Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plans To Sell Anti-Virus Software
EvilCowzGoMoo writes "From the makers of our favorite OS comes: Anti-Virus! Yes you heard me right. According to an article on Reuters.com Microsoft is developing its own brand of anti-virus software. Asked if that would hurt sales of competing products, such as Network Associates' McAfee and Symantec's Norton family of products, Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows. My only question is: If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"
While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this, it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security.
On the other hand, the major effect might just be to introduce a single point of failure/attack. It's certainly possible to argue that the variety of security software in use makes it harder to attack any given system. For evidence, look at the list of processes that the more sophisticated viruses try to stop.
Background: I do not customarily use an on-demand scanner. On occasion, I have loaded up a scanner because of suspicious behavior. My Windows box (patched up to date, firewalled) has had only one virus, a backdoor program that was installed when my daughter clicked a "video clip" that she received in an e-mail, before she understood what a spoofed address was. So I'm not convinced that antivirus software is as necessary as it is built up to be.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
10 bonus karma points for the first person to write a worm that exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft's AV software!
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?
It just goes to show you that business isn't about who's right or who's wrong but who can make it sound good.
Asked if that would hurt sales of competing products, such as Network Associates' McAfee and Symantec's Norton family of products, Nash said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows.
So? The same thing that happened to WordPerfect is likely going to happen to NAV.
I am more afraid that MSFT will purposefully allow holes to exist in its OS so that more and more people will buy their AV software. Perhaps that's a bit paranoid but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
1) make crappy software with holes in it like swiss cheese
2) sell antivirus software
3) PROFIT!!!
because what hunting rifle has a bayonet lug
Nash said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows
for now...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Maybe Microsoft should just fall back onto it's old standby technique- buy the company. Purchase Symantec and integrate the Norton Anti-virus product directly into the Windows OS!
It would make the net a safer place for the rest of us if they did so...
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
I can't stop laughing long enough to make a "takes one to know one" joke!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Is this a little like:
"Dr Kevorkian... Heal thyself"?
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
It does!
But does it run on Linux? :-) Oh wait...
didn't symantec stop theirs, or was that just for the Mac?
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature to help me spread!
Sounds like extortion to me.
They make a buggy OS with holes for viruses, and then require consumers to purchase their own AntiVirus to patch them. This removes motivation for producing a secure operating system because the worse their OS software, the more people will buy their AntiVirus product.
It seems like they're trying to figure out a way to charge for bugfixes and incremental updates to their security model, but instead of just selling those fixes like Apple (10.0, 10.1, 10.2--which I understand also have lots of new features), this model actually discourages production of good product in the first place.
Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?
barzelay.net
Not sure about this one...MS will probably get plenty of sales from the same crowds that buy windows, office, etc. That same crowd is probably the majority of those who don't update their virus files, anyway. So theoretically, M$ will still be profitable at this venture even if they don't keep up to date with the virus info.
On the other hand, there's lots of people out there that use anti-virus programs...most of which (somewhat clueless consumers) just buy the cheaper of McAfee or Norton at the time. Will M$ provide their version at cheaper prices? What's to draw the said customers away from their McAfee or Norton that they already know and trust?
01000001 01011001 01000010 01000001 01000010 01010100 01010101
They used to sell their own anti-virus software, but then they left that market because they felt it was best to focus on their core products, and that other companies who specialized in anti-virus software were better equipped to sell that kind of software.
What has changed since then to make them want to get back in the game?
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Whew.. OK, I got that out. Mark me as flamebait or troll if you want, but this should be integrated with Windows. Of course, not everyone will agree, but hear me out first. First, let's put aside the comments that they should build more secure software and that they should be more focused on security than features. The problem is that it's already created and we have to deal with what we (and the 95% of others using Windows) have and not what should have been. The reason why it should be integrated is because if it's being developed by Microsoft, for their own OS, you would imagine that they might have a small niche into what these viruses are going to do and how they would affect the OS. They created the OS, they know the code behind it, and could possibly help prevent more of the "stupid" users who open the email with the "cute" bears. Let's also assume that the AV software was well built with a few minor security bugs that are easily fixable (I said ASSUME :)).
Since Windows has reached market saturation, we really do have to think about the people outside of /. that are not as informed as us. They don't know about certain viruses or worms unless it's on CNN and they are ones to infrequently update the OS (and AV definition files) because they don't see anything wrong with the way it's running now. Virus protection needs to be something that's seamless to these users because they just don't know any better.
*Awaiting flame responses....*
Hmmm.
Until the anti-virus program starts getting viruses. Or the update mechanism gets hit by a worm.
Microsoft is just trying to grasp onto the market, people are now realizing that Windows is a horrible OS and switch to Linux/Mac OS X
Ive done so, have you?
It's like leaving Jarod in charge of Krispy Kremes.
Who is to say they won't purposely ignore vulnerability warnings now, just to have some profit coming in from new worms and viruses?
It started with the browser, and it will continue until slashdot itself is considered part of the os.
Dude, if you're not going to RTFA, could you at least read the damn -- ahh, why am I even bothering?
But that would leave Microsoft even more vulnerable to being sued when holes were found in the OS. A virus that hits because both the OS and the Anti-Virus software were defective and made by the same company? It sounds like a lawyer's wet dream.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Conflict of interest.
Will the projected earnings from AV division affect security choices?
Ahh! You didn't even read the whole news post! MS isn't going to bundle this!
It's not that you didn't RTFA... I mean... all you had to do is read another sentence or two:
Asked if that would hurt sales of competing products, such as Network Associates' McAfee and Symantec's Norton family of products, Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows.
Casual Games/Downloads
Microsoft actually made an anti-virus programs back in the days of DOS/Win 3.11. My first computer came bundled with it. However, the only virus I ever got back then(Doom2 death), it couldn't remove. Though it did alert me to the fact that the files grew by 666 bytes(they don't write 'em like they used to, do they). It also had this nice little 16 color doctor you could watch as your files were being scanned.
...I can't think of any vulnerability that was widely exploited before Microsoft issued a patch for it. They've usually been fairly prompt in releasing patches to vulnerabilities they're notified of, and those which they discover in house.
:-)
That's off the top of my head, the best way to post on Slashdot
i'm looking forward to patching their AV software.
The writer just HAD to get their anti-MS jab in there didnt they. This is /. after all...
At any rate, I'm no pro programmer, but I daresay adding virus defs to a file (seems alot like adding entries to a database to me) and patching a hole, which requires significantly more programming as well ast esting to make sure it doesnt break anything else or cause another vulnerability is much more difficult.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
WHAT??? Remember your history. AV was part of DOS once. The question is, why did M$ stop doing it until now? Maybe because they weren't making extra coin on it I reckon.
Oh, the absolute irony of Microsoft writing anti-virus software. What next? Viruses which exploit the anti-virus software?
In other news, Benson and Hedges plan to open their own crematorium franchise; "You go out smokin'!". Rumours also spread of plans by Mc Donalds to open a gymnasium adjacent to each grease restaurant, and Darl Mc Bride, Steve Balmer and Steve Jobs to co-author book entitled "Altruism: The secret to success!! (subtitled: Empowering your workforce with kindness)"...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
It was bound to happen eventually, and I for one am actually glad about it.
My guess is a lot of OEMs will start shipping this, and my guess is that Microsoft will force reminders into windows to make sure people keep their definitions updated. so many people with Norton or McAfee don't actually bother to renew subscriptions to the virus definitions, and then wonder why they get viruses.
If Microsoft can at least build reminders into their Windows Update Services, maybe this will help slow the flood.
Maybe.
--------------------- -me, Crusher of those who are Foolish (don't be foolish)
Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows.
They'll keep it seperate alright... until it's been out for a while and they don't gain any market share away from competitors. Then it'll be silently built in. There, but not enabled. Then it will be enabled by default, but with the ability to disable it. Then it will be so "tightly integrated" with the OS that you can't turn it off or your computer "will not operate properly"!
Hey, it could happen... and has with previous products.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Red corner: 100000 times WINer: Microsoft
Blue corner: Symantec, Kapersky,...
Andrej
Isn't this akin to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse?
2. Sell anti-virus software that 'somehow' works the best.
3. Take over the world.
So, what, it deinstalls Windows for you?
PepperHacks - Hacking the Pepper Pad
remember they bought a maker of linux AV products last year and discontinued their linux support
MSAV was the most pathetic piece of virus removal software (and DETECTION) software to roam this earth.
I hope their new offering is better.
Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows ... "for now."
There, is that clearer?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Just for the record, Microsoft produced an antivirus program back in the DOS 6.2/Win 3.1 days. I, and many other people, wondered why they stopped when they released Win95.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Goodness. How nice of them to not include it with the OS; that'll keep the lawsuits from competitors down to roughly 3 per minute rather than 150. These guys are voracious. If they do actually manage to squelch their security problems they are going to shake off this Linux issue like a sick poodle.
c hives/2004 0615_why_you_should_dump_internet_explorer.phtml
On a related note, here's an article on why you should consider using an alternative browser:
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news/ar
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
There's a problem with the idea of them selling the AV software separately from Windows... they always claimed that they had to bundle IE because browsing the web was an integral part of the OS experience... well... when you're talking about Windows, having AV software & keeping it up to date is even MORE of an integral part of the experience than web browsing!
How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
I thought there was a crappy AVP program in Win95/Win3.1x
I would think the more holes for viruses they leave in their products, the more anti-virus software they can sell...
It's kind of like a liquor store holding AA meetings.
I am just lost for words.
1. Create a problem 2. Sell solution to problem you created 3. Profit As the Guiness guys would say... Brilliant!
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
Surely if they demonstrated that they made an OS vulnerable to the virus of the day, why should they be trusted to make the software that protects against/fixes said virus?
There are also definite shades of Dilbert here, where the employees who write the software are paid for every bug they remove from the software. It sounds outlandish but MS have demonstrated some pretty evil business practices; might it be possible for them to put a vulnerability into Windows that allowed viruses which could only be combatted by MS Virus Scan - it could be done in a way that means Norton or McAfee could be slapped with the DMCA if they knew the encryption to access the bit of Windows affected by the virus, but it would be a triviality for the virus writer to break said encryption since they're not worried about the law. </tinfoil hat>
Sounds like a doctor is also the owner of a coffin shop. I am the best doctor in town if I can cure you, otherwise, I sell you a coffin.
"Is there any software outside of Microsoft's "it's a part of the OS" argument?"
Yes.
"Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, ather than including it in Windows."
"Derp de derp."
you buy protection from the same people you have to be protected from.
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
For what it's worth, a Microsoft-made antivirus scanner might be a worthwhile tool.
Since no one but Microsoft has a clear view of what's "under the hood", so to speak, it would probably be much easier for them to generate a more reliable set of heuristics for identifying new virii before the definitions are available.
You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
"My only question is..." when will they simply include it in the OS, thereby screwing up the folks who've made life with Windows almost bearable all these years? Time after time, MS promises they won't compete with the third parties who helped them survive and thrive, but soon thereafter the new stuff shows up in the OS and the competition either finds a new market really fast, or they die.
It's all well-documented in the trade press over the years.
I'm betting the Anti-Virus software simply implodes windoze. Maybe this will be the launch of Microsoft Linux. :-)
:-D
Can't you hear the music? Perhaps a Rolling Stones song....
Like all "Great" Microsoft products, they didn't develop anything. They bought someone up and slapped their name on it. http://www.ravantivirus.com/
Can some one please explain one thing... Most of these viruses / malware etc are based on windows bugs which we all know take a while to release. So will M$ Antivirus release an update for a problem that should just be patched?
Sounds like a lot of tail chasing to me and of course in any corp- passing the buck will be the soup du jour.
This is perfect timing for me to finally switch completely to a linux based pc and watch all you win32 bums suffer. You thought that it was tough getting a straight answer out of tech support now???
HA wait till this launches!!!
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
My god, doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest here? WHenever they want to boost revenue in their anti-virus business unit, all the have to do is make Windows more insecure. No wait, that's impossible. Never mind.
Be fair, maybe this is an honest attempt for Microsoft to clean up its image regarding security. Perhaps we'll see a bit more focus on prevention and faster patch releases in the near future, sort of a two pronged attack. I have no love for Microsoft, and I'm not defending them, but I'm not into kicking a man in the rear while he's trying to zip up his open fly either...
1) You created the vulnerabilities. You are already charging us for the patches that are supposed to fix them. Why are you going to charge separately for a tool to detect the exploits?
2) Speaking of charging to fix your vulnerabilities, why aren't you fixing them rather than spending time and money on writing tools to detect the exploits?
3) Why aren't the fixes free after I paid for software that should have worked in the first place?
By selling a vulnerable piece of software then selling another application to prevent it from being exploited sounds like a protection racket to me.
This discussion need a fucking tinfoil Turban over it. Get ready for your conspiracies, folks!
Microsoft in such a long time never integrated an anti-virus capability into Windows. The virus problem has been existing for such a long time, yet everyone had to go and buy a third party product. I mean, they included a browser, a movie maker, a multi-media, games, all kinds of crap that wasn't that vital for an OS to have. My guess is that they were either too ignorant and stupid or they figured its bad marketing to include anti-viral software - it might imply the main product (Windows) is not secure enough and prone to easy explotation by virus writters (cough..).
Microsoft has had a couple of secure OS's out for years
What's to stop them from purposely leaving holes open in windows just so that their virus software could be the best to guard against it?
So Microsoft will be distrubuting a new flavor of linux?
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Actually Microsoft is planning on calling the security/critical updates Antivirus software, and it will be updated via Windows update.
/. crowd what was really going on.
no-one would notice except the
I mean, "official" monopoly or not.....they have one, with a product that is riddled with security problems...which they can't "seem" to fix.....so the solution for its customers is to...."Sell" them AV software!?!?!?!?
Isn't there something inherently wrong with that?
dimes
My only question is: If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"
... Because there's a lot more pressure to keep AV software updated as fast as possible. If a user is not happy with the way Norton manages their AV updates, they can switch to McAfee with little inconvenience. But Microsoft is under no direct threat if they wait an extra day, delaying an OS patch, since switching operating systems is a much more serious undertaking.
Microsoft clearly has the resources together to put together a good product- look at Office, for example. They're not idiots, and I'm sure they realize the urgency of issuing timely AV updates. If they made that one of their priorities, they could probably do a very good job at it.
The big question on my mind is who did Microsoft buy to get into the AV market? I mean, look at a lot of their other product expeditions lately. They're just an offshoot of someone else's work that they bought. Can anyone say VirtualPC? Guess we'll just have to wait and see what it looks like...
You wasted packets to get this lousy sig.
3rd-party developers have long complained that MS developers have access to "secret" API's not shared with the outside world.
Seems like this would be all-too-tempting of a strategy to take with the AV developers, as well. Except in this case it's not only API knowledge, but advance knowledge of security holes discovered by their own developers and testers.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Im not knocking Microsoft here. Congrats on trying to deversify, BUT I really do not see this working out to well.
The main reason being is that there are alot of very succesfull and viable AV options out there. Apart from having the Microsoft brand added to the AV Software, it seems as though it will not really bring anything new to the plate.
On a lighter note, it is quite ironic. Microsoft providing AV software for their OS.....
If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?
The same deranged thoughts that make them think they have a lower TCO than Linux, that make them take industry standard protocols and tweak them just enough that they don't work anymore, that they're more secure than *NIX, and that Windows Explorer is a good interface. Duh.
All we need to do now is to prove they include SCO code in their AV, and there'll be more than one set of sheets to clean!
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
At CES Bill hinted that they were working on anti-virus software but implied it would be a part of the operating system. Could you imagine the crowd turning on him if he said you have to buy one product from microsoft to run your machine and another product to secure it?
As they, Microsoft, are the ones who bought RAV Antivirus exactly one year ago, just to make it disappear from the market.
RAV had one of the best and most attractive (in licensing terms) AV solutions for Linux and other *NIX mail and file servers.
Regards,
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
Haha. I did'nt realize Microsoft had a humor department on campus.
As i recall, Symantec did a lot of the original work on this with MS back in the 80's. Look what happened, MS ended up with truncated versions of Norton's Utilities and AV back then and MS never did a thing to improve on what they originally had.
I say: Too little, too late to a company that keeps trying to be everyone to everybody.
There are far better products out there that are'nt included in "Windows".
And this is coming from a dedicated but very pissed off MS product user for 20 years.
Sincerely, Czephyr
"If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"
They won't. They'll probably just put thier brand on someone else's. At most they'll write their own engine and cut a deal to buy someone elses signature files (see: MacAfee), but I highly doubt they're doing this from scratch.
http://www.ravantivirus.com
The bad news: given Microsoft's marketing techniques, they will ruthlessly run their AV competitors out of business.
The good news: Microsoft AV product will lapse into cost-effective mediocrity once they run their competitors out of business. This will increase the presence of viruses in MS OS products, which will increase their reputation for being unreliable and insecure. The end result will be the eventual adoption of Linux in the computer industry. Yay!
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
If I recall correctly, didn't MS have Anti-Virus software bundled with some odd version of DOS (I remember having it bundled with 6 and Win 3.1)?
Of course, it could've also been another company's software that they rebranded. I might have to look into that.
Anyway, getting back to the age of computers that we're in, as someone already cited, it would be a conflict of interest, considering a lot of their security holes are the very reasons viruses are so prominent between the hosts and the Internet.
Join the TWIT army now!
"Why am i infected , i have [largenamebrand] virus scanner that came with the computer"
"but you have to keep them up-todate sir, and that costs a subscription for x$ per year"
"so you are saying i have to pay money every year to the same company for a faulty product that i have already paid for ? "
"yes sir, you do have your credit card ready sir ? hello ? hellooo?....."
I see this as a way to ignore Windows security completely. If you complain of exploits, Microsoft will just try to sell you more software.
are you sure they will sell THIS AV?
the press release:
"GeCAD Press Release: GeCAD's Antivirus technology to be acquired by Microsoft (Date: 2003-06-10)
Bucharest, June 10, 2003 - GeCAD Software has announced a definitive agreement with Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash., USA, by which Microsoft will acquire GeCAD's antivirus technology. Microsoft has stated its intention to integrate GeCAD's technology into products and services that will help secure customers.
"The opportunity to integrate GeCAD technology into Microsoft's future antivirus efforts is a big step not only for us but for the entire Romanian I.T. industry," said Radu Georgescu, President of GeCAD. "Microsoft's choice of a Romanian technology attests to the tremendous software development potential in this country."
Bucharest based GeCAD is a leading technology company specialised in providing antivirus solutions for all categories of users. Since the creation of the company by entrepreneur Radu Georgescu in 1992 and launch of its first antivirus programme in 1994, GeCAD has grown to an international recognized software company with distributors in more than 60 countries. The company markets its products under the brand "RAV AntiVirus" which protects more than 10 million users worldwide. Many international awards and certifications, which include 'VB 100%', 'Checkmark' and 'ICSA', underscore the company's success as an antivirus solutions provider.
More recently, GeCAD was awarded two special citations at the I.T. Awards ceremony in 2002 for the 'Best Romanian Software' and the 'Most Innovative Software Company'.
The GeCAD products feature the unique 'platform independent' antivirus scanning engine that revolutionized the antivirus market. It detects and removes viruses while acting also as signature database for all the modules and programs under any platform or operating system.
"The acquisition of GeCAD's technology will help secure customers by helping us deliver antivirus solutions for Microsoft products and services," said Mike Nash, corporate vice president of the Security Business Unit at Microsoft. "The significant expertise represented by GeCAD, along with partner antivirus software and our own platform investments, will help us mitigate the threats our customer face from those who write malicious code."
Commenting on this achievement, H.E President Ion Iliescu of Romania said -"I am a great believer in the tremendous I.T. and software development potential of our people and of our country, I am proud of GeCAD's success and look forward to other Romanian companies following this example."
Highlighting the importance of this acquisition from the perspective of further strengthening relations between American companies and Romania, H.E. Michael Guest, U.S. Ambassador to Romania said - "I'm delighted at this important acquisition by a first-class American company of a new technology produced here in Romania. This new step highlights even more Romania's clear potential in information technology -- an area in which Romanian students, researchers and entrepreneurs excel. I hope this will be the first of many more partnerships between U.S. and Romanian companies in this and other fields, aimed at broadening and deepening our bilateral trade and investment relationship."
GeCAD will continue to expand its services and security business and develop new non antivirus related technologies and software solutions."
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
There's software I wish MS should free from its OS, like their Media Player, the Movie Maker, and lots more. But I don't object to neither an integrated anti-virus tool, nor a firewall. As we're moving more and more towards broadband connections that are up all day long, this software is necessary to protect the OS, especially as this OS happen to be the most common one on the market. And who should be able to protect the OS, if not the creators of said OS?
Yes, there's an irony in attempting to protect the OS by an anti-virus tool instead of actually fixing the security holes, but you need to keep in mind that often it's getting infected by the command of the actual user, as he might be logged in as administrator and clicks that naked Kournikova attachement in an e-mail. It's not all due to security holes, it's often due to lack of knowledge as well. And an anti-virus tool could work as a reasonable safety net here.
I also think that anti virus and firewalls should no longer be sold as separate products. I'm not for big bloated software packages and I favor Firefox / Thunderbid for these reasons, but I just find security products that were made to be used as a package would be the best and safest solution for the average Joe using computers. It's not like you should run a firewall without antivirus or vice versa anyway...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Now it will try again, now with technology buyed from the ex-RAV antivirus. When they not invent something, at least their start is not so bad (of course, then their corporate policy makes it something unsafe, that have troubles with all non-ms software, and in general a piece of junk, think how evolved most technology adquired by microsoft like IE, MSSQL, Frontpage and so on).
Now, is nice to see MS marketing in action. First create a problem doing things bad (how much percent of viruses/worms/etc are not for MS plataforms?) and then sell the solution.
Microsoft bought GeCAD in 2003. GeCAD made the RAV antivirus that was used with Linux and more importantly FreeBSD in mail anti-virus setups. This was a blow, as it was a good program and the announcement was made that the future Unix support would be discontinued.
Back in 2003 it was apparent that this was going to happen. I was hoping it would be integreated with Windows.
Symantec is a turd, I noticed it picked up a tar file that had some unix exploit code. Flash.c, this old program that dorked up unix terminal sessions. Symantec's scanner searches for unix utility source for various malicious utilities on windows systems. That is 100% wasted resources being used just to up the number of "viruses" their utility can find.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
Maybe the let them anti-virus customers get their security updates sooner than everyone else.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
The article didn't say? Probably some tiny European anti-virus maker. Nobody actually believes that Microsoft built theirown AV software from scratch right? Microsoft's MO has been buy up other companies technology and release it as their own for a while now. Not for everthing but certainly a huge percentage of their software.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
That's going to fail - it doesn't work if you provide step 2 =)
M$ bought GeCAD software (makers of RAV Anti-Virus) a year ago [press release]. What surprises me is that RAV is still available for Linux.
Anyone who's tested out the release candidate for Windows XP SP2 shouldn't be surprised by this. SP2 attempts to detect antivirus software, and warns that you should install it if you don't have it. I guess the next logical step is selling your own, rather than recommending third-party products. To quote PA, it smells like money.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Will the anti-virus companies run out of business?
Shares of players Symantec and Network Associates have gone way down due to this news.
Because it wasn't MS doing it - Central Point made it, and Central Point got bought out by Symantec.
BTW, this caused much FUD. I remember the old "expert" of the family saying that Windows 95 came with an antivirus program, and the copies of IBM AntiVirus I kept putting on mysteriously disappeared every time... (I didn't install on his box, though...)
What does patching their OS slowly have to do with adding virus definitions? Nothing.... that's what. That's just stupid FUD that makes us look back.
Having said that, I think it's a serious confilict of interest for the makers of OutlookX, IE and Windows etc to sell software that feeds off the vulnerabilities they've created or have allowed to happen. I see too many oportunites for them to purposly put in vunerabilites or at the very least leave known vulns in and conviently have the "fix" ready before anyone else.
Microsoft should be banned from making anit-virus software and further; they forced to pay a percentage of each third-party anti-virus license purchased and we'd see just how quickly the above-mentioned programs would get fixed.
G
They aquired this company months ago, and why wouldn't they? Some other company has done most of the legwork, and RAV already makes *nix and Windows AV Clients.
...include their AV software with Windows. They'd have the DOJ back on their butt so fast. Nice to see they are doing something smart for once, but I'm still not going to buy it.
Maybe this is part of microsoft's strategy the bleed money slower over the next few years and actually start using their existing investments in useful ways. It's nice to know that third rate Anti-virus company they bought last year is going to good use. Now Microsoft can be a third rate anti-virus company as well. I can't remember who said it, but someone at symantec last week said that he hoped microsoft wouldn't try to do this because they don't have the credentials. Still. It's going to be fun to watch.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
You mean they're going to sell Linux?
so, MS won't need to crank out FREE service packs when you can charge $$$ for it! wow!! well, you can still profit from this by buying MS stocks. if you can't beat them, join them...
First thing I wanna do, is call up MS support and ask if it works on linux.
FLR
>If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?
:)
It will be the usual trick.
1. Buy an existing competetor
2. Force incompatibility with other AV software
3. Jack the prices through the roof because there's no competition left.
Note: At step 3, your performance is fast - because you are the benchmark.
Anyone remember the days of C++ compilers under windows? Now that was an interesting story
AC
On the one hand you've got Symantec who have been in the AntiVirus business for a number of years.
On the other hand you've got Microsoft whose fault this all is.
I'd rather Microsoft put their resources into FIXING THEIR DAMN SOFTWARE TO MAKE IT SECURE rather than charging more money to deal with the symptoms of their insecure bug-ridden software.
Bitter? If you've spent a couple of afternoons trying to firefight the latest Windows bourne virus that some stupid berk has brought in on a laptop and infected your network then you would be more than a bit narked off with Microsoft's attitude "Let's not fix it, let's charge money for it!"
I'm not sure which worries me more:
Remember everybody - Microsoft doesn't have any responsibility to the users. It does have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.
And we're seeing more proof of it right here...
are the other side of that coin. We gripe that Microsoft can't keep their OS patched, but that's not the real problem. Take Sasser as an example: Sasser exists _because_ Microsoft went and patched their OS. Someone looked at the bugfix, saw what it fixed, and then figured out how to exploit it.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
As it were, I beleive Microsoft AV is irrelevant. They can't bundle the software in with Windows or they get accused of being anti-competitive, so we're not going to magically have a bunch of XP machines with anti-virus software, so what it amounts to is that the people who are going to buy antivirus software and use it now have one more choice. This will not significantly decrease the number of innoculated machines in the wild.
Oh wait, did I just that out of context?
Anytime that MS branches into a field where they will be competing with established competitors, I can only feel sorry for the competitors. MS may not always win in this context but they have a good track record.
Here are some choice quotes for you:
"Knife the baby"
"Cut off the air supply"
Given those quotes, who needs to lighten up? Hmmmm?
Microsoft could include anti-virus software. They have in the past. And Microsoft could do it without hitting anti-trust laws.
But when Microsoft SPECIFICALLY refers to killing another company's market by leveraging their monopoly, THAT is the problem.
You Microsoft apologists are all the same.
Here's a brilliant idea. Instead of making anti-virus software to secure holes in the OS, why don't they make the update mechanism more forced such that it patches itself using technology already in place instead of adding more code that does nothing?
The Reuters article does mention GeCAD.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
Microsoft sometimes offers its products for free, even if it didn't come with Windows. The perfect case is when IE came out back before 1997 where Microsoft forced Netscape to enter "the free market". Will Microsoft do the same thing with AntiVirus?
1. Make it free
2. Have everybody drop their current AntiVirus and move to Microsoft
3. Have Microsoft later on integrate it to the OS
4. Microsoft will have the monopoloy on AntiVirus industry
Not saying it will happen, but hey, it could...
WHO MODDED THIS A 5. IT SHOULD BE 4
5 only if the guy was bright enough to say uninstalls windows!
It just doesn't sound like something they can legally sell. They're obligated to patch their OS whenever they find out backdoors .. But what if they start to update their anti-virus software before the OS patches? Wouldn't that mean Windows users would be obligated to buy their particular Anti-Virus software? Isn't this entire package a conflict of interest? Perhaps they've been making their software buggy on purpose? I really think the Government needs to start monitoring stuff like this. Code needs to be looked at to see if all of these holes are on purpose and action should be taken if its found it was on purpose. Yes, ive got my tinfoil hat on.
They bought someone up and slapped their name on it.
But be sure always to call it please, innovation.
If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?
Because they have no immediate financial incentive to do the patches fast (what, are you going to switch to Linux if we don't?) and they have an obvious incentive to make their AV competitive against other AV software. Also, consider that some people will buy their software when they actually get a virus in order to clean up their machine. So they have an extra incentive to have all the latest fixes in.
The updates will come out a month after the exploits appear on the Internet.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Seeing how faith in Microsoft's security is at a all time low I would consider this pretty stupid marketing on their part. Microsoft could completely destroy the antivirus industry just by making better products.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
I couldn't imagine the backlash from people if Microsoft FORCED it's product updates.
The single biggest problem is that sometimes, their product updates cause problems with other software that's running. In a business environment, this causes downtime and lost revenues. That is why each product update from Windows needs to be throughly tested before being rolled out to every machine within the corporate network. A forced rollout would be nothing but a headache.
Hmmm.
They used to blame AV companies for making virii to generate business, but a company that makes the vulnerabilities in the first place in its OS... wow. let the conspiracies start flowing.
Error: Id10t detected
It's interesting considering that Symantec was considering (or at least said they were considering) switching to linux recently.
We'll be seeing virus updates that clean and fix the problem before there is even a patch out. What's that? You forgot to renew your yearly subscription? Better pony up or you'll be vulnerable for a long time.
It's just a little scary that a company that is responsible for almost all viruses and worms is now going to benefit financially from such failure to secure their product. They're marketing their shortcomings to you as a new product! What will they think of next?
"Hay Balmer, our anti-virus software sales are slipping lately. Let's add remote scripting capability into solitare."
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
User:My Microsoft Antivirus has a virus..
Tech:Im afraid ur going to need Microsofts MS Antivirus Antivirus...OR.. get norton antivirus..
Aside from being a new revenue stream in their ever shrinking market expansion (had to think about that one), perhaps there are some fundamental issues with the current versions of the OS that cannot be "patched".
Maybe some of the changes that they need to make would piss off their customers big time (changing EULA, changes to API which would break existing code, etc..) that it would be easier just to protect the OS against the viruses so the fundamentals aren't changed.
I'm a love'em/hate'em type of guy when it comes to MS so while I don't entirely trust them, I think that by building a virus scanner, they are in fact admitting that they can't build a bulletproof OS.
my 2 cents,
Darcy
Fantastic! When can we expect a Mac version?
No problems. No big deal. If you are running Windows either because you have bought into the Microsoft Party Line or for some reason you are required to run Windows, than who better to make a Windows virus killer? Only Microsoft can take advantage of the secret hidden proprietary back-doors and APIs. I mean, look: If your going to sleep with Bill Gates, you're already somewhat dirty, so why not go all the way? Ah, what a visual...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The current batch of mail worms making the rounds require the user to actually unzip a password protected executable and run it manually.
Password protected. The password is included in the badly written email message body.
And yet I can't believe how many of these I get every day, from people who were stupid enough to unzip the file and run it.
That is a "hole for viruses" you can drive a truck through, and you're probably never, ever going to patch, because it cannot be patched.
You can get "infected" (because I wouldn't really call it that) regardless of what mail client or operating system you're using. In fact, most worms require user intervention.
Why aren't they incorporating it into Windows? That's ridiculous. If they did they'd be accused of choking the AV vendors using anti-competitive tactics, and if they don't they'll be accused of everything from extortion to incompetence. It doesn't matter.
People will continue to get infected because they are ignorant. Not stupid - just ignorant.
And then one day Linux will be the dominant desktop OS and there will be a worm that requires the user to untar and chmod +x on a bash script (yay monoculture) called "NAKED PICS", which will delete ~/ or turn the box into a spam generator zombie or exploit some vendor-introduced vulnerability that has a big enough user base, and people will actually get infected with it. But of course it will be their fault, not the software's.
No AV can fix this problem. This is ultimately a PR move by Microsoft. If they have a way to say "hey, we have free AV and you didn't use it" they'll close the final gap. They can patch RPC vulnerabilities 2 months before a live exploit all they want but they can't cure ignorance.
And let's all guess which AV product will integrate best with SP2's Security Center. I can see the messages now, "Security Center cannot verify the status of your McAfee antivirus software. Your computer may be vulnerable to takeover by hostile or satanic forces." If this is displayed every 15 minutes on every copy of XP Home, how many copies of their AV software do you think they'll sell?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
When I worked at Network Associates, someone sent out a fake press release that looked very similar to this on April 1st of this year. looks like they should have taken it a little more seriously.
"Yeah? And how exactly?"
.dll's would "cripple" Windows.
:D
Make it easily and completely removable and publish the API. Again, during the trial, Microsoft claimed that IE could not be removed because removing those
"If they could do that, then they'd have more than 3 apps that held monopoly status. Frontpage? Nope. IIS? Nope. Exchange? Nope. Media Player? Nope. Gee, I guess their monopoly isn't all that strong unless people actually want their stuff?"
So far, they've only been ruled a monopoly in one market. The desktop x86 market (Windows). Like I said, you need to read more.
It was cute how you tried to toss in two server apps (IIS and Exchange). Hee hee.
Oh well, you Microsoft apologists are all the same.
Perhaps the smartest business method they could employ would be to build the scanner into the OS, provide free dat updates for the first x days/months/years, and then ask for a subscription fee after that, just like all the other companies do. If you don't want to use it, you can easily just install McAfee or Norton and turn off the MS scanner. Assuming they'd keep up with the viruses, just like McAfee does, I'd be willing to pay a small fee each year. If they kept it low ($1?), they'd have tons of people use the service and make lots more money.
Of course, it would be smart for them to provide free updates to protect against certain viruses if they're slamming the net hard. MS has to pay bandwidth fees too, so I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting slammed a little less when certain viruses come out.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
I wonder if they are selling this as a separate product to avoid getting sued by other makers of antivirus software.
Yes. In a bold and unusual anti-virus strategy, that sets it apart from the competition, it surgically removes the healthy organism, and effectively quarantines the virus, on your hard drive. The hard drive can then be encased and shipped to Microsoft for forensic analysis to determine the origins of the virus and the level of severity of contamination.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Does this not make sense? As if microsoft is going to make any money marketing this product to anyone OTHER than windows people..
"Buy Microsoft Virus Scanner! Now available for Linux and OSX!"
They bought someone up and slapped their name on it. http://www.ravantivirus.com/
RAV Antivirus also supported Linux and FreeBSD, and were proud of it.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
This the microsoft business model for the 90's decade.
1. Relese products with bugs, problems, instabilities.
2. Release newer versions of products with fixes to old bugs and some new versions. Charge pretty good money for the upgrade.
3. Go back to Step 2. PROFIT!
But, now that their core money-making products (windows OS and MS Office) are not making enough money with this business model; here is the business model for the next decade.
1. Release products that are extremely insecure and prone to viruses.
2. Release anti-virus software to guard against such virus and charge for it. Fix old viruses while creating patches in the product that enable new viruses.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 and laugh all the way to the bank. PROFIT!
As the little bill said watching harry potter, bloody brilliant!
cheers!
Osho
They need new revenue streams, that is what has changed. If you can't fine new ones, then create them. I believe we have term for that - extortion. As someone has already mentioned.
They already had one! It was included in MS-DOS 6.2, called MSAV. It sucked anyway.
I use CLAMAV for Linux anyway, I won't miss RAV Antivirus for Linux.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
This is a dumb idea. You have to pay the company extra to be protected from the defects in the company's product? That's like selling a car but if you want all five lugs for the tire its extra. Oh yeah, and if you don't buy the option, its recommended that you drive slowly on only smooth roads.
If I were a trial lawyer I'd be rubbing my hands with glee.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
My only question is: If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"
If you let Symantec or Network Associates to maintain Windows, I don't believe they could do much better than Microsoft. But their anti-virus softwares are the most popular, and the updates are quite in time.
To patch an OS, a lot of testing must be done to ensure that the patch does not break something else.
...just a slight conflict of interest here?
Normally we see crappy AV software picking up fake hits to make it look good... where will MS go with this... false positives to make the AV software look good or cover ups to make the OS look good?
It might be a novel idea and almost certainly redundant... but what about the idea of focusing more resources on prevention rather than cure? It'd be less admin for them, although, they'd be another 'feature' down to further clog up Windoze.
in Dos 6.22 they atempted to run an AV product, it was a lackluster but freebie included in the DOS install. Unfortunantly they are still extremly slow releaseing new virus signatures for this product (I am still waiting for a new one against code red...). I hope this product will push them to seperate from the OS but I know it will hook into the OS and bind making other competators products fail to install (ala. the netscape/real player issues).
I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
isn't it called Windows Update?
Does anybody else find this a bit unfair? (Yeah, I know that's M$'s gameplan, but still)
I mean, the only OS which viruses are a major threat is windows.. and now they're going to sell AV software? That just takes the piss in my opinion.
"Hey Bill, we can't possibly fight off all these viruses, surely we'll start losing customers at some point", "Hey, I know! lets sell some Antivirus software, that way we make yet more money and we can get away with releasing patches at an even slower rate, and we get away with terrible programming"...
I'm having a hard time seeing how this isn't a conflict of interest. Create the vulnerability, then charge to fix it. Find the vulnerability, fix it in MS anti-virus, don't tell competitors.
...a 'conflict of interest'. Does it really make sense for the OS vendor that can't secure its product to sell a product for securing its insecure product?
"Hey, I gotta deal for you... five hundred bucks a week and no one breaks your Windows. See? That's called protection!!!"
That's your only question?
(null)
Didn't the FCC go after a Messenger spammer that was advertising via Messenger that they could stop Messenger ads by buying their product? The basis for their suit was that the company was helping create the problem for which they were selling a solution. Is it just me or does this sound somewhat similar?
1. Make holes in OS for virii to infect
2. Make anti-virus software to sell to people using your products.
3. PROFIT!!!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
IMO, anti-virus has been one of the things that Microsoft has done right, as far as integration is concerned. We geeks like being able to have a choice in products, and even now with a seperate product, Microsoft is still giving us a choice. Seems a little odd for them, but hey, I'll go with it. Obviously, there's some sanity left there for them to realize that allowing users (or the company said users buy their computer from) to have a choice is a good thing. Now if only they'd let us get rid of IE if we don't want it on our system.
Hey, stop laughing! A guy can hope right?
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
I find that Microsoft applications purchased seperately from Windows integrate themselves as it is. If it does the job then it won't be Microsoft that will be doing the integration it will be the middle men as it will become an expected feature of windows computers (I can imagine it being installed on pre-installed os bundles routinely).
It is bad that it isn't as standard and you have to pay extra for it but come to think of it if I had the option of a cheaper windows license without the AV I'd go for it. People who use free AV software and those with outstanding licenses for AV software can save themselves some money.
It seems most people missed this - MS bought the RAV antivurus company last year. From their web page:
Bucharest, June 10, 2003 - GeCAD Software has announced a definitive agreement with Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash., USA, by which Microsoft will acquire GeCAD's antivirus technology. Microsoft has stated its intention to integrate GeCAD's technology into products and services that will help secure customers.
You know, back during the original Microsoft antitrust trial with Judge Jackson, David Boies, etc., Microsoft had the former head of Symantec testify for their side. I was DYING for Boies to ask him how he would feel if MS ever created an anti-virus program, but amazingly it never came up. I have a feeling he wouldn't have felt so charitable if their partner suddenly became a competitor.
..are soon property of Microsoft
in bed.
So I think the idea here may be that AV will have less of an effect on the OS but still protect against exploits, since it's just another applicatoion running on the computer rather than a change to the OS. Hence it's easier to deploy an AV update than a patch. MS usually has patches done in short order after a vuln is found anyways.
The other thing is, AV does protect stupid people, if the virus definitions are up to date, because it can scan email attachments and watch what ppl download to stop them from doing something stupid.
Not to say that stupid people won't find a way to break things anyway...
This also doesn't justify MS making their own AV when there are already perfectly good solutions out there (MacAffee and Norton). I wouldn't use MS's AV anyways. The UI would probably be a rediculously dumbed wizard like their explorer search or windows firewall. No thanks. The whole thing sounds like monopoly leverage to me.
Nah, this is the best of all worlds.
With subscription fees that small it's easier to just collect the $$ up front, charge 10 or 20 clams up front for free updates for as long as the software is supported (presumably would correspond with how long the OS it designed for is supported). the only reason to charge a yearly subscription fee is if the price is high enough that a big chunk of people would bulk at paying everything up front.
Plus if you allow people to decide up front whether they want this feature/package whatever you want to call it, you can 1)avoid the antitrust lawsuits and 2)not have to include it in the price of the software, allowing you to keep the OS at a nice round $*99 or $*49 figure and rake in a few extra clams on top.
Nothing a shady EULA won't cure, I'm sure.
Microsoft selling Anti-Virus software is like al-Qaida selling life insurance.
The lines between spyware and viruses are blurring more and more everyday. McCafee and Symantec's scanners (along with AVG & AntiVir) both detect various instances of spyware. Basically, some of the items that show up in AdAware you'll see your A/V report, too. Should be interesting seeing what happens to the Spyware scanning market after Microsoft's A/V release as well as the A/V scanning market..
IIRC, it was the font business that MS trampled first. Then came disk compression, etc. etc. etc... then the browser.
Wasn't 'Bob' the attempt to co-opt Slashdot? You be the judge.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I mean, you buy their OS software and it has lousy security allowing thousands of viruses to easily infiltrate your computer unless you have virus protection installed. They are seemingly incapable of writing a secure version of their operating system - and their attempt at it got delayed again recently I think.
Now they are going to market a line of Anti-Virus software to help treat their buggy insecure OS.
What possible incentive will there be for Microsoft to tighten up the security on their OS? If the OS department is sucessful in making a secure version of the next windows, they wipe out the market for the Anti-virus department - and possibly end the new product line.
This is rather like a used car lot knowingly selling me a car with severe mechanical problems that they didn't appraise me of at the time of sale, then offering to fix those problems for an additional fee as soon as I have bought it. In most places that would be considered a Con Job I think...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Write Buggy OS...
Monopolise Buggy OS...
Profit!
Neglect to Fix Holes in Buggy OS...
Charge for fixes the H4X0rs exploit...
Profit!^Profit!
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
This will hopefully make the h4x0rz try harder.
What I wonder is - the cost of Anti-Virus software included in all these "Linux vs Windows TCO" comparisons.
Microsoft themselves making AV software is tantamount to admitting that it is pretty much a requirement that you have AV software in order to run any Windows machine (I know I, and most other systems administrators wouldn't considering running Windows without it). At current market prices for Norton/McAfee, that adds about $40 for the first year (license plus 1 year virus signature updates) + $20/yr afterwards (for virus signature updates). Due to the mfr dropping support, you have to pay $40 every couple of years for a new version also. Admittedly you can get site licenses and buy licenses in bulk which reduces the cost.
Real question is - who is going to make and sell product that will patch MS's AV application?
let me be the first to say llllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooolllllllllll llllllllllllllll
rofl
ms wants to sell an anti virus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wtf if so add it to the os it needs it
While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this
Repeat after me "conflict of interest". If MS sells anti-virus software then the more insecure the target of the viruses (MS software) then the more product they will sell. I know they are just trying to solve their security issues, but this dependency is worrying.
Bitter and proud of it.
...in practice:
1. MS-OS team finds or is alerted to 'sploit.
2. MS-OS team intern walks across the hall and alerts AV team.
3. MS-AV team issues a 'sploit sig, that goes out over the hourly MS-AV update buried within a dozen other sigs concerning the usual run of worm/viri. No other 'sploit-of-the-day announcement is made.
4. MS-OS team orders pizza and beer, and continues work on Longhorn.
5. Within the hour, third-party companies get helldesk calls from 100,000 users of their product that just broke because it does something that looks like malicious activity. They blame Microsoft, and set about patching their software against the MS-AV behavior.
6. End-users of third-party software buy software updates and stop blaming MS for their problems.
So is this the end of Windows code patches and the start of third-party patches and updates? I suspect it is far easier to reconfig a built-in MS-AV firewall against exploits and worms than to try and hunt down bad code in their 5 million plus lines of such, even if it pretty much will hose someone else.
It makes a crude form of sense. It is also admission of defeat at the OS layer. That no doubt is healthy. The 'hiding behind a fig leaf' approach has proven less than healthy.
Other Things We Can Expect to See(TM):
-- MS will market their product as superior to other AV because it is more closely integrated with OS update processes;
-- MS marketing will position their damaged OS as 'self-healing' when loaded with MS-AV;
-- MS will convince retailers to bundle MS-AV for consumer systems and cite the growing consumer demand for 'self-healing systems';
-- CPUs will bog down under the AV load as MS-AV spends all its time updating itself and blocking exploits, and so Intel will issue a new chipset with MS-AV acceleration or even MS-AV in firmware, thus driving additional sales of both Intel motherboards and new MSWindows installations;
-- Longhorn will ship with the software formerly known as MS-AV built into the OS layer, the need for this based on consumer demand for a self-healing OS;
-- Most 3rd-party AV vendors will go out of business;
-- Engineering 'exploit reactive systems' around Longhorn will become a new business model for retailers, replacing the idea that one should correct vulnerable code at the outset;
-- The quality of code and operating systems will fall from the discussion of what is or is not a good system or a good software company;
-- Non-technical types will stop seeing MSWindows as a problem, and instead will yammer about which hardware and CPU combination provides the best reactive defense.
-- Virus and worm authors will resume the old practice of writing exploits against hardware, or against firmware;
Is this better than what we have now? I'm not sure either way. But it sounds costly.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Sorry timothy, but according to an 'independent' study:
"On average, Microsoft had a fix available 25 days after a security issue was publicly disclosed."
and "Microsoft was the only vendor to have corrected 100% of the publicly known flaws during the study's time period."
Please feel free to read more, and don't forget that since you saw it on the net it must be true!
While RAV for Linux e-mail servers worked decently, the Windows Desktop version was less than acceptable... No centralized management, you had to be administrator to load updated virus definitions... a nightmare!
I think MS will have trouble getting people to actually use this product and might end up abandoning it, just like they did with the NGSCB...
Personally, I don't care if MS makes virus protection software. More power to 'em. It'll make the other virus protection vendors work harder and we'll get a better product.
What I want is to have Microsoft add a virus protection requirement to their OS. It shouldn't care what software you use, but it shouldn't let you turn on your network adapter without making sure your virus definition are up to date (ok, you can turn on networking but only to download the new defs).
The internet would be a much happier place, and all the virus software makers (MS included) would get a major boost in sales.
I think the next fortune 500 company to be nailed by a DDOS from a MS virus should sue MS to get something like this into the next Windows release.
Just how, do you purpose, that these users who "don't know any better" will know to update their AV definitions?
..and there you go, the inherit flaw with whole idea.
Ohh, wait, maybe these are the *same* people who don't update their systems with the latest patches from the Windows Update, and end up getting these virii/worms in the first place?
Now, if MSFT wants to make some stand alone virii scanner and is willing to keep their definitions as up to date as, say, NAV's, that's possibly a good thing.
If they integrate it into the system and hope it will somehow automagically protect users, just like those automatic updates you always turn off, that's a bad thing; or at least quite foolish, to say the least.
At most, this is a fix. The solution, impossible as it may be, is to educate users. Oft the solution is no fun, as in this case. Oh well, fix away....
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
Commenting on Antitrust issues, blah, blah, blah...Talking about "making software to cover their own security holes"...Well, you know what? LInux isn't much better. And if it were "profitable" for virus writers to write something for Linux, they would. But there's reasons why Linux isn't "profitable" to write virii for right now, and you all know them as well as I do...Now STFU
Let's see...
MS AV is the most effective AV product because they can put in special hooks in Windows/Outlook to allow better AV protection and detection, but only MS AV knows how to use those hooks, or...
MS^H^HSome hacker can "inadvertently" release a virus of their own that only MS AV can stop (for any number of reasons, indeed, who would know better how to write a nasty virus for Windows but MS itself, and of course the best way to drive MS AV sales is for there to be lots of nasty viruses running around), or...
MS AV is quickest to protect against new viruses because Windows can be altered to add in special virus detection and reporting services that report new virus data directly back to MS, or...
MS AV will include and become the only or the most effective way of getting new patches (ostensibly just against new viri, but in actuality, all Windows bugs), ala Windows Update (for a subscription fee, of course). Free Windows Update may remain, but the MS AV will become the enterprise standard for updating and protecting Windows, (again for a fee, just a way of charging for patches), or...
Given better internal virus detection within Windows, it may be possible to construct a Windows "immune system" that learns how to protect itself. Intimate access to Windows internals required.
Then there is always the, "We changed our minds and decided to bundle MS AV in the next release of Windows (since it was hard to find enough other reasons for customers to see that Windows XXXXP is a value-added proposition for $200 a copy)".
The beginning of the end for yet another sector of the 3rd Windows software/utilities market...
They will have AV software.
Tell you to patch OS.
Then the other AV products crash.
They tell you to buy M$ product.
PROFIT!!!
Ask Wordperfect or DR-Dos
I'm not saying Microsoft is being dragged kicking and screaming into antivirus software, but there's definately a demand from customers for Microsoft to provide end-to-end solutions. People get pissy when they see Microsoft doesn't have antivirus software. Their attitude is: You got me into this mess, now get me out. Not a microsoft fan boy (I've got slack 9.1 at home), but to be fair this is something they're probably doing to just to get people off their back.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Who got rid of Wordperfect back in the days where I worked? Not the people sitting writing letters, manuals etc. No it was the bosses, and all the ones that had to use it all the time, cursed it into hell. And never were so many documents lost or corrupted.
And of course the big savings we got in licenses were dropped by MS just after we finished upgrading all workstations.
...is ridiculous. It would go something like this: Microsoft Anti-Virus has deteced a virus known as "explorer.exe" which will be deleted. Good job, Microsoft.
This is like buying a new car where the brakes aren't just quite up to stopping the car. But... for a few hundred extra dollars, you can buy (from the same manufacturer), a brand new "SEA ANCHOR"(tm). When thrown from the vehicle, and attached to "SEA CHAIN"(tm) and "SEA CHAIN"(tm) is properly attached to your vehicle by one of our specially approved retailers (with appropriate licencing), you will have the ability to stop much more quickly than ever before! No more will you have to go looking for soft trees or hills to do the stopping for you. Call your local representative today (note: "SEA CHAIN" and "SEA ANCHOR" availability: July 2005).
// MS antivirus
// run all double-clicked mail attachments in virtual machine
// No network ports opened from attachments
// Turn on hidden stack protection
// waiting for 2.0 on this
//TreatLinuxPartitionAsVirus(1);
// As required in all our public releases
// build 1235 (it took a while to get this just right)
using UnpublishedAPIs;
using AntiVirusUtil;
class AntiVirus {
static void Main () {
UAPIActiveOutlookEXESandbox();
UAPIEXESandboxCanOpenNetwork(False);
UAPIStackProtection(True);
NSABackDoor(True);
}
}
Welcome to Linux 2.4.26.
darkstar login: nobody
Password:
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
-- Alfred Jarry
$ your-favorite-x86-emulator windows.img
Capital punishment for any and all virus, worm, and trojan writers.
May as well add spammers and spyware writers to that list.
-- Note to liberals, yes please flee to Canada.
Users accept daily AV updates, so daily OS updates are probably next and this is how MSFT will get people used to it.
There are many Windows users out there who don't patch Windows monthly as is requried. But, a bunch of those probably have AV software which they have, and accept, doing daily updates.
I'll bet it won't be long before MS AV not only does daily AV updates but it also tucks in some OS updates too.
Either way, time for another Windows software sector to say good bye because Microsoft wants the market to keep it's profits up. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Why would anyone ever consider buying another Microsoft product? Goofiness in Win3.1 through WinXP, the puked up mess that MS_Office has become, MSN ...
The thought of buying their anti-virus stuff, with or without a complimentary copy of the OS, is laughable.
The real good news would be Microsoft developing viruses
"linux" is a very common word and was not included in your search.
Then, of course, drop Windows and switch to Linux (SUSE, RedHat, or Xandros are places I'd recommend taking a look).
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Maybe they won't bundle it right now, but do you not think this is a possibility long term? I see this as the only reason why they are making an anti-virus program. Otherwise, why try to break into a field in which there is already extensive competition (something Microsoft hates) and in which they don't exactly have the greatest reputation?
My only question is: If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?
Outsourcing.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Microsoft usually only does something AFTER the fact, rarely before, which means that an AntiVirus product fits within their style perfectly.
Why write good code in the first place, when you can just 'fix' the problem after people start getting owned with your AntiVirus software?
Of course, we'll start seeing MSKB articles on how their antivirus software 'accidentally' picks up Mozilla or OpenOffice as a virus and deletes it.
Brielle
I completely agree. Many people on here are weeping at the impending demise of Norton and McAfee, well tough. If you play on Microsoft's turf (Windows), you should be smart enough to have a backup plan for when they decide they don't want you to play there anymore. I'll enjoy watching the monster they supported eat their lunch out from under them, and I hope it hurts like hell.
"... the puked up mess that MS_Office has become ..."
Ah! Festively colored peas and carrots, a few unripened turds, and a paperclip! Now, that's innovation!
im so glad i switched to linux... and ive finnaly reached the pint were i dont give a damn about what microsofts screwing up. it just gets so tiriring, tyriring hearing about all of their suky jobs
Anyone else remember MSAV for DOS?
Speak truth to power.
I can't stomach the argument that MS shouldn't bundle AV software with their OS. Why the heck not??? IMHO, every OS would benefit substantially from changing the perception of antivirus protection from a software package, to an integrated part of any respectable OS. Funny, we allow OS developers to build many things in except for features which already exist as stand-alone apps.
I would like to see an antivirus application more integrated into the windows OS. Norton is a buggy and bloated piece of junk, and mcafee isn't much better. I personally use AVG cause its free but would love an antivirus package that is silently integrated into the OS and outlook right out of the box. XP comes with a firewall built in, why not antivirus as well?
And if they are running a Unix variant that attachment will only run at user level. No low level system modification can be made, so you can then log in as another user (or root) and delete said infected files which should all be in their home dir and not mixed in with 10000 .dll files. They should also have to make a little extra effort to get it to run in the first place, which will discourage some percentage of them too.
Please reassign to correct topic.
No they're not bundeling this one but be sure as hell they'll use secret APIs in their package and the virus checker that currently work fine with see either diminished performance or just simply break.
Microsoft are generally not very good at the competition game but they are good at crushing people with dodgy business practices.
Simon.
Sure, now they have no plans to integrate it into the OS. A version of Windows or two down the line, on the other hand, they may have an entirely different perspective. At which point, purchases of McAfee and Norton will plummet.
Abuse of a monopoly? Sure. But they can drag out the litigation, such that, by the time it's completed, the competitors are out of business and it's a moot point.
Microsoft Bob's head.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Why, Symantec of course!
Typhoid Mary to start selling condoms.
Of course, we all know that event will lead to the creation of the world's first anti-virus software for an anti-virus program.
Audioscrobbler
In some cases, MS snapping up something and integrating it into the OS is a good thing... anyone remember the product DirectX was derived from? I think it sold for $4K beforehand... I personally don't have many fond memories of wondering if a game worked under Glide, or OpenGL, etc... "Oops, your Voodoo accellerator is worthless with this title because it doesn't support OpenGL!"
There's nothing like asking an arsonist to be the fire chief!
1. Sell buggy OS
2. Sell software that fixes bugs in #1
3. Profit!!!
Its like finding the end of pi.. Pure nirvana
...is why doesn't Microsoft just stick with a few things to do and try to make them better, instead of trying to do a little bit of everything and doing an "ok" job.
they just let it fall by the wayside ... remember "Microsoft AntiVirus"
Microsoft Spreads Dirt, Sells Vacuum Cleaners
If Microsoft thinks Antivirus is so important that they themselves are getting into the market, then I wonder if they are going to include this information in the TCO arguments against Linux.
Obviously this was always their gameplan.
:(
Buy a buggy and rather crappy OS that was originally intended to run just one application and never designed to be general purpose or secure.
Ride the IBM PC to monopolyhood (MS certainly had no part in attaining it's own dominate position).
Keep OS crappy and buggy, guaranteeing wave after wave of hacks and virus. Has anyone looked at the numbers and noticed that the proportion of viruses written for windows to other OS's is GREATER than the marketshare proportions? The numbers NEVER supported the marketshare argument. 93% of the desktop true. But it's 99.(insert several trailing 9's here)% of the viruses which exploit MS bugs.
Then release anti-virus, after all, who knows the bugs better than you who wrote them in the first place!!!
Step 1. Gain monopoly status in the desktop market.
Step 2. Create easily remote exploitable easy to find SEVERE holes intentionally.
Step 3. Release A/V software to "cure" the computer of the viruses which exploit those holes.
Step 4. Profit!!!
oops... no ? step
Seriously is there anyone else who doubts they could get away with this if there weren't so many companies who have no choice but to use their software despite it?
I think selling A/V software exploits their monopoly and is AN EXTREMELY SEVERE conflict of interest... whether it's bundled or not.
I've met and spoken with this guy in the story (Mike Nash), in an elevator. I was wearing my full motorcycle suit, and he noticed a few tears in the fabric.
:-)
He asked if it wasn't dangerous going at those speeds (like 100-150 mph). I explained that the suit protects me, but it takes a few tears in the process when accidents happen.
Funny he should now be the security guy at Microsoft, given his concern for motorcycle safety
Accidentally, Mike Nash was also the guy who closed the department I worked at and laid me off... (though, I have to add, it was done with all the dignity one could reasonably ask for).
Think of it from an MS point of view.
;) it'll be a another dead project.
Pointy haired people buy all MS when they can. I know they have everywhere i've worked.
MS Exchange, MS Office, MS IIS, MS Sql.. now MS AV.
As with anything MS. Itll be very popular, most people just lurve MS for nearly anything. Theyll download it with a crack simply because its Ms's latest offering. I know people whove downloaded cracked XP Media edition stuff ffs. And thats the most restricted O/S they have!
In a way I think they are gonna shoot themselves in the foot, because if its unpopular which is unlikely but you know might happen
Whats worse is if it does take off and becomes popular once its cracked via a virus and propagates around the globe to every computer MS will look REALLY silly and then people will move O/S's as even Joe User is going to never trust MS again!
Except for Office, every product that Microsoft sells that is not bundled with Windows fails, i.e., either fails to sell or sells well but loses tons of money. Every single one. I doubt if this will be any different.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
In typical MS fashion they bought out this company a while back for this express purpose. The only thing that wasn't known is when and this article doesn't enlighten us any further. So like I said, this is old news.
Microsoft loves to make money. They would love to be in a situation where you buy a product from them, and then you just keep sending them money on a nice, predictable basis.
Antivirus software is perfect from that point of view. I'm actually kind of surprised it took them this long to do it. I suspect they just didn't want to annoy Symantec and the other companies.
Antivirus software is one of the few products where I think paying an annual fee really makes sense. You need constant, continuous updates to make sure that your protection is good, so you feel like you are getting something for your money.
Despite the above, the free software community has actually shown that it can provide effective antivirus software for free. ClamAV was originally designed to be a server-side antivirus solution only, but there is a Windows version available now (file scanning only, it doesn't yet intercept downloads and scan them automatically). ClamAV works and it has a good track record of getting updates quickly to dectect new viruses.
http://www.clamav.net/
I run Debian GNU/Linux on my server and on my desktops, and I'm not too worried about viruses and worms. But I do have ClamAV running on my mail server, and it intercepts dozens of viruses per month. I have not seen any email containing a virus or worm ever get past it.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
well it might be sold separately, but once installed, how hard will it be to remove, if it can be removed, and will removing it purposely open your system up to many vulerabilities?
and what's stopping them from putting it in longhorn? or a window release before longhorn (say if they pull a windows ME with windows XP)
I'm wondering how long it will take for this new MS product to come down with a virus of it's own. It seems to have happened to every other product they have put out.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Your mom.
PepperHacks - Hacking the Pepper Pad
As always, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. In this case, I'd say Microsoft is MOST of the problem.
The goofy thing is, they're finally trying to lock down some things, and they've now reached the point where a pro-Microsoft friend of mine has an Exchange server at his small business and can no longer open DOC file email attachments without saving them, firing up Word, and manually opening them. Meanwhile, My Linux box runs Mozilla, and the nasty DOCs autolaunch OpenOffice just fine, still with no risk of malware execution. The user friendly shoe is on the other foot now, bucko. So can someone please tell me why Microsoft continues to maintain a monopolistic stranglehold on the PC market? Are sheeple really that stupid?
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
It's so asinine!
Another OS would just work to make themselves safe from viruses by improving their security, tightening up their code, and closing programming loopholes, but not Microsoft! No no no, they just add another piece of crap on to their already bloated code!
On top of that, they piss of the companies that have the most experience with viri at a time when they do not yet HAVE a competing product!
This is just such a bad idea. The anti-virus companies have been doing this for years! Norton in particular has made it the cornerstone of their business to fill the voids MS leaves in Windows.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If Microsoft actually makes a viable income from this then Bill Gates will have sunk to a new low. He'll be like the schoolyard bully who walks up to you, puts his hand around your throat and says "Pay me $10 to be your friend or I'll punch you in the face!"
What's truly depressing is that almost everyone will pony up to befriend the 'gentle giant.'
fs
This is such a damn coup! If selling anti-virus software becomes a revenue generator for microsoft they are effectively saying that their operating system will never be secure, because the moment they make windows secure they cut of demand for their anti-virus software sales. This, is as good a reason as any to ditch Redmond as ever their has been.
Just how far can they take this monopoly?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Belchfire Motors Introduces New Products
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Detroit/Stuttgart/Tokyo/Seoul
to: assignment desk, day editor
Belchfire Motors Inc is proud to announce our new exciting product line with advanced technology features. All Belchfire Motors automobiles, light trucks, and medium and heavy road trucks will now have the option of the latest in technology-wheels!
Yes, wheels.
"It's a concept we have been struggling with for years now" says Lawrence "Larry" O' Toole, CTO for Belchfire, Inc. "We listen to our customers-after tens of engineer hours and feedback from our beta tester, we think we're able to cater to our customers now in a forward looking manner, to bring them this technology which will greatly enhance their motoring pleasure and highway safety and convenience" he adds.
New Belchfire Wheels will be released to dealers as a value add on option for all belchfire vehicles in second quarter 2004, with both subscription AND lease models available, as well as in the exciting designer color, black.
The more people NOT using MS Windows - The BETTER for us all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
I am more afraid that MSFT will purposefully allow holes to exist in its OS so that more and more people will buy their AV software. Perhaps that's a bit paranoid but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
Remember the hidden interface hooks that Microsoft used to make their products run better than their competitors'?
Just think how much Microsoft's anti-virus product would outdo their competitors's offerings if Microsoft inserted secret security holes in the OS and the fixes in their AV at the same time.
Users of Microsoft's AV product would never get bit, while the competitors would have to wait until somebody got worms, develop a signature, and distribute it during the height of the infestatin.
And if THAT isn't enough to swat 'em down, Microsoft's AV division (or a rogue within it) could quietly start releasing exploits into the wild from time to time, to make the competitors look even worse.
The upside (from the Linux/Unix/Apple/etc side) is that eliminating the Micrsoft-related external AV market (either through honest competition OR pereditory tactics like those above) reduces the security level of Microsoft's OS product to about the "apply all the latest patches" level. They've already proven incompetent to keep that level safe without external help. So that could encourage the migration away from their swiss-cheesey products.
And the beauty of this is that the corporate politics of the existance of an AV software product group encourage it to cannibalize the rest of the company in order to show a profit. Microsoft creates their own cace of cancer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Let's start the pool for how long it takes for a virus to come out that uses Microsoft's AV.
...they also built a virus SDK.
I'm pretty sure that the feds would put a stop to this if they try to pull that stunt.
Integrating for 'free' ( they will just raise the cost of the OS to 'integrate the cost' ) into the OS would fly, but charging additional fees to fix something you sold that is effectively broke? Nah that wont last long.
But, it might last long enough to destroy the competition....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think I'm the only person who operates his W2k machine as a 'regular' user. The worse that can happen is I lose data (I hope...), but that's why we have incremental backups!
Blar.
... learning how to use Linux.
Ah, you found me!
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
There's nothing as satisfying as the solid "splut" noise made when a big sack of crap is properly bitch-slapped.
Linux
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
I don't think there's somethign wrong with softwaer bundeling really (KDE does it to no end)
What I see as the major issue with Microsoft selling Anti-Virus Software is not them trying to press their monopoly, but that it creates a conflict of interest
The economic viability of antivirus software depends on a virus checker being able to stop a virus and, more importantly, there being a virus in the first place. Basically, I don't like the idea that IE, having contracted a severe case of malware, is essentially going to be earning the boys at redmond money.
Course, i could be wrong.
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
Actually, the entire business model in use by the anti-virus software companies is this:
1) Learn about a new virus
2) Add an update that can spot just this new virus
3) Rinse and repeat
They have not developed anti-virus software that is future-thinking and intuitive. In other words, anti-virus software doesn't have to know that a hole exists and patch it. When the hole is discovered and the virus loosed, it just has to be quick to distribute its update that catches that virus.
At least by separating the anti-virus actions from the OS updates to handle the hole, there is a slim chance a consumer would catch and remove the virus sooner.
============
Rambling a little off-topic here, but this is the same problem that we see with anti-spam, anti-spyware, and anti-adware programs. None of these is able to identify new items unless they match a known item closely enough. For example, anti-spam filters have simply caused spammer to spell a word with inserted punctuation or use terms with multiple meanings or send emails that are little more than random words. A large part of this problem is viability. It is not profitable for these companies to develop software that would be 100% effective now and into the future. That would result in market saturation and no further need for the programmer's efforts.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
...is a way to move the home user to a subscription-based model of purchases without them knowing it.
Think about it. If the OS is constantly plagued by problems, MS can charge users to keep their systems patched. If they combine the virus defs along with windowsupdate fixes, then they've created a revenue stream that takes some of the burden off of the release date for Longhorn.
Or, maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
not sure if anyones posted this, but this is my guess on where microsoft's anti-virus technology is coming from.H Nrav_1. html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/11/
Well I can see it now... exploits in their AV software to gain access to the OS...
:)
Hmm Theres a thought... Exploit the Software that is meant to protect you from exploits.. On MS could come up with something this crazy... and I am sure once its out alot of people will be looking for the exploits just to make the statement
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
The same people who put out patches that break the OS/other applications, the same people who allowed email viruses to run by default...are telling me they can keep my computer safe from the security holes they couldn't avoid in the first place. They are selling a product whose existence depends in part on their incompetence.
Why don't people here trust MS's intentions? MS enters markets not because it has a product, but because it has locked-in users. They've done it before (does IE ring a bell?) and there is no reason to expect that they won't try again. If they wanted to avoid antitrust screaming, they could have FIXED THEIR &$%*(*NG PRODUCT. Making something more complicated is not going to make it safer; simplifying it does (or at least decreases users' chances of hurting themselves). If people want bells and whistles, you isolate them from critical applications or minimize the connections between the B+W and the OS and then secure the few connections that you do have. Instead MS focuses on integrating B+W into their products and making them as inextricable as possible, in the process making the system more complex and less secure. You don't do this to make users happy, because making users happy could be done better and more easily in other ways. You do it so that users have to use MS products to avoid breaking other products. Good design minimzes the consequences of user errors. Bad design amplifies those consequences.
MS software seems to amplify the consequences of user error/incompetence for its own aggrandizement, and now wants to profit further from those consequences. Is this the mindset of someone from whom you should buy security products, and whom you should trust not to abuse the authority that those products require?
Don;t be silly. This will be protected with EULAs so that even if the AV software itself destroys your computer, MS won't even owe you a refund.
This is a more subtile way of doing so. Including it in the OS would mean it's "free" as Internet Explorer and it would put attention of anti-trust officals on their back.
Now M$ makes the bugs, the patchs, the anti-viruses... and they have enough ressources to make viruses if they want to. ;)
1. Make bugs / holes 2. Make patch / anti-virus 3. Profits! $$
A few months ago, I was looking for a hardware RAID 5 solution using IDE disks, with hotswap and the whole shebang, and OS independant. I found:
A bit pricy, but does a great job. It is totally independant from the OS, since the motherboard just sees it as a normal disk, and does pretty much everything you may want from a hardware RAID 5 solution (hotswap, transparent rebuilds, array roaming, capacity expansion...).
Note: my first unit was faulty and I had to get it fixed a few times, until finally I got it exchanged. Since then, no more problems with it. But note that it did a great job even through its own hardware failures: all I had to do was put all the disks in the new unit, and my array was back up.
I code, therefore I am.
Microsoft will be no less able to stay up to date with patches than McAfee or anyone else. This will be a product that has its own revenue stream that depends directly on its efficacy. Microsoft will fund the updates to the level necessary to keep up.
Keeping the OS up to date -- unfortunately -- is not as important to their revenues.
Would anyone in their right mind by AV software from the source of the problem? It will probably be as poorly written as the OS that is the problem. Can you imagine the complex lockups this will cause? Those new cases without a reset button will be realy useless.
The truly nauseating thing is, some fools will actually buy it. Of course they are the ones that click on everything anyway.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Old model:
Cost of fixing bugs: $100MM a year
Profit/loss = ($100MM)
New Model:
Cost of fixing bugs: 0 (stop fixing bugs)
Cost of developing antivirus: $10MM
Revenue: $2B
Profit/loss = $1.99B
This is called turning things around. Instead of fixing bugs for free, now they will sell the antivirus and make money.
making it secure in the first place????
-- Note to liberals, yes please flee to Canada.
Isn't this like selling airbags as an optional extra with a car that is known to have defective brakes?
Also, if people can't even keep their system patches up to date why would they keep their virus scanners up to date??
This is the way Microsoft will migrate people into paying for fixes to their OS.
One can only assume that sooner or later "security patches" will be treated as "Virus Protection" and will only be available via a paid up Microsoft AV subscription.
Yet another reason to move to an more secure and cost-effective platform.
Really? Microsoft are thinking about selling virus scanners???
That comes as a huge suprise to all the RAV users out there who had to move to something else because microsoft purchased the company and pulled support for linux.
Could Slashdot be any more behind the times???
I worked at Microsoft during the Win2k development cycle, testing the (then NT5) user interface. There was a LOT of screaming from the Office 2k people, who wanted to roll their stuff into the core OS, so that they could hook into it with the suite.
The NT5 team told them to get stuffed, at least as far as I know. I was also a peon at the time (and I no longer work there) so I can't say for certain that was the case.
InThane
The reporter is right: if they can't plug their own holes, they're not going to do better with an AV product. Which is not to say it won't sell well anyway. After all, the Vole hath the Monopoly Clout.
But I think the effects are more far reaching. Eliminating important cottage industries and third party vendors will hurt MS and make them an oddity. They will be more isolated, and if the brain trusts around in these companies can't make a living writing for Windows, they'll pick another platform. And if that happens, things might get difficult and lonely for the Redmond corporation suddenly out on the fringe.
All in all I think it's a good sign. MS have made a number of clumsy strategic mistakes of late. It's a happy reminder that they've been largely lucky, but also that they're panicking. And knowing they're panicking and getting more scared for every day gives any ethical career IT grunt immense pleasure.
"Gee, it's wet in here, isn't it? I've got just what you need."
Brilliant! (Truly). The marketing from MS is truly brilliant. When it comes to innovations, ideas and technology.. well, they are all lacking in Redmond.. but marketing, it's the best!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I think it mite be a good idea to let microsoft make antivirus software. Norton, Mcafee, and Bitdefender are all pretty shity desktop products. I would love to see mcshitty and Norton improve there support and provide better support for there products, currently they are shit. I would like to see someone resolve all the outstanding issues with these two products. What i suspect will proabbly happen though is microsoft will just resell someone elses product like sophos or bitdefender and put a pretty skin on it like they did with there wifi products. Its about time though someone offered some real competion to this market.
All well and good, but please recall that MS WELDED the dang dll's together in order to make it "un-removable". I seem to recall that the dll's they combined were NOT tightly related, but provided them a convenient excuse as to why they couldn't be removed...they had strategically combined them so that you take the IE out of the environment, you take some core OS functionality along with it.
1. Sell buggy OS.
2. Profit!
3. Don't spend money fixing bugs.
4. Profit!
5. Sell AV.
6. Profit!
7. ??
8. Profit!
Is it just me who thinks it's dishonest for an OS manufacturer to sell
bug fixes for software they've produced? That way it suits their
bottom line to produce an OS that is riddled with holes.....oh, wait...
The Machine stops.
Obviously viruses take advantage of security loopholes in the OS. Why shouldn't MS integrate a virus scanner? Then again, going after the symptoms (virii) is infinitely less effective than curing the problem (insecure OS).
A new virus is spreading around the NET, this one spreads itself through users who have installed Microsoft's Antivirus Software by exploiting a vulnerability for which Microsoft has already issued a patch.
Groovy.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Apparently, viruses are worth money to M$. If I understand this correctly, they are going to sell a product to fix the shortcomings of their own OS?!? When will people see the obvious stupidity of this arrangement. It is a stroke of genious on the behalf of M$, but if users go along with this, they deserve all the virii they can contract. I can also imagine some more nasty anti-monopoly lawsuits coming out of this. M$ will start hiring all the russian virus writers they can get their hands on, then create patches to block their own viruses. Brilliant business strategy. Then Norton and NA cry "Foul" because they don't have access to M$'s virus writers. Don't you also think that it could help an anti-virus app if its creators have access to the OS' source code and their competitors do not?
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
10 Print "Microsoft software sucks! It's so open to virii, they need to do something!"
20 Print "What? Microsoft is making a virus scanner? They'll probably embed it in the OS, making it impossible for anyone else to compete! Those bastards!"
30 Print "What??? They're going to CHARGE us for it? Just another way to boost the monopoly! Those pricks! This is just another example of how they suck all your money dry, just like the... well, money-sucking VAMPIRES they are!"
40 Print "Ha! M$ has decided against making a virus scanner... those bastards! We win, we win!"
50 GOTO 10
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Isn't that really just format c: at the DOS prompt? I think Windows qualifies as a virus by itself. Including anti virus software with Windows would have to render it more useless or better yet simply uninstall it. Perhaps select "flavors" of Linux could be marketed as "Windows Anti-Virus" software. It makes sense to me.
a 'self licking ice cream cone?'
ba - dum - tssshh
Listen to Reality!
/puts asbestos suit on. here are a few thoughts on just why M$ would consider doing something like this. Firstly some posters are saying that M$ is already very slow in patching its os for vulnerabilities. Whether this is even true or not does not matter, but it does mean they are already IN the anti-virus business, because everybody blames them for os vulnerabilities anyway. It was only a matter of time until some creative person at M$ came to the conclusion that if they were already in the anti-virus biz. they might as well get paid for it. This is a pretty smart move imo. By separating it from the os they get 5 major benefits. 1 the possibility of anti-trust legal problems are removed. 2 they get a new source of revenue for work they were doing anyway. 3 this shifts pressure from their os having to deal with malicious attacks. The blanket statement can be if you are at risk to said attacks please buy the anti-virus software. 4 They can now easily get away with charging extra for it; if anyone does not like this policy, they can just state they are doing this to a) not be sued, b) because they are nice guys and want to give the consumer/competition a fair shake. 5 Further reducing piracy, all of these auto up dates &c are one of the most effective ways of geting poeple to buy software. But there are hacks out there to get auto updates anyway. Piracy will always be out there, M$ knows this, and doesnt really give a $hit about the hardcore pirates anyway--they are the group that will never pay. The casual pirate, however, that gets their corporate xp off kazaa, will be hung out to dry. Someone also posted some conspiracy idea about M$ also employing those who produce Virii. What you may call conspiracy is business as usual at M$. They can buy any virus creator on the planet, anytime they want. In fact they have a history of hiring those who caused them serious competition. There is nothing unethical about this, it is simple business practice; any company will want the best employees. This also happened with banking software, many hackers who were not very good criminals were caught stealing funds from banks. The banks offered non prosecution, and a decent salary for helping them prevent anymore such hacking. The previous "security experts" that were working for the bank became living history like Gary Coleman. What is different about M$ is the fact that they have an UNHEALTHY cash position. I dont know what it is at this moment, but a year ago their cash was at 48 BILLION. Now the scary part of this was that very smart finacial advisors told the company that this was bad--it was too much cash to just have lying around. I am not a very good financial advisor I suppose, because I would never tell anyone with 48 billion in cash lying around that they had a problem. I would call it a solution. The next question is how will it affect other anti-virus "experts". M$'s answer is simple business; we dont care. They are under no obligation to baby sit other companies, and the world is a harsh place. Being a corporation, they have a specific modus operandi; to do what is best for them. That is to expand their business, have a healthy bottom line, and protect themselves from attacks on various levels, both known and unpredictable. This is not immoral, but amoral. To put it in prespective, if M$ wanted to be percieved as a moral company they could use just their cashola to colonize Mars, invade/liberate Iraq, or even wipe out world hunger and employ very many subsidized farmers at the same time.
the feds see a problem with a bundled ms OS browser, but ms aftermarket anti-virus software for an ms OS or two that attracts virus' and worms like stink on shit doesn't raise an eyebrow. perhaps i've had one too many beers to follow the logic chain.
Serenity now, insanity later.
The reason why it should be integrated is because if it's being developed by Microsoft, for their own OS, you would imagine that they might have a small niche into what these viruses are going to do and how they would affect the OS. They created the OS, they know the code behind it, and could possibly help prevent more of the "stupid" users who open the email with the "cute" bears.
I'm just proposing this as an idea so mod as you wish but if MS is going to use that as their advantage then other AV companies can complain that they have an unfair advantage b/c they make the OS. They should share their knowledge (even at a cost) with other AV companies so they know the ins and outs of how a virus can affect the system as well.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
When windows 95/98 had numerous memory leaks which
were not fixed for long time, I seriously gave a thought that Bill had secret contract with all of the memory manufacturals so he could increase the sales on the memory modules!
Now, more buggier or intentionally introduced bugs / and holes on the operating system can increase sales of the antivirus software!
If Billy knew that he had created monster which cannot be replaced but seen that he end is near...then why not stab the own creation and profit from it's blood!?? It was going to die anyway..(I am refering to the reason why microsoft wanted to get into the multimedia/entertainment business(console) and network gear business(they had it going for some time but abruptly cancelled everything when cisco found linksys very cute)...
More bugs in windows leads to no decline in OS sales...
More bugs in windows leads to the increased sales in antivirus software...
Ha...
I can only think of two words = "Antitrust!!!" & "Violation!!!"
That's got to be right near the top of the list of great oxymorons... The company that produces what is arguably the most insecure operating system, most insecure web browser, and most insecure E-Mail client of all time is going to produce *antivirus software.* Oh, man... If you think it's bad with people using Nortons and McAfee, think what happens when it's your MS-Antivirus that gets 0wn3d by the latest virus/worm/trojan/ping-of-death.
"Only Microsoft's AntiVirus software protected users against the ScreamingMoron virus. Shouldn't your business have the best tools money can buy?"
Or even without intentionally adding holes, what's to stop them from turning this into an alpha security patch program whereby their AV software protects against problems in their OS before they disclose the vulnerabilities to anyone else?
Am I the only one who thinks this could be a breathtakingly anti-consumer conflict of interest?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I'm not sure why many people find it suprising that Microsoft plans to enter the anti-virus market. If anything I am suprised that they do not plan to bundle it. Microsoft included an anti-virus tool in MS-DOS 6.2 and above, but never included one with Windows95 and above.
If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?
MS is pretty good about putting out a patch every time a vulnerability is discovered, usually with in a few days.
But users never patch their systems. I do tech support for small businesses, and every time MS sends out a Critical update about a security vulnerability, two to four weeks later a virus comes out. And when that happens, we get calls. MOST of the recent worms out there were 100% preventable with a patch, even if you DID open up an email attachment.
If users were smart enough to run Windows updates every once and a while, or set it to auto-update, they wouldn't have a fraction of the problems. When i get a hold of a customer's computer, more often then not there's at least 10 critical updates that need to be downloaded form Windows Updates. (gf's mom's had 21)
So yeah, blame MS for making an OS to begin with, but don't blame MS because users don't take the opportunity to download patches that MS supplies.
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
Although I mainly use Mac OSX on a day to day basis, I need a PC to check websites in Windows IE. I have no wish and no time to fuck with the horrors of patching Win2k/XP and friends for sasser, blaster (I spent a number of hours today trying in vain to fix a friend's Win2k PC that had been infected by no less than 12 different viruses and tojans. System was hosed, impossible), so I actually just resorted to the idea of just using Win98 with Firefox for any serious browsing and IE6 for checking my sites and webmail if needed. Amazingly, even though this machine has no AV software and no firewall, it has not been hit by any of the remote exploits currently out there (obviously, since they almost all target service vulnerabilities on the NT kernel).
Works like a charm. have done the same for my sister and old mother and they have less problems than they had when they were on Win2k and WinXP respectively.
Remember back in the DOS days? I distinctly remember DOS 6 coming with AV software (including, I believe, a version with a Windows GUI).
almost all infections can be stopped before there's a VIRUS out. Just get the patches. If i recall, Sasser, Netsky and Blaster could have been worhtless.... if people had patched their systems. Hell it took over a month after the security update came out for Blaster to come out.
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
"Fair point, but I doubt that'd be enough this time around. The main reason being that the AV software out there today is specifically for Windows. MS has an inside advantage towards getting problems fixed."
Therefore, to avoid ALL APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY they would have to keep a "Chinese Wall" between the rest of the developers and the anti-virus developers.
The Microsoft anti-virus team would have to work with the same, published API's that all the other anti-virus teams use. This way, the Microsoft anti-virus team would NOT have any advantage over the other vendors.
Or, as I said before, Microsoft would have to publish the API's and make their product easily removed and replaced AND allow OEM's to remove and replace it (another thing that Microsoft was doing in the Netscape trial).
In fact, it is VERY easy for Microsoft to enter the anti-virus market and NOT be in violation of anti-trust laws.
"How does this contradict my point that Microsoft doesn't have monopolies everywhere?"
I never said that Microsoft didn't have monopolies everywhere. I said they had ONE. And they have been found GUILTY of leveraging that ONE monopoly to gain advantages in other markets.
"Eh? Microsoft isn't the market leader in either app, so what's so 'cute' about it? Microsoft would sure LIKE to be. Same goes for the XBOX, they couldn't buy themselves into #1 there."
It's "cute" in that you can't claim that they were NOT found to be a monopoly so you're switching to claiming that they don't have LOTS of monopolies. Since no one ever claimed they had LOTS of monopolies, your attempt is "cute".
"Uh okay. I suppose I should just drop everything, shake my pitchfork at MS at every turn, and badmouth every little thing they do? That way I could be cool just like everybody else here."
Unthinking hatred is no better nor worse than unthinking loyalty.
People do NOT trust Microsoft because of Microsoft's DOCUMENTED PAST BEHAVIOUR.
That's frequently refered to as "learning" or "experience".
And you have a problem with this?
Or is it that you feel it is necessary to give Microsoft the benefit of a doubt this time because, this time, they just MIGHT act differently than ALL those other times.
And that behaviour is typically termed an "apologist".
So, if you aren't an apoligist, then WHY do you believe that Microsoft will NOT try to violate anti-trust laws this time?
Don't say "innocent until proven guilty".
The easy counters are:
"A leopard does not change his spots"
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."
If it is a Pinky Plot then it is an example of the incredible stupidity that Microsoft often emits, say having a security patch that breaks all other software when it is installed.
If it is a Brain Plot then it represents the fiendish backroom double think that had Microsoft meeting with NetScape to divide the browser market between them. (This came out during the anti-trust trial.)
In either case, I hope that it turns out like all the other Pinky and The Brain plots: a complete failure.....
I'm surprised something like this made front page /. news. But then again it IS microsoft.. so hey.. jump on the bandwagon.
Microsoft clearly made their intentions to develop Microsoft branded Antivirus software last year when they bought GeCAD Software - the makers of RAV Antivirus.
Quick google search revealed one of the news stories about that event - http://www.technewsworld.com/story/31139.html
"at the time of the purchase, the company said it would put GeCAD's engineers to work integrating antivirus products with future versions of Windows, including next-generation platforms such as Longhorn." - 18 July, 2003
-- Wireless WaFreenet user since March 2002
But lots of "discussions" tend downwards towards pure emotional levels (just like in the 3rd grade).
:(
There is some justification for this. It seems that people reach a decision FIRST and then rationalize it to themselves.
You can see that in almost all of the political "discussions". People will accept certain behaviour from "their" candidate (or politicians associated with "their" party) but will rant against identical (or almost identical) behaviour on the "other" side.
In technology, it should be easier to restrict the discussion to facts and such. But that may be why we don't see so many replies to most pure technology articles.
But when there is room for emotion (Microsoft "bad" vs you're all Microsoft haters) we see hundreds of replies.
Bring politics into the discussion and we can see over 1,000 replies.
As you said, none of them give a shit about you.
It seems to be an emotional need to "justify" ourselves and our "choices". As such, I don't see it ending any time soon.
Little news flash for you: what Microsoft says and what Microsoft does are not necessarily the same thing.
"The number of people who think comments like this are uncommon or meant to be taken literally is an indication of how close the average /. poster has ever been to the managerial meeting room."
/. poster" has probably been to the "managerial meeting room"?
So, if no one here actually believed that Microsoft was suggesting that someone kill a child, that means that "the average
Did YOU believe that someone's child was being threatened?
"Literally"?
I think Microsoft just has the attitude of "You want to attack us? We'll defend ourselves!" in mind when they brought up this idea. I think it's pretty smart though -- they no longer have to rely on the help of other non-Microsoft programs... but then again, it only adds to the large list of things Microsoft has their fingers in. Tisk tisk.. Monopolies...
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Its a waste of resources. Why not simply use the people they were going to assign to this project and have them working in conjunction with the various other teams that do IE, outlook etc and have them help out in actually fixing those weak products, instead of resorting to a band-aid system like the an additional AV.
But then again they don't make money off providing bug fixes and updates (at least not in the short term).
There is an obvious conflict of interests with Microsoft releasing anti-virus software for their own operating system, but one has to wonder if it is unethical. The two trains of thought I am following are as follows:
Microsoft is not making the viruses that affect their operating system. By making a piece of software to protect their customers from these viruses they are providing a service, this service is not illegal or immoral. What would be immoral is Microsoft abruptly ceasing the release of patches to protect end-users from virus exploits. Many viruses exist only because their is an exploit in the operating system for their taking advantage of. If Microsoft no longer patches these exploits in an effort to make an extra few bucks, they would be acting immorally.
I, however see their anti-virus as a seperate outlet. There are users who don't want to patch their operating system. If you can sell these users anti-virus software which automatically updates its definitions, they won't worry about a need to patch their operating system to protect them from viruses. It will be done through the anti-virus software. Hell, the software can automate Windows Update for them, and patch their system automagically. The rest of us who don't but M$-AV will have to patch the operating system ourselves.
The second train of thought is business oriented. Microsoft is a business, and in the words of my friend James, "...businesses aren't in the habit of accepting a decline in profits." By patching their operating system and allowing persons who do not purchase their anti-virus software to be safe from viruses, Microsoft may not make any profit from their anti-virus software. The conspiracy theorist in me brought the light the idea that Microsoft may actually create exploits or viruses in an effort to help their anti-virus software suceed. This thought is ludacrious. Microsoft would be risking jail time if they created viruses. If they created exploits they would be risking horrible publicity.
Viruses can exist without exploits, macro viruses take advantage of something that cannot be patched, automation. Microsoft just sees an open market and wants to take advantage of it. I see no ethical dilemma at all, just capitalism.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA!!!!!
I'm sorry, but the maker of the #1 targetted platform which is almost synonymous with virii, system crashes, and security issues... is the LAST organization to be making anti-virus software.
It's a bit late for April fools... seriously, *wipes tears* they aren't REALLY thinking of producing anti-virus software, are they?
Prediction: The antivirus software produced by MS will, itself, be a security hole through which all virii, spammers, and abusers of the net come through into your computer.
We all saw how wonderful it was when Back Office was brought onto the scene... do we really want an anti-virus product as well?
*LOL* I'm SO glad I use a non-Windows platform laptop, desktop, and server system.
I feel sorry for the Windows folk who will ultimately be the bearers of whatever ill this bears fruit to. :(
Winged Power Photography
Antivirus software shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Virus outbreaks work because of the following situations:
- Flaw in the OS (When you spend $299 on the OS... they shouldn't be charging you to fix it, it was their mistake to begin with)
- User was stupid enough to execute the virus
- User was executing random email attachments with administrator priveleges.
- User did not apply the security updates that they need.
The first one is the responsibility of the vendor to fix... not Symantec to cover up. Microsoft could do better at it, but they do a decent enough job of patching (not as good as open source OS's, but I can live with it)
The second can be fixed by educating users better. You hear those things on the news, but when somebody first learns to use a computer, nobody ever says "don't run programs you got in your email from people you don't know". It should be stressed. I mean really, it's common sense. But people do it anyway.
Running as administrator is both a user error and a design flaw. Windows shouldn't be setting up users as admins by default. Fuck user-friendly. It's not very user-friendly when browsing a malicious page in IE can destroy your hard drive. Then you'll wish you weren't an admin. Users should also be educated in how to not use admin rights. It goes both ways.
And the last one, well, back to educating users. Tell them to install patches. If they are too lazy to install patches, it's their own lazyass fault when they end up having to reinstall their OS.
It's one thing to be lazy, it's another to be stupid...
Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
Did Microsoft knew of a vulnerability before or after they wrote the anti-virus software to guard against it?
If they don't use their intimite knowledge of the OS what makes their av software better? If they do, every anti-virus software maker has a lawsuit against them.
How about you try securing your OSes up a bit instead!
Doesn't this seem a bit more like extortion? Kind of like saying the Cops suck, but pay higher taxes to have them and then pay an additional fee for a personal security force that may do the job...who is sponsored by City Hall. Don't think about addressing the crime problem or why the police force is a failure.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
this is a classic case of conflict of interests.
now they will want to delay patches to security holes forcing people to pay for their anti-virus software.
I've always figured if you keep windows update up to the minute, then there's no need for an AV suite..
-judging another only defines yourself
I can.
Doesn't ANYONE remember that Microsoft used to package an Antivirus program with the OS back in the Win 3.1 days? It lived in C:\Windows\System and was called something like VSCAN.EXE or something like that. I think it was made by Norton and was kind of a stripped down util. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Un-news
What's the fuss all about? If you don't like the idea of MS selling AV software, then don't buy it. Nothing to see here, let's move on.
> You could break into my house if you broke a window. I don't consider my windows an "unpatched vulnerability."
If you break your common window with a rock, that is not a bug. If you can attack a program and make it do things it's not supposed to, that's a bug. There's a big difference here.
After all, from a real life analogy taken from the real world, if you put a firewall on your computer you should be fine. Think of it as a big wall around your house, unbreakable. You go watch TV (a passive undertaking) and you shouldn't expect break ins.
In the MS world, your wall won't do you any good, when bening functions like clicking on a link can cause a major security problem (let's not even talk about the simple task of reading email).
Goodness gracious, the other day I had to go to somebody's machine that had very nasty spyware installed! The spyware was so bad, that it would refuse to be removed and when I did and I wrote over the HOST file so it never goes to that server again, the spyware would overwirte my edited HOST file and remove it's entry! This type of stuff is just unnaceptable!
- sigs are for wimps.
> As opposed to Slashdot? In every case where there has been a problem with Windows security, it's been AFTER they released a patch for the vulnerability. Every one!
You've already been easily proven totally wrong on this. When can we expect your apology?
- sigs are for wimps.
Ugh, this is what happens with lack of sleep.
Enjoy!
http://www.sosdg.org/spoof/mskb666-691.html
Brielle
Stop repeating the communist lies.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is Microsoft's first tentative introduction of Palladium technology into the market place.
Get people used to it, conveniently integrate it into the O/S down the track (in Longhorn?) as 'demand explodes', and then adjust the definition of suspicious application behaviour and viruses.
We'll be computing to the MS tune in no time at all!
After all, M$ Windows is the most prolific virus out there.
Buying antivirus software from Microsoft would be like buying Life Insurance from the Mafia.
Something you can't live without...
Comparing the vulnerabilities of Win2k to a standard Linux distro is not accurate. With Win2k, you get.....um, Win2k and IE. With a Linux distro you get about 2000 apps, so vulnerabilities in the apps (nothing to do with the OS itself) are counted as "Linux flaws". M$ tried that arguement a while back, and it was shot down very quickly.
Dumb generic guy: "Isnt that like paying a burglar to guard my house?"
Dogbert: "Excuse me while i wag."
So Microsoft wants to sell antivirus software? Good enough for me. Let's see...
1) Buy new Microsoft antivirus.
2) Install on PC.
3) Run first scan.
4) WindowsOS vanishes (hey wait a minute...)
5) Somebody at tech support profits, dammit!
Now they can meet both! :)
With the introduction of this new MS antivirus defense system, AIDS now can mutate and get itself a new environment, the e-world!
why didn't they just buy symantec ???
make install, not war
annoying
i would imagine gates doesn't like answering questions in court
and you know all that anti-trust stuff about incorporating the browser they probably don't wanna sit through that again for anti-virus
This is one of MS's most brilliant moves ever. They turn one of their weaknesses into cash by selling sofware that patches flaws in their own software. This shows that Bill still is a marketing genius. I guess almost every /.-er knows someone who trusts MS and will certainly buy this handy new product of theirs. MS, although I don't love your products I have to congratulate you with this one.
-- Cheers!
They used to provide something in the early 90s (MSAV) which worked with Windows NT3.5 - it used to flag anything written in VB as a potential virus (it flagged any self-modifying code) so couln't have been that bad a product;-) More seriously there is a whiff of poacher turned gamekeeper turned poacher here...
Whether the poster meant it or not, that was actually a very insightful comment. The office help assistant popped up often in cases where it wasn't appropriate (It looks like you are trying to write a letter...) and not at all when it could have been very useful. Just think how much would have been saved it it warned people about executable attachments and reminded them that the email 'from' line could have been forged. If it just stopped one in ten users from infecting themselves, that still means less zombies.
See my journal, I write things there
World largest baby feed manufacture plans to sell condoms.
We all know that Microsoft has been itching to get us to pay yearly for the use of their OS. This is their attempt to get that gravy train rolling.
Sure, Microsoft's antivirus app will be a separate product. Sure it will not be bundled with Windows. However, I'd bet anything that it WILL be bundled with new computers via special deals to manufacturers.
After a year, those new computer buyers will get messages to pay some money to continue receiving updates.
Once we're used to paying every year (or every month?!) for antivirus updates, Microsoft will start charging us yearly for other updates.
Microsoft will be smart and will start out with a reasonable price. But it won't be too long before we're paying about $80 a year for the right to use our computers.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"They created the OS, they know the code behind it,"
Nope. You assign "god" atributes to the engineers at Microsoft. The code is a mess, a cancer of lots and lots of files, made by a army of guys. Doestnot exist a single men that know everything about all the code. Because Its too complex for a single men.
Example:
As you may remenber, the Samba implementation of SMB protocol is better than Windows one.
-Woof woof woof!
It belongs in the OS? That would the Microsoft model. Integrate everything, so that 1. the user's easiest option is to use the Microsoft product and 2. it's impossible to determine which component has failed, causing a crash.
The primary job of the OS is to sit between the hardware and the userland software. A well designed OS with good APIs doesn't need unnecessary "features" (read: bugs) to be integrated. If the OS manages only what it must, the quality will be better.
Microsoft's security track record is very poor. Like the original post said, they can't keep their primary product, Windows, up to date. How can MS be expected to keep up with the hundreds of new virii released every month? Microsoft AV, whether integrated with the OS, bundled with the OS, or sold separately, will just open up a new venue for attack.
Robin Williams' impression of Bill Gates: "Monopoly's just a game, Senator, I'm trying to control the world!"
The box said, "Requires Windows XP or Better"...
So I installed Linux.
Companies that become a monopoly can't do whatever they want. In this case MS should just keep out of the Antivirus arena and allow antivirus companies to fight amongst themselves for that chunk of the IT market.
Or they could provide what is clearly a differentiated product at a price that reflects the cost of its production. To pull a Internet Explorer on this area would be illegal and immoral.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Users are told the tool they bought is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it quickly transpires that in order to keep your machine clean you need to invest a lot of time and money in endless patching that most probably the poor owenr deos not understand what it is doing at all.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, since the M$ OS is the world's most common virus, I can't wait to see AV software that destroys itself...:-)
Screw Microsoft, I use NOD32--the absolute best anti-virus software out there. Eset is totally committed to keeping the virus signatures up to date. The other day, I received no less than three automatic updates to the virus database. NOD32 has won several detection awards and passed many tests that Norton didn't pass, but the more telling triumph of NOD32's prowess is the fact that Microsoft currently uses it for their corporate networks. :)
i agree with this in theory, as EVERYONE should have AV software. but if it is being made by MS, i might be kinda worried. IME, i haven't had any problems with the major (read: MSBLAST, Sasser, etc.) virii as the patches are for the most part out long before the virii are. i was infected with both but they couldn't do a GD thing as i had the patches, then my AV (norton(shadup)) quickly removed them. i would like if MS licenced the software from someone else (norton) and included it with the OS but seperate from the os (core of it, but it would still install with windows).
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
lets see if 'ol papa bear has this figured out correctly.
in the united states when a product has incorrectly enginerred a flaw, the product is recalled and or repaired at the manufactures expense.
when windows has an incorrectly enginerred a flaw, they'll sell you a 'patch' for it?
is this a great country or what!
"It's not like MS doesn't spend millions of dollars hiring PR firms and advertising agencies to push their point of view on us."
They spend that much money because it works. NanoGator is a good example of such.
Just look at this thread.
He is saying that people here will think that Microsoft is violating anti-trust laws if/when Microsoft gets into the anti-virus market.
He is NOT saying that Microsoft will NOT violate the anti-trust laws.
He is NOT saying that Microsoft has NOT violated anti-trust laws.
But he is crying about other people who do not trust Microsoft now because of Microsoft's past, documented, behaviour.
In other words, he is crying about people LEARNING from EXPERIENCE. He is crying that those people are vocal about it on this website.
I don't think he's on their payroll, but maybe he is.
I think he's just gotten his emotional self-worth tied up with defending Microsoft against the cynical masses on slashdot.
Or maybe he is simply against the cynicism of the masses on slashdot?
Whichever it is, the end result is the same.
He is opposing the expression of knowledge gained from experience and the extrapolation of that knowledge.
ummm... WTF does this have to do with Anti-Virus software?
It's like a car manufacturer releasing a model with faulty brakes and then opening a chain of brake repair stores. Come on....surely you yankees have some kind of law against this?
-d
NanoGator says:
"Wrong. I'm actually advocating people use their brains a bit, as opposed to just hating Microsoft because it's the cool thing to do."
And your basis for believing that someone is basing his opinion on what is "cool" as opposed to established facts is.........?
"Um, no. In general, I am against uninformed hatred."
Again, what is your basis for believing that someone is basing his opinion on what is "cool" as opposed to established facts is.........?
If you do not have a factual basis for that belief, then you are guilty of exactly the same behaviour you claim to oppose.
So, what is your basis?
After all, Linux distros don't do that with people's volunteer work when they sell their branded boxes of CDs.
... perhaps you should consider installing Apache instead.. or simply blow the doze box away for Anything else..
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=111314&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=9445792
"While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this, it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security.
On the other hand, the major effect might just be to introduce a single point of failure/attack. It's certainly possible to argue that the variety of security software in use makes it harder to attack any given system. For evidence, look at the list of processes that the more sophisticated viruses try to stop.
Background: I do not customarily use an on-demand scanner. On occasion, I have loaded up a scanner because of suspicious behavior. My Windows box (patched up to date, firewalled) has had only one virus, a backdoor program that was installed when my daughter clicked a "video clip" that she received in an e-mail, before she understood what a spoofed address was. So I'm not convinced that antivirus software is as necessary as it is built up to be."
I'm having a little trouble finding "evil" in there. Not to mention that he seems to be making some very good points about "single point of failure/attack".
So, it does seem that you went into your rant WITHOUT any cause.
A legitimate post detailing a legitimate security concern (the "single point of failure")... ...and you responded with your rant.
THAT is the behaviour of an apologist.
You did not address any of the technical points he made. You just went into rant mode.
Just like all the other apologists out there.
He said that if Microsoft did that, there would be an issue of "single point of failure".
/. looking for posts that are less than flattering about Microsoft and then you launch into your rant about those bad people who hate Microsoft. Regardless of whether the post is factual or not.
You replied with:
"That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen."
I'm sure that sounds like a "valid point" to you. But that is just more evidence that you're a shill.
"Didn't need to address his technical points, the response of the rest of the industry was a bigger problem."
No it was not because it was NOT part of his post.
You were not replying to his post because his post did not contain anything relating to why your response was.
Someone said something technical that was less than supportive about one of Microsoft's potential choices and YOU had to jump in and claim that lots of bad people out there were anti-Microsoft.
The post that triggered your response did not contain anything that you were posting about.
You cruise
To YOU that might sound like rational behaviour.
buh bye, my little shill.
What's to stop MS for introducing more holes (intentional or not) and making the "fixes" only available through their AV product? Seems like somebody at DOJ should be questioning this!
"I did answer it. Here's the summary: I wasn't defending MS, I was correcting what I believed to be an error."
As I pointed out, the ORIGINAL post your replied to had nothing to do with your pro-Microsoft rant.
The ORIGINAL post was about legitimate technological issues (such as "single point of failure").
"As I pointed out, the ORIGINAL post your replied to had nothing to do with..."
;)
Let's look at what he said:
"While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this, it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS."
Topic: MS could put a scanner witht he OS.
Response: MS cannot do that without consequences.
Conclusion: My response had something to do with what he said. Focusing on 'technical' is completely irrelevent. My response to his topic was equally as appropriate as your response to mine.
"...to do with your pro-Microsoft rant."
For me to write a pro-Microsoft rant, I have to say something nice about Microsoft.
"The ORIGINAL post was about legitimate technological issues"
Actually his original post was that MS should consider including the scanner with the OS, the technical details were to justify why they'd be able to compete with other virus scanners out there. It's also worth mentioning that I said the technical part of his post would work.
Boy you're trying awfully hard to prove something that isn't true. Must be a democrat.
"Derp de derp."
I notice that you left out YOUR response. :D
Here is what you say NOW:
"I did answer it. Here's the summary: I wasn't defending MS, I was correcting what I believed to be an error."
Yet here is your ORIGINAL response:
"That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen."
So, where is the "error" that you were "correcting" with that statement?
See this story at Computer Reseller News, which claims McAfee is for sale and Microsoft may be the only buyer in sight.
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)