Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:08:44 -0400, Geico Caveman wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> Only you, Erik. Microsoft is getting into the Windows security business.
>> The inherent conflict of interest there is going to lead to both :
>>
>> 1. More security flaws in Windows Vista.
>> 2. Death of Microsoft's rivals in the Windows security business as they
>> would not know as much about the flaws as Microsoft would.
>
> Those are mutually exclusive. If ther eare more flaws, that means there's
> more opportunity for competitors to compete. That means they will thrive,
> not die off.
What makes you think that Microsoft won't intentionally put in flaws that
its competitors might not be able to find as quickly ?
>
> Conversely, even if there are more flaws in Vista, but Microsoft's
> anti-malware technology is so good that nobody can compete with it, that
> means Vista will, in effect, not be insecure
Which assumes that Microsoft's Windows security business will be code merged
with the source code of Windows. The conflict of interest here is as big as
the Grand Canyon. You cannot expect Microsoft now to make software secure
if they actually make money by making it insecure.
Its a bleeding business. If a doctor A can fix your wounds faster than any
other doctor, you will keep going back to that doctor, even if that doctor
was responsible for the wounds in the first place.
The Microsoft strategy will be :
1. Release Vista with its usual Windows complement of unintentional bugs +
intentional bugs that obviously only Microsoft will know about to start
with.
2. Since Microsoft knows exactly where the intentional bugs are, it will
offer to fix them for a price much before the competitors can. At the
beginning, the price for the security will be a lot lower than what
Symantec, McAfee, etc. charge As the opponents die off due to the combined
pressures of faster product release (which they can do nothing about as
Microsoft would know where the bug is before their people even start
looking for it) and lower prices (that they can compete only with shrinking
profit margins), Microsoft will start raising the prices and soon will be
the only major player left in the Windows security business. Microsoft has
done this before with Word.
3. Microsoft could include features into Vista that actively thwart attempts
by non-Microsoft vendors to fix bugs. Won't be the first time either.
4. Microsoft's fixes (and its WGA spyware) could even install new bugs on
the user's machine that activate, say a few weeks after the "fix", setting
the user up for more security related expenses. This will round up the
perfect con-mafia job.
Symantec and McAffee already realize this - hence their pathetic attempts to
sell their stuff for Linux and Mac, and their howls regarding Vista.
>
> You can't have it both ways.
Only in your paid wintrolling dreams.
|
|
