14 DAY TRIAL // Microsoft's security for Microsoft's operating platform represents a conflict of interest. A huge conflict of interest. The statement belongs to Symantec's Chairman and CEO, John W. Thompson that delivered a speech at the RSA 2007. The issue Thompson addressed was consumer trust, and if customers should trust a single company to provide them with all the services they need.
"But more than that, who would trust one company to do everything for them? Think about it: you wouldn't want the company that is keeping your books to audit them. By the same logic, you wouldn't want the company that created your company's operating platform?to be the one that is securing it from a wide range of risks. It's a huge conflict of interest," stated Thompson.
Let me make this clear. If Microsoft would outsource all the security in its operating system, do you think we would be safer? Imagine having to rely solely on Symantec's products for protection. Microsoft is in the business of building operating environments. Symantec is delivering security solutions. Their roles are complementary.
But also, Microsoft has a responsibility to deliver security with their operating system. And I don't mean OneCare. I mean UAC, DEP, KernelPatch, and so on and so forth. And last, I've heard Symantec users were less than happy with the way the Cupertino-based security company's solutions. For Symantec, a business that is built on delivering protection for Microsoft's products, there is only one solution to avoid the above mentioned conflict of interest.
"So by working together, we can untangle this conflict of interest. More than that, through cooperation and collaboration - and healthy competition - I have no doubt that we can create the confidence our connected world needs," added Thompson.
Via this link you will be able to read the nine page long speech that Thompson delivered at RSA 2007, but around pages eight and nine is really where it gets interesting.