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."
this next service pack is going to seriously fuck up some software industries... a better personal firewall, a popup killer, and now antivirus, all now bundled with the OS? and free?!
it's good that MS is being proactive (and i don't think they're doing this on purpose -- there is of course legitimate demand for these features), but it's chilling to see how they're capable of slaying entire software industries with the press of a button. this is going to RAPE antivirus/firewall/popup killing companies/industries, even if they have better products -- most consumers, and even a good chunk of small to mid-size businesses, only need a basic virus scanner, for example. and it's pretty fucking hard to compete with OS-preinstalled AND free.
sigh. grab your ankles.
of course this doesn't apply to all software products, but, what's the incentive to create a clever software product anymore, especially a small but ingenious shareware-type app, if all it takes is for MS to assign a couple of lackeys in MS Research to duplicate your product and then preinstall it with the next version of the OS for free? obligatory examples are netscape and winzip but really they're innumerable.
next on death row: spam stoppers, anti-spyware utils...
they really ought to have split MS up.
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
What happens with these programs? Does both the Windows virus scanner and the 3rd party work at the same time? Or is it something that you can set in the settings, like "default browser".
Interesting!
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
But a good idea, I guess. I'm kind of surprised they didn't get into the anti-virus biz a long time ago. Maybe they felt it would be an admission of weakness or something.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Monopolistic overreaching of power, or fantastic move to combat viruses? It doesnt really matter, as MS is going to be both praised and sued for this move, even tho it may turn out to be a great one. You cant satisfy all of the people all of the time.
I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the Morning.
I bet the anti-virus software companies are really going to like this one.
How long do you think it will take for Symantic, etc to file antitrust against microsoft. 6 months? 12 Months?
How about not making it so easily vulnerable to viruses in the first place. This is like putting a band-aid on a arterial wound. Microsoft needs to get a clue.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
I'm sure the initial product will be free, but something makes me think that MS will be just as eager to charge you a monthly fee for Virus Definition Updates.
Well, perhaps this time around, we'll get it for free. However, how much will it cost us in the next versions lisence? Or when we renew corporate agreements? And support agreements? Oh, sure...it's just an extra $50/seat!
I can see the hand writing on the wall now.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
They will probably avoid all the public relations nightmares surrounding security updates by embedding the security updates in the Virus definition updates. Then, it won't look like the OS is broke anymore.. It'll just be "Virus definition updates" everyday.
You're bitching because Microsoft finally added a popup blocker, a better firewall, and some AV utils?
If Microsoft didn't include these items, you'd be the same one fucking bitching that they weren't securing their software good enough.
This goes back to Tim Bray's Sharecropper Analogy.
Essentially, the idea is that if you're not developing for an open platform, you're a sharecropper. Your entire existance as a developer is predicated on the fact that you're working for someone else's platform that they own and control. If they decide that they like your product's functionality, they can either buy you out, or simply integrate it into the platform, most likely putting you out of business.
Apple has does this in the past, with Watson & Sherlock, and Microsoft has done this many, many times. Netscape, Winamp, and now Norton & McAfee. Microsoft has a pattern of simply offering a product as an additional download, then tying it into the next version of the OS with no real way to remove it.
What this means for Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, and the dozens of other AV people is not exactly clear yet. But it's a good possibility that many of their employees will be touching up their resumes once this Service Pack gets released. Unless, of course, they sue MS. Either way, I see this as a major strain on their business relationships with Microsoft.
I agree with the poster when he (or she) said Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.
Anyone who can't see past the words anti and trust are missing the point completely. For too long, McAfee and Symantec have produced inferior, bloated, virus scanners. Combine their personal firewall and anti-spam software, along with one of their anti-virus packages, and you've just blown nearly 32 megabytes of RAM on UI enhancements.
NOD32 works so much better, and in a smaller, less bloated interface. Yes, you also have to pay for it, and it's not a well-known big name company. However, you won't find a better anti-virus package on the planet. Check out their awards here.
If Microsoft wants to bundle this stuff with SP2, then I'm all for it. Free, and forced down your throat so the majority of moronic users stop getting their boxes infected by the latest worm-du-jour.
This is not a free service from Microsoft. It is a free update, but the cost of the service will be built into Windows, either through an update fee or with the Operating System tax that goes directly to Microsoft when you buy your computer.
I think it's the only thing Microsoft can do to "make it right". After all, why should third parties be responsible for tracking viruses and such when it's Microsoft's fault for allowing them to exist in the first place?
I am forever telling my customers to buy antivirus software and making sure that their definitions are up to date, this is an added tax that corporations should never have had to pay. It's rediculous that in order to run a Microsoft product less adept users are forced to pay $40 for antivirus software and then $20 a year to keep getting definition updates. It often seems like an added tax that you're forced to pay even after you've already paid Microsoft for the privilege of using Windows.
So good for Microsoft. They've saved the bulk of their customers that much more money per annum and I think it is well past time they did this.
John the Kiwi
Zonealarm and mcafee are shit (I've seen alot of viruses slip by mcafee), but Symantec really knows their business and I have nothing but respect for them. I trust them far more then MS.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Problem is, once they start examining traffic for viruses, you get pressure groups wanting them to do the same for child pornography, spam etc. To retain the "common carrier" status they claim to have (im not sure if they have the same protections as telecoms companies to this regard), they need to exercise a hands off approach as much as possible. Also think of the outcry a false positive would bring, the ISPs would be sued of the face of the planet by certain people who think its their goddamn given right to do what they damn well please, damn everyone who gets in the way.
The difference is that McAffee, Norton, et. al. have a vested interest in there being lots of new viruses, which leads me to wonder if they don't also assist in creating them. Microsoft has a vested interest in not having their software be perceived as being susceptible to viruses, so this might actually be a feature best provided by the OS vendors themselves -- much as I hate to admit it.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Still, even if Microsoft manages to plug all their holes in the recent SP, there will still be a need for virus protection. Just think of all the viruses that spread very quickly even though they are the type that the user has to intentionally run. I'm sorry, but if you run a file that happens to be a virus you have no one to blame except for yourself. It doesn't really matter what operating system you use, if you run an untrusted execuitable you could be in trouble. It just so happens that a vast majority of the uneducated users end up on Windows, so that is where you see email viruses spreading. I think that by including a virus scanner and moving very quickly on updates, MS may be able to prevent a large amount of viruses that spread in this manner. Of course, there will still be all the users who run earlier versions of Windows and who still don't know enough to not open every file that they get.
SIGFAULT
Has anybody actually been able to try this beta to see if there really is AV software included? The screenshots I've seen of a slightly older build (2077) show that it's only recommending you to install AV, not that it already has it.
...as MS is going to be both praised and sued for this move, even tho it may turn out to be a great one.
And then again, it might not. One would have to assume that they would do a better job writting anti-virus software than they do writting virus proof software in order believe that this is a good move. Otherwise, everyone will run the bundled AV telling themselves their safe, while hackers (the blackhats) can focus on a single AV program to fool. It just means that the RPC virus needs to disable MSAV before uploading it's payload.
Unless MS choose the easy option and licence the existing AV products, like they did with WinZIP. This way Symantic/Norton could concentrare on the real AV stuff, have some bells-and-whistles premium products and soak up lots of cash for MS doing the retail side for them. In this scenario they'd be the last people to complain.
And that is why you are not a Network Engineer.
This is really a tough one. Windows currently has a firewall included, which is not technically core to the operating system, but of enough importance, in my opinion, to be included with all operating systems. I think you can argue that anti-virus is along the same lines. If you think about this in terms of another product, say a car, it might be clearer. When cars were first invented they didn't have seat belts. Suppose there was a company that decided to sell after-market seat belts for the cars. Now today, every car has to have seat belts as required by law. When the change occurred do you think that the seat belt company should have sued the car makers? It is true that the belt is not required by the car to operate, but it is a safety feature that everyone should use. The same can be said about anti-virus. It is not necessary to the operating system, but seriously bad things could happen from not using an anti-virus system. I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included. Also, you have to note the fact that many users don't know enough or care enough to buy anti-virus or keep their system updated. I think that the world might be a better place if the users were taken out of the equation when it comes to anti-virus.
SIGFAULT
I think you're the one who needs to buy a clue. Microsoft's bundling is not comparable to Ford putting carriage makers out of business. Killing the market for a competing product by producing a better, more efficient product is not a problem. What is a problem is killing the market for a competing product by using a monopoly product as a platform for distributing a knock-off of the competing product. It would be more like Ford, being the only maker of automobiles, including an in-dash navigation system using their own GPS satelite network in order to kill the market for aftermarket navigation systems. Add to that Ford taking measures to ensure that you can't remove the navigation system to replace it with another without rendering the entire vehicle useless even though the navigation system isn't strictly necessary to operate the vehicle and you've got a much better approximation of Microsoft's anti-competitive activities.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
>A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
Yet, when Linus Torvalds offers a free Linux kernel to the world, SCO tells the U.S. Congress (your "Government Gangsters") that Linux is a threat to the security and economy of the U.S. Ironic, huh?
"How long do you think it will take for Symantic, etc to file antitrust against microsoft. 6 months? 12 Months?"
Boy, Microsoft can't win with you guys, can they? You bitch every single fucking day that there's some security exploit, and when Microsoft addresses that, suddenly you're crying anti-trust.
It really is hard to take anything you guys say seriously when it's all about bringing Microsoft down.
"Derp de derp."
And that guy who invented that polio vaccine, worst of the lot.
I presume you have never used an anti-virus product. I have and I'm happy to pay to clean up the mess that other clueless idiots create with virii and worms etc.
And now with one only analysis done on a virus and no competition to get the fix out how long do you think you will be safe.
I'm always amazed at how much patchwork goes into securing the Windows desktop.
An obvious first (and large) step would be to not have every user running with Administrator privileges. Has anyone heard of any initiative by Microsoft to change this unfortunate default?
Wouldn't running your everyday apps (e.g. Outlook, IE) as a non-privileged user mitigate a lot of these worms? Some of the worms that just blast off a emails via script would be unaffected, but those that install SMTP servers and other backdoor processes would be stopped.
The current setup seems just like giving everyone a key to your house and then hiring a team of live-in security guards.
Too bad Microsoft's software features are ultimately dictated by their marketing department and not by the user community. I really feel they need to break backwards compatibility, force users (even so-called "Power Users") to use unprivileged accounts, and provide a convenient equivalent to Unix's "su".
Sure, a lot of companies would have to release updates in order to cope with use by non-administrative users, but with the current hype around security these days, I would think most companies would be willing to do so for little or no charge. Most average Joes these days have heard of viruses, worms, etc...I think it would be really bad PR for a company to say, "well, MS improved the security of Windows, and it broke our software." Most, it seems, would rather say, "MS improved the security of Windows and our software is no exception...here's the free update you need."
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton
Not me. Microsoft has the right to sell their own product just as the open source community is free to give away theirs.
No, but it is logical that a company who's product's image has suffered so heavily due to viruses would want to make sure all users have up to date software. I think it's actually of far more benefit to Microsoft to keep the updates free.
a virus scanner does not fix an exploit.
So where does the line come between MS enhancing Windows and using Windows to force competitors out of the market?
Should Windows not come with a firewall because someone else makes a firewall (Zone Alarm)? Should Windows not come with a browser, because someone else makes a browser(Netscape)? Should Windows not come with a TCP/IP stack, because someone else makes one(Trumpet)? Should Windows not include multitasking, a GUI or a memory manager because someone else makes those things? (DESQVIEW, Dr-DOS, QEMM)?
As time marches on things progress. In 1993 it was perfectly acceptable for a computer to require $80 worth of additional software just to browse the Internet. In 1998 you expected to be able to plug in a brand new Windows machine, tell it the number of your ISP, and be browsing the web right away.
Now if the only way you could buy Windows was by also buying Office that would be an abuse. But does anyone complain that a perfectly usable word processor, WordPad, is included with Windows? No, because it's a basic application. It's designed to give the casual, out of the box user the basic functionality they expect from their Windows computer. Windows XP included a basic firewall, the idea being that security was becoming a requirement rather then a luxury and so users should have something out of the box. Now is the included firewall very sophisticated? No. If you want a professional firewall you get one yourself. Same could be said for a lot of other features; you want a browser with tabs, popup blocking, automatic history on open, etc? Get a "professional" browser like Opera. The time has come that virus scanning is a requirement, not a luxury that only the 5% of users with a clue should have. MyDoom spread like wildfire, despite it being an easily detectable virus totally blocked by any version of Outlook updated in the last few years and requiring total user stupidity. MyDoom makes MS look bad because the child like masses expect someone else to take care of them. While some people want a professional virus scanner, the average 90% user wants it to be dealt with from the moment they turn on their Gateway machine.
The car vs carriage analogy isn't valid.
The competitive advantage of cars over carriages is that cars are more useful than carriages.
In this case, MS isn't providing a more useful virus scanner or a better product. Their virus scanner will arguably be less useful than existing offerings in the market. However, (and this is where my anticompetitive gripe comes from) they're able to instantly capture a majority stake of any given market just because they own the underlying platform, whereas other vendors are forced to blow millions on sales and marketing and trying to entice consumers to download and install their product. To add insult to injury, MS includes the product for free with the OS, knowing that given a free pre-installed product that's "good enough" the vast majority will be too lazy to look for better alternatives.
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
Well, there would be a case for an antitrust suit, firstly.
Second, we tear down MS because they do moronic things. Instead of including a Virus scanner how about just working to make virus infections less of an issue in the design of the OS?
-
It's not so simple.
MS is more than welcome to make and SELL AV software.
But by including it free, if that's what ends up happening, then they are exercising their monopoly (again) to drive competitors into bankruptcy.
And even then it's not so simple. Obviously free software exists. But such software is not built into the OS.
OS + free browser, then + free webserver, now + free AV.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
OK, I've heard a lot of rants about how evil Microsoft is for bundling a virus scanner (big surprise). They're going to put all these AV software companies out of business. OK. Well, let's imagine a very hypothetical situation: one day, Microsoft releases a service pack that renders all Windows operating systems completely immune to viruses and worms and we're to assume that new viruses and worms never appear. That's good, right? But wait -- those AV companies will go out of business! That's wrong and Microsoft is evil for patching up their operating system, right?
Since that scenario clearly will never happen, Microsoft is instead opting to create a program that will, in theory, eliminate or significantly reduce the threat of viruses and worms on their operating system. The end result of either patching up the OS or creating a good, integrated AV program is the same -- significant reduction of viruses and worms, much to the detriment of existing AV software. What's the big deal?
As much talk as I hear on Slashdot about how record companies are trying to cash in on a dead business model, I'm baffled that is hasn't occurred to anyone that AV companies are cashing in on a business model that, in theory, will completely dry up.
I've seen a whole lot of people complaining about antitrust issues, but to be honest, that's not my problem with this issue. My problem is how much control I'm going to have over my own machine.
.ini file and then uninstall it, and the system now generates an error message when a new user logs on for the first time because it can't find MSN.
I use a number of programs for which Microsoft has "integrated" alternatives. I use ACDSee Classic as an image viewer, I use Nero for burning CDs, I use WinRAR for archiving, I use Mozilla for web-browsing, I use Miranda for IM.
But to get ACDSee to work, I had to wend my way through assorted registry entries to disable the MS integrated version (changing registered filetypes wasn't enough). To uninstall MSN Messenger, I had to fiddle around with an
If Microsoft bundled an AV solution with Windows, and included it in the "Add/Remove Software" selection, as every other application is, or provided an uninstallation tool, I wouldn't mind. But based on track history, I'm going to be stuck with a lump of code taking up at the least disk space, and probably memory space and CPU time, that I don't use, don't want, and can't get rid of.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I can understand people bitching about the integration of IE or WMP into the operating system, but I can't think of any applications that I would rather have tightly integrated than a AV prog and a decent firewall.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
They aren't fixing security wholes created by poor programming practices. They aren't even correcting thise poor programming practices. All they are doing by embedding an AV client into the OS is extending their monopoly further. What do you think a monopoly is? If they were fixing the problems then we'd be happy. They aren't. They are extending their monopoly, simple as that.
We can speak quite effectively and accurately from experience. Microsoft still manages to produce some of the most insecure operating systems after being in the biz for how many years now. They still manage to bork installations during minor little updates to things like Microsoft Office. Outlook, IE, and Exchange are still some of the most insecure pieces of software available for purchase today. We as IT professionals can speak from experience when we say that Microsoft will not be able to do this without borking something else.