He described it like this: "Microsoft dashboard might have a green light, Norton dashboard might have a red light. Those two conflicting indicators, on the screen at the same time, would confuse users."

Paden told me that about two weeks ago, Microsoft delivered an API for suppressing their alerts. "Issue addressed."

Disputed: marketing link
According to Paden, "Every time you boot up Vista, you get a welcome page, tells you there's a minimal amount of security. There's only one link, pointing to OneCare [Microsoft's security service]. Only one vendor (Microsoft) can offer this security solution at this default level. Basically, Microsoft advertises its own solution."

OutlookPower analysis
From a system management and security standpoint, we consider this a non-issue. Microsoft's putting a link to their product on their product. So what? Sure, there's the whole anti-trust issue in that a lot of people use Microsoft products.

But, at least right now, very few use Vista. In fact, there are less Vista users than Mac OS X users and less than Linux users. There are probably fewer current Vista users than people who saw the Pauly Shore masterpiece, "BioDome".

Microsoft still has to ship, sell, and convince users to upgrade to Vista. There is no anti-trust here and in our opinion, they can do what they want with their own product's promotion.

Disputed: Opening up the kernel's Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard) system
And this brings us to the core of the dispute, Steve's rant, and our concern for Windows security. Symantec claims that Microsoft is unwilling to provide API-level access to PatchGuard for 64-bit systems until SP1. They claim this will leave 64-bit Vista users substantially less protected and that features they call "behavior blocking technology" and "tamper prevention technology" will be unavailable to users.

According to Symantec's Paden, PatchGuard "puts the kernel of the OS into a lockbox" to prevent malware from accessing the kernel and mucking with the "DNA" of the system.

With his lockbox reference, Paden's southern drawl was starting to sound more like Al Gore than Bob Edwards. As long as he didn't claim Symantec invented the Internet, I figured I was safe. Paden continued on about Symantec's technology, stating "No other product can protect the kernel from the inside out. Some advanced systems need kernel access."

Continuing his lock theme, Paden told me Symantec offers "Behavior blocking technology that pours superglue down your locks, obsoleting the need to come up with and distribute patches." Microsoft's approach is patching. Symantec also wants to offer "Tamper prevention technology, distributed from the core, inside out to protect the perimeters and reinforce the perimeters."

Then Paden chose an unfortunate analogy. Stating that PatchGuard prevents the full functionality of those solutions he went on to say, "It's like being stuck in a car that must drive at 60 mph, but the car can really go at 130."