Is Microsoft's AntiVirus Strategy Secure?

Continued from page 1

Yet the move also makes strategic sense. Antivirus protection is precisely the type of mass-market application that Microsoft likes to go after, says Cusumano.

"It makes perfect sense for their strategy," says Cusuman, noting that it's a logical companion to the infrastructure and productivity software on which Microsoft has built its business.

The big question, though, still looms: What will happen to the booming anti-virus and spyware industries if Microsoft decides to toss its full weight behind both?

The lucrative sector has experienced huge growth over the last few years, and the two top players, Symantec and McAfee, have built billion-dollar businesses and become Wall Street darlings with their high-flying stocks.

But the prospect of change has loomed over the desktop security market since well before Microsoft turned heads with its 2003 acquisition of antivirus vendor GeCAD Software, says Peter Lindstrom of Spire Security, a security consulting firm in Malvern, Penn.

So-called trusted computing initiatives by makers of software and chips, for example, use encryption to secure desktops from hackers. Mail servers are applying antivirus tools in a strategy that's "much more useful" than end-user software for "locking down that avenue of approach," according to Lindstrom. In addition, McAfee and Symantec are integrating host-based capabilities into their products that give businesses broader coverage for desktop security.
 
Perhaps the hottest debate surrounds Microsoft's plans to distribute the anti-spyware and antivirus tools, which are now available as free downloads.

Microsoft says it has no plans to change its distribution method and bundle the products into its operating systems. However, there is little standing in the way for such a change, at least domestically. While the European Union Competition Commission's antitrust ruling against Microsoft required the company to let consumers choose the components they purchase with an operating system such as Windows, the U.S. antitrust lawsuit produced no such ruling.

"There's no reason to think they won't try," says antitrust expert Andrew Gavil, a Howard University law school professor. "It is their business strategy. The big issue that remains unresolved in this country is, is that a legitimate business strategy for a monopoly?"

Also unresolved is whether the company whose programming created the spyware and virus epidemic will be trusted as a supplier of software that combats both. When it comes to the corporate environment, vendor integrity is paramount, says Gregg Mastoras, senior security analyst for Sophos Inc., a UK-based maker of antivirus and antispam software.

"It's a big piece of any company -- what kind of reputation they have and what their track record is," says Mastoras.

But others are skeptical that any users will turn up their noses at anti-spyware and antivirus products from Microsoft.

"Folks may be concerned about a conflict of interest with OS providers, particularly Microsoft, offering a service, but I think that is ridiculous," writes Lindstrom in an email. "They have the biggest reason to want to protect their solutions."

Indeed, the move will likely boost Microsoft's standing in consumer's eyes, not hurt it, says Daryl Travis, chief executive of Brandtrust, a Chicago consulting company.

"The message consumers are likely to take away is 'Microsoft understands the problem, and they're doing something about it.' "