Vista security bundling is Microsoft obligation

Stan Beer
Monday, 23 October 2006 19:46

Opinion and Analysis

Much has been written about the complaints security vendors have raised against Microsoft bundling security features into the Vista. Some have likened bundling security into Vista to bundling media players and bundling Internet browsers. They're wrong.

Unlike Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, security is not an enhancement or an add-on to add extra functionality. For an operating system like Windows, which is an easy target every time a user ventures on to the net, it's a long overdue necessity.

The situation with Windows XP as it now stands is untenable for users. Any Windows XP user who goes online without at least an antivirus and firewall system in place, will sooner rather than later find their systems infected with some sort of malware.

Thus, for years users have been paying good money for an operating system that is too risky to use online without them paying an expensive annual subscription for third party software.

The money users are forced to pay each year to Symantec, McAfee, Sophos, Kapersky and others gives their systems no added functionality. All it does is help make Windows reasonably safe to use. This is like buying a car from a dealer and then sourcing the brakes from a third party supplier.

Whether you happen to be a Microsoft fan or not, there's no denying that the company is aware of the security issues surrounding Windows and is trying to take action to address them. In fact, Microsoft has cottoned on to the fact surprisingly late in the piece that its users are resigned to paying for security and, thus, there's good money to be made in making its own operating system safe. Enter Windows Live OneCare.

Why Microsoft took so long to enter the Windows XP security space is not exactly clear. The morality of selling a security suite to make your own operating system safe to use aside, at least it forced the third party security vendors to drop their prices.

As far as Vista is concerned, every bit of security that Microsoft can bundle in with the product to make it safer to use will be welcome. If it has locked down the 64-bit kernel to protect hackers from getting their hooks into it, good. If it doesn't work and hackers do get in, then Microsoft will invite third party vendors in quicker than you can say McAfee.

The efforts of the European Commission in combatting some anticompetitive practices of Microsoft are to be admired. However, I get the feeling that on the issue of security for Vista they've got it wrong. Instead of pressuring Microsoft to make Vista easier for third party security vendors to work with, the EC should be pressuring Microsoft to make all the security features that it provides in Windows Live OneCare free.

The sort of money users are going to pay Microsoft for Vista should be enough to include a firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-phishing and any other necessary security product as standard. If an operating system is not safe to use out of the box without expensive add-ons, then it's not an operating system; it's inoperable.