begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Symantec Says Windows Vista Will be Less Secure than XP
>
> ,----[ Snippet ]
>| Symantec said earlier last week that there were no viruses for Apple's
>| OS X.
> `----
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3389
Why would symantec want to help Microsoft? It's an interesting conundrum.
Symantec have no future on the linux platform as an AV supplier, any
more than they have on OSX, so they /do/ need Microsoft. Unfortunately,
however, they need Microsoft to continue to supply their usual, insecure,
bug-ridden material, /but/ these very problems are also the /same/
problems which are causing many organisations to pick up free software
solutions by preference. Symantec are in a dreadful position, they
/need/ MS to succeed, they /need/ MS to attempt to become competitive
with Linux, so they'll "help", but they /also/ need Vista to be insecure
in the standard Microsoft way so that they can continue to sell their
AV products.
To make matters even worse for Symantec (and Norton and co, of course),
Microsoft are launching their own AV software (again). I'm quite
surprised that these companies still have anything of a share price at
all, when you look at the pressures they are under.
I think they would be well advised to start building up linux
consultancy and firewall expertise. They could, conceivably, become
expert in tracking down linux potential exploits, for example, and could
provide, eg., auditing tools for companies for their linux deployments,
risk assessment systems and such like. AV for Microsoft is basically
as dead as Windows, I think - it might look like its still moving, but
then, so did AT&T.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Writing is easy; all you do is sit staring at the blank sheet of paper until
drops of blood form on your forehead.
-- Gene Fowler
|
|
