Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Beta Includes Built-in Virus Scanner
Ethereal writes "InternetNews.com reports that Microsoft has begun beta-testing a built-in virus scanner for its Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) that will be included in the final product in mid-2004. The tool is among the operating system enhancements the Redmond, Wash., company is developing as part of its Security Center initiative to rebuff viruses, worms, trojans and crackers. Microsoft will also provide free online training to help developers make the most of SP2's security features, Chairman Bill Gates said at today's RSA Security conference. It's the first time the company has offered training with a Windows service pack release."
If there's one software industry I wouldn't shed many tears over the loss of, it's the one whose business model is to profit thanks to viruses.
Get Grisoft.
You probably shouldn't click this.
I've been working with beta builds of SP2 at work, and from looking at it, I am under the impression that what Microsoft is actually including is not actually a virus scanner, but rather integration with 3rd party virus scanners. The last build I tested (2077), complained that I didn't have any virus scanning software installed, and suggested that I remedy the situation. Poking around revealed that it has the capability to work with many existing virus scanning packages, and warn you when your virus definitions are out of date, and possibly even keep them up to date for you. Of course, maybe what I've seen so far is only a prelude to full blown anti-virus software from MS...
Shawn Asmussen
... when it was reported last year by ZDNET / news.com / Network Fusion / pcmag... that Microsoft were to buy a Romanian antivirus company !
obligatory examples are netscape and winzip
The ZIP handling features in XP are licensed from WinZip. I'm sure Microsoft is by far and away Niko's best customer.
Doubt it. Remember that Microsoft bought an eastern european anti-virus software company a few months ago.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
You can certainly run more than one virus scanner at a time. Some ppl that use FREE virus scanners on windoze machines use both AVG and Avast!. The only problem is that the more scanners you put on your system, the slower the system will get. So, it's certainly possible (some do it to add an extra level of security)...
Microsoft WAS in the antivirus business a long time ago.
Microsoft included "MSAV.EXE"--Microsoft Anti-Virus--with MS-DOS 6.0 back in the early 90's.
It was, essentially, a cut-down derivative of Central Point Antivirus, which was actually developed by a company in Israel, not Central Point. Central Point was purchased by Symantec in 1994, and Microsoft quietly removed MSAV from their OS's when Symantec refused to supply updates and Yisrael Radai wrote his now famous paper outlining how it was deeply flawed.
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
RAV if I recall correctly. So, to most people, this is not really news.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
In Apple's case, it actually hurt them, since it tended to drive away all the vendors (who happily relocated to Windows). Apple stopped developing their solution once they were happy with how well it worked, and the developers kept advancing.
I mean, I can't even count how many utilities this happened with. I can't think of a really good solution for Apple, though...
I do have to say that including a virus scanner with the OS makes more sense than almost anything else being bundled. It helps patch security holes. It makes it a bitch and a half to pirate Windows (sure, you can pirate it, but you damn well aren't getting any antivirus service -- have fun when the next wave of worms rolls around). It helps Microsoft look good -- instead of Symantec advisories coming out saying "Windows has another worm coming out, buy our AV product", Microsoft says "There was a worm released and we squashed it. Just hit Windows Update."
I'm sure that this thing can be abused and whatnot, but Microsoft could seriously get a lot of mileage out of AV software.
Note that it *is* going to be fun if MS ever fires off false positives, though -- every Windows box on Earth starts going spastic over some innocent package.
This is the second time today that I've felt that Microsoft is doing, if not the "right" thing, something better than their competitors. The world is standing on end.
May we never see th
Actually MS bought a company called RAV antivirus. They had a really good Linux product that I used. Since the buy out (several months), the Linux version has been discontinued. If the engine is RAV, it was really good and the staff was good with timely updates.
Microsoft provides neither an MPEG2 codec nor a CSS decrypter as part of any Windows version.
In order to watch DVD's under Windows, a third party solution (such as WinDVD or PowerDVD) is still required.
Granted, when such a third party-player is installed, Windows Media Player also becomes DVD-enabled automatically, because it will immediately take advantage of the newly installed DVD-related shared libs.
So even if people solely use WMP to watch DVD's, they'll still need third-party software.
Therefore, the same anti-trust argument, as in the case of Netscape, Real and now possibly the antivirus solution providers, doesn't apply here.
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
The article linked to in the story is wrong and makes this argument slightly invalid.
Have a read of the keynote transcript.
"...and from an antivirus perspective, Windows Security Center can tell me if I have virus software installed, if it's on, and if it's up to date..."
That's all it is - a console designed to bring all security features together in Windows, including any installed AV software. It is not bundled AV software, just a firewall and a console that aggregates all your settings and preferences into one location.
Actually MS didn't license WinZIP they licensed DynaZIP from InnerMedia.
You'll note that AV vendors don't tend to compete on detection - detection rates among most of the established players are pretty much identical - there's also a policy in the industry of swapping virus samples with each other immediately.
There's absolutely no financial sense for AV companies in doing this: best-case scenario is that they have to spend money to get a minute advantage that most AV vendors claim *anyway*, worst-case scenario is that the company directors get ripped away from their yachts, mansions, and BMWs to spend time in prison.
Think, before engaging fingers.
Score:-1, Funny