and compared it to Internet Explorer 4.x and 5.x will tell you that there was a good bloody reason why people were dropping Netscape Communicator like the plague. Anyone who has used Lotus Smart Suite and Wordperfect Suite, again, will tell you its little wonder than Microsoft won over customers given the price gouging which Lotus and Novell (then owner of Wordperfect) did.
Want to beat Microsoft – product a better product at a cheaper price; for some around here, its going to be a sparkling revelation that the better product wins in the marketplace.
“I don’t know about you, but if an operating system company was offering an even easier way to write applications which allow me to create stuff with less code, I would be the first inline to to celebrate.”
By doing this MS is forcefully destroying Symantec’s ability to profit from their software.
I am not saying that an OS that has no bugs and doesn’t get virus’s is bad (I run linux and OS X
)… I am just saying that Microsoft has no right to destroy Symantec’s ability to profit from software.
On top of that I am sure that windows defender will have bugs and flaws… its micorosft don’t forget.
Without the necessary API’s developers can’t tack on patches or fixes for MS’s mistakes. Without the correct API to Defender any AV or Security software developer would be trying to put a band-aid on a stab wound. It just wouldn’t work.
Its anti-competative… its against the legal agreement they made with the government. I don’t give 2 rats about Symantec, I don’t use their products, but that doesn’t mean they should have to go bankrupt because MS won’t let them profit!
Besides, Access to the Defender API would be used for plenty of things, not just AV / Security apps. Developers want what they were promised!
By doing this MS is forcefully destroying Symantec’s ability to profit from their software.
Provide evidence to back up such a hyperbole – even Symantec right now admit that their future is subscription software and charging for definition updates – I don’t know about you, but the value derived from Symantec products (assuming their crap products do have any value)is in their machine, the actual engine which provides that checks files, cleans and so forth; all defender provides is a common interface which groups all the api’s together in one simple, easy to access form.
There are two companies (listed in page 2) who are making money, and have written applications for Windows Vista, and are making money; so what is Symantec complaining about.
When are we going to hear Symantec complain that its Veritas products are put at a disadvantage because Sun has pushed ZFS which is a drop in replacement for the once ‘must have’ VxFS? how about Symatec whining that its Veritas storage software has to go through the Microsoft Windows storage layers.
Symantec need to suck up their bottom lip, and look for new avenue’s – when one door closes, another door opens.
Edited 2006-09-28 07:21
MS should be encouraging ISV’s more to write good working software for windows.It’s in their interest that people have a reason to run windows on their computers.
Not that i personally care,i would rather see ISV’s creating products for platforms other than windows.
BTW, Defender is a whole security layer… not just a single program.
Source?
“As a result of our ongoing dialogue with partners and our customers, Microsoft decided in August this year to add the ability for any security software company to programmatically disable Windows Defender access through an API,” said a Microsoft spokesman.
“Availability of the Defender APIs was announced to security partners on Friday 22 September, 2006 and, we understand, Symantec requested and received the go ahead to develop on that API on Monday 25 September,” Microsoft added.
So MS decided to add the functionality in AUGUST and last week announced the availability of the API, and last monday, Symantec got the go ahead, yet they claim they still don’t have it…
One month from decision to availability is not much to gibber about.
Their complaints about Patchguard (that hackers can get in but not Symantec) is not much worth either, as I have yet to see anyone say if the one year old paper on hacking patchguard is still relevant or not.
Avast! is ready for Vista, even though MS has not released the API code?
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-antivirus-and-windows-vista.html
Sounds like Symantec is trying to get out of rewriting their bug-laden excuse for an AV suite, by forcing MS to to knock holes into the OS for them.
Edited 2006-09-28 08:07
They of course fear that OEMs will permanently stop shipping their anvitivirus products if there is a window in which Windows Defender is only one and/or default AV package on Vista.
But I don’t think that OEM’s should disable Defender by default. Symantec will probably force that in their OEM package without probably even asking and that’s not fair for Microsoft either.
They need API’s for hooking application execution, or something more than that.
It could be that the existing ways work, but they are not efficient, and Symantec wants access to that.
For example if VISTA has a backward compatible layer for the XP API’s, old (XP) antivirus would still work, but would not be efficient.
It’s like not exposing the Windows NT / 2000 / XP API, and letting software companies deal with only what Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 have – it would probably still work on many levels (GUI, USER, even some VXD device drivers) – but not on all levels.
Think about this – You have CYGWIN, which is an UNIX emulation layer on top of WINDOWS – You can probably port and run most of the UNIX applications on WINDOWS this way, but at the end the most efficient ones would be the ones accessing the APIs directly. It’s called leaky abstractions.
Well maybe… and maybe not. Don’t make excuses for Symantec if they haven’t provided an argument themselves.
“Linux has to be better marketed.And in order to do that it needs showstoppers,preferrably facts.”
Is it just me, or does that sentence make little sense? It *needs* ‘showstoppers’? And those showstoppers are, preferrably, ‘facts’? …
It *has* showstoppers they just have to be marketed properly.Than again i gave an example of mandriva including LinDVD,cedega those are the showstoppers i was thinking of.I’m sure someone could add some more.
Sounds like “showstoppers” in this sense means “things that stop people moving (back) to Windows”, rather than the usual sense of “things that stop people moving to Linux”.
I think we’re in confusion about what “showstoppers” as a term means. It can either be used to mean something that wows the audience as in, “That performance was a showstopper”, or something that prevents further development, as in, “We fixed all of the showstopper bugs in the software.” I think netpython is using the term in the former way, while you’re interpreting it in the latter.
Edited 2006-09-28 14:51
…It sounds like more and more companies are getting pissed off at Microsoft. I really think it’s in everyone-but-Microsoft’s interest to port all their apps to MacOS and/or Linux and let the market decide. And no, they don’t have to port them to every Linux distro under the sun – if Gentoo can make proprietary apps like VMware run on their system, then so can everyone else. I love Gentoo, but its devs aren’t the sole repository of genius in the Linux world.