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."
I bet the anti-virus software companies are really going to like this one.
Will the inclusion of A default Scanner kill Norton and Mcaffee? I think they are now sitting ducks. why buy what comes free with your new computer?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Would this be a vioaltion of their anti-trust agreement? Seems like this could really put the hurt on Norton, etc.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
A single byte of new code spawned from the beast just leads to another potential for 1000 bytes of code to exploit it. When will they learn to remove instead of add?
./revolution
Isn't it a really bad idea to have the primary defense mechanism INTEGRATED WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM? What the hell?
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
- After central point died, MS just didn't bother trying another one
- Another anti virus vendor cried "Anti-Trust!" and MS backed down
- None were ready for Win95 at the time
- MS just didn't care
- Any combo of the above...
I can't help but think though, had MS continued with offering anti-virus software, they MyDoom virus (amongst other worms) might have been a fraction of the attack it was...so sad......in bed
So what happens when the virus scanner either deletes a critical windows file or itself cause it _thinks_ it knows what it's doing... I can't wait to see how many fixes come out for this thing.
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
What kind of viruses will the scanner delete?
Will we have the choice to turn theirs off?
I mean, Microsoft is so lax with their security updates, I am not sure if they would create a false sense of security. Also, what if Microsoft detects illegal software? Is this a virus? Will we retain control? Is this a premonition of the TCPA?
Dell WinME machines still came preloaded with WinDVD, despite the built in DVD player of WinME. It's all up to Gateway, Dell and such whether to include additional software to match a build in OS feature.
Anti virus software needs to be constantly updated. I'm still waiting for somebody to hack the ability to fake a Microsoft Certificate, so they can use the update mechanism to distribute viruses/worms instead. What are the chances of Microsoft's security measures actually becoming yet another vector for compromising security? Am I the only one that wonders if I'm actually getting Microsoft blessed software every time I run Windows Update?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Oh, you are being serious. 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.
Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.
Hmm so Microsoft can't add anything to their product because there's another company already doing the same thing for their product. Yea that's really bright. Lets deny MS the right to improve their OS then Linux will be the defacto OS -- but oh wait, gotta rip out the firewall because norton makes one, gotta rip out the browser because that would stomp on opera. Rip out that media player because we gotta make sure REAL makes money, oh lord we can't forget about real.
And splitting up MS wouldn't have done jack squat about this. The OS division would have happilly put in virus and firewall protection and you know why? BECAUSE THAT KIND OF STUFF BELONGS IN THE OS! (WoW). Shoot, we can be grateful they didn't split MS up because then the OS division would be all over the place and wouldn't have to worry about bogus (don't let them improve the product!) BS like this.
Crushing the anitvirus industry in the name of security. Good one. I'm sure Longhorn will have more advanced CD burning capabilities too. Wonder what the folks at Symantec and McAfee think about this?
This guy is way out there
Persoanlly I think anti-virus software should run at the router of your ISP. That way PC's are never affected (or rarely).
Well look,
They have to realize that they are a software company. All of these companies have had a jump on these technologies for a long time. If they are to succeed, their product will simply have to be better than what is included offered at a valuable price to the consumer.
Now, the software business is no different than anything else. In order to reduce risk, you have to diverisfy. If your soul business is personal/firewall and antivirus you will know that you are in a highly competative market(high risk).
If you expect to run a business you will have to design your operations to be able to overcome industry trends or you will fail. There is no sense to cry, its just logical.
Its like a programmer concentrating on 1 language. Sure its great if you know the one language, but when companies don't wanna spend money on developping in that language any more what are you going to do?
Eggs in one basket? Please think.
Will it matter? MS isn't exactly the speediest when it comes to releasing fixes (unless you have that non-normal-end-user agreement that big companies get). I'm sure that worms will continue to spread just as quickly; only cleanup will be a little faster.
Parent is spot-on, and I think the companies mentioned have it coming to them, but I think it's a lot more serious than this, and I don't otherwise think either side is categorically wrong.
My estimate is that 80% or more of the software sold for the Windows platform is 'compensatory': it's stuff you wouldn't dream of having if Windows were as adequate as it should be.
Virus scanners, personal firewalls, trojan eliminators, anti-hacker tools - we're always back to square one: Microsoft let the demons in to start with. As Bill Joy so eloquently put it:
They took systems designed for isolated desktop systems and put them on the net without thinking about evildoers.
Apple Macs come with a built-in firewall, and I don't see anybody complaining over there. They also come with a built-in mail filter, and the same thing applies: no one is complaining. In fact, it all makes good sense.
Your Windows 'cottage industries' are never never never going to enlighten their clients anyway. They're never going to really care for them, and tell them the truth, that the easiest way out of this slaughter that continues every day is to ditch the Microsoft ship. No, they want you to keep using Windows; they want you to keep getting the shit kicked out of you; if you migrated to Unix, they'd be penniless.
The ultimate irony of course is that Microsoft themselves are now mucking with 'compensatory' software - instead of fixing the holes that make such gems necessary in the first place (something they're most likely incapable of doing anyway).
No solutions; just observations. The world goes round.
So who was the first to bitch about MS's anti-competitive practices with this one? When are you elitist opensource primadonnas* going to realize that MS can build anything it damn well wants to into it's OS? For fucks sake, you cry about MS security, well here's an extra layer of it built into the OS and we're alrady whining about anti-competitive practices. Will you people PLEASE buy some consistancy here???? And WTF are you worried about anyway? If MS is as bad as you say it is, the anti-virus community doesn't have a damn thing to worry about. MS added native file compression to windows. THAT software industry is alive and well. They added native CD burning. THAT industry is alive and well too. Media playback? Check. Firewall? Ditto.
Shut your gob for once. Please.
*Not all open-sourcers, but you know who you are. You probably just modded me down, infact.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
So far there has been a multitude of different virus scanning software on the market designed to eliminate viruses that spread so well because of the monoculture currently inherent in the operating system market. To my recollection, there have also been some viruses that particularly attack and disable Norton AntiVirus because it's the leading anti-virus software on the market.
Now let's make the assumption that the built-in virus scanner becomes the default in over 95% of Windows installations.
Who is going to write a virus that will be automatically removed at the very moment the built in virus scanner has updated its definitions?
That's right, nobody. That's why every new Windows virus will simply disable the market's only virus scanner (or its auto-update facility) upon infection and the user will be under a false sense of security even though his/her system is infected.
Naturally the virus cannot infect computers with updated definitions, but the virus will always have some time to spread in the wild before new definitions are released. If each infection equals one machine with disabled virus protection (and a clueless user who doesn't know how or feel the need to re-enable it), it's not much better a situation than the one we have now.
Sorry i didnt include this in my previous post but it just hit me. This is giving Microsoft the ability to determine what is a "virus" and what is not. The definition of a virus is "a software program capable of reproducing itself and usually capable of causing great harm to files or other programs on the same computer". This gives microsoft the legal right to remove what they think will cause harm to windows, with or without notice. This includes tweaking agents and other things of that manner. You will most likly have the ability to disable the antivirus but odds are most people will not. Food for thought.
I'm not sure that this is such a bad idea. Hear me out before the flames start. :) I've discovered too many family members and coworkers that aren't even running with an antivirus program (I did fix those). I know that the MS firewall (if you can call it that) works like crap, but I think all of the non-tech people could benefit. I'm sure you'll be able to disable it and keep NAV or others on your machines. This will benefit all of those people who don't know what an antivirus program is. This will benefit the users who open up any attachment and spread the viruses. While it could give a false sense of security, I think for all of the people without AV, at least they'll have some protection. When it comes down to it, I don't think Microsoft is trying to put the AV companies out of business (I know that this flies in the face of history). They've had a lot of criticism for all of the security holes and viruses on their platform so I think this is their solution. As soon as a worm like MyDoom is discovered, they could automatically update all of the AV programs and block many of them. There are a lot of windows users out there that have no idea what security means at all. I for one, am glad there will be at least a minimal protection installed by default on those peoples machines. Until we can force computing licenses, I think this may turn out to be a good thing for the tech-illiterate. Now, I still don't think that Norton or McAfee will be happy.
-
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Every time a new creative utility popped up, the would make their own version which was bundled into the OS. Every time the third party vendors would be pissed. But on the flip side when all was said and done, bundling the functionality really did improve things for the user.
Bundling is a interesting issue. There really are legitimate reasons why it is better to provide one integrated package, but from a market point of view it just reaks of anti-competitive behavior. Which is another reason why open source software is so interesting in the grand scheme of things - because an open source operating environment (OS + stuff) could have all the benifits of bundling, with none of the detriments of a monopoly.
When in Windows95/98 appeared stripped versions of programs from Norton Utilities Tools Package nobody complained (for instance the SpeedDisk(Defragmenter), Disk Doctor (ScanDisk), etc.). Those tools were sooo limited that they were good incentive to buy Norton.
On the other hand remember Norton Commander? Total Commander has killed it.
You can defy gravity... for a short time
Yes. Now you can trust the same people who create
the bugs to decide which ones are important enough
to look for....(thinking)...."inforrmation security
best practices"...."seperation of roles".....nahh.
---eludom
I know parent are kidding (or at least, exagereting), but if MS-AntiVirus(c) existed now, sure it could detect the win2000-source.zip "virus" and call home or delete it.
What a peculiar move isnt it? If the problem lies in the underlying system why bolt some more services ontop of it? The solution should be to prevent virueses to propagate in the first place. A virus scanner is only an intermidiate solution to a problem in windows, its by no mesure any real solution. Why not be bold and use a sandbox to open attachements in? Bochs style anyone? I can come up with numerous things that would be better than a virus scanner ontop of my head, why cant they?
I am stunned by how incredibly good salesmen they are and at the same time such loosers come to technology.
HTTP/1.1 400
PC World wrote an article in June 2003 outlining Microsoft's original acquisition of the AV software firm. According to the article the software was going to be sold separately and that the acquired firm, GeCAD, would continue to operate as a small consultancy, providing customers signature updates. GeCAD are the creators of RAV AntiVirus. Lastly, you can see the press release for the acquisition here.
Why 'short of blocking anything with microsoft attachments'? That's basic mailserver configuration these days.
.zip files these days.
You still need AV though as there are some that package themselves in
It's a win-win situation for everybody. These companies still have potential to gain because well, they are still selling their software. Microsoft gains because of the economic law of comparative advantage. Consumers gain because various companies will be competing to get that liscence with Microsoft. Of course, if say a power user isn't satisfied with the basic firewall or AV software that Microsoft will liscence, they are still free to purchase from other companies which will surely be there to cater to such niche groups.
I really don't believe this will be a big deal. Most likely it'll just be a very basic virus scanner. The people who bought commercial virus scanners will keep doing so for a fuller product.
I don't see Microsoft pumping too much effort in to their virus scanner, as just having one will probably be good enough to make most people feel fuzzy. I have a hard time imagining another Netscape-like situation, and I'll tell you why.
Microsoft went all out with IE, not because they simply felt a browser should be included with windows, but because they were threatened. Netscape (and just the web in general) was turning out to be a whole new platform. Interesting technologies like Java were starting to make it clear that the web could be used to make platform-agnostic apps.
You really have to credit Microsoft with having the foresight to notice this was a threat, cause it was. However, the threat was really just that it would have leveled the playing field, which they obviously don't want.
So back to my point, virus scanning is just virus scanning. It doesn't really keep people locked in to a platform other than comparing to other OSes might be favorable. For example, "OS A has virus scanning builtin, while OS B does not." That is why I can't imagine them investing too much money in it or getting in to a competition with a current virus scanner.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
Just think -- in the next windows version they might create an OS that's easy to use and big free, thus killing the tech support industry... Talk about anti-trust!
We bitch about lack of security then bitch when they take steps in the right direction. I think the AV industry can always make a profit with "added value" applications. There's no way MS can provide the same level of support.
-precog
I just had a scary thought. Remember a while back when Microsoft was talking about how they want the ability to force users to apply patches to their systems remotely? They said this after another round of worms exploiting well-known vulnerabilities. Remember the outcry after they said that? I took a cursory look at the older articles on /. and didn't find the one I'm referring to but I know it's there.
I happen to know, and I'm not saying how, as it would not be a good thing for my job, that companies that "license" things that go into windows don't get paid for it. They get a mention in the license page in their feature, and a reasonable assurance that M$ won't crush them... for now.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
for years virus writers have had to make tough decisions on what anti-virus software, if any, their virus would circumvent. do I write for Norton, McAfee, Sophos? there are just too many choices to get around them all.
once Windows AV has taken the market share and driven out the competition, this tedious job of getting around virus protection will become much easier.
knock out Windows AV
infect computer
I agree that this will trigger yet another barrage of antitrust lawsuits for Microsoft.
Bundling the OS with antivirus software seems like a good idea, but it also has certain long-term implications that aren't so great. What happens when support for legacy OS's with built-in virus protection? Will older systems continue to be honeypots, festering with every new incarnation of worm and trojan simply because the sale of that OS isn't profitable anymore?
I also don't see why MS keeps trying to value-add their products by piling on support for add-ons (MSN, Media Player Updates, IE Updates)rather than more robust features and better security. It is nice to have a fully-usable OS right out of the box, but it sucks to be force-fed an entire OS upgrade simply because MS finds it no longer feasable to support an older OS plus all of its bugs/exploits and cruft.
IMO, MS needs to dump the extras, plug the third party guys that make Windows marketable in the first place and beef up the operating system itself in terms of security, speed and usefulness.
Also an API for standard OS-program hooks (anti-virus software, browsers, email, etc) would go a long way to make things better for everyone, not to mention avoid hemmoraging cash in the form of legal fees.
Oh, and the drug companies love incurable diseases, since that gives them a customer for life. There is more money to be made in palliative measures then cures, so that's where they focus their research. If doctors and hospitals really valued our health so much, wouldn't they focus more on preventing disease, rather then waiting for patients to get sick? I never claimed anti-virus companies were actively writing new viruses. I just said that they have a vested interest in not preventing them from being written. Just as firewall vendor's stock doubles whenever a new worm comes out. Police and firemen get paid the same whether or not they prevent crime and fires. The more viruses there are, the more the stock of the anti-virus companies goes up... that means the officers of the AV companies have a fiduciary responsibility in their being new viruses.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Even then it's hardly fair. MS has access to the Windows source code and can fix bugs (<Tinfoil Hat>or introduce them</Tinfoil Hat>) that causes problems with it's AV software (or Office, or IE, or Media Player, bah bah bah).
Apple (iTunes), Symantec (Norton's AV), Corel (Wordperfect), Real (RealOne Player), AOL/Yahoo (IM clients), AOL (Netscape) and Intuit (Quicken) don't have this luxury. Yet they all have to compete with Microsoft products -- Media Player, Office, Windows messenger, Internet Explorer and Money.
Capitalist systems are based on being able to compete with your competitor on fair terms. The current status quo is many things but fair is not one of them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.