[Mak213]

Microsoft doesnt have to defend themselves from such claims. Their proof is the fact that others can do it. Norton and McAfee made this claim that the technology was needed only to have it thrown in their face that it wasnt when BitDefender, AVG (Free version no less), Avast (Again free version) were able to over come such things and create a solution that didnt need what they called critical key items.

How can you boast that claim when it is proven that you dont need it? Microsoft didnt have to say anything more than go "See all of these companies, they work just fine with Vista without the items you claim to need". That alone is a bigger shot at them then anything Microsoft would say.

As for what they are thinking and why they wont change. I dont know. I used to think they were great. Till i opened my eyes. They are only big in the USA from what i know. They may have expanded a bit more overseas but they are still the landmark companies in the USA. Which is the only reason why they have such a following. They have a pretty box on a shelf at Walmart and that gets people thinking that their stuff is good.

But the truth is seen by my statements here and in just about every and any topic in the virus section. Anyone with real knowledge on the matter will tell you that these products are flawed. While they finally may have gotten their resource usage down. They are still as easy to get through for a hacker or virus writer like a hot knife in warm butter.

Will they change? Who knows. Should they change? Without a doubt.

[LFCJohnSmith]

Read the edit to my post and I think you will see a different side of the story where ms claims dont hold up.

Also to your opinion that the likes of norton and mcafee are not actually good, well i have seen independant reviews on the products and mcafee was the leader and the free anti virus software came way down the pack.

[hikaricloud]

"Independent reviews"? Hope you don't mean PC World. I'd love to see what reviews you're talking about. Especially since Norton is slightly less crappy than McAfee, so I have no idea why it would be "king".

One of the MANY reasons Norton and McAfee are such utter crap is because people code things specifically to get around them, since they are so popular. Do a poll and see how many people have them on their computers...heck, it comes bundled with some prebuilts.

Not to mention what Mak said about the kernel access...as he said, it would completely circumvent UAC and make it useless.

Originally Posted by Mak

The problem is not with Microsoft. The problem is with Norton and McAfee. They want Kernel access. this is what their software is built around. This is exactly what the UAC is designed to stop. Stop giving programs access to the Kernel and causing havoc. Yet Norton and McAfee want it cause their software is built that way and they dont want to change it.

I have seen countless problems while fixing computers that are most of the time easily solved (at least to the point where you can DO anything on it) by uninstalling Norton or McAfee because it has stopped working at all, and has wreaked havoc on the OS. That's what happens when you give them kernel access.

UAC doesnt come into it when the virus is designed to get around something in the program that is setup to protect you which has kernel access. This is why the other anti-viruses on the market are far more useful than both Norton and McAfee. As they dont require this kernel access and leave your system wide open should a virus hit without the proper definitions.

Because Norton and McAfee circumvent UAC, it causes loads of problems. For example, it can cause fake UAC prompts that look legit, further causing harm to your computer. The average user isn't going to dissect those prompts.

Honestly, Norton and McAfee not being good isn't really an opinion. It's just something you notice after having fixed loads of computers with borked AVs, or completely running AVs that catch nothing. It's one of those few times that you really don't get what you paid for.

With so many good free solutions out there, you should never have to touch the bane of existence that Norton and McAfee are.

[LFCJohnSmith]

The review that I saw was in a computer magazine, I dont remember what mag it was as it was a good few years ago.

But back to the problem of allowing the anti virus acces to the kernels. They have said that not allowing them access to the kernels doesn't stop hackers getting to the kernels, but when hackers get to the kernels because Ms wont have said that if they release any security upgrades that would solve the problem they will issue a patch that will cause the pc to crash and give a blue screen all MS are doing is allowing hackers to have free rein while stopping the anti virus from being effective.

Edit: I will accept that you have a broader knowledge than me and therefore what you say must be true but can you just tell me if MC Afee / Norton are they hopeless or are they just not as good as the others, and are they that bad that you should get shut of them? Wouldn't the large size of those two companys mean that you get new virus definition protection quicker as they have larger resources? Also can you recomend a different anti virus.

One more point, I find that the GUI and the general ease of use with Mc Afee is a lot better than most other anti virus software.

[Hefemeister]

AVG
Avast
Nod32

Tech-Forums Top Rated Antivirus

[hikaricloud]

Originally Posted by LFCJohnSmith

But back to the problem of allowing the anti virus acces to the kernels. They have said that not allowing them access to the kernels doesn't stop hackers getting to the kernels, but when hackers get to the kernels because Ms wont have said that if they release any security upgrades that would solve the problem they will issue a patch that will cause the pc to crash and give a blue screen all MS are doing is allowing hackers to have free rein while stopping the anti virus from being effective.

That is in no small way true at all. Look. If hackers want to get into your computer, and I mean REALLY want to get into your computer, they will do it no matter what. But UAC was designed to make sure things that needed access to the kernel were approved by the user. So as long as UAC is on for the average user, there is less of a problem. If Norton and McAfee had access to the kernel, viruses specifically geared towards those AVs would have direct access to the kernel without touching UAC.

Think of it this way, it's a bit easier. You have a bridge. It has a toll. The other side is Kernelsville. The bridge is the path to the kernel. The toll is UAC.

Norton and McAfee construction want to build a road that goes around the bridge, circumventing the toll. So the 2009 Honda Virus can easily get there without paying the toll.

Edit: I will accept that you have a broader knowledge than me and therefore what you say must be true but can you just tell me if MC Afee / Norton are they hopeless or are they just not as good as the others, and are they that bad that you should get shut of them? Wouldn't the large size of those two companys mean that you get new virus definition protection quicker as they have larger resources? Also can you recomend a different anti virus.

The large size of the companies does lend to definitions, but not as much as you'd think. Actually, the large market share (as I have previously stated) makes it so people who code viruses specifically make them to get around their protection specifically, since the vast majority of computer owners have these products because they came bundled with the PC, or they have heard of it and like brand recognition, as most of the world does.

One more point, I find that the GUI and the general ease of use with Mc Afee is a lot better than most other anti virus software.

Which AVs have you tried? Norton as a whole is big, bulky, and the GUI isn't THAT easy to use. AVG has a much simpler interface. McAfee is a big giant mess, and it always has been.

[LFCJohnSmith]

The anti viruses I have tried are AVG free as well as pc gaurd and bulldog (which was a free trail) and I like the ease of use that you get with mc afee.

I accept your point and fully understand what you are saying about the bridge and why allowing Mc Afee full access will create a back door for viruses to get in by hi jacking the anti virus, but what about a virus that has just been designed to get around the patch gaurd which MS say is designed to stop applications getting into the kernels which norton have said they have already hacked. If there is a virus that can access the kernels in this way without going via the antvirus how can it be removed by the anti virus if MS will create a patch that will cause a blue screen if the pc owner installed it?

Also if it is such a major security problem then why don't Mc Afee and Norton change their anti viruses?

[hikaricloud]

They don't want to change their AVs because it would cost money in R&D if they don't know how they would make it not intrusive and not access the kernel. They are being stubborn because they aren't getting their way, basically.

Like I said, if a hacker really wants to get into your machine, no matter what, he will. No system is completely fool proof, viruses can still get in where they aren't supposed to. But why help them by making vulnerable programs access the kernel constantly?

[LFCJohnSmith]

Okay thanks for the info and your time I am feeling a little more knowledgeable now

[hikaricloud]

No prob. glad we could help.