Symantec, Windows users beset by Vista SP1 flaws

Security vendor Symantec has said that updated drivers to replace those adversely affected by Windows Vista Service Pack 1 are not yet available.

The company said users will have to wait for the updated drivers, which will be available "in the coming weeks". The drivers in question are for Endpoint Protection and Network Access Control, two of Symantec's flagship enterprise security products.

Microsoft released Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) to Windows Update on Tuesday. However, in the Vista team blog, Vista product manager Nick White wrote that some vendors' drivers "may be problematic after an update from Windows Vista to Windows Vista SP1". Symantec Endpoint Protection and Network Access Control clients were among the list of drivers affected by SP1.

On Thursday, Symantec said that, while it was aware of the problems SP1 had caused for its drivers and customers, updated drivers for Endpoint Protection were not yet available. Symantec made no explicit mention of Network Access Control drivers in an e-mail response to ZDNet Asia's sister site ZDNet UK.

"Symantec [is] aware of this issue and has updated the affected driver to resolve the issue," Symantec said in its e-mail statement. "The currently available version of Symantec Endpoint Protection (Maintenance Release 1) is not certified for use with Vista SP1 and could potentially be impacted by this issue. The next upcoming maintenance release of Symantec Endpoint Protection, which is currently with beta customers and due to be available for general release in the coming weeks, will be fully certified for Vista SP1 and will include an updated driver which is not impacted by this issue."

As well as vendors, some Microsoft customers were also affected by downloading SP1. In comments on Nick White's blog post, a user called "iggy23" said downloading Vista SP1 had caused a "blue screen", which can be displayed by Windows in the event of a critical system error.

"I downloaded [SP1] via Windows Update and got a blue screen on the third part of the update," wrote iggy23. "[It] took five hours to 'revert to previous'. So I downloaded the package version and tried that. Same blue screen. Same hours."

Another user experienced problems with their graphics drivers after downloading Vista SP1.

"Well, I installed Vista SP1 after seeing it on Windows Update last night," wrote the user. "In retrospect, not my finest decision. What a disaster! It exiled all of my Nvidia drivers to the Bermuda Triangle... they're simply all gone. Okay, no big deal, go to the Nvidia site, download the latest drivers, install and nada. Zip, zilch, nothing changes. The install fails... every time, without fail."

One irate Windows user claiming to be Howard Terry, a researcher at Berkeley and Stanford universities, said that university professors and students were considering a class action lawsuit if Microsoft did not resolve this problem.

"This is a very serious matter--tell someone in charge that Stanford and... Berkeley professors and students will begin a class action lawsuit very soon if this SP1 update problem is not fixed for Vista [business] users asap," wrote "drqc terry". "What have you people done to this new OS...?"

The majority of comments responding to White's blog post were positive, however.

Microsoft had not explained why it had released SP1 in the knowledge that it could break third-party drivers at the time of writing. However, a spokesperson for the company said that Microsoft would ultimately automatically push out updated drivers ahead of SP1 downloads.

"We've spent the last couple of months or so investigating the driver issues we shared back in February," said Microsoft in an e-mail. "Since then, we [have] identified a small set of device drivers that, if installed on a Windows Vista PC that is subsequently updated to SP1, may be problematic. We were pleased to find that many of the reports that caused our original concern were on pre-release builds of the service pack and were addressed by improvements made between the release candidate and final builds. Although many driver issues were addressed, there are a small number of issues around specific device drivers remaining."

"We want our customers to have the best possible experience with Windows Vista SP1, so we have configured Windows Update to initially delay offering the service pack to PCs with these identified drivers until the issues are resolved," said Microsoft.

"In order to deliver SP1 to these PCs, we worked with our partners to produce driver updates for the drivers that were reported to be problematic when updating to SP1. Updated drivers for the many of the issues found are available on Windows Update as 'optional' updates today. Ultimately, we will be using Windows Update to automatically deliver these updated drivers to PCs in advance of offering them SP1," added the software giant.

"We continue to work with partners to produce resolutions for several other issues," Microsoft said.

Shared source, not open source. Meaning the Chinese and other countries can’t legally rename it “Red Flag”, and sell it for a profit all to their own like they can with Linux.

If giving source code to the Chinese was actually somehow a concern you shared with me (which it isn’t of course, this is just a diversionary attempt to cloud the issue), you’d actually be a supporter of closed source. Not open source like Linux, obviously.

You act like you’re concerned about the issue of “open source” going to the Chinese, even though you actually support it with Linux. What’s funny is Linux defenders very typically make this same, irrational, argument. Here’s a group of you right here, doing it again.

Shared source, not open source. Meaning the Chinese and other countries can’t legally rename it “Red Flag”,

And you trust them, right? The Chinese government? Certainly they won't share it with Chinese businesses. Right? And if they do, why, MS will tell them to stop, right?

You act like you’re concerned about the issue of “open source” going to the Chinese,

No, the issue here is that MS is giving its code to the Chinese (Yes giving, see above) but denying the same courtesy to American businesses. Hence, unlike Linux that allows American companies the same right to use the code that anyone else has, MS is giving the Chinese preferential treatment that it denies Americans.

Again, I'm glad my money isn't going to support such anti-American activities.

Well, I'm the type of person that always wants to give a person the benefit of the doubt. It makes me think I must be missing something when a person purports something so conspicuously false.

Years ago I used WordPerfect, Lotus, Dbase, Paradox, etc. but eventually Microsoft always made a better produce and gave me what I wanted. Bill Gates is rich for a very good reason. If MS didn't provide a good product they wouldn't have stayed in business. [they knew when to admit "Microsoft Bob" was a loser]

My first choice was the TI-99/4A. TI's speech synthesizer was the best way back in 1979. TI couldn't keep up with the PC market either.

Once again, I do not now, nor have I ever, used Linux.

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure how I would start down that particular path, nor why.

My understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the open source vs closed source argument is that:

When everyone can view the source code, any weaknesses are quickly discovered and fixed. The usual example given is Linux.

When no one can view the source code, any weakness is difficult to find, and therefore difficult to exploit. The usual example is Windows.

Results?

Vanishingly little malware for the open system.

Zillions of viruses, trojans, worms, and exploits of, of, of THE CLOSED SYSTEM!

Windows depends on secrecy to avoid being exploited, and this demonstrably doesn't work.

Not only are they tied to a fatally flawed strategy, they abandoned even this fig-leaf of protection and gave the source code to our SWORN ENEMIES!

Now the very people who have sworn to destroy the US have the keys to 90% of our computer systems, and the very people who get a kick out of finding OS problems before they are exploited, and getting them fixed before they cause problems are precisely the ones Microsoft wants to keep ignorant of the flaws.

It's mind boggling.

Just because some Chinese may steal software is no reason for Microsoft to open source their product, and let them start legally renaming it "Red Flag" like they already do with Linux. Laughable. I think we should cut them off completely, like we did the USSR. But since that's not a current option, we should get as much as we can for anything we export to them. Ever heard of the trade deficit? You think giving things to foreign governments, especially the Chinese, for free, is what we should be doing? That's what you're advocating, not only Linux which is already allowed, but now you're calling for Microsoft too? Just legally give it to them, to do with whatever they want? Brilliant! Not.

Sound like a great guy. At least 3 of the wealthiest Americans made their fortune in software, tremendous fortunes and businesses in a modern industry. Why someone would support them giving their empires away to radical leftists like Stallman whose life mission is “to make all software free” is really a strange concept. Part selfish, part idealistic, and unquestionably anti-capitalistic. I guess it's one way to get your name out there, but a better way to make a name for yourself is with a product good enough that people are actually willing to pay for it.

Just because some Chinese may steal software is no reason for Microsoft to open source their product,

I'm saying that the Chinese "stealing" the code from MS, and "legally copying" Linux's code is a distinction without a difference. In either case, they have it, and there is no realistic consequence for using it to further their own ends. The difference comes when MS then says that American companies can't do what it allows the Chinese to do.

Make no mistake, I heartily defend any code's author to say whether his (sigh, I know, or her) code is released and to whom. MS is fully within its rights. But it puts the lie to the notion that American businesses' interests are better served by a company that gives it code to a nation of competitors while denying it to them.

I'm saying that the Chinese "stealing" the code from MS, and "legally copying" Linux's code is a distinction without a difference.

Which is clearly incorrect. You can keep posting as if it is but there are obvious differences, starting with the very first dollar that comes back to the US when they use one of our products. Why else would we even let them have access? What other products do you see no difference in if they are given to foreign countries and governments for free or not?

What other products do you see no difference in if they are given to foreign countries and governments for free or not?

First of all, this question appears to be an acknowledgment that MS gave their code to the Chinese, I don't think you want to cede that point yet.

Second, the dollars coming back to the US through MS is obviously a good thing. But MS giving them its code means that they can turn around and use it in products that compete with US companies who are denied this advantage by MS.

The most secure code there can be is something you’ve never seen or even heard of before.

True. If the OS is never seen or used it is very secure.

Secrecy is a layer of protection,

True. But as long as people use something, they can figure out how it works.

to claim it’s not is to defy reason.

To depend on obscurity for security isn't very bright when you disclose your secrets to known enemies.

But MS giving them its code means that they can turn around and use it in products that compete with US companies who are denied this advantage by MS.

The Chinese and other governments can't legally use MS code in competing products, that is also simply false. They can of course use Linux code though, and do. They use the whole thing, and just rename "Red Hat" to "Red Flag", it's very typical in Asia, each country has their own free version of Linux. That's what Microsoft is competing against, clones of Linux, not clones of Microsoft. Why in the heck would they want free clones of Windows out there too? Giving software away for free as you advocate, is in a capitalistic sense the move of the desperate, trying to make a name, not the frontrunners like Microsoft, Apple too. They keep their crown jewels secret, just like any other business. Meanwhile Linux can barely even be given away, and that's not by mistake. If all that free copying of code was actually to anyone's advantage, it would have taken over long ago. Linux is nothing new. Instead now you want Windows, you want OS/2, other products open sourced when Linux has already proven that model isn't capable of anything better than 3rd place.

I’m just pointing the fact that something “openly” available is by it’s very nature not as secure as something that’s not “openly” available, any layer of secrecy is by nature a layer of protection. Microsoft doesn’t release open source code when they make a security patch, which is an additional layer of protection you don’t get with Linux. Not always a significant one, but a layer nontheless, more than open source has. ANYTHING that is secure, has something secret about it. It has to, by definition.

The Chinese and other governments can't legally use MS code in competing products, that is also simply false.

And therein lies my distinction without a difference; What pray tell, happens to them if they do use MS' code in a product that competes with a US company's product? Microsoft willlll...what? The US willllll...what?

At least with open source software our superior programmers are on a level playing field with their Chinese competitors. With MS's software, the Chinese currently have all the advantages.

Again, I'm not saying MS isn't within their rights, I'm only saying that its disingenuous to say that the interests of American business are served more under a system in which only their competitors are given code to 90% of installed desktop systems, than they would be in a system where they have the same access as their competitors.

No one is stealing then selling Windows or Windows code under a different name anywhere, nor would Microsoft want to give it them to resell under a different name either. It’s illegal to try and Microsoft and other groups like WTO are busting pirates every day, even in China. You’ve yet to make any reasonable argument for Microsoft giving their software away other than you sure would like it. What else would you like given to you? Hardware too? Why not? What shouldn’t be free? You want it all equal right? That’s what I keep hearing.

You’ve yet to make any reasonable argument for Microsoft giving their software away other than you sure would like it. What else would you like given to you? Hardware too? Why not? What shouldn’t be free? You want it all equal right? That’s what I keep hearing.

Huh. You seem to have missed the part where I said I heartily support the right of any code's author to say where it is released and to whom. Sorry, I don't quite fit the straw man suit in which you want to put me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.