Agnitum Not Rushing to Support Vista?

[britchey]

I read on their site about a survey they sponsored that gives them cover if they don't release any vista support within 12 months. The survey more or less concludes that the majority of users don't have any immediate plans to migrate to Vista and then made a bit of a logical jump stating that users were more interested in supporting Windows XP - though no survey results supported this conclusion. I guess the idea was that all survey participants were using Windows XP (though again that wasn't clear and Outpost Pro supports users of Windows 98, ME, 2000 and 2003 Server in addition to XP). It seems to me that without this knowledge, it can be concluded that many users may just not care to upgrade their OS for a myriad of reasons and may not even be on Windows XP. To not support a released version of Windows is also something that will raise the ire of existing users who were assured of Vista support once it was released. Having a survey that gives some cover (as if users have no interest in vista support) may dissuade users from complaining and provide additional time to extend the development cycle.

Not to be cynical, ok, maybe to be cynical, but this looks like an article released to support their decision to not place vista support in their "A" drawer.

Full press release: http://www.agnitum.com/news/Vista-migration.php


Any thoughts? Am I stretching or does this seem part of a strategy?

[SSK]

My thoughts exactly.

[TOMxEU]

They just say: "we will not do it" instead of "we do not know, how to do it".
This really does make me to think about their product's reliability and security.
Vista is more than just a new Windows, it is like a different OS, like Linux or Mac.
Creating a security software for it is a real challenge, not to mention 64-bit version.
They should say, that they are working on it and it will be released in 2008, that is that.
It would make customers feel comfortable, safer. I would fire their marketing team for this.

Most people will move to Vista, because they are not skilled in software and they apply a simple rule, that the new is better, which is the true, but a bit complicated. Well, I do not mind, it is gonna be Agnitum, that is going to loose customers, not me. Anyway, I personally really really like companies, which already made on their products compatibile with Vista or they are working on it, because it speak for itself, eg. MWAV (Kaspersky ofcourse) was the first AV available for Vista, including 64-bit version support, unlike other security software.

[FirePost]

{QUOTE-> ...this looks like an article released to support their decision to not place vista support in their "A" drawer. <-QUOTE}Of course it is. Self-promotion is the point of any press release or other marketing tool.{QUOTE-> The survey more or less concludes that the majority of users don't have any immediate plans to migrate to Vista... <-QUOTE}Not only the Agnitum survey had those results. And those surveys were not Outpost-centric.
According to the (Harris {Table 3}) (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris%5Fpoll/index.asp?PID=745) survey, 67% of the respondents stated, "No, I will stay with my current operating system." In the Computerwoche poll the number was 69% although that targeted companies. The Windows UTiliTiES respondents stated that 64% were not going to buy Vista. {QUOTE-> ... and then made a bit of a logical jump stating that users were more interested in supporting Windows XP - though no survey results supported this conclusion. <-QUOTE}I do not think that a jump. I should think it would logically follow if 79% (Harris {Table 1}) of the respondents are using Windows XP that they have an interest in continued support. More people are using W98 (5%) than Vista (3%) (Harris).
{QUOTE-> They just say: "we will not do it" instead of "we do not know, how to do it". <-QUOTE}No. Agnitum have said they are working on a Vista version.{QUOTE-> To that end, we will release Outpost Firewall Pro and Outpost Security Suite Pro for Vista later this year after it has been fully tested and debugged, both in our labs and by our loyal band of beta testers. <-QUOTE}

[Zombini]

Firewalls like Zone and Outpost that do nasty things in the kernel like hooking tons of undocumented APIs not surprisingly have the hardest time building a Vista version. Because firstly they need to find equivalent undocumented versions for all the crap they are hooking, and secondly you can't hook certain things like the SSDT on 64-bit, so they are screwed. There is a reason why the big boys like Norton did want to add features to pass every single leaktest in the book. That would require doing some really nasty stuff that could easily destabilize a few 100 million machines. I am so happy that Zone and Outpost crimes have caught up with them.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Firewalls like Zone and Outpost that do nasty things in the kernel like hooking tons of undocumented APIs not surprisingly have the hardest time building a Vista version. Because firstly they need to find equivalent undocumented versions for all the crap they are hooking, and secondly you can't hook certain things like the SSDT on 64-bit, so they are screwed. There is a reason why the big boys like Norton did want to add features to pass every single leaktest in the book. That would require doing some really nasty stuff that could easily destabilize a few 100 million machines. I am so happy that Zone and Outpost crimes have caught up with them. <-QUOTE}
In this case, I feel Zone Labs has proven itself better than Agnitum as ZoneAlarm has committed to providing a Vista version and betas are already on the way. At least ZoneAlarm is working hard to provide a working Vista version. So is Agnitum for that matter, but I feel Vista support is not being given much priority over at Agnitum.

@TheTom_SK: The first AVs to support Vista was actually AVG (both 32- and 64-bit).

[Paranoid2000]

{QUOTE-> Firewalls like Zone and Outpost that do nasty things in the kernel like hooking tons of undocumented APIs not surprisingly have the hardest time building a Vista version. <-QUOTE}Wakey wakey - hooking kernel level functions has been a necessity for firewalls (and almost every other type of security software) for the last few years. Not doing so means having a product that can be too easily bypassed by malware (just gaining Admin user access would be enough).

Vista makes big changes at the network level (a totally new network stack including native IPv6 support) so firewall vendors wishing to offer "proper" Vista compatibility have to make significant modifications to accommodate this.

Vista x64 adds the complication of PatchGuard and vendors/users may need to wait until Vista SP1 for an "officially sanctioned" fix to this.

[unhappy_viewer]

I think for Outpost to say they won't bother with support for Widows Vista is careless. Even when Vista was undergoing beta testing, there were many people asking in the ZL forum for a Vista-compatible ZA to test with their beta Vista. Even right now many people are clamouring for information as to when the retail version of Vista-compatible ZA is going to be released which I doubt will happen anytime soon. I think the beta for the vista-compatible ZA is going to be a long one, probably the longest of any beta ZA has to go through. Its been about 2 months since the first open beta version is released and previous betas finished about 1.5-2 months from when the opened beta was first opened.

[FirePost]

{QUOTE-> I think for Outpost to say they won't bother with support for Widows Vista is careless.... <-QUOTE}Hello unhappy_viewer.
If you look in my earlier post, there is a quote from Agnitum they will and are working on a Vista version. The information is also easily found on their blog, on the support forum, in the newsletters.

[henryg]

{QUOTE-> I think for Outpost to say they won't bother with support for Widows Vista is careless. <-QUOTE}

What is careless is the fact that a large number of bugs in the existing version of Z.A. still hasn't been fixed (as seen in their support forum).... and yet they are "rushing" to release their Vista version. What about the old and existing problems? Frankly, I doubt very much that that their final release will be any better or stable than what they already have. At $2.95 per minute for their Premium Phone Support to resolve various issues....is a very profitable deal especially once the Vista version is released.

[fax]

{QUOTE-> What is careless is the fact that a large number of bugs in the existing version of Z.A. still hasn't been fixed (as seen in their support forum).... and yet they are "rushing" to release their Vista version. What about the old and existing problems? Frankly, I doubt very much that that their final release will be any better or stable than what they already have. At $2.95 per minute for their Premium Phone Support to resolve various issues....is a very profitable deal especially once the Vista version is released. <-QUOTE}

LOL... Its funny to see that any thread is good to bash on ZA...
I am not sure where you got the impression ZA is rushing a VISTA release, actually previous posters just reported the contrary... :blink:

Fax

[henryg]

{QUOTE-> LOL... Its funny to see that any thread is good to bash on ZA...
I am not sure where you got the impression ZA is rushing a VISTA release, actually previous posters just reported the contrary... :blink:

Fax <-QUOTE}

LOL?

Quote from ZoneLabs: "We appreciate your testing participation as we prepare our final release for consumers worldwide."


http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/beta/index.html

[fax]

{QUOTE-> LOL?

Quote from ZoneLabs: "We appreciate your testing participation as we prepare our final release for consumers worldwide."


http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/beta/index.html <-QUOTE}

That was since the first build two months ago...
This is for example the google cache of previous build (I can't find cache of older builds...)
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:caPOF2z3M0UJ:download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/beta/index.html+http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/beta/index.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Fax

[unhappy_viewer]

{QUOTE-> LOL?

Quote from ZoneLabs: "We appreciate your testing participation as we prepare our final release for consumers worldwide."


http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/beta/index.html <-QUOTE}
I think when they say final release, that means the retail release, not the current beta release. What the sentence is saying is that they thank you for participating in the open beta as they are working to produce the retail release of the vista-compatible ZA. Its not saying that they are thanking you for participating in the open beta as the current beta version is the final beta version before the imminent release of the retail-version of ZA.

{QUOTE-> Hello unhappy_viewer.
If you look in my earlier post, there is a quote from Agnitum they will and are working on a Vista version. The information is also easily found on their blog, on the support forum, in the newsletters. <-QUOTE}
I apologize for missing that sentence in the press release. But I guess the way the press release was written, with 99% of the article saying users adopting Vista slowly and 1% of the article talking about Agnitum's development for a vista-compatible firewall, its easy to get the wrong idea.

For example, if they structure the press release to include a paragraph or so saying that Agnitum is committed to providing protection through their firewall and other products no matter which version of Windows their customers use and that they are working hard on it, that would have probably made it more clearer.

[Paranoid2000]

{QUOTE-> For example, if they structure the press release to include a paragraph or so saying that Agnitum is committed to providing protection through their firewall and other products no matter which version of Windows their customers use... <-QUOTE}They'd be fibbing if they did that, given that Win9x/ME are no longer fully supported (Outpost 4.0 only works partially with them). ;)

[Rickster100]

Looks like Checkpoint/ZoneLabs arent rushing to release a vista compatiable firewall either:-

{QUOTE->
"Because Vista is such a major overhaul to the Windows operating system, we are busy in our development efforts to ensure that new Vista-compatible versions of ZoneAlarm live up to the high standards of protection our customers expect. We anticipate delivering Vista-compatible versions in the coming months. Due to the different needs and functionality of this new operating system, features and functionality on 2000/XP and Vista may differ from our current release."
<-QUOTE}

Source: ZA Store Catalogue (http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/catalog/products/vista.jsp) [April 6th 2007].

[FirePost]

{QUOTE-> I apologize for missing that sentence in the press release. But I guess the way the press release was written, with 99% of the article saying users adopting Vista slowly and 1% of the article talking about Agnitum's development for a vista-compatible firewall, its easy to get the wrong idea... <-QUOTE}You are not the only one that missed these repeated statements. Let us hope that others will no longer be misinformed on the issue.

[unhappy_viewer]

{QUOTE-> They'd be fibbing if they did that, given that Win9x/ME are no longer fully supported (Outpost 4.0 only works partially with them). ;) <-QUOTE}
Hmmm....maybe saying "we'll support Windows that are still supported by Microsoft" should cover that. :)
{QUOTE-> Looks like Checkpoint/ZoneLabs arent rushing to release a vista compatiable firewall either:- <-QUOTE}
They are not rushing but neither does the information give the impression that the development of a Vista-compatible ZA is being given the back seat at ZL just because a few people only use Vista. The reason they gave for its late retail release is because of the change in OS architecture in Windows Vista from the Windows XP/2000. And with the beta still having quite a few bugs left, I am pretty thankful they are not quickly releasing the Vista-compatible ZA.

[wat0114]

{QUOTE-> The reason they gave for its late retail release is because of the change in OS architecture in Windows Vista from the Windows XP/2000. <-QUOTE}

Something like the same reason Agnitum gave for their projected late release of Vista support.

{QUOTE-> And with the beta still having quite a few bugs left, I am pretty thankful they are not quickly releasing the Vista-compatible ZA. <-QUOTE}

I'm sure Agnitum also don't want to release a beta prematurely for that same reason.

[britchey]

{QUOTE-> You are not the only one that missed these repeated statements. Let us hope that others will no longer be misinformed on the issue. <-QUOTE}

Please. The fact that they mention that they will support it is clouded by the entire tone of the press release, which has strong indications that they are leveraging their (not clearly announced) decision to delay Vista support on a survey that purports to show that their users are not interested in Vista support within the next 12 months.

[hiro]

{QUOTE-> Originally Posted by Paranoid2000
Vista makes big changes at the network level (a totally new network stack including native IPv6 support) so firewall vendors wishing to offer "proper" Vista compatibility have to make significant modifications to accommodate this.Vista x64 adds the complication of PatchGuard and vendors/users may need to wait until Vista SP1 for an "officially sanctioned" fix to this <-QUOTE}.

Nothing new with network stack, and the support of IPv6 is very old news!
If you think that new PatchGuard / Vista SP1 will allow Outpost to inject his own code above everything, and to produce so many dependences, you will attend forever !

If this they have told you? and you accept as the definitive motive, I think that you are very fortunate man, continuous to think of this way and will have problems in the life less and less!

Regards,

[Zombini]

{QUOTE-> Vista makes big changes at the network level (a totally new network stack including native IPv6 support) so firewall vendors wishing to offer "proper" Vista compatibility have to make significant modifications to accommodate this. <-QUOTE}

If Outpost was doing things the documented way on XP, they would have had no problem porting to VIsta. e.g. at the Network Layer, if they were hooking NDIS, and I do mean being a proper NDIS IM driver, not a "shim"/"other hack", then they would have no problem with Vista. They wouldn't even have to move to NDIS 6. Well behaved firewall drivers must move to the Windows Filtering Platform as recommended by Microsoft, but its not essential.

Similarly at the Transport Layer, if they were relying on TDI, that would have worked as well with a few minor changes. I suspect they did a lot of non-kosker stuff in their stack hooking as well as hooking the SSDT which obviously is not going to work on x64. So yes, they tried to pass all the leaktests and screwed themselves in the bargain.

[Paranoid2000]

{QUOTE-> If Outpost was doing things the documented way on XP, they would have had no problem porting to VIsta. e.g. at the Network Layer, if they were hooking NDIS, and I do mean being a proper NDIS IM driver, not a "shim"/"other hack", then they would have no problem with Vista. <-QUOTE}If Agnitum (and other security companies) did things the "Microsoft way" then they'd have a product no better than XP's own firewall and we all know how well that does against malware. Microsoft have essentially made no provision for security software in Vista and won't until Service Pack 1.

Hooking the kernel and SSDT is pretty much a necessity for any security software, not just firewalls, in order to protect themselves from termination or modification. Anyone considering this a "bad thing" is seriously underestimating the threats posed by current malware.

[Legendkiller]

i remember that in of their letters they(agnitum) had mentioned that they will be having a different GUI for their Vista version.....maybe that is also causing the delay........

[FirePost]

The Wednesday May 16, 2007 Agnitum blog may be of interest to those following this thread.{QUOTE-> Here’s some good news for those of you who’ve already moved to Windows Vista - we’re beginning beta testing of Outpost Firewall Pro 2008 for Vista (32-bit and 64-bit). Clearly, at this stage, the functionality is somewhat limited, as we are a number of months from the official release of the product, but it’s never too early to start testing... <-QUOTE}

http://agnitumblog.blogspot.com/

[mercurie]

Interesting thread... but based on my experience with both products. I'll place my bet that Outpost will be the better no matter who gets released first after all the beta is done. ;)

[Firecat]

Something that should be noted is that Quick Heal, which uses Agnitum's firewall technology, has been compatible with Windows Vista since March 2007. BullGuard is not yet Vista compatible, but I am wondering how the Outpost firewall technology in QuickHeal is compatible with Vista. :-\

[Paranoid2000]

{QUOTE-> Something that should be noted is that Quick Heal, which uses Agnitum's firewall technology, has been compatible with Windows Vista since March 2007. BullGuard is not yet Vista compatible, but I am wondering how the Outpost firewall technology in QuickHeal is compatible with Vista. :-\ <-QUOTE}Do you mean this (http://www.quickheal.co.in/qh-total-security.asp) Quick Heal? If so, Vista is not listed on its system requirements list, though it is for their standalone AV (http://www.quickheal.co.in/news-qhvista.asp).

That site also raises the question of why an Indian company is using just Caucasian models in their photos...

[Legendkiller]

Beta-Testing Has Begun!!!

Link:Sign Up for the Beta Test Program (http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost/betatest.php)

More Info:Outpost Blog (http://agnitumblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/outpost-firewall-pro-for-vista-beta.html)

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> That site also raises the question of why an Indian company is using just Caucasian models in their photos... <-QUOTE}

:P ;D

That is to attract foreign customers. And also seeing foreign models advertise Indian products is something desirable in Indian market, because the consumers then believe that this product using foreign models to advertise/model is popular worldwide and hence has world leading technology.

One should also remember that QuickHeal offers Hindi versions of their website and probably the program as well, because it wishes to capture the market of the few PC owners in rural villages. Villagers are easily attracted towards the product when you use good looking models ;D

The above comments are just my opinion of course, but I think it is logical given the responses to such advertising I have personally noticed among my acquaintances. :)

I've heard a lot of things about QuickHeal's way of running business, a few of which I wouldn't call entirely honest, but hey, that debate is for another thread ;D

Regarding compatibility, this (http://www.quickheal.co.in/small-desktop-edition-win.asp) QuickHeal edition which includes AV+Firewall says that it is compatible with Windows Vista. :-\