Microsoft PatchGuard: Security Feature or Risk?

Friday, August 11, 2006 by Zoomba | Discussion: WinCustomize News

Microsoft in recent years has taken a lot of heat from the IT industry over it's perceived lack of serious efforts to make Windows a more secure platform.  Well, in part to answer those critics, and in an attempt to further branch out into the security software market, Microsoft is rolling out a technology called PatchGuard, a piece of code that protects core parts of the Windows against attacks.

However, this being Microsoft, it turns out that this new feature does more to hinder security companies in their attempts to run their antivirus or firewall applications on customer PCs.  Companies like antivirus seller and security services provider, Symantec, are claiming that this new feature is doing more harm to security vendors than it is to hackers, who have more options in circumventing system rules.  Already rumblings are being made over Microsoft potentially using it's leverage with Windows to take over the security products area.

Microsoft defends this action saying that PatchGuard is a protective technology only for 64-bit systems.  That it's an attempt to protect against exploits inherent in the new architecture.

Outsiders argue that as the world moves from 32 to 64-bit computing, that this will pose a significant hurdle for third parties trying to run and sell their products to the end-user.

7 Reply 7 Referrals
DesignCaddy
Reply #1 Friday, August 11, 2006 6:01 PM
I believe in microsoft's stand that this is a level playing field. No one has access to the core, even their own security products. It has always been my opinion that they have a right to build whatever they want in to their own platform in an effort to have a better product. Survival of the Fittest. Symantec needs to evolve and move on.

That is, assuming microsoft can repair the existing holes - the concern of the other security companies.

On semantec legal action, we can't sue linux companies for being natively more secure, right? Can semantec really demand that microsoft leave security holes, so that consumers have to buy another product to patch it?

Lets sell cars that don't have seatsbelts! That way, people have to buy their OWN seatbelts specifically tailored to their own needs. We'll just leave the hooks there for them. If they don't buy the seatbelt, we'll beat up the car manufacturer for all the injuries their cars cause, for people who ignore warnings and chose not to buy a seatbelt.

Lately Semantic is playing the role of Real Media.. we have an inferior product, we're losing market share, and because windows users don't need us, we're going to cry foul.

Well, it worked for Real Media, didn't it?

DesignCaddy
Reply #2 Friday, August 11, 2006 6:04 PM
I'm curious if safeguard is a service, or something built directly in to the core. Ie, services can be turned off by the user. Services can crash. Why don't they build all of these system critical things with fancy names directly IN to the core, and just call it a core enhancement?

JRSCCivic98
Reply #3 Friday, August 11, 2006 7:31 PM
The only companies that are bitching about this security lockout are those such as Symantec. They are complaining because if such a security setup is implemented their apps will pretty much become useless. For that matter, if anyone things I'd trust Symantec to protect me against things like viruses and such they are sorely mistaken. Load up any Symantec product on your PC or laptop and that system will start to crawl like an old Cyrix DX2-80 Proc in your old ass VESA Local Bus system. There hasn't been a single Symantec product out there that was worth a crap in my eyes. What's worse is pretty much any product that they are currently touching due to buyout or merger processes they are messing up as well. Take BackupExec for instance...

Nuff said on my part. Symantec can suck it.

Corky_O
Reply #4 Friday, August 11, 2006 8:13 PM

It would seem that MS can't win for losing.

"Hey, make the OS more secure"

"Hey, let us have access so we can exploit it to make money"

It would seem fairly inevitable to me that if MS starts making security code, they will be involved in the market space occupied by the third party manufacturers / vendors of security software.

I would love to be able to purchase an OS with all security code in place.


speedy5662
Reply #5 Friday, August 11, 2006 8:48 PM
F*** Symantec....their freaking stupid ass dumb sh**s they need to be put out of business completely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Microsoft

Speedy

DesignCaddy
Reply #6 Monday, August 14, 2006 3:38 PM
speedy, you always make my Monday. Thanks.

starkers
Reply #7 Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:16 AM
Seems to me Symantec has made more than enough money off the holes in Microsoft's OSes, so if MS has the code to patch these holes at the core, then it should be so....for the benifit of consumers. The whole world wants safer OSes, so if MS can provide it, who in the hell are Symantec to say that's wrong?

Best we stock up on Kleenex cos the sad sacks at Symantec are gonna be doing a lot of crying, me thinks.

And when they've cried themselves out, maybe they'll turn their attentions to Apple for not making OSes with security leaks....what a bunch of nancy boys.

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!
Login

Home | About | Privacy | Upload Guidelines | Terms of Service | Help
Copyright © Stardock Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


web-wc01