Re: [Full-Disclosure] MS Anti Virus?
From: Eric Paynter (eric_at_arcticbears.com)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, June 17, 2004 8:51 am, DAN MORRILL said:
> Does it really matter who is in the anti-virus market? If Microsoft goes
> that way, and they have the best knowledge of what they created...
(puts on tinfoil hat)
From a paranoid point of view, "best knowledge of what they created" is a
little scary. With MS in the virus prevention market, and with their
history of unethical anti-competitive behaviour... I'd bet they'd always
be the first to recognize a new virus. How? Because they could build in
the vulnerability and create the virus and the signature in the AV all at
the same time. Then anybody who has MSAV is unaffected, while the *real*
AV companies are always one step behind... Zero day viruses already
detected by MSAV - MS are Gods! How did they know? The other vendors lose
market share because they suck compared to MS... Eventually, MS owns the
AV market, the competition declares bankrupcy, and we have no choice in
what AV tool to use.
(takes off tinfoil hat)
OK, it seems paranoid. And if they were found out, it would mean (several
more) years in anti-trust court. But when has that stopped MS before?
Haven't their already been dozens of lawsuits that MS has lost for using
their monopoly status to squash competition? Isn't it their MO to enter a
market and completely take it over by *seeming* to be the best? (seeming
-they became best by using their exclusive control of the OS to break the
competition, not by doing better job than the competition.)
I think there is a serious conflict of interest here. It may leave us with
little choice in the AV market. And that may have serious long term
Too bad there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.