Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases AntiSpyware Program
Nathan Weinberg writes "Microsoft released this morning Microsoft AntiSpyware, the product of last month's acquisition of GIANT. As I write in my report on my site, the program is very powerful, and certainly measures up to and may even beat Spybot and Ad-Aware. However, it's also pretty buggy, and Microsoft might have already sneaked in a pay subscription service."
This is just scary:
1. Release buggy browser
2. Sell antispyware software
3. Profit?
Direct and indirect download links
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Professional Edition , Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Windows 2000 Service Pack 3, Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, Windows XP Home Edition , Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition , Windows XP Service Pack 1, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Great, go windows 98!
I guess all of my relatives will keep using ad-aware and spybot, they refuse to buy a new computer to check their email with.
Runnin' On Empty
So i would expect this version to be pretty solid (old companies code), as time goes on and more MS code is introduced, expect quality to go down a bit, well possibly
I'd like to see some better real-time scanning... Adaware's ad-watch isn't very for end users. It monitors for system config changes. Not effective when the user doesn't have a clue.
Spybot S&D immunizes your browser, but spyware can get in other ways too through adware programs. It helps but isn't perfect.
If Microsoft can get a good, real-time scanning software package going, then it might just be onto something.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Well, let's hope this program will be free for all people who are plagued with IE hijaking programs. With patches so slowly coming, this might be a good PR for Microsoft who is taking some hard hits from critics.
Some call me Howie Feltersnatch
Anonymous Twit: news aggregation sites (like slashdot) do tend to need to pull in news from other sources; which even a very basic understanding of the nature of time will tell you; means AFTER the other source has posted it.
Get a clue, FFS.
And Microsft claims that open source software stifles innovation...
How long would this 'beta version' have taken to be released, if at all, if it were not for Firefox pushing the standards to a higher level?
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
Does nobody see this as a potential problem, as Microsoft will now have a vested interest in NOT fixing their O/S so that spyware can't get in?
It's the old razors-and-razorblades model. Except this time it's like they're selling you a flat tyre, then selling you a puncture repair kit.
"this might be a good PR for Microsoft who is taking some hard hits from critics"
You got that right. Its about time they did something. Talk about TCO. Think of the amount of money spyware ridden Windows machines have costed end users and businesses to repair.
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
Microsoft refuses to patch their browser wich is the cause of most "crapware" at least for all the AOL people and now they relese a sftware product to clean up or try to clean up what is initially their fault. As long as they don't bundle this with the OS it is not anticompetetive. But microsoft itself is. I mean they now bundle a firewall so no one needs to get kerio or zone alarm. If this thing get's bundeled along with the Antivirus the bought someone is gonna sue them again and then the government is going to look the other way because they are gonna say windows can't work with out. I just hope I'm wrong.
Expire? Why should it expire if it is free?
Because it's a Beta. Most Microsoft Betas expire.
- AMW
It is just Giant rebranded with a few things missing(which I assume is just because it is in beta). Giant was a very good anti-spyware program so I expect the MS rebrand will be just the same.
The real question will just be how much effort MS puts into keeping the definitions and program updated as new types of spyware come down the pipeline. As effective as the program is right now, it is how effective it will remain in the ever changing world of spyware that is what really matters.
No beta will answer that question, only the test of time will. But, this is just Giant rebranded and it is a very solid platform, which is why MS bought it in the first place.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I pretty much have to agree with you here. I still beleive that Windows 98 is probably the most used Windows out there. Every time I happen by someone's house that isn't very computer savvy, they're running Windows 98.
Why?
Because that is what came with the computer. Remember that to most people, a computer is just an appliance like a TV or a VCR. At the same time, I see the number of Windows 98 machines dwindling simply because for the cost of repairs on one of these machines, you can buy a brand-spankin' new Dell box with Windows XP on it and a printer.
With the threat of people jumping ship to another OS, MS may make back their money by just keeping their customers?
WinPCap is also automatically set up and installed by tons of worms and trojans. It's pretty much the main building block of the script kiddies backdoor script.
Unless you're doing something advanced like nmap or ethereal, you have no reason to be running it, and if it's there it's probably there to spy on/exploit your network.
OpenVPN uses it still, as does CoLinux, but let's face it, few people in this tool's audience use those.
XBConnect no longer uses it, IIRC, they have their own packet-capturing engine/scheme/whatever now.
At any rate, if you don't know what WinPCap is - it shouldn't be there, and certainly shouldn't be running.
Give the anti-MS stupidity a rest, you come off like a moron who knows nothing about computers.
We should be wondering why AdAware et al don't warn you about things like WinPCap. It exists to capture packets in promiscuous mode, it is by it's very definition spyware. It spies on every packet your PC sees.
They should also at least warn you about things like VNC, PCAnywhere, and other RDP servers - because plenty of people have RDP services running they don't know about, because they didn't put them there.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You mean like how makers of P2P software make it possible for people to violate copyright law?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
How long would this 'beta version' have taken to be released, if at all, if it were not for Firefox pushing the standards to a higher level?
Personally, I think Adaware and SpyBot had more to do with it than Firefox. Not to mention Symantec is now bundling spyware detection into theie security software, and CA just acquire PestPatrol so that they can incorporate it into their software.
It seems to me that Microsoft's closed source products has created so many exploits for malware to take advantage of, that a new emerging market with great potential has been created. Microsoft is now getting involved in this lucrative market. This is a prime example of how Microsoft feels about closed source products being good for innovation.
Create a crappy product that others can't openly fix, so that it will innovate new products, so that it will make a new market that they can try to dominate.
Are you people for real? Your UPSET that it found things like VNC and WinPCap?
I've tested it on several machines at work, and it found spyware that Adaware and Spybot couldn't. It did also mark Dameware Mini Remote (a remote desktop program) as potential spyware, as well as the custom hosts file that I put on all machines. I think all these non-spyware programs were set to "Ignore" by default, but its not too hard to set to "Ignore All" if you know it should be there.
My point is, if you use VNC/Dameware/WinPCap/whatever... , you probably know it. But if you don't use them, and it's installed on your system, its probably a GOOD thing to have a scan pick it up and make you aware of it.
So far I'm impressed with this beta, and if the worst problem all you nay sayers can find is that it's too thorough, you should probably find something else to complain about. If this didn't have "Microsoft" in front of it, I bet I good deal of you would be hailing it as one of the best anti-spyware products out there.
[end of rant]
I agree somewhat. Many big companies are moving to alternate operating systems which is making Microsoft nervous. While they hold a giant share of the desktop market, they seem to be losing grip with the enterprise. Maybe that explains why steve ballmer gave the patent infringement speech to scare people to stay with them instead of looking elsewhere.
I do not see MS losing a huge market share anytime soon, but with other OS's getting more choices of software for end users as well as ease of installation and use (Mandrake, SUSE, Fedora) I can see these types of operating systems gaining some serious ground to negate the problems Windows has. I am not saying Windows is all bad because there is some nice features and a wide variety of software people just do not want to live without.
Some call me Howie Feltersnatch
It finds WinPCap (used for Ethereal and nmap on Windows) as spyware. Odd.
The vast majority of spyware is installed when users click 'Yes' to the question (or a variant to the question) 'Should you always trust software from Gator Corporation'. Not being a Microsoft defender, just pointing out the facts.
Microsoft/Internet Explorer has a lot of issues, but you can never prevent people from installing software off the internet that includes spyware, thus programs to clean up spyware will always be required regardless of how many security measures are created to prevent unauthorized access to the computer.
Who provides that software is up to the market to decide. Considering that most people who use Windows as their operating system will need defense vs. spyware, and that if Windows always comes with spyware protection it will make the life of those who produce it more difficult since it will always be installed on every new machine, I am 100% for Microsoft including spyware protection as part of the base operating system that people get with every machine.
If the software market can provide a solution that is superior to what Microsoft provides then they can charge money for it and those who need/want the additional protection can buy it. If Microsoft's solution is adequete and there is no room for a competitor, who cares? The problem is fixed and we all live happily ever after.
The Slashdot community always seems to put Microsoft into a lose/lose situation. If they create a new program and add it to the operating system they are destroying competition. If they don't then everyone claims their software sucks
I've installed it (bypassing the genuine OS scan on the download page) and ran it once. It picked up a lot of stuff that neither Ad-Aware nor Spybot found, which was very impressive. It ran MUCH more quickly than Ad-Aware SE.
Strangely, it identified "Edonkey2000" (I have eMule) as a potential adware carrier. I've never known an ED2k client to show ads. Thankfully, the default action for eMule was "Ignore" and there was an "Ignore always" option as well.
Antispyware has the potential to raise the bar for this type of security application. However, I'm a little worried that this beta will turn out to be the best and most functional iteration of the product. The preferential treatment for IE in the options is to be expected, but it could become a troublesome feature if MS pushes their browser too hard.
A lot of spyware is actually installed by users installing normally downloaded programs. Not through holes in IE (Though some are). Hell my laptop came with a spyware laden game pre-installed! Though the spyware did not install till the first time you ran the game.
Spyware is not strictly an IE problem and is not even a security problem other than the security problem of letting anyone download and install any program on their computer ever.
A lot of spyware comes as secondary "hidden" functionality of otherwise bright and shiney utility programs.
I've never gotten an IE vectored spyware merely by turning off Active X except for specific websites and staying reasonably up to date. But apparently that is like too much work for 99% of the population.
You are right that the best solution is prevention, but how many times do people have to be told that "Gator" contains spyware and yet they continue to install it anyway?
Maybe if MS just fixed IE they wouldent need to charge their customers more money to fix a problem that is caused mostly by the lovable and exploitable IE.
Geeze, when it's open source and beta and has bugs, the response is 100% "What part of BETA did you not understand?" but for Microsoft it's "What part of MICROSOFT did you not understand?"
It's not even funny, it's pathalogical. Slashdot is a serious illness that infects the readers brains with a sickly FUD that clouds all possibility of rational thought.
What about to the companies making the spyware in the first place? Do they have a case against Microsoft if they make changes to their dominant OS that intentionally break spyware?
I don't think improving security in an OS, even if it harms third parties who make a profit off your bad security, is going to meet the standards for abuse of a monopoly in the same way that tying a new application that adds features instead of fixing problems to the OS would.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
How do we know they will offer updates to dectect new spyware any faster than they will offer OS patches?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
support proper file-locking and implement unix-style permissions
What are you talking about, windows has a better permission structure with ACLs than any unix system did. Most modren unix systems have been adopting Windows style ACLs lately. File locking also exists in windows, and also part of ntfs. Ofcourse you would not have these features in FAT.
If anything is the problem is that people are administrators on their computers and this would be solved if they went the apple sudo model, which I prefer the most.
No, something more along the lines of Polluter Pays Principle.
Microsoft's insecure software made spyware possible. Why should the end user pay microsoft again to fix the problem that Microsoft created?
(Or, why are we having the federal government pay for environmental cleanup of toxic waste when the polluters aren't being held responsible for the pollution they caused in the first place? [Not that I'm nessecairly opposed to environmental cleanup or anything like that.])
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
What really pissed me off was that I was using WindowsUpdate v5, which was pretty slick, but the beta worked fine in Windows 2000, it could handle some things that v4 couldn't.
After XP SP2 came out, I found that WindowsUpdate v5 for w2k was canceled, I had to go back to v4.
It's obvious that they just didn't want to give anyone the benefit of using a better service on an older OS.
That's the sort of shit MS pulls that makes me not buy or use their products.
Apple has pissed me off pretty well too, mostly involving broken promises with OS features and shady enterprise support. I work at a place that upgraded to OS X 10.2 for the AD integration features, but it wouldn't work at all in our environment, 10.3 works adequately, and whenever I have even a minor gripe they tell me to buy 10.4, which isn't even out yet.
That's somewhere where Linux shines. I always seem to get what I expect, because I don't think lines like 'added fixes for sk98lin enet driver' in the kernel changelog are ever outright lies, and my expecations are lower in the 'lower because I expect realistic features in this timeframe' way.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Why should we hope for good PR for micros~1 from a smokescreen they're using to hide a complete contempt for their users' security? They're taking the hard hits because they deserve it, and much more. This is just another example of micros~1 trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause long enough to outrun the bad press.
The Farewell Tour II