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?
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??
Even so, I still prefer my (free) SpyBot S&D which runs on Windows and Linux.
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/
The first post after the spoofing vulnerabilitiy in IE is MSFT buying their way out of their own self-created problems...
Thank you Microsoft, for valiently saving us from the dangers you created!
Microsoft: Acting more and more like a government every day.
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
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.
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...
Performing workarounds for Windows is what leads to acceptance of viruses (just buy an antivirus) and what leads to acceptance of spyware (just buy an antispyware) and what leads to acceptance of systems so bogged down by combinations of the above (just reinstall every 6 months).
It's a bit like living in a really bad neighbourhood and denying it's a problem. "Oh we're OK, we live in a safe area. As long as you put bars on all your windows, don't leave the house when it's dark, put up bullet proof windows, and don't make eye contact with the neighbours you're perfectly safe"
Apart from how it's broken, it works perfectly.
MS is fucked, but they don't mind. The consumer state of society today means MS can just tell people they need to buy something, and people will do what they're told to.
"Microsoft's tool, expected to be available within 30 days, initially will be free but the company isn't ruling out charging for future versions. 'We're going to be working through the issue of pricing and licensing," Nash said. "We'll come up with a plan and roll that out.' Microsoft's disclosure that it may eventually charge extra for Windows protection reflects a recognition inside the company that it could collect significant profits by helping to protect its customers,"
Article Source
Looks like they are investigating how much, not if.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
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"
In other news, Philip Morris acquires Pfizer's Nicotrol divison.
Story at eleven.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Did anyone else notice that EVERYONE seems to profit here? Besides the end user of course. Microsoft makes bad software and saves money on fixing security holes because they've basically got a captive audience. Advertising companies figure out how to exploit these security holes and generate revenue by throwing computers down the toilet. Anti-Spyware companies profit from getting rid of software exploiting said security holes. Microsoft turns it around fully and purchases Anti-Spyware company for... even more profit!!!
This is why I'm saving up for a PowerMac.
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.
Actually I have come up with an almost perfect solution for most people. I have a pair of scripts that use the Microsoft command line ACL tool from the 2000 server resource kit. The first one sets the downloaded program files directory to read only for everyone, and the other sets it to read for everyone and full controll for the person running the script (they obviously must have permissions on the parent container in order to be able to change the ACL's on the downloaded program files directory). Basically you normally run with read only permissions and only change to full permission to allow trusted ActiveX controlls to install. This gets you most of the protection of disabling ActiveX without breaking things like the Adobe Reader plugin. I expect Microsoft might include something like this in the next major revision of IE, there is precidense with the run as restricted user feature in XP.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make within our corporation for the last year. Relatively unsuccessfully, I might add.
Naturally, our office, which I admin and which has about 100 PC users, is almost completely a Firefox shop. Malware was a serious problem when I arrived, and after implementing a centralized antivirus setup and switching everyone to Firefox, support calls have dwindled to nearly nothing, and the few calls I have gotten were those few sneaky users who thought that they could get away with using IE behind my back.
I was in a corporation-wide IT meeting last month, and I brought up using Firefox. Apparently the help desks for other offices are totally swamped. So the head IT guy asks me if switching has affected malware infection rate, so I told him the same thing I mentioned above. The room was totally silent; these guys were shocked. The meeting ended with a decision to start "testing" Firefox, but a few people were outright hostile to the idea at all. As far as I'm aware, they still haven't even given the "testing" idea a second thought, even though their malware problem continues to grow.
But the big thing stopping us from going to Firefox completely is our damn intranet apps. We've poured millions into these half-assed ActiveX programs that require IE. I mean, WTF? Why on Earth would you write a web-based application that requires a specific OS (Windows), a specific browser (IE), and a specific processor (i386)? It's madness! Sure, you could argue that application updates can still be done centrally, but even this they've fucked up-- every time an update comes out, we have to remove the program manually from "C:\windows\downloaded program files". Talk about living in the dark ages!
Anyhow... I'm guessing that this is the big reason why Microsoft doesn't just axe the whole ActiveX thing-- this would be a nightmare for many an IT manager. Not to mention-- look at where ActiveX came from: it started as OLE, became COM, and is now becoming .NET. MS has dumped tons of cash into a flawed piece of software, and thousands of programmers know how to write software for it.
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....
#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.
Well, until the average person realizes how crooked this is, its one hell of a business plan. You have to give it to them, they're pretty close to mastering the art of screwing your customers.
Its almost like a drug dealer who also owns the rehab center.
In a fit of bizarre insight, it occurs to me that perhaps until Linux does have problems with spyware, it hasn't proven itself ready for the desktop.
More as an indicator really, if ad companies think there's money in exploiting linux, then linux has obviously made the grade!
I think it's probably only a matter of time before linux viruses and spyware become more prevalent. This is a testament to the success of linux and the evil bastartude of the advertising industry.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.