[PCWorld]

Post your comments for McAfee Warns Against Vista Security Features here

[harrismh777]

I am a long time Linux user... I loath the M$ company and have not much sympathy for them in general... but, I must side with them on this issue. No one should touch the kernel except the kernel developer. (The only problem with that truth is that the kernel developer in this case can not be trusted)Linux, on the other hand, doesn't need McAfee or Symantec... why? --because the kernel is designed properly and is already quite well protected. Windoze on the other hand has never been designed correctly... and the services of McAfee and Symantec were welcomed. Now M$ is correctly protecting the kernel... but hey guys, its a day late and a few billion dollars short.... I don't need McAfee, or Symantec, or Windoze for that matter. The PC community does have a choice now... try Suse, try Ubuntu, try Fedora Core.... use Linux and dump all this M$ nonsense.On the other hand, if you're going to stick with Windoze... give em credit for doing the right thing.m harris <><

[Guitargeek1028]

I work for an ISP as a Technician. I would say a good 60 percent of our call volume in our tech support is from people using McAfee or Symantec there not really good antivirus programs. Grisofts AVG doesn't take over the kernal and it works far superior. I am glad that microsoft has not allowed these companies to ruin its OS anymore. Honestly those of you Savvy users dont use these products. Most of us use Avast or Grisofts programs which dont even have kernal access and they provide better security. I think this is a wake up to McAfee and Symantec.

[GraysonPeddie]

I will always give credit for Microsoft and will never ever give credit for McAfee and Symantic. Windows Vista being unsecurer than Windows XP? I don't think so! :twisted:McAfee, you are so funny about Vista's security! You just made my day! :) :lol:

[jrtall]

I agree with guitargeek. I work for a network services company and we see all kinds of problems from McAfee and Symantec being so monsterously intrusive in the OS. When an install blows up we have to trudge throught the registry to remove stuff the uninstaller doesn't get.I also use Grisoft at the office and home, along with all of my engineers. They don't need to dig into the kernal to get the job done in a superior manner.Besides, Haven't we all been asking for the extra security level from Microsoft to begin with?

[techie]

McAfee offers no protection, norton offers a little more, just look at the malware infected computers. the ones that I repair always seem to be protected by broken mcafee.one teenager myspace mcafee= massive infectionone teenager myspace norton = some problems

[TheNameless]

I would be for this, if it weren't for the fact that there are already ways around it, and the fact that Microsoft is probably doing this to make sure that everyone uses OneCare, instead of a superior arsenal of defense. Seriously, I smell an anti-trust case brewing.

[ITMaster]

You know - for a long time, MS users have needed McAfee and Symantec. Their OS is riddled with security problems. Not that this such a novel thing. Unix and Linux users just love to say "Look - Linux and Unix is secure". Such nonsense. Unix and Linux is no less secure - they also have security patches. Everyone likes to believe that Unix/Linux are the most secure stables systems...it is completely biased opinions. I am responsible for 50 Windows servers and 20 Unix/Linux servers. The are known problems with the OS security (MS and Unix/Linus) - and certainly, MS has the largest share. So, know that they (MS) have earned the "black eye" from creating world-class (but insecure) software, they are they are attempting to create a more secure platform with Vista. Of course, McAfee and Symantec are crying foul because they can design the OS. If MS does the job right (this time) and the OS is rock solid - they McAfee, Symantec and other AV companies are in the toilet. My company spends $$$$$ each year to an AV company just to keep AV Signatures current.As for Linux - try getting support. The cost of support Linux/Unix is significantly more expense than Windows. I am a IT manager and I know the direct cost of supporting both systems. Unix/Linux is hands-down more expense - end of story.As for MS - I wish they could get it right and develop secure software - but that goes for every software vendor in the world. MS is NOT the only source of un-secure software. To all the AV companies - your time may be limited. It isn't that I completely trust MS, but get real...no - and I mean NO ONE - should have kernel access. The system should be forced into a single user mode (Unix got this right) to allow kernel param changes. That ensures that no changes are made by malware.

[TheNameless]

Oh God, the Windows vs. Unix debate... Here we go..

[GraysonPeddie]

I agree...I don't want to see this kind of debates in here...but like the old saying "if you don't want to read about the Win/Linux debates don't read it."We both know that Win/Linux debate are getting old... :p

[TheNameless]

Yeah, but the debate would have little to do with the topic. Sure, it's about security, but Unix <> Microsoft's PatchGuard.

[ITMaster]

I didn't start the debate. "harrismh777" instead would rather everyone to use a "free" OS. Here is the problem with "free" OSes...most everyone is an idiot and does not understand the difference between DNS and HOST tables. And as for my family/friends, I get stuck doing their tech support. At least with Windows, it is easy. Try fixing a "hosed" NIX system. Granted, UNIX OSes have very good recovery routines (and I have used several, including IBM and HP primarily). But free OS...just reload it and get over it.SO...if we are talking about the general non-IT-tech-savvy public, please - just use Windows or MAC and forget Linux. Driver suport is "so-so" on Linux and you probably couldn't reformat and partition your hard drive anyway.Now, before someone beats me up on Linux - if you are a tech-savvy user and can support the Linux OS yourself (like I can) - then great, use Linux. If you don't know (or don't care to learn) any DOS commands - don't even think about trying Linux. As for security - what an delimma. It leaves the genral non-IT-tech-savvy public left to use a OS they don't understand and can't figure out how to fix if is broken - and if the OS is Windows, then they best better keep it patched and keep your data backed up frequently. (Personal data backup - now that is another topic altogher.)Now - on to the topic at hand - VISTA. * If Microsoft creates a secure OS with VISTA, then the general public and business sectors WINS. (notice, I said IF). However all the AV companies will be out of business or will have reduced revenues at best...as should be the case. Ideally, we shouldn't have to have AV software to "protect us".Every business and general public SHOULD NOT ACCEPT poor software that is constantly riddled with security problems. But, I guess we don't have a choice or we have poor choices. Ok - if there are any MAC users out there, go ahead and tell me to "just go buy a MAC". Apple has created a few blunders, also. The majority of business software is developed to run on Windows platforms. That may be change and fluctuate, but it will be a long time before a platform usurps Microsoft. I have already evaluated a Windows/Linux desktop - and none of my companies "line-of-business" applications will run on a Linux desktop; ironically - most all of our "line-of-business" apps are hosted on a Unix system!! SO - my vote is that Microsoft is on the right track. Keep everyone out of the kernel. And if Microsoft screws that up and (haha) there are security problems with the final/production release of VISTA, then MS should PAY THEIR CUSTOMERS for the problems that THEY created. I keep waiting to hear of someone that sues Microsoft (and wins) becaue their unsecure software code causes a company to lose significant income.Consider this - everyone in the "IT-world" demands Microsoft to guarantee their software, and Microsoft caves in. Wouldn't that be something...think of it...Microsoft putting a money-clad guarenteed security policy on their new OS systems!! ...not in my lifetime. But, I would be the first to buy it!My bet - maybe the EU will make that their next battle cry!-Kevin

[Gondo2k2]

God damn harrismh777 got it right on the Who should use Windows now Pcworld and the rest of the net should get that in there heads and stop with the Just use Mac or Linux Posts. Linux and Mac are great sure but not for dumb people that dont know better than to click on an email attachment let alone use Linux, sure they are getting better GUis but its a long way off . anyways Great Post harrismh777 . your my new hero !

[herbfellows]

I'm a little bit tired of people like you who consider anyone who doesn't know as much about something (anything) as you to be stupid, dumb, an idiot etc.If you want to display your ignorance for the world to see, go do it somewhere else. The beginning of wisdom is realizing that YOU know nothing. Have a piece of humble pie for lunch!

[Rimmer]

So McAfee and Symantec are crying now because big brother Bill has screwed the lid on the cookie tin so tight they can't open it :lol: ...or is there more than just cookies hidden in the cookie tin that big brother bill want's to keep secret 8)I'm too tired of the Linux/Windows debates, so I'll just say this....any computer or operating system that is connected to the internet or provides an open interface to the internet is a security problem !!!One thing I have noticed with M$ Windows as it evolves and in particular Vista, is how incredibly patronizing the interface and dialogs get. Almost every part of Vista is 'Share Aware' and plugged for Internet connectivity, so is it no wonder there are going to be security holes sprouting up like there's no tomorow.Get back to basics I say and on that note I'll get back to the topic.....Maybe McAfee should be warned about infecting people's computers with a mass of internet services just to run a virus scan on a single file :lol:Chin up M$

[ITMaster]

The more I have read recently about all the "crying" from McAfee/Symantec, the more I foresee a lawsuit claiming the Microsoft is monopolizing <again>. Depending on your point of view - Microsoft is a monopoly (reference court judgements against Microsoft practices). I agree, there practice have been a monopoly - NOBODY should be allowed to SHOVE IT DOWN THE THROAT OF A CONSUMER - but Microsoft did, and to some degree, may still. SO - the cards are on the table.In defense of the accusations by McAfee/Symantec - STOP WHINING. Anyone else that thinks the same - STOP WHINING!! (This is U.S of A. and I have a first amendment to say anything I want - no matter how well supported or stupid!)MS has everyone right - and every justification to keep everyone from modifying the kernel. Maybe - JUST MAYBE - they will get it right and create a secure OS. (I can dream, right?!?) Time will tell if MS can get it right (by themselves). But by nature, I am a pessimistic creature and I find it hard to believe that this is the only want to create a secure OS. After all, I trust Microsoft, McAfee and Symantec the same - none any more than the other. (BTW - I use all three as a vendor solution in our company.)Bottom line - pure and simple - this is about market share and McAfee/Symantec know they could lose some market if MS actual does "get it right". But what is the big deal? Most business will be slow adopters. Some will want to "be ther first" - but there are still companies running apps on NT4.0!! But by large, most enterprises will take a wait and see approach...as for my company, we will definitely "wait-and-see". Most of our software business partners will be pathetically slow to certify their software on Vista - so, for us anyhow, it will be a long transition time to Vista.God bless America. God bless free enterprise.

[Rimmer]

[quote name='ITMaster']> > MS has everyone right - and every justification to keep everyone from modifying the kernel. Maybe - JUST MAYBE - they will get it right and create a secure OS. (I can dream, right?!?) Time will tell if MS can get it right (by themselves). But by nature, I am a pessimistic creature and I find it hard to believe that this is the only want to create a secure OS. After all, I trust Microsoft, McAfee and Symantec the same - none any more than the other. (BTW - I use all three as a vendor solution in our company.)> > What are you talking about, Windows is secure, it's the internet that isn't secure !!! You connect to the internet through your computer or mobile phone then you only have yourself to blame, don't blame M$ for a security breach of your computer.What you are asking from M$ is to secure the internet and that my friend is next to impossible...or a least a few decades away :lol:

[ITMaster]

[quote name='Rimmer']> {quote:title=ITMaster wrote:}{quote}> > > > MS has everyone right - and every justification to keep everyone from modifying the kernel. Maybe - JUST MAYBE - they will get it right and create a secure OS. (I can dream, right?!?) Time will tell if MS can get it right (by themselves). But by nature, I am a pessimistic creature and I find it hard to believe that this is the only want to create a secure OS. After all, I trust Microsoft, McAfee and Symantec the same - none any more than the other. (BTW - I use all three as a vendor solution in our company.)> > > > > > > > What are you talking about, Windows is secure, it's the internet that isn't secure !!! You connect to the internet through your computer or mobile phone then you only have yourself to blame, don't blame M$ for a security breach of your computer.> > > > What you are asking from M$ is to secure the internet and that my friend is next to impossible...or a least a few decades away :lol:Rimmer: No - I am not asking Microsoft to secure the Internet - just their OS and Apps. AND for that matter, every thing that connects to the Internet should be secure. It should be reasonable to expect that your PC is protected - although realisitcally, of couse, no one or no device is always secure.As for your statement that Windows is secure - you have got to be kidding. Obviously you are not an IT professional - or I can't recognize sarcasm. Windows isn't secure (of and by itself).

[Rimmer]

[quote="ITMaster"][quote name='ITMaster']> > As for your statement that Windows is secure - you have got to be kidding. Obviously you are not an IT professional - or I can't recognize sarcasm. Windows isn't secure (of and by itself).No, I'm not an IT Professional, there are no professionals in IT !!! Otherwise we would not be discussing security related issues with operating systems :lol:IT Master, share your knowledge with me, why isn't windows secure ????I'm not interested with any security issues related to the internet, because like I said, you can't secure the internet.So, you boot-up your PC and login to Windows.....what security issues do you encounter then ????