... if their firewall, virus protection and other security tools need attention. The version in the Vista update, set for broad release in January, will add new categories and management tools.
Last month, Symantec claimed that Microsoft's policy could endanger users, as people who choose to use Microsoft's console alone will get a limited view of their Vista PC protection.
However, Microsoft has hit back, arguing that these large vendors are complaining about Windows Security Center because they are afraid it could help their smaller security rivals to compete with them on the desktop.
According to Adrien Robinson, director of the security technology unit at Microsoft, the Security Center updates could drive more business to smaller security firms.
"Microsoft becomes a second voice to customers, enabling them to look at other solutions. Security Center can help smaller software vendors by letting customers know they can update software," said Robinson.
One channel used by large antivirus vendors is to get their software pre-installed on machines sold by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). This software typically runs for a trial period, after which users are prompted with alerts to update the antivirus software.
Microsoft claims smaller independent software vendors (ISVs) don't have deals with OEMs such as Dell, and that Security Center can prevent bigger software vendors unfairly influencing customers.
"Smaller ISVs such as F-Secure don't have an agreement with Dell," said Robinson. "Bigger vendors don't want any other vendor involved once they have an OEM relationship. There's the rub. It's about striking a balance between them."
"The big vendors have a financial relationship with OEMs, but what if a customer wants to use Rising Sun in China or Grisoft [free antivirus software]?" Robinson added.
But Symantec reacted strongly to Microsoft's claim that Security Center would provide customers with more options.
"That's wrong — there is no choice," said John Brigden, Symantec senior vice president for Europe. "Windows Security Center is foisted upon the user with confusingly similar and incomplete information. The security measures in Vista will decrease security if people are driving two dashboards."
"Customers will follow Microsoft products, and endorsed security products that come through Security Center," Brigden told ZDNet UK. "Even though Microsoft is a monopolist, it shouldn't decide the view of the platform."
However, Microsoft alleged that Symantec's products try to disable the alerts generated by Security Center, rendering the console invisible to customers.
"All the big vendors like Symantec and McAfee try to disable alerts and hide Security Center," said Robinson. "[In which case] Windows Security Center is invisible to customers as long as they have an up-to-date firewall and antivirus".
A Microsoft spokesman also denied McAfee's earlier claim that this was the first time a security vendor had been cut off from the core of a Microsoft operating system, saying that security vendors had not been granted access to the core of the 64-bit version of XP.
Talkback
Microsoft should not disclose any info to anybody about how to get into the kernel.
At the same time they sould stick to develop OS and leave everything else to others, but being the greedy corporation that they are, they want a finger in the pie which they helped to create with their sloppy code writing.
The security crowd should go about their business which is to find the holes in, and solutions for the OS and applications, after all that is what hackers do without going to Bill and ask him how to do it.
Security firms should not be too concerned about the OS steel wall around the kernel. As per MS's long track record, it won't be solid, but more like a sieve as they always have being doing.
MS and the security industry are both crying wolf.
"Microsoft has not had a good history of writing secure code." In the past, the only thing M$ was interested in was getting a new product on the shelves, ready or not. And 100% of the time it was shipped too early. Stability and security took a back seat to beating a deadline. VISTA is already late, so they have had plenty of time to make it stable and secure, but like Dalton, I have to assume it will not be secure given their previous record. By locking the kernel they are preventing third parties writing secure software. It will come back to bite them.
When others issue patches for M$ products before them it realy inspires confidence in M$.
Ok the others see their companies going down the tubes if wee Billy freezes them out. Would you be happy if your jacket was on an extremely loose nail ?
I have yet to be convinced that M$ are the knight in shining armour and with their security record so far will take a lot of convincing.
Conclusivly prove that security is completely buttoned down and is un-hackable then I might support M$ but until then I am looking for better security than what I have been receiving from them.