Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 23:10 UTC, submitted by Governa
Thread beginning with comment 204712
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I think the bigger question...
by Windows Sucks on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 04:33
in reply to "RE[2]: I think the bigger question..."
Right an API that does not let the security product have access to some of the areas of the OS that the bad guys can get to. Typical!
This is typical, as fast as MS makes products, hackers, crackers and the like, kill Windows before it even gets off the starting block!
RE[4]: I think the bigger question...
by kaiwai on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 04:48
in reply to "RE[3]: I think the bigger question..."





Member since:
2005-07-06
May I be wrong but I remember about the big security companies (Macfee, Symantec, ...) complaining about MS refuse to publish all the specs needed, or be late on that, so that they could adapt their products.
You're incorrect; Microsoft provided an API; Defender API on which so far 4 security products (including Microsofts own) have been released, and now relying on - rather than digging deeply into the bowls of the operating system, the security vendors link against that API specifically written just for that particular purpose.
Symantec and McAfee waged a PR Microsoft bashing campaign; and given that you were sucked into believing the bullcrap spouted by Symantec and McAfee, it speaks volumes as to the ignorance out there of Microsofts technologies and what the real story was behind the whole 'drama' which Microsoft competitors drumed up.