http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
If the above link doesn't work for you, try this:
http://tinyurl.com/7ybuc
That is the "more" you're asking for. More than this, Dan doesn't
know, I'm sure. My take on the subject is a bit different. While
acknowledging that I am not a fan of either product, and I've not
hesitated to say so on innumerable occasions, what is described by
the article isn't a real security risk, per se.
The way I read the article is this:
One of the new features in Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the "Windows
Security Center". It keeps track of what, if any, antivirus and
firewall apps are installed, and whether they are up to date. If you
are lacking in a firewall or antivirus, or if they are simply not
running, the WSC advises you of the situation. However, as anyone who
pays attention will know, when you first install such applications,
they are *never* up to date and should be updated immediately. One
result of this combination of affairs is that while installing such
apps, the new Windows Security Center may warn, repeatedly, that the
programs are not up to date. Symantec and McAfee consider this
detrimental to the "user experience"--and in a way, I can't blame
them. It *is* disconcerting to get repeated warnings that you aren't
protected while you are in the very act of installing protection.
Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
Windows Security Center, doesn't it?) McAfee changes the dates of
certain files to "now" as they are copied into the system. This
convinces Windows Security Center that there is now up-to-date
protection installed and it keeps quiet. However, apparently, the
antivirus app now thinks it's up to date, also, and may not initiate
an update, leaving the user with a very out of date antivirus until
sufficient time has passed and it then updates. Or perhaps it still
initiates an update during the normal course of installation, but in
many cases this isn't feasible due to the system not being able to
connect to the internet. I don't know the particulars.
For myself, the most alarming thing about this whole affair is that
the Windows Security Center *can* be disabled by any means other than
user intervention. Makes it rather useless, don't you think? Plus,
McAfee's methods would tend to leave a user with a false sense of
security between the time of installation and the first actual
update. Judging by the usual amount of time that such apps consider
reasonable between updates (a horribly long time in my opinion), a
person could be running several days without real antivirus
protection and not realize it.
Of course, this has always been the case--automatic updaters are
famous for failing in their duties, especially where the systems
aren't connected to an always-on internet connection, or are used
sporadically for relatively short periods of time, or simply being
inadvertently disabled. This is why Windows Security Center was
developed. And this is why I always admonish users to *check* that AV
and Firewall is running when they startup and periodically throughout
the day, and that they run the updater(s) manually, on an at *least*
daily basis. These are habits that should be as deeply ingrained as
checking your rear-view mirrors regularly while driving.
