I notice that McAfee continues to issue misleading statements, to the point where you have to wonder whether the company is doing it deliberately, rather than simply not having a clue.
In this morning's whinge, for example, it's complaining about PatchGuard, which is Microsoft's sensible (though not impregnable) attempt to lock down the operating system kernel. McAfee says:
For years, independent security developers have partnered with Microsoft to ensure that customers have the safest computing environment. However, all that seems to have changed with Vista, because Microsoft is denying computer security companies access to Vista's underlying technology.
But this is misleading rubbish. In fact, nothing has changed with Vista. First, PatchGuard has been in 64-bit Windows XP for about two years. Second, PatchGuard is not in 32-bit Vista, and 32-bit Windows is currently more than 95% of the market.
In any case, McAfee is overhyping the effect to a ridiculous extent because kernel access is irrelevant to most malware detection, and only applies to a subset of the market, mostly concerned with malware behaviour detection and blocking.
It's also ludicrously misleading to imply that Microsoft is not still working with security vendors, if that's what the statement seeks to do. Microsoft's security unit devotes a lot of resources to working with third parties, including McAfee.
McAfee seems to be playing to the European Commission, as a way to put pressure on Microsoft by presenting Vista as a threat when, from a kernel access point of view, Vista is exactly the same as XP.
McAfee's statements will no doubt be repeated verbatim by a technologically clueless mass media, and technologically clueless MEPs will presumably be impressed. McAfee -- which makes its money from Windows being insecure -- might well, in the long run, profit. But is this really the best way to protect Windows users from malware?
