Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Acquires Spyware Removal Company
ack154 writes "Checking for updates on my new favorite spyware removal company, I found that Microsoft has acquired Giant AntiSpyware as of 12/16. I must say that it is very refreshing to see Microsoft finally start to take some serious action to help combat this rampant problem. According to the Giant site, a beta version is expected within one month for Microsoft customers (running Windows 2000 and later, of course)."
So i'm going to assume the first logical step is that the software uninstalls/disables IE?
What percentage of spyware comes in through IE and ActiveX? Seems like they would just fix that. Stop it at the door, don't wait for it to get in and then Try to kill it.
I sure hope they don't start charging for this after the beta. Talk about a conflict of interest. We have this buggy, highly exploitable browser that we do not plan on updating for a couple of years until Longhorn comes out. But in the meantime, you can Buy this program that will maybe help after the fact.
Does not a turn-around make. Just because MS sees a possible investment opportunity doesn't mean that this is them taking steps to fix their broken software. Ever think this might just be an attempt to cash in on their problems??
Now microsoft will know how to plant spyware so Microsoft Branded removal tools designed to not get rid of it
Even so, I still prefer my (free) SpyBot S&D which runs on Windows and Linux.
There is a discussion in Broadband Reports/DSL Reports' security forum about this.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
You have got to be kidding me. Rather than make their OS and apps secure and PREVENT spyware... they would rather make money selling another product to CURE the spyware.
How can this be a good thing?
Prevention is always better than cure.
Firefox. That's how you stop spyware from getting on your machine. Good god, Microsoft just spent a shit load of money, when they could have just downloaded Firefox. Tsk tsk.
It's good they are looking ahead before this kind of stuff really becomes a problem!
On the upside, if they are serious about it, I think this is going to be a huge boon for corporate IT. Spyware has become one of the biggest headaches for IT these days. I believe about 50% of our support tickets are related to spyware.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
Anyone else read this as Microsoft acquires spyware company?
Isnt this a conflict of interest making the software that has the bugs and also selling the software that covers over those bugs. (I know Microsoft...)
I think this really shows how Micky Mouse the code is that they are taking this route instead of getting the protocols right from the start.
"I must say that it is very refreshing to see Microsoft finally start to take some serious action to help combat this rampant problem."
You're kidding right? Why don't they plug the holes and create a secure product instead of spending money on funding yet another product that doesn't NEED to exist. For christ's sake, fix IE and fix windows, why waste your money, and people's time of having to actually remove it? Stop it from getting on the computer in the first place. Sheesh, makes me glad I use OS X now, I don't deal with this bullshit spyware anymore on at least one machine now.
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
The first post after the spoofing vulnerabilitiy in IE is MSFT buying their way out of their own self-created problems...
So will this cause adaward and spybot to get eliminated b/c MSFT will just ship (for free) malware removal software?
In 2003, they bought GeCAD , makers of RAV-AntiVirus . So is Microsoft going to release their own anti-virus too?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Thank you Microsoft, for valiently saving us from the dangers you created!
Microsoft: Acting more and more like a government every day.
If created, would this Microsoft anit-spyware tool remove all of the spyware and adware that comes pre-loaded with Windows? A friend of mine ran Spybot S&D on a clean, out-of-the-box Windows machine, and SpyBot picked up several insatnces of propreitary malware before the machine even hooked up to the web... And if this tool doesn't remove all of the aforementiond preloaded spyware, how can it possbily be effective at removing the non-Microsoft versions accquired over the course of normal Internet travel? I go to MSN Groups and SpyBot tells me it has blocked the download of Adware Inc... Just my thoughts on this as it develops.
concentrate on fixing the system so that crap like that can't happen in the first place.
I thought that said "Microsoft acquires spyware company" at which point my coworker responded "Makes sense, they try to integrate everything else".
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
So i'm going to assume the first logical step is that the software uninstalls/disables IE?
and then installs Firefox.
Ya know, as soon as they release a Microsoft branded spyware removal tool will be the day they draw the line in the sand defining exactly what apps are welcome on the Microsoft platform and what apps are not. If Microsoft gets the final say of what runs on your machine, what makes you think they're only going to be removing spyware?
How we know is more important than what we know.
So Microsoft is finally admitting that they need external help to deal with the runaway train that they call security?
Just to play devil's advocate -- is there any chance that MS has purchased GIANT in an attempt to quell the complaints of spyware that come from MS users?
What if Microsoft purchased GIANT just to assuage users through the use of a Spyware removal tool that said: "You are okay now! (Congratulations!)".
MS is still the borg. They are losing considerable market share to Mozilla based browers at this point and they need to fight back with their typical FUD -- even if it means buying anti-spyware companies.
Why not just create a browser that is not as heavily infected with spyware vulnerabilities?
I will take my software GPL'd please. Thanks for coming out!
"See, it'd be a real shame, ya know, if something were, say - now I'm just saying if here, don't get me wrong - if something bad were to happen and your PC wound up with so much spyware on it that it didn't even have enough CPU cycles left over to display the log-in screen for you. Ain't that right, Ape? Ya see, Ape agrees with me. So any-hoo, we was thinkin' you might want to protect your PC against those bad things happening to it... and we have just the service to do it, and I'm sure you'll agree our prices are very reasonable. So, why don'tcha just sign here on the line... or if ya wanna t'ink about it, Ape here would be more than happy to go over the details. He can be very persuasive, right, Ape?"
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Irregardless of the quality of the anti-spyware, isn't it just damned *ironic* when a company can make a huge profit on a product, and then make *another* goatload of cash by fixing it.
So I ask you, why would Microsoft *ever* wish to produce flawless software???
and now back to the fallout shelter...
If MS does nothing about spyware and crap, people bitch about MS not caring. If they do something like this, people complain they're anti-competitive.
Why would MS need to do this? Who knows the internals of Windows better then the people who wrote it in the first place? Shouldn't they already have the best tools available in order to build the best spyware removal tool anyway?
running Windows 2000 and later, of course
Of course? What about the rest?
So, MS now has Alexa - a spyware program distributed free with Internet Explorer, the world's premier spyware platform and a removal tool...
Oh well, what the hell...
This will be a free program on the basis that you allow it to check all of your MS product keys. :)
I see that famous "Microsoft Innovation" is still hard at work. Why write your own code when you can buy a company, and bastardize theirs...
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
Apple.com
I suggest you read Slashdot
Welcome to Bizarro World.
I'm going to start a company that produces Wingding-intertubes for floating down neighboring Stromboli Stream. A by-product of the Wingding manufacturing process happens to be Toxic Chemicals A,B, and C. I figure, what the hell, I'll go dump them into Stromboli Stream and not have to pay a red cent for disposal!!
Woohoo! Wingding sales are skyrocketing -- but wait, people are getting sick in Stromboli Stream, and their Wingdings aren't floating! What should I do?!
I know, I'll buy an environmental cleanup company, and charge the county a goat-load to clean the stream! Time to go buy another golden caviar-filled rumpus room!
We now return to your previously scheduled slashdot article.
and now back to the fallout shelter...
It's sad that this solution is probably more cost effective (in the short term) than fixing the existing code base.
Wouldn't it be possible that Microsoft just wants to get into all the cash that people are getting off of their lazy coding? I mean, why not just make a million bugs, and then make a $50 program that gets rid of some. Thats a lot of cash faster than you can say conflict of interest.
.. of Microsoft buying software instead of making their own/fixing their code. Another brilliant "innovation".
I'm not sure what "proprietary" means in this case- Is Open Source Malware OK? SpyBot alerts the user to a lot of software which has the potential to comprimise privacy. Much of the same software can also be helpful in diagnosing problems and keeping track of preference settings. This is not MALWARE or even Spyware. Please don't give the other side ammunition by being hysterical
These are first steps, but they are not enough and you should not expect M$ to fix their problems. The only way to keep malware/spyware off your system is to own it and only get your software from trusted sources, such as Debian. Microsoft is so keen on DRM and pleasing others that they will never give you real ownership of any computer you put their software on. The ability to read your files and add/remove "components" without your permission is part of their EULA. If they can do it, so can others and the story will never end. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft will now be making the anti-spyware product. Steer clear. It's probably susceptible to spyware.
Dino: Good morning, colonel.
... you've got a nice army base here, colonel.
Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
Luigi: You've
Colonel: Yes.
Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
(see http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode08.htm)
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
So it deletes Windows, then?
Micro Soft
Giant Company
And I thought Corvettes were used to "compensate".
I've just recently started Giant's AntiSpyware program and found it to be excellent at cleaning up the VX2 remanents and anything else left over after running Spybot S&D and Lavasoft's Ad-Aware. I sure hope that M$'s take-over doesn't make a worth-while antispyware tool worthless.
...that Gates and/or Ballmer read
- Failing Grades For Most Anti-Spyware Tools
...only 3 ASW programs had a 'batting average' of better than .500 when it came to eradicating the broad range of spyware in the test... The top three? Giant Anti-Spyware, Spy Sweeper, and Ad-Aware....
Maybe someone at M$ read that article and said, "Hmmmm, that might be just what we need. Buy 'em!"Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
anti-spyware companies start suing Microsoft for taking away their business after MS squeezes them out?
Yes.
If you read this carefully, you might conclude that Bill Gates has been fixing the things he breaks since he was in high school. He and his buddies broke the first computer they were allowed to use and then hired themselves out to fix it:
Bill Gates, Paul Allen and, two other hackers from Lakeside formed the Lakeside Programmers Group in late 1968. They were determined to find a way to apply their computer skills in the real world. The first opportunity to do this was a direct result of their mischievous activity with the school's computer time. The Computer Center Corporation's business was beginning to suffer due to the systems weak security and the frequency that it crashed. Impressed with Gates and the other Lakeside computer addicts' previous assaults on their computer, the Computer Center Corporation decided to hire the students to find bugs and expose weaknesses in the computer system.
This was Bill Gates answer to the shortage of computing resources that existed when he was growing up. He made himself root so that he could have all the resources he wanted, essentially a robbery. The overall model applies to the software he sells to this day, there will always be something wrong with it so that you want to buy the new one. I like the answer RMS came up with better: make your own toys.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1. Write buggy OS with no security model
2. Acquire company that bolts on a bandaid
3. Profit!
What next?
"Microsoft to buy Large antivirus firm."
"Microsoft announces acquisition of blue-screen-B-gone Inc."
"Microsoft acquires company that removes the freakin' paperclip"
Spybot doesn't really run on linux, and I doubt spyware runs on linux desktops, either. There are cookies you may want to be aware of, but most linux web-browsers make this easy. There are some linux viruses, but also cross-platform antivirus programs. Clam Anti-Virus is a free, open-source app which runs on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.
Checking for updates on my new favorite spyware removal company
I am afraid there is something wrong with the mindset of ack154. He is so often checking for spyware removal tools, so he has a favourite one??? If I had a spyware problem for the second time, I would seek immediately an option to drop such a platform completely.
There you are, staring at me again.
In other news, Philip Morris acquires Pfizer's Nicotrol divison.
Story at eleven.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Just like those M$ bastards to buy a company like this and then say they're going to stop making a Mac and a Linux version.
Oh, wait...nevermind...
You know, you can say all you want about the other browsers, but IE is the most laden with crap-you-don't-need out of all of em.
How big was it last time I downloaded it? 25 meg?
You'd think it'd come with all sorts of stuff to make your internet experience a little better. But all it seems to do is bloat and take longer to load.
You guys might be buying a company, but in the end it's going to add to more and more bloat. And your "free" browser isn't going to seem so appealing to the masses of sheep.
*sigh*
Bill, get your head out of the clouds. At one point in your long lived company, you were actually a decent programmer. Where are you now?
Microsoft makes money based on upgrades. New versions of Windows, new versions of Office, new versions of whatever. People blindly upgrade in the hopes that the new version will fix the bugs of the old one. But all these new versions are just as buggy as the first. Not the same bugs, but all new ones...
Now if Microsoft were to make a product that performed wonderfully the first time around, why would you have any incentive to upgrade? They can tout new features and bells and whistles, but if the product you have is working fine for you, then why spend the money?
As long as they hold a monopoly, they can continue to create buggy software with no real risk of losing customers.
Now what if they could sweeten the deal even more. What if they "forced" people to buy software that had a giant problem, and they also sold the cure. Then they get to charge you twice. They could fix the problem, but then they would lose money. That doesn't make much sense. As long as there are no real alternatives to the average user, Microsoft has free reign to run their stratagy.
Microsoft isn't dumb. There's a reason they are where they are today. They've found a damn good buisness stratagy that works.
In Japan, the same companies that produce and sell cigarettes also produce and sell the cancer drugs used to fight the maladies brought on by smoking.
MS can now control the spam, yes, meaning they can charge the spammers to learn how to avoid the barriers (you paid? ok, here's the key...next in line! keep it moving!), while also charging the users - similar to how the phone compnay sells your number to marketers, while charging you a fee for a device that will block them - nice work if you can get it.
Remember, investing in MS is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.
I think this is a way for them to make money on (or get credit for) selling you a shoddy product and then selling you an expensive bandaid.
As I try to remind people. There are almost no "email" viruses. There are "Outlook viruses." Outlook wasn't always the number one email client, but it has always been the number one email client with security problems.
There is almost no general "spyware". There is almost only "IE spyware". IE wasn't always the premier browser, but it has always had the biggest/most security holes.
If it weren't for Microsoft's shoddy programming and lack of concern for security, we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do in IT security. This is a great example where cut-throat marketing and vicious anti-competitive practices are enough to dominate a technology market. . . at the expense of a society at large.
Couldn't spyware, addware, etc be considered a terrorist attack on American citizens? Imagine the potential threats of a spyware group monitoring military personnel or employees of three letter organizations... It is common knowledge in the security community that you do not necessarily need to know details of communications traffic to determine intelligence. Changes in behavior are enough to inform those who want to know that something is going on.
I propose that the United States government target these individuals (makers and users of spyware and addware) as a threat to national security. They should be targeted and destroyed with extreme prejudice.
Between Symantec buying Veritas today, MS snatching up anti-spyware tools and Oracle eating up PeopleSoft I have to wonder if all this limiting of choice, won't in the long run be helpful to Linux? I have heard a lot of client backlash lately about vendor lock in, especially in regards to Symantec (I think most PHBs have adjusted to MS lock in by now) and now that they are pretty much mopping up the utility arena what will this mean?
I like some CA products but they are too inconsistent across their whole spectrum, some of the smaller vendors offer decent tools but don't have full page ads in PC Magazine for the PHBs to read in the executive rest rooms, so can a case for having the source code be a serious marketing point now? In regards to corporate computing I would assume that IBM would jump all over this, and Sun with their "sorta' OSS" stance as well.
Perhaps they plan to do something to IE or Windows to combat spyware. After all, I doubt if they want network administrators to start requiring Firefox on all networked computers just to reduce the time removing spyware. A automated network tool that removed certain programs remotely would be much easier to deploy than installing Firefox on every machine and teaching users to use it instead.
Just the other day I was looking at the settings for a spyware removal tool I have. It was set to remove all sorts of things, not just spyware, but dialers, trojans, p2p apps, anarchy documents, scocialism docs, bomb making docs. Made me a bit concerned. I mean these guys are telling me what documents I can read. Now I dont know who they are marketing for I got a copy from my uncle who does computer repair and he said it was good. Now if they want to support a corprate enviroment yes I can see removing some documents but really I just whish they would leave my stuff alone unless it is active executable code intentionaly out to harm my system.
I have a job thanks to spyware/malware! Seriously, if it wasn't for bad crap ppl get installed on thier computer (usually from porn or kazaa), I wouldn't have a job. Where I work we get at least 4 computers PER DAY that are useless do to the HUNDREDS of malware installed. $35 diagnostic plus $30 clean up fee for each box ensures I get a paycheck each week. Its a cash cow for repair shops.
While some spyware is installed via remote exploits, most require a stupid user to get duped into running an executable or ActiveX dll. As I pointed out earlier it generally comes through when someone thinks they're getting free porn or free software. So I dont have much sympathy for them. I know plenty of windows users who have no problem using IE without infecting themselves with such apps
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
As in Anti spyware-removal?
There is almost no general "spyware". Sorry, this is just plain incorrect. There is a lot of general spyware. It runs as another process and doesn't depend on IE at all. Take GAIN (Gator) for example... it brings up its own windows with ads in them, IE not necessary at all. Often this software is bundled with stuff like Kazaa or other P2P software and installed silently.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
It's taken them years and millions of attacks (i don't think that's to high) and they're FINALLY doing something about it. Way to keep up with the game M$.
- freaking boneheads at M$ create crappy software, then spend $billions in acquiring companies marketing products to fix M$'s bad software in the first place?
- what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is going on in the software industry?
- have people lost their minds?
of course. because goodness knows spyware doesn't affect windows nt (or 95 for that matter), and no one uses them anymore anyway.
right?
Well I guess if you can't fix your own bugs, just buy someone who can eh?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
...items....
Now think again why MS would want such a anti-spyware product.
MS needs to fix and upgrade IE as part of any attempt to fix the problem. No question. But the need for spyware removal tools is still there.
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Dear Microsoft,
Why don't you just fucking fix IE?
Regards,
The Rest of the Internet
I think they'll wrap it into the MSN product, rather than using the acquisition to improve Windows as a whole.
It would be a natural response to AOL 9.0.
GIANT Software makes a product called Spam Inspector, and up until about 6 months ago, it was one of the best anti-spam products for Outlook. Then they started to demand yearly fees to use the program (when they originally sold it as a one-time payment.)
So yeah, I ditched the program and found Spambayes, and I haven't had a complaint. I'm bummed I wasted money on SpamInspector, though.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
...is that it was a move to generate the worlds most ironic headline :
"Microsoft acquires Giant Company"
IMHO, it's only a "good thing" from a relative standpoint. Sure, it's "good" that MS realizes spyware is enough of a problem that they decide to buy out someone who has already been working hard to solve the problem. (From a few recent comments I read over on ArsTechnica after they posted a spyware-testing article, Giant's product is supposedly quite good. In fact, arguably the best available right now, of the non-freeware spyware removers.)
As the parent poster pointed out though, this stuff isn't even an issue for non-Windows users. I'm using my PowerMac G5 tower right now, and it's rather nice not to have to wait while my anti-virus package loads up (further cluttering up a crowded system tray), and then having to wait while the thing does its automatic updates every day or two. No spyware/malware worries either. Just boot up and go....
I do PC on-site service calls for a living (Mac too, on the odd occasion we get them), and I can honestly say that virus/spyware issues generate the vast majority of my income right now. From that angle, I guess I should be happy there's such a big problem. But somehow I'm not... I often tell my customers about the Macintosh alternative (both the good and the bad), and at least 40% of the time or so, they decide it really sounds like it's "right up their alley" and they consider one for their next system purchase.
Call me crazy or whatever... but after 14 years of working with computers, I just feel like it should be as enjoyable an experience for people as possible. Using as much as 30% of your CPU time running background tasks like firewalls, virus scanners and anti-spyware packages seems so unnecessary....
According to this article, M$ hasn't ruled out the possibility of charging for security applications.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10146
So, let me see if I understand this, M$ produces security lax software and then is going to charge money to make it secure.
Kinda sounds like, "You should pay us money to protect you so something terrible doesn't happen to you..."
1. Develop crappy exploitable browser and distribute browser for free.
2. Refuse to seriously fix free browser.
3. Buy anti-virus and anti-spyware companies.
4. Sell anti-virus product to clean up after your free crappy exploitable brower.
5. Use monopoly desktop OS position to drive-out the competition.
6. Profit.
Typical Microsoft.
M$-lacky 1: Hey, we need a web authoring tool, who's out there?
M$-lacky 2: Some company has this product called Frontpage.
M$-lacky 1: BUY IT!
M$-lacky 1: Hey, we need a spyware tool thingy, who's the best out there?
M$-lacky 2: Uh, Giant was rated the best in recent online reviews.
M$-lacky 1: BUY IT!
. . . and THEN, they sit on it, with no development work or innovation, or. . . So, what has M$ just done?
They've Killed Kenny!!!
For crying out loud, the product is ALREADY out there. It ALREADY works on Windows. WTF do they mean by a new beta that will work on Windows. The DAMN THING ALREADY WORKS ON WINDOWS. They are going to f**K it up BIG TIME.
So much for the best anti-spyware tool available for Windows (at a price)
Guess I'm back to using -only- Spybot S&D
--who, me angry? hmm, why YES, considering I just moved to Giant because it works GREAT! along with Spybot; keeps itself updated better, great interface, stops more crap, etc. Damn Microsoft--
if someone can explain how spyware get into your system?
Looking for porn? Looking for free software? Cracks? p2p file sharing?
I think those people really deserve that crap and I am amazed they complain about the product they are damaging with their immoral behaviour.
Microsoft bought a company that produces software designed to uninstall malware from it's operating system. Shouldn't Microsoft have enough mastery of it's own OS to do this internally? Sad, sad, sad.
Free as in "free admission, two drink minimum"?
Debian's system of human readable files and symlinks is a model of simplicity and transparency. Nothing could be easier than understanding exactly what is started and starting or stopping programs. Nothing is particularly difficult about reading the /etc/rc directories or typing, "/etc/init.d/program_name start|stop|restart" but there are plenty of runlevel editors and other GUI programs to help you out.
The registry has no set structure, so any vendor can add any mixed binary or text they want. It must be accessed though GUI tools or a hex editor. A single byte wrong will blue screen your whole computer, so it's not only obscure it's dangerous.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Let's look at past trends. Whenever Microsoft buys a company, they take its product, and over time, make it increasingly worse, or decreasingly better, depending on your point of view. Take speedisk, for example. Microsoft bought that and turned it into defrag... And it promptly turned into a piece of junk, in my opinion. (Well, this whole post is my opinion, but the last sentence was more so.)
The question I pose is this: Will this anti-spyware actually be effective anymore, or will it lose its effectiveness due to various reasons, such as:
- Since this is Microsoft we're talking about, it will probably be integrated into the OS kernel, or some other place where it doesn't belong. This means that it will be included with every copy of Windows. All the spyware makers have to do is figure out its weaknesses, and find ways to work around it. Voila... spyware will continue to get through.
- Due to the above, Microsoft will release patches. But knowing Microsoft, these will be few and far between.
- Since this spyware engine will be included with Windows, other spyware removal makers will simply go out of business, a la Netscape... Oh, wait.
- Even if Microsoft releases patches to stay ahead of the spyware makers, the latter parties will probably be more agile than Microsoft, to borrow a treasured piece of marketroidspeak. This means that they will release new spyware faster than Microsoft can release patches, a la virus authors being faster than McAfee and the like.
Oh well... I have to give 'em credit for trying. But I really think that the key to solving these problems begins with making better software in the first place. I'm not even talking about completely auditing and fixing every bug in Windows, a la OpenBSD... But there are literally thousands of settings, some great in their scope, and some small and obscure. Many are scattered throughout the registry; others are scattered in the 2GB+ that make up the Windows directory in the "default install" (as if there's any other install). Microsoft does not provide a coherent interface to modify these settings, and for a company with some $60+BILLION(USD) to throw around, I think I am entitled to ask for something better.Therefore, the scope of this post greatly exceeds the specific problem of spyware, though it be a big problem, and addresses some of the larger issues surrounding the misconfiguration of Windows in its default install and the difficulty of reconfiguring it with saner settings.
But hey, I give 'em credit for trying.
The most telling thing to me about the story is (I am speculating now but it's at least marginally logical) that they had to outsource the anti spyware remedy programming expertise all the way to purchasing a specialty company (its developers). That says to me they actually hadn't a clue of how to go about it in-house, but you know they probably tried, and therefore probably failed at it..not really awe inspiring consider the rep and cred they constantly try to maintain as the worlds premier software company. I see it as an embarassment for them, but they will spin it to look like a "shrewd business move" or something and legions of PHB will go along with that.
It's still needed though, that I will grant. About time and stuff. Seems like some time back they also bought an antivir company which they will be charging for IIRC.
Many of Microsoft's security flaws are self imposed. ActiveX and security zones in IE, for example. Eager to make the web another Windows application zone, they introduced ActiveX. Wanting to crush Netscape because they could possibly make Microsoft Windows irrelavent in the future, they integrated IE into Windows, and that required security zones. I won't lay the blame entirely on Microsoft for the viruses and worms, but I will lay it on them for the drive-by install of spyware that every IE user has to beware of. In their efforts to destroy competition, they opened their customers up to this.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Has anyone tried to download this program since Microsoft has acquired Giant Company? Every single link I have found to any pre-Microsoft versions have been taken down.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Microsoft..make sure that the spyware doesn't delete and remove window$ itself.
#2. There are far more options than
a. "riddled with spyware"
and
b. "100% bug free"
Linux is not "100% bug free" but its security model is far better than Microsoft's and, as a result, it is far less likely to be infected.I'm sure they do, for a suitable definition of "Knowledgeable".
Or, to put it another way, there are lots and Lots and LOTS of infected Windows machines out there so maybe the requirements to be considered "Knowledgeable" are a little too extreme?But there is a continuum there, not a binary state.
Sure, security might be a "problem", right below hard drive crashes and CPU fan failures.
The idea is to remove/reduce the potential threats so that your system is not cracked within 10 minutes of going online.That is correct. But there are LOTS of bullets available that Microsoft is ignoring.
The biggest is to change IE from an "allow everything except what is specifically denied" security model to one such as Firefox's "deny everything except what is specifically allowed".
Sure, a "knowledgeable user" could configure both systems to have the same, effective security, but as I've stated before, there doesn't seem to be a lot of those "knowledgeable" users around.
The second biggest thing is to TURN OFF UN-NECESSARY SERVICES. Look at a stock Win2000 or WinXP machine and see all the services that are on by default.Yep. But the least Microsoft can do is to make their system as secure as possible.
Cracking is all about access.
If the bad guys cannot get access to your system (no ports open), then they lose an entire avenue of attack.
But in the free software world, the user gets the freedom to share and modify the programs, any time they want and for any purpose, without ever having to reveal to anyone what they did or why. This freedom allows the user to decide where they want to buy their support or to learn the program enough to provide their own support. Neither of those options are possible with proprietary software. Hence, it is quite different from what any proprietor (not just Microsoft) is offering.
What proprietors do is a time-honored social problem of creating a problem and (eventually) providing a "solution". You don't get the freedom to break out of that dependency until you get away from proprietary software.
Digital Citizen
http://www.pchell.com/support/aboutblank.shtml
I hate cool web search and others like that. But mostly, I hate Microsoft for allowing an app to hide a file from me when I'm running as local administrator.
And why the hell does only RegLite show the file? What is it with Microsoft's continuing desire to hide files (and extensions) from me?
Great. So now I'll have another reason to hit Windows Update on a daily basis.
This is a band-aid to the real problem which is Microsoft's flawed security model.
If they would fix that, then I wouldn't be dependent upon so many daily signature updates.
...and even better when it turns out the prostitute has crabs too.
The number one reason people buy new PCs (usually with a bundled version of Windows) is because 'the old one is so slow'. They don't realize that a wipe and re-install of their current OS will solve this 95% of the time. (I know this, as my side-business is 'mr friendly computer fixer guy' - I have people asking me if they should upgrade their 900MHz email/web-browsing machines)
Now, are you going to tell me that M$ is going to release a piece of software that prevents or delays the above scenario? I think not.
The AV and spyware products will NOT make it into any incarnation of Windows (EVER) and they will all be shelved permanently.
When M$ buys a company that produces software that reduces the requirement to 'upgrade', it is merely for the purposes of making that software 'go away'.
Microsoft distributes a buggy OS and withholds the freedom for users to inspect how it works, modify it to work better, and distribute the improved version. Users need these freedoms to make their computers work for them, even if they're not programmers themselves (in which case they can benefit from software freedom by running software others inspected, improved, and distributed).
From the perspective of software freedom, Microsoft isn't evil, but they are denying users their freedoms users deserve, and they employ obstructionist policies instead of competing, and that is anti-social behavior.
It's important not to judge them purely on the basis of features because this ignores a far more socially important issue of how people ought to treat each other. Placing people in positions of dependency where nobody can provide their own support or help their community by distributing improved versions of the software is something we should not overlook.
Digital Citizen
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/0,14179,2654011,00.html
I don't have a problem with Microsoft bundling apps, particularly good apps. As long as I can remove them and replace them with ones I like.
But putting in intentionally cripped software?
What better way to spy on your customers than to own the spyware they use?! Conveniently designed to prevent others from spying, but to allow MS to spy!
Knowledgeable users know this and make use of hardware and software firewalls, antivirus apps and spyware detection apps.
"Sure, I leave the front door to my house unlocked, but I keep the bedroom door locked".
You should stop the problem before it reaches the OS, not apply bandaid solutions after the fact.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I've used Clam, and it doesn't really seem to be antivirus, more virus detection. It really feels like the only reason it's available on Linux is to run in various scripts to do server based virus checking on incoming email.
Not gunning against open source with this... I think this just proves that Linux really has almost no need for antivirus software.
First we create a vehicle to allow malware in, now instead of closing those holes, we purchase a software company that cleans 60% or so of the malware/spyware and we ... charge for it?
They aren't buying it because they want to take security seriously. Look at the projections of what the antispyware industry will be up to in just a few years.
Wait... So there are still people running IE?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Now you have one less opponent to worry about taking out your own spywares in your furture OSes.
/.
As usual, history repeats itself:
1. Accquire your opponents (strategically speaking)
2. Let it dies or sitting there doing nothing useful
3. Start offering your own (crappy) spyware removal solution
4. Start incorporating your own spyware
5. The crappy solution will NOT remove your own spyware, however, and people (Dell?) complains.
6. Make the spyware part of your OS and claim it an integrated feature that must not be removed
7. DOJ, Dell, us users can't do a damn thing about it, aside from whining in
QED
Another blow to Linux!!
You Linux backers don't WANT Microsoft to improve security in Windows, just as you didn't WANT them to improve stability, because it hurts your crusade (just as Firefox does, but you're to blind to see that). LOL
It started when microsoft created Visual Basic way back when.
They invented this new thing called a VBX.
a VBX was basicly a custom control in a DLL file and had hooks where VB could talk to the control and where the control could talk to VB.
The VBX evolved along with Visual Basic through versions 2,3 and 4 on the 16 bit platform.
Also, some other programs (including 16 bit versions of Visual C++) were able to embed VBX files.
Next we have OLE. This started out with OLE 1.0 and advanced to OLE 2.0 and to COM. The OCX (as it was known) developed from a merger between the VBX and OLE. It started out as a way to embed controls into an app just like a VBX. There was a 16 bit version of the OCX (that never took off) and the 32 bit version.
The ActiveX control is the evolution of the OCX.
ActiveX controls are NOT bad, they are a good idea.
What was a bad idea was implementing support into Internet Explorer for embedding ActiveX controls. And for implementing VBScript to talk to those controls.
I have yet to see one use of ActiveX on the internet that could not be done some other way.
Thankfully, I seem to be able to avoid ActiveX controls in my own use, the only place I have seen them lately is on some Microsoft sites.
As for those who say that some banks and such use ActiveX, well if I found a secure site that required IE to function, I would take my business elsewhere.
I'm a Linux newbie, just installed Redhat 8.0 (that's what I had media for). Now how do I update it without manually resolving dependencies, and without paying Redhat or Novell to do it for me? I want an OS that is free, as in beer and as in don't waste my time. This is pretty easy to do with Windows, but it seems kind of convoluted with Linux.
Many, many years ago, I picked up a casette tape that claimed it would (subliminaly) help you to quit smoking. I bought it for sport, and found that after 2 days I had cut down to 3-4 smokes a day, from 3-4 packs a day (I was running a resteraunt). After 6 days the very idea of a smoke just seemed idiotic and repulsive (thank god I'm over that now). After 6 weeks or so, I stopped listening to the tape and gave it to an employee who said she wanted to quit. I moved on in life and started smoking again. Over a period of about 8 years I tried intermittently to find another copy of the tape as I am now spending close to $400/mo on the evil weed. The last year that I searched I found on the web (it had finally been invented) a series of links that convince me that the terminoligy used in the subliminals, title, claims, etc, had been bought out, patent wise, by a legal firm that made it's lions share of profits by representing, among 2 other clients, the largest tobacco company in Canada. They also had a sub in America (that big piece of dirt under us) and 2 in the U.K. I've never seen that tape again, although I constantly keep an eye out, but damn! I've probably sent two houses up in smoke (American dollars) since.
....
Jeez, what made me think of this?
Good, M$ is finaly getting seriouse about
Giant AntiSpyware? Who the fuck are they? Never heard of those nowhere, are you working for Microsoft and trying to pose as a Slashdot Geek so that the message gets by?
Linux port? AFAIK, there isn't one.
I use both Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot S&D.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
How long has their 'security first' initative been going on? They must not be getting anywhere, because they now have to aquire their security apps.
First of all SP2 has introduced a lot of new security features such as the Windows security centre. This includes a built in firewall which is turned on by default.
I also think its a good thing that Microsoft has aquired this company and it says to me that Microsoft is really serious about security. Perhaps this is part of a long term strategy to introduce auto spyware removal into the Windows security centre? - now that really would be progress.
I have the feeling that this is very bad news... unless you're a SpyWare manufacturer. Basically, if Microsoft bundles an Anti-spyware package with Windows, then after a few years there will be no third-party market for Anti-spyware apps and all the others will disappear leaving only Microsoft's product. The same is likely to happen to Anti-virus software. Don't believe me? How many commercial alternatives to Internet Explorer are there? Not many! Fortunately, we do have people who are dedicated enough to create FOSS competitors to many commercial products, so all is not lost.
return 0; }
you run a legit copy of xp on your dell from your mums basement you idiot
From the article: The tool will be configurable to block known spyware and other unwanted software from being installed on the computer.
I guess this 'unwanted software' includes Firefox, Mozilla, Thunderbird et al ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
The reason the Mac lacks spyware is security due to obscurity. Macs make up a very small percentage of the desktop market. Hell, everything except Windows makes up a small percentage, given that Windows is above 90% marketshare.
Well the crapware authors are out to target the most people they can, after all it's a quick buck that drives them to do what they do. So targeting the big dog is the way to go. However if MacOS becomes large, then ther'll go after it as well.
I think that some people have a little skewed view of spyware in that they seem to confuse it with viruses/trojans. They think that the only reason it gets on a system is sneaking on through security holes. No, that's not how it works at all. Most spyware comes in the front door, not the back. It piggybacks on programs that users want. Could be some silly program to grab pictures off the net for backgrounds, could be a file sharing program, etc.
The thing is, no OS can offer a defense against this. If the person running the computer has root/admin access, they can do whatever they like, including fuck up the computer. You can't have an OS that protects users against themselves while still allowing them access to do whatever they like. You can put up superficial barriers, like not running as root and asking for a password when privledge elevation is needed, but again the user must be responsible for security. They have to check out an app and make sure that it's kosher, since it'll want to elevate to install either way.
So if you choose to run on a minority platform as a means of prevention, that's a fine method. However recognise that the reason it provides prevention is the fact it's a minority.
Also if you have a system that needs 30% CPU to run a firewall/AV program, you either need a drastic upgrade, or you need to nto screw things up. Currently, my computer has been on for about 32 hours. In that time, the AV program (AVG) has used 4 seconds of CPU time (0.00003%) and the firewall (Kerio) has used 27 seconds of CPU time (0.00023%). This is on a P4 2.4ghz, so nothing even approaching the fastest available. The GUI on a Mac (Aqua) uses far more. AV/FWs simply aren't heavy hitters given the power of a modern processor.
It is quite apparent that MS security initiative is not going as planned. They have to actually acquire other companies to combat their design flaws with in their software. I have a question, why don't they fix the problem instead of paying for work-arounds.
In the mean time, what does this mean: We have Symantec buying Veritas so that they can diversify their product offerings. Wall street might have a hissy fit because, quite frankly, they have no clue about the technology sector, PERIOD. Now, lets analyze history. In close to 30 years of doing business with MS, I have see companies bought, technologies integrated and competition go out of business. Yes, Wall Street you bunch of fucktards!! MS has bought a virus company (RAV) and a Sypware Removal company. These compete with some of the basic offerings of Symantec and McAfee. One of these major Giants (no pun intended) is going to hit the hard times if they don't evolve.
MS hasn't learned a damn thing. They will keep buying companies that have niche markets created by their products. Its funny, when you have 90 percent of the market, a niche market becomes an industry. Look at:
1) Virus
2) Spyware / AdWare
Wall street hasn't learned because Symantec's stock price should have gone up not down. Well, historically, the buying companies stock prices have gone up. With the trend over the last 10-15 years, it has been reversed. This is a smart move from Symantec and those wacky financial bastards are too stupid to realize it.
Customers haven't learned because:
1) They keep downloading and installing junk.
2) They use various virus sponges (Windows, Internet Explorer).
The prices of OS' are going on its way up. Put on your seatbelts it's going to be an interesting ride.
They probably bought the company since it was cheaper than buying licenses for all of their machines at Redmond :)
...buy it!
first, it disables IE, then Outlook Express and Outlook 2003, then Windows Media Player, then MSN Messenger, then... Windows XP! Error 0x30a8 r93x038 Windows can't boot properly due to a missing file: msspy.exe in folder system32 Please call Microsoft or re-install Windows XP.
Just after the glowing review of Giant spyware remover (http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm), it's announced MS is buying it. With all the FUD, propaganda, and fake TCO studies regularly spewed from Redmond and its minions, this makes me wonder about that review a bit. How objective is that reviewer? Was the story a plant?
Wow, the guys at Giant must have spent some time signing up for all these slashDot accounts, to say how great the product was. I've never even HEARD of giant before this announcement, and now it turns out it's always been the best product since sliced bread? I doubt.
It seem to me that people at MS were reading the ad about Firefox being a good alternative as a browser.
Why else would this happen just a day after the ad?
Now they can say that things are also going to be working(mayby 2k7, no need to install Firefox at this moment) with their products.
I wonder how long Linspire (formerly known as Lindows) is asked by customers to include a spyware removal tool. After all, they included VirusSafe in their Linux distribution. While totally unnecessary, customers just wanted anti-virus protection.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
"If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
Common sense has been replaced by television!
let's not fix the source of the problem but lets just sell more stuff so we can line our pockets. who cares about the consumer and giving them a better product just make them buy more and give us their money. and active X should be outlawed. it is nothing but a piece of shit.
Typically Microsoft buys a company so that they can take the technology and add it to their existing products. I would guess the at some point in the future we would see some anti-spyware tools as a part of the Windows OS family. That would be a typical MS move.
As I recall, anytime I foolishly have tried to use one of the many microsoft programs it will do it's very best to try to take over my computer until I come to my senses and spend the huge effort of removing it from my computer. Music or video software that tries to kill winamp and other programs. Software that drms things I rip off of my own CD's. Their browser breaking netscape (back in the day). This program, after Microsoft finishes 'improving' it will kill or disable Ad Aware, Spybot, or anything else you might have on your computer to battle all that spyware that comes onboard through those defective Microsoft programs in the first place. Don't think I'll be trying this one anytime soon. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
You forgot one thing, MS doesn't sell the hardware you suggest that they have an interest in you buying. They don't have anything to gain by you purchasing a new PC. They have a lot more to gain by addingthis to their existing OS's and reaping the public gratitude for it as the ONLY OS manufacturer to do so. How could anyone possibly bash them for providing a solution that everyone else wants you to buy? I am sure some people will find some way to complain about it, but the reality is that it cannot hurt the situation with respect to the spyware problem, it can only help.
First off, Spyware didn't even exist at the time that Windows 98 was made. I would suggest that if you are being infected on a clean install, that you trash your stolen copy of the OS and go buy a real one. ISO downloads are quite often infected by spyware, trojans and such. So I wouldn't be surprised if you were having that problem.
As they say, An ounce of prevention is more valuable than a pound of cure. Why don't they fix the hole in Internet Explorer rather than implement software to remove exploits? Oh thats right! It's not a security hole, it's a feature.
I wonder if this marks the beginning of the end of the anti-spyware industry. In the past when microsoft has entered a software industry, it has meant the end of the competition. I can see it now, the next patch of Windows will have hidden routines that only Microsofts spyware removal software can access that makes it the most efficient software available at removing syware. At the same time, other routines will cause the OS to lock up or crash when running a competitors software. I no time Microsoft will own the market.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
30%!? What are you running, an apple IIe?
On a PIII with 512MB ram, which is very modest by today's standards:
SpybotSD.exe(Spybot) - Max 3% cpu, 3.8MB ram
Avg Antivirus Processes (5 processes)- Max 0% cpu, 31MB ram
Sygate Personal Firewall (SPF.exe) - Max 4% cpu, 10MB ram, with a saturated network connection (Bittorent) 325KB/S Down and 35KB/S Up
Totals: 7% cpu usage, 44.8MB ram
The antivirus and spybot update themselves and scan at midnight, every night, while im asleep, so they don't interfere with my usage. Plus I bought this machine for $100 WITH a warranty from ACER. Show me a Mac that I can get for that and you can have this computer!
"There are some linux viruses...."
But none that spread without the user's active participation. Every single Linux virus that has ever been written requires:
1) The user to be root.
2) The user to explicitly download and save the file.
3) The user to explicitly set the execute attribute on the downloaded file.
4) The user to explicitly run the downloaded file after performing steps 1-3 above.
There have been precisely zero successful Linux viruses -- ever. They have all been lab experiments that have all failed without the above four steps being taken.
You find it "refreshing" to see Microsoft try to capitalize on a problem they themselves caused? You don't pay very much attention, do you?
Don't you think it's a little fishy that a company like Microsoft releases software with all sorts of holes, then sells you the software to fix it? I'm not sure what this business practice is called, but it's very much akin to a pharmaceutical company selling the cure for a disease they created in the first place.
But malware still gets installed, or did, rather, until we mandated the use of FireFox and disallow using IE.
While many holes are fixed in XP SP2, our windows users are running 2000, and there are still many known holes. Allowing IE leads to malware infection. Disallowing IE prevents it. You do the math.
Another thing... "Trusted Computing" is NOT necessary to prevent the user from installing software that cannot be removed. This would really only require two things. Installation of packages via a Windows packaging system, so Windows could keep track of _everything_ that gets installed on the system. Disallow the execution of any executables not installed via the packaging system. Prevent the alteration of executable files, via permissions of some sort.
It would also help to have a single place for startup programs.
That software can be installed that the user can't remove is simply ridiculous.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I actually just ran a head-to-head test of Ad-Aware and GIANT-AS for my school.
I had two laptops infected from the self-loading spyware websites and loaded a bunch of manually installed spyware (the ones usually packaged with P2P programs and such) and then ran the two anti-spyware programs.
GIANT-AS
Files: 51
Registry: 279
Cookies: 7
Total: 337 pieces of spyware
Lavasoft
Files: 87 (including cookies)
Registry: 79
Total: 166 pieces of spyware
Lavasoft Ad-Aware found 53 objects GIANT missed. GIANT found 171 objects Lavasoft missed.
Ad-Aware appears to just clean enough components out of spyware to disable them while GIANT seems a little more obsessive. On the other hand, each antispyware program seems to have areas of specialty that the other doesn't. From my test, it seems that Ad-Aware picked up files (and not just cookies) that GIANT doesn't and GIANT picks up registry snippets that Ad-Aware ignores. Both programs have a hard time with trojans that make a point of hiding or overwhelming the CPU during anti-spyware scans. Incidentally, Spybot is a decent concept with a lot of cool free features but it's not updated often enough to be considered a legitimate contender.
Regardless, one should use a combination of passive and active products. On Windows XP machines, I like a combination of SP2, Zone-Alarm, Proxomitron, Spyware Blaster, and Ad-Aware. I've gone for months without anything worse than a few cookies.
I've already implemented my own antispyware software: Linux.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
... when they acquire Gator or someone like that.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
I have had very little in the way of spyware, viruses, etc. But then, I don't use XP. I have simple ways I avoid these problems.
1. On a PC:
- firewall in the DSL router (amazing how much crap that stops)
- Zone Alarm
- don't use Outlook. The only time I used the laptop for mail was out of town, and for that I was getting my mail via Webmail through my ISP.
- use Mozilla
- run Windows Me! Believe it or not, XP has had far more security problems. Yeah, I know it's supposed to be the worst ever, but it works for me.
- don't be stupid. Remember, always, that an executable can do ANYTHING. Be suspicious. No, be paranoid.
2. On a Mac (my main machine):
- um, what was the problem again? Yeah, the DSL firewall is there, but it doesn't seem to be needed, as I've done email and browsing at hotspots. I use Safari and Mail, along with OpenOffice. Oh yeah, and never apply Apple updates as soon as they come out. It's gotten ugly.
Interesting thing with the PC. I went on a consulting job with an old laptop running Windows Me. I was told I'd need to use my laptop on their network, but when I got there, they wanted to check it for viruses. So some guy loaded up a virus checker, which ran for 3 hours. It found NOTHING. Of course, then they didn't like the old Windows version I was running.
The only virus that laptop ever had was the virus checker. It took me an hour to clean that crap off my machine.
If its a question of how to treat people, then try this on for size: I have no rights, nor do I deserve, to access any work product, schematics, or source code that was used to build a product made and owned by somebody else. Unless I purchase that right or they extend it freely, that is. Since Microsoft has done neither, they retain property rights over their source. Just because it is software doesn't mean that basic property rights do not apply. In other words, I don't agree with the GNU Project's argument. Users do no have rights to software they didn't make. If they want those rights, they should use Linux and play an active role. They have right to choose, and an overwhelming majority choose software that is provided contrary to the GNU ethic. We have neither the right to someone else's property (or to dictate the terms under which they will make it available, nor do we have the right to force users to choose according to any ideology other than a shallow assessment of whether a product does what they need and is affordable.
I choose to use Linux for the majority of what I do in computing because I *want* to have access, freedom, etc. I choose to use distributions that give me the features I need, and I really couldn't care less if they mix proprietary apps in with the GPLed stuff.
As for placing people in positions of dependency, some of the onus must lie with users who refuse to learn new skills or attempt to treat complex technology as if it was a simple appliance. Human beings are reliant on each other, and those who do not know and either refuse or do not have time to know must rely on those who do. This applies to all technology, specialized knowledge, and other aspects of social interaction. For example, I don't think you would argue that the requirement for translators when conducting business internationally is somehow wrong, even though domestic CEO A may be forced to rely on an interpreter to communicate with foreign CEO B.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Are you guys missing this?
This really is "typical Microsoft" - they buy an anti-spyware company, integrate it into the operating system, and release it for free. No one bother with real spyware companies, because their computers already have one, and anything that MS "misses" or (heaven forbid) allows through will still be on their machines...
Then sit back, and hope the issue goes away "because I've already got anti-spyware, why should I have to download something else? And of course the computer is protected from spyware, see, I've got this program..."
Step 6, Profit! - no, wait, that's the wrong post.
In the end, more people will be using a MS product and the monopoly expands.
--LWM
Wouldn't the money spent be more wisely used it if went for software engineers tasked to fix the 150,000+ bugs in windows?
Just a thought.
Look at this link:l quest.h tml
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/1216lega
"Legal questions dog Microsoft anti-spyware buy"
I would have preferred them focusing on making Windows less of a fertile breeding ground for malware rather than turning this into a game of whack-a-mole.
Also, this is reality. In the short term the acquisition means nothing at all to the consumer. What this means in the longer run remains to be seen.
Not to mention Giant Anti-spyware's integrated reporting feature (SpyNet). It'll make it easier to enforce DRM to have a program that could potentially find questionable items and report back to MS. Considering Longhorn's proposed already mighty strict treatment concerning DRM.
And people will run this software because it's GOOD for them. Ah, yes. How easily we submit to a courteous request to ass-rape us (presented with much romance and hullaballoo, of course).
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Bet you it will let Microsloth's adware get thru and any other goodies it can make $$$$ on. The best spyware removal will come from outside of Microsloth's company. Like spybot search and destroy which is free. Not to mention it is the best removal tool according to most major PC magazines
Danger Will Robinson! You are now entering a condescending Unix user zone!
Can you imagine the boardroom discussion on how this took place?
VP: Man, there are sure a lot of anti-spyware companies out there.
BillG: Spyware?
VP: You know, those virus that get installed because of the lax security in IE and OE.
BillG: You mean you want us to spend money to fix the holes? We can't afford to lose that much revenue; my gold-plated toilet paper alone costs me nearly $3 million a month.
VP: No. I guess not. But those anti-spyware companies sure make a lot of money retro-actively plugging the holes.
BillG: MONEY! They are making MONEY! We need to get in there quick! It will take too long to write our own code, so go out there and buy one of those companies.
VP: But with that firefox thing becomming popular, spyware may become much rarer.
BillG: Don't worry about that, we can always add something in the next version of windows we sell to those sheep, and then they will have to buy a new version of our anti-spyware software. Double income, you gotta love it!
VP: Isn't that a little unethical?
BillG: Ethics? Your fired!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
ever heard of lion?
ok, technically a worm, not a virus, but still a malignant program that spread through linux systems without any user intervention. there have been others, too.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
banks announced plans to charge security fees.
"Current banking fees only allow you to place your money in the bank; they do not cover anything else. For extra peace of mind, we will offer customers a security package that protects the money they wish to keep in our bank. Initially this package will be free...
Microsoft has a history of creating categories of software because the security of their system is so horrendous to start with. Two entire industries have grown up around MS software that are mostly irrelevant for other platforms - antivirus software and spyware software. Of course, such software exists on other systems, but it's hardly the neccessity that it is on Windows.
The fact that they are buying a solution to patch the current problem, INSTEAD of going back and examining what they did that lead up to it and correcting that in future versions of Windows, is just proof that they STILL don't take security seriously.
"ever heard of lion? ok, technically a worm, not a virus...."
Hence my statement that there has never been a successful virus written for Linux is still correct.
Lion and Ramen exploited a very specific flaw in very specific server software in very specific versions of Red Hat Linux, and managed to ever compromise only a handful of machines. Contrast this with most Windows infections where Windows is working exactly as Microsoft intended.
Worms won't be of concern to non-technical Linux desktop users since they won't have any server processes running. Explicit user action is still required for a Linux desktop to be harmed by malicious programs.
hey this reminds me of the cigarette manufacturers who sell the nicottine patches and gum!
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
you are technically correct, but most people don't define virus that narrowly anymore. these days pretty much everyone considers any malware to be a virus.
a better example would be the buffer overflow in mutt that allowed a milicious email message to execute an arbitrary attachment. no it was not widely exploited, because at the time not many people used mutt or even linux in general. however, it is possible to write a viable virus for linux, or at the least would be if the user community was large enough.
linux is not completely immune to virii, even if its better design makes itmuch more immune than windows. people who believe that their operating system is immune are living with a false sense of secuirty.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
What a pointless move. All these spyware/trojan/virues problems are entirely down to one thing. Microsofts brain dead design.
Throwing spyware apps at Windows is a perfect example of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". My questions for Redmond:
1 Why is the web browser integrated so tightly into the O/S ?
2 In fact why is everything so tightly integrated with everyhing else ? Why on earth does installing a user land app mean I have to reboot the machine ? It's a user level app not a kernel upgrade !
3 Why do the majority of processes run as administrator ?
4 In fact exactly what are all those those services doing running by default ? Especially the ones waiting to accept any old remote connections from the internet ?
5 Why can a unknown third party websites automatically install software (Active-X etc.) on a Windows machine ?
Windows needs to be redesigned. Full stop. Microsoft buying an anti-spyware company is simply a joke.
Having been running Linux on another machine for over a year I really do see how crap Windows really is. (not that Linux is perfect but the basic principles are sound !)
How stupid does MS think it's customers are ? Oh wait... time to go back under my rock...
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
These are first steps, but they are not enough and you should not expect M$ to fix their problems. The only way to keep malware/spyware off your system is to own it and only get your software from trusted sources, such as Debian. Microsoft is so keen on DRM and pleasing others that they will never give you real ownership of any computer you put their software on. The ability to read your files and add/remove "components" without your permission is part of their EULA. If they can do it, so can others and the story will never end. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes it is a conflict of interest. It's typical.
If you read this carefully, you might conclude that Bill Gates has been fixing the things he breaks since he was in high school. He and his buddies broke the first computer they were allowed to use and then hired themselves out to fix it:
Bill Gates, Paul Allen and, two other hackers from Lakeside formed the Lakeside Programmers Group in late 1968. They were determined to find a way to apply their computer skills in the real world. The first opportunity to do this was a direct result of their mischievous activity with the school's computer time. The Computer Center Corporation's business was beginning to suffer due to the systems weak security and the frequency that it crashed. Impressed with Gates and the other Lakeside computer addicts' previous assaults on their computer, the Computer Center Corporation decided to hire the students to find bugs and expose weaknesses in the computer system.
This was Bill Gates answer to the shortage of computing resources that existed when he was growing up. He made himself root so that he could have all the resources he wanted, essentially a robbery. The overall model applies to the software he sells to this day, there will always be something wrong with it so that you want to buy the new one. I like the answer RMS came up with better: make your own toys.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
First off, I agree with your basic premise that "most people have a skewed perspective" of how spyware gets on their PC. Like you said, much of it *does* get in when it comes attached to "freeware" programs people elect to download and install. Unfortunately, I think it's advancing past that point as virus developers get more sophisticated. I can't absolutely prove it, but I'm seeing strong evidence that some of these "trojan horse viruses" that *do* get in via Windows security holes start downloading/installing as much spyware/malware as they can once they get in. (Basically, the virus writers figured out they can do more damage and cause more frustration by installing spyware on the box than by directly causing havock themselves!)
As for your comment on the Windows security model: The main reason "most users elect to run with Administrator rights all the time" in Windows is because it's inherently designed to encourage that behavior! When you create a new user account in XP, you're initially only given *2* choices; either be an "administrator with access to install/remove programs" or a "limited user" who can't. When you present things that way, why is it surprising MOST people opt to be "administrators"? We do, after all, usually want to be able to install software on our own PC.
When I worked in corporate I.T., we ran into BIG headaches trying to force a Windows NT environment to comply with our wishes to restrict user access. In the end, it became clear the only way to administer the NT environment in a practical manner was to give all of the users administrator rights to the local workstations. Sure, the MS technical references pay "lip service" to the idea of doing things differently - but there are simply too many "gotchas" that come up as you deploy more applications on your LAN/WAN. Windows was originally based on a single-user model where the user always had full control of the machine, and it shows....
Actually, there are still a LOT of people out there trying to make use of a system with much lower specs than 512MB of RAM and a PIII processor.
I regularly do service work for people using Pentium 2 systems, often in the 266Mhz to 333Mhz range or so, and only 64MB or 128MB in most cases.
Even when people get their shiny new P4 or AMD Athlon tower, they often decide "the old machine is still good enough to use for Internet stuff" and hang onto it.
AVG Anti-Virus happens to be one of my personal favorites, largely because it doesn't take many system resource to run. Try a copy of Norton SystemWorks 2004 or 2005, by comparison! (And frankly, most people do - simply because every office supply superstore in the country wants to sell you Norton, but you can't even buy AVG retail anyplace in the U.S.)