McAfee goes after Microsoft
p2pnet.net News:- McAfee chairman George Samenuk has lined up with Symantec to strongly attack Microsoft’s apparent bid to dominate online security.
McAfee has already taken an advertisement in the Financial Times claiming Microsoft was “increasing [the] security risk with Vista”. Now, in an open letter, Samenuk accused Microsoft of hamstringing competitors, and proclaimed, ‘We won’t remain silent as Microsoft imposes unnecessary security risks. Microsoft’s new approach is misguided in principle, bad for innovation and competition’,” says Guardian Unlimited’s Jack Schofield, going on:
“McAfee’s main complaint is about the PatchGuard system that protects the code in the operating system kernel.”
However, continues the story, Samenuk neglects to point out that PatchGuard appears only in 64-bit versions of Windows, that it was introduced two years ago, and that, “It has no effect on McAfee’s 32-bit Windows programs”.
Microsoft rarely comments on other company’s claims, says Schofield, “but in this case, Ben Fathi, the corporate vice-president of Microsoft’s security technology unit, was frustrated enough to respond. Looking over the letter and McAfee’s earlier press information, which I mailed him, he said: ‘They’re misrepresenting some of the facts,’ and ‘They’re taking a very small molehill and making a mountain out of it. They think that yelling and screaming is going to make their points true, and that’s not the case’.
“Fathi suggested that Samenuk’s letter was confused about PatchGuard being cracked, but he agreed it could be. “No, we’re not stupid, but just because there might be a way to circumvent it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t even try to protect the kernel.
“This is an arms race.”
But, “is there a bit of hypocrisy in these AV vendor’s arguments?” – wonders ZDNet’s George Ou, going on:
“Symantec openly argues that Vista Kernel protection can already be bypassed by Malware (though this loophole can be closed with page file encryption) and that the kernel protections only handicap Antivirus vendors. Why pretend on the one hand that they’re being “handcuffed” by Vista kernel protections and then say in the same breath that it doesn’t stop Malware from modifying the kernel? If it’s so easy for Malware to modify the kernel as Symantec suggests, why doesn’t Symantec simply modify the kernel using these same methods available to Malware instead of expecting Microsoft to provide a formal programmatic way of modifying the kernel? Symantec and McAfee is essentially expecting Microsoft to bless the kernel modifications but if they really think modifying the kernel is such a great idea, they should just go ahead and do it and take responsibility for kernel stability. If they don’t want to take responsibility for modifying the kernel, then be quiet and work with the Vista antivirus APIs like Kaspersky.
Also See:
lined up with Symantec – McAfee and Symantec Confront Microsoft, BusinessWeek Online, October 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited – Virus busters wash their dirty linen in public, October 12, 2006
ZDNet – Symantec and McAfee should stop crying about Vista, October 10, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
