…Windows Security Center that tells people the status of the protection on their PC. Security companies sell competing products.
Some of Microsoft's rivals have publicly complained about a feature called "PatchGuard" in the 64-bit version of Vista. Critics claim the feature locks out helpful security software, while Microsoft says it is designed to guard core parts of the operating system against attacks.
Meanwhile, other concerns that Panda, among others, have raised include the possibility that Microsoft could use its huge presence on desktops to promote its own security software. For example, it already advertises Windows Live OneCare on the default "Welcome Center" in Vista, which appears after the PC starts up.
Lunch invitation
In addition, Microsoft's own security products could benefit from better access to Windows. After all, the people who develop those products work in the same place as those who are building the operating system, several security companies pointed out.
"They will use any trick they can to link their security products to the operating system. Not everybody will be on an equal footing," Franco said. "They are in a better position to align their operating system and their security applications. They have the original access, not the early access."
Microsoft, however, argues that its own security product teams are on an equal footing with third-party software makers.
"We're not treating OneCare or Forefront differently than we're treating them. They're getting the same level of access," Robinson said. "Anything that OneCare or Forefront is using, any third party has access to that as well."
Rival security software makers are even welcome to come eat lunch in Microsoft's cafeteria and meet the product teams, she said.
"There is the fact that we are Microsoft and we're all sitting here in Redmond, but at the same time we do give access to ISVs (independent software vendors) here on campus, and they can come at any time to meet with the different product teams as well as have lunch in our cafeterias," Robinson said.
But Panda's Franco feels partners have been "fooled" too long by Microsoft's talk of partnerships. "If you really want better consumer security, there should be trust between Microsoft and its partners in security. Right now, Microsoft being a competitor, how do you build trust? There are too many conflicts," he said.
Playing fair
Sophos is a Microsoft partner and works with the company on several products. Munford believes Microsoft won't engage in any anticompetitive practices — it is more interested in selling Windows and Office, not security software, he said.
"I would say that Microsoft is very conscious at playing fair and making sure that what they are doing in the operating system does not give any unfair advantage," he said. "Microsoft is open to dialogue with security vendors. At the end of the day, Microsoft is not interested in putting security vendors out of business."
Indeed, Microsoft doesn't intend to harm anyone in the security industry, analyst Raschke said. It has been forced to address security, he said, "or their products would not take off. Security is often the number one inhibitor".
Computer security depends on variety and innovation in security software, Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said earlier this month."Microsoft's design of the security features in Vista should not put this diversity and innovation at risk. This might occur if reputable third-party security vendors, which have proven experience in addressing security problems, are prevented from competing on an equal footing," he said.
Panda has presented its case before the European Commission, but Franco would not say whether the company has filed an official complaint.
F-Secure has not yet spoken to the regulators, Siilasmaa said. "We trust Microsoft will do the right thing, and if they don't, everyone will be talking to the Commission," he said. "I believe that Microsoft will come to understand and accept that, and they will change some of the plans they have regarding Vista."
Talkback
Poor old Microsoft. They get slated if they get it wrong and equally if they get it right. In this case they are getting it right. Trying to make their software more secure for the end user. So what does the security industry do? Try and make them unsecure elements of their product so they can stay in business.
Well guess what guys, that's business. If your area of expertise is changing or becoming more competitive then you need to step up to the plate or change your business model. They invented the OS so why shouldn't they make it more secure. It's about time we got away from this demented patch, signature and re-patch mentality and started to produce software from the ground up that is secure. Well done microsoft. They have a long way to go but it looks like they are going to have to step on a few toes to get there
Microsoft is right to focus on the marketplace, which demands that it provide a good secure (or whatever they're selling) product.
By virtue of the EC's reasoning, virtually anything the comnpany produces will need some sort of Commission thumbs-up. Look at the WMP-less version of Windows to get an idea of how successful the Commission has been in this stead - only 1700 copies sold (mostly for souvenirs).
The industry should be concerned that we're letting regulators have such sway. It's the behemoth that sits in the cross-hairs now - it's others (not so much) later.
The sooner rivals stop crying over nothing the better. Microsoft is shipping an antivirus with their OS. Let me get this right, did i just say THEIR OS as in the OS microsoft wrote and have 100% control over on what they can put into it, take out of it and do with it? Microsoft adding an antivirus to the microsoft operating system is no different than toyota adding their own CD systems to their own cars or built in TVs. It is their car, if they want to do this sony have no right to complain about this!
Likewise, just because microsoft is shipping the Antivirus with windows does not mean i am going to go right out there, uninstall it and stick on my own preferred antivirus. Is their anti virus being so is shit the reason why Symantec are making such a noise over nothing? The sooner Symantec go out of business in the Antivirus world the better.
Yeah, put more muscle into marketing tactics. That's what it's all about, right? So starting right now all anti-virus vendors should delay their Windows specific anti-virus signature files for at least 20 days (Microsoft does that with most of their security patches, so why shouldn't they?). Do or die, right?
If Microsoft is so good with security then surely they'll life up to that challenge without problem for sure. Seems only the right thing to do. Equal oppurtunity and all that. Meaning, (ab)use your current market share. Of course, if Microsoft wouldn't be all to happy about that then they can renegotiate the when and how of their introduction into the anti-virus market with concerned current anti-virus vendors. Surely everyone involved has only the best interest of consumers in general in mind. So us consumers need not to worry. And surely the Microsoft anti-virus team won't favour the Microsoft Windows team, or any other Microsoft team, in any way. They only work for the same boss and their managers just happen to lunch in the same room just about daily. Anyone seeing a possible conflict of interest with that surely doesn't have any clue about common human behaviour. Sigh.
But that's not how Microsoft (fans) want things to go down. They want the current anti-virus vendors to do their part until Microsoft is finally ready to take over.
Like playing Ceasar. Thanks for building an empire and taking care of our (security) neglects. Now look the other way and take the stab in the back.
Thank you. Next!
Next runners up. The gaming industry. And the ads industry. Like anti-virus vendors have been warned about years ago. Betting on a single horse is a sure way of ending up in the gutter.
Business 101. Spread your risks. Also meaning, spread your revenues streams. Don't ever become vitally dependant.
It's not quite to the point but I installed Vista 5728 on Wednesday and on Thursday I visited a site which collected my email addresses and started vigorously spamming me with phishing emails. The connection between the site visited and the spam is absolutely unambiguous
This means that this site was able to access my computer and lift my email addresses with apparant ease. So much for Vista being the most secure system ever. Windows Defender and PC-cillin Internet Security 14 are installed. However, I do note the difficulty in finding anti virus programmes which will work with Vista this near to release.
The origin of this spam is not yet blacklisted
I cannot find out how to tell Microsoft about this intrusion.
"Microsoft adding an antivirus to the microsoft operating system is no different than toyota adding their own CD systems to their own cars or built in TVs."
So Myles, in your analogy are you seriously suggesting that Toyota have a 95% market share of the automobile industry?