Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft May Charge for Security Tools
rscrawford writes "CNN reports that Microsoft may charge extra for security software. So first they edge their competition out of the browser market, then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health, and now they want to CHARGE users to fix it?"
So THAT'S what Step two is. =P
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
If Microsoft were to hire on the Verizon Wireless guy, they could have him walking across the country asking "Can I screw you now?"
Yeah, sure, if starting the computer is human error. It takes what, five minutes or less, for an XP box to get riddled with viruses, Trojans, etc.? The error is Microsoft didn't ship an operating system that could remotely be considered secure. You can't connect to the network to download SP2 without risking the computer. Where's the sense in this? Where's the user error?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
And they don't see a conflict of interest here? Exactly what incentive would they have to fix security holes which are allowing malware into the machine in the first place if they are selling other products to "block" these kinds of attacks, or are they planning on charging for patches?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I mean, they were buying up security competitors as recently as Wednesday! Wouldn't that be a bit too blatant? Are they really trying to monopolize the desktop security market, or are they just trying to help cover costs in what is going to prove to be a very, very expensive area (once they start getting sued for having such a shoddy, insecure product)
What balls!
What a huge, big, heavy set of balls this company has.
Hey, let's kick them!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
The only thing in this world I have found to be sleazier than lawyers are software salesmen. This isnt isnt a new idea from Microsoft... IBM did it for years with mainframe releases. You have to have a service contract to get the updates to fix the bugs.
This problem of releasing buggy software and charging for fixes is inherent in the software world.
Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
Look at it this way. They bought an adware company because the see that this is a problem. If they suddenly "bundled" an adware solution, the zealots would say they are trying to drive adaware and spybot out of the market. But since they are selling the solution and hence giving the customers choice, they are trying to screw the customers. No matter how secure they make the OS, there WILL be people who will run as admins and click "yes" to everything. These are the solutions that they are going to sell.
It isn't the first time they've had security software either. Anyone remember MSAV.exe?
Something from the article rubbed me the wrong way:
"Spyware usually gets on your computer through human error," said Marc Maiffret of eEye Digital Security Inc., which regularly discovers serious Windows flaws.
First.. a confession: My name is kRYPT, and I used to use Internet Explorer. I used to keep it patched, and updated. I browsed on High Security. I ran Spybot S&D and Adaware regularly, and TeaTimer always.
Spyware STILL got in. Every Spybot scan would regularly reveal something nasty (normally DSO or other IE Exploits).
Perhaps it's true that most Spyware is the result of user action (such as installing shady "free" smiley-enhancing software), but _lots_ of the Spyware out there is simply a direct result of using IE.
PS: I see the spyware people are trying to attack Firefox too.. see cracks.am for an example. However, in Firefox, a nice dialog pops up, makes it perfectly clear the code that's being requested to run is unsigned and unvalidated, and makes you wait for 2 seconds before you have the chance to accept or deny installing it.
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
There are already good anti-spyware solutions available for home-users (ie Ad-aware, etc.), and I can't imagine home users shelling out a lot of money when they can get a personal version of Ad-aware for free. I suppose Microsoft is going to be targetting corporate users, but if their solutions aren't much better than companies like Ad-Aware (hopefully) corporations will go with competitors. But then again, they might just choose Microsoft because it seems like the "right thing to do" (that is, MS makes the OS, so OBVIOUSLY they should go with MS because it'll "work better" together).
Then again, if the MS anti-spyware is moderately priced and a lot of home-users do buy it, it may serve to drive the gap between richer vs poorer computer users (home users who shell out big bucks for a loaded Windows box vs users who pay a couple hundred for one of those Linux PCs that Walmart and others are selling).
But really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a separate product. They're not bundling. So what's the problem?
And there's another way this is good: TCO studies. The more extra charges you have to have from Microsoft to have a working product, the better TCO Linux has by comparison. (That is, if it's an honest comparison. But instead, what we'll probably see is bogus TCO "studies" where Microsoft looks good, but it omits the security stuff. Then when you go to actually buy it, there's these extra costs, like the auto dealers do with "dealer prep".)
Not at all. The word "help" is used in the sense of "Hi. We're from Microsoft and we're here to help... ourselves."
Let's not call this "security software", Microsoft; remember, software should simply be secure. If you have to add a qualifier like this, guess what: you're saying most of your software has nothing to do with security, and this special extra software, for extra charge, provides the security "feature".
These terminology differences really point to a philosophical difference at Microsoft, which is the root of all their problems. They really don't understand. Why should we think they ever will, at any price?
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
MS charges a fee for a necessary tool: "Charging for this? What a ripoff!" (even though their major competitors charge a fee for similar tools)
Yes, that money may have been better spent in actually fixing the items that need these security tools, but it seems like they can't win either way.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Really, this is just MS's Xmas gift to the Open Source Software movement. They've shot themselves in the toes too many times to count so far. Now they've shot themselves in the kneecap; next shot will be to the head.
I am in much the same situation as yourself, fully patched, running Ad Aware and Spybot regularly with Javascript OFF.
I was researching information on the Roman Empire and was directed by Google to a great web site. About five minutes in I notice a small pop up window that when maximized displayed a blank window. The router, modem and network lights start to blink and the hard drive begins to churn. Ugh, I realize I am the victim of drive by spyware installation on of all things a web site on Ancient Rome. If I can't protect myself given all the above safeguards, how the hell is the average person going to?
It took an hour or two of work with Ad Aware, Spybot and Hijackthis to remove the five or six pieces of spyware shit that installed from an innocuous web site. I am well and truly tired of this bullshit, Firefox here I come...
If you can't baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bullshit.
The average Windows user will feel that MS is sooo wonderful for securing their computers against the wild and wooly internet. As the Windows machines again slow down and bcome even more clunky, the solution will be to buy a newer computer, and sales people will show the buyers how economical the new PC's are compared to those sooo expensive Mac's. Doesn't sound much different than the past 20 years, and people still put up with it.