While longtime partners, Microsoft and Symantec are also increasingly competing against each other in the security market, where Microsoft has already moved into the consumer anti-virus space and has plans to offer more products aimed at enterprises in the near future. Many industry watchers have observed prior to the identification of the kernel issue that the two companies may have problems working together as they begin to compete for more of the same revenues.In response to the kernel access issues posed by Symantec over the use of PatchGuard, Stephen Toulouse, security program manager for Microsofts Security Technology Unit, said that the company may be overreacting. Microsofts goal in further locking down the kernel was to improve end user security, not to hinder the efforts of its partners in building security applications, or any other products, he said. Microsoft itself will not be allowed to create programs that use the type of kernel systems calls that Symantec is worried about losing, and the methods that the software giant has given its partners to replace the direct kernel access will prevent developers from being forced to completely retool such products, Toulouse said. The executive pointed out that PatchGuard is already used in several Microsoft products, including its 64-bit Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 SP1 operating system releases. "When you allow the use of unsupported calls into the kernel it introduces the possibility for security and reliability problems, and weve already seen rootkits take advantage of this capability," said Toulouse. "To the extent that people are talking about restrictions in place hampering their efforts, the trade off is that hackers cant [access the kernel] either; we wanted to level the playing field, so that malware writers no longer enjoyed the same advantage as third-party software makers." Toulouse said that any third-party software modifications demanded by the use of PatchGuard should be "easily done," and he said that Microsoft has been working with vendors who might be affected by the modification. Along with security technologies, certain types of video game protection software have used the kernel systems calls in the past. He said the kernel was never designed to be used in such a manner to begin with. "Its never meant to be used this way; our prods dont do it, and it was never meant to be a function of the kernel as it introduces reliability and functional issues independent of security, along with those serious concerns," Toulouse said. "Were working with everyone to try and provide that level of functionality they thought they could only get by using the undocumented commands; either everyone has equal access or no one has access." As Microsoft wont use the kernel commands in its own security products, Toulouse said there should be little question over whether the company has adopted the PatchGaurd technology in Vista to promote its own competitive interests. Industry watchers said it remains to be seen how the kernel protection measures may impact the development of third party security technologies in the long run, but analysts largely dismissed the idea that Microsoft is using the kernel defense tactic as a way to improve its own standing against Symantec or other security software providers. "It certainly seems that Microsoft is trying to play nice with the security industry, and its not in their interest to make enemies, these companies need to work together to secure PCs and the Internet," said Natalie Lambert, analyst with Forrester Research, Cambridge, Mass. "There will always be a lot of customers protected by Symantec who wont necessarily trust Microsoft or its security products to do the same job; Microsoft knows this, and its hard to believe that they would try something so aggressive." However, other experts said the kernel issue could pose serious challenges to developers of HIPS (host intrusion protection systems) and other aftermarket security tools. Andrew Jaquith, analyst with Boston-based Yankee Group, said that Microsoft could also conceivably use the design shift to its advantage as it enters the market for such technologies. "PatchGuard will definitely make it harder for HIPS vendors to function in Vista; the third parties have two choices, they can continue to petition Microsoft to create an approved kernel hooking interface, or they could use black hat techniques to bypass it," said Jaquith. "The anti-kernel hacking features could create a somewhat formal barrier to rivals in the security space if Microsoft uses the barrier to promote their own HIPS products, some which we will likely see in it ForeFront release; if thats the case, we may see some of the larger security companies run to antitrust regulators as fast as possible." Check out eWEEK.coms for the latest security news, reviews and analysis. And for insights on security coverage around the Web, take a look at eWEEK.com Security Center Editor Larry Seltzers Weblog.
Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft has responded to Symantecs previous reports by pointing out that the beta releases dont represent Vista as a finished product, and more recently company officials began questioning why one of the software giants largest partners is giving its test versions such a high-profile undressing.