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.
You install the software, boot it for the first time, run its virus scanner, which uninstalls said software. Nice, Huh?
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?"
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.
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
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
... Microsoft will be including a scanner which can scan for viruses which get in through security holes in their OS?
Ow. I think I just broke my brain.
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!
- 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
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?
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.]
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.
Microsoft Beta Includes Built-in Virus Scanner
Time to dump your McAfee and Simantec stock as fast as possible.
Isn't that a brilliant scam? (1) Microsoft messes up and makes virus- and worm-prone products. (2) A whole industry develops around the Microsoft flaws like mold on cheese, (3) Microsoft takes over the Microsoft-problem-solving industry.
Brilliant, just brilliant. These guys never cease to amaze me.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"Holy fucking shit fuck!"
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
...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.
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
That's right ! Damn those operating systems that can run software !
You do realise the vast majority of viruses exploit nothing more than user gullibility, and that the "code" between the keyboard and the chair is outside of Microsoft's control, right ?
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
{Little Explosive Icon}
This program has not been signed by Microsoft!
It may be a virus...
{Why Microsoft Signing is important link}
(Button "Delete") (Button "Cancel" that ends whole virus scan) (Button "Invite Auditor")
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
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.