Vista vs the World
Or, perhaps I should say Microsoft vs Security providers in the Windows space?
What I'm talking about eWeek's report that discloses McAfee's complaint that Microsoft has made it hard for them (and other security vendors) to integrate their products into Vista. Presumably, this would be so that Microsoft can take advantage of the OS in ways that no third-party product can.
One of the technologies, Microsoft's PatchGuard system, which is designed to block access to the software kernel in 64-bit versions of Vista, will keep applications such as behavior monitoring and intrusion prevention systems from functioning as effectively as in the past, according to McAfee.
Microsoft, however, is suggesting that this is all part of making the base system much more secure and resilient in the first place.
It remains to be seen how much of this is Microsoft taking advantage of a situation to enter a new marketplace (stand-alone desktop security tools) vs third-party vendors crying now that their own dominance in a particular will be threatened, although it wouldn't surprise me to find a little bit of both going on.
Microsoft faces criticism no matter which way you turn:
- Either they are criticized for making products that are insecure by default
- Or, they are accused of annoying end-users and stifling third-party vendors because they've locked down security
But, you really have to ask yourself the question here: Isn't it a better goal to have the base OS more resilient against intrusion by foreign software, which would naturally lead to a reduction of add-on products playing that role?
And I would be remiss if I did not point out that McCrappy is one such vendor whose add-on products over the years have tended to cause as much problems as they have solved issues. I've been burned more than a couple of times by crappy code from the folks at McAfee, er... NAI, er... Network Associates, um... McAfee.
Personally, I want a base OS that better facilitates security to the extent that reliance on 3rd party add-ons is significantly diminished, if not eliminated outright. If it turns out that threats still abound for Vista, but Microsoft has hobbled the ISVs so it can push its own security add-ons, then that would be bad. If, however, it turns out that the potential threats for Vista are significantly mitigated by the out-of-the-box configuration and functionality of Vista, then I'd have to say that the ISVs are spending more time focused on their own profit, rather than being focused on having secure consumers (as they're trying to spin their complaint).
It's their prerogative to focus on the former, but I'll have no sympathy for them so long as the latter is already under control.
About Logik!
Andrew S. Baker aka ASB aka Logik!
Andrew is an accomplished, hands-on IT Executive with a solid track record of providing timely and cost-effective business solutions using technology. With over 16 years experience in Information Technology, he has proven to be effective both as a Team Leader and as an individual contributor in designing, deploying, securing and maintaining enterprise networks.
His personal interests include Astronomy, Basketball, Bible Study, Chess, Comics, Computers,
Family Life Ministries, Reading and Strategy/Role Playing games...
Some of his contributions include several whitepapers on technology and Information Security, the UltraTech Knowledgebase, various postings to technology mailing lists and forums, active participation on LinkedIn Answers, along with a number of interviews for articles published in industry magazines.
A condensed version of
Andrew's current resume is available here.