Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Microsoft Control the Anti-Spyware Market?

Posted by Cliff on from the profiting-from-their-own-flaws dept.

jasondubya asks: "With all the recent publicity of Microsoft's new Anti-Spyware product, I wonder if there will be any room in the market for other companies? After recent comparisons between with current market leaders showed large failings in their products, do they stand a chance against the behemoth that is Microsoft?"

77 comments

  1. BRILLIANT! by riffzifnab · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have people beta test commercial software for free... BRILLIANT!!!!!
    Distribute said beta anti-spyware software with windows updates.... BRILLIANT!!!!!
    Hook clueless users on our anti-spyware software... BRILLIANT!!!!
    Sell the software as a subscription.... BRILLIANT!!!!!
    Sell advertising company's the ability to have us take their software out of our spyware definitions.... BRILLIANT!!!!

    with apologies to Guinness

    1. Re:BRILLIANT! by Itsik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's so called BRILLIANT is the fact that now Microsoft can actually profit from their OSs flaws i.e. not bother to fix all the ones that can prevent spyware from getting in to begin with.

      If you want it taken care pay us an additional fee and you'll be "safe". Protection fee?

    2. Re:BRILLIANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS flaws are not responsible for spyware. Sorry, they just aren't. We have users who will happily install whatever it takes to "download music" or "play this cute game" and they won't mind typing in a root password or anything else to do it. Short of preventing the users from doing what they want, what else can the OS do to prevent spyware? The foundation of Windows usability relies on uninhibited software installation (demanded by users) and the assumption of administrative rights by most programs (demanded by programmers). The users most affected by spyware just don't know or care enough to avoid it. MS will not, and should not, take the blame for that. On the corporate side, the admins who let everybody run around with admin rights and install whatever they want are to blame; again, not the problem of MS. There are some excellent management capabilities built in to modern Windows systems. It is not the fault of MS that even skilled people refuse to utilize those features in a manner that protects their systems.

  2. Not hard to control the anti-spyware market by Redfriar · · Score: 1

    When you control the OS that makes it so easy for spyware companies to slide there software onto your machine.

    What's next? Microsoft and antivirus?

    Not that M$ shouldn't have a role in prevention of these problems. It would be more genuine of them to have a part by opening/improving the OS rather than profiting off of the widespread use of their weak product(s).

    1. Re:Not hard to control the anti-spyware market by kusanagi374 · · Score: 1

      What's next? Microsoft and antivirus?

      Back in the MS-DOS days, they had MSAV which did exactly that. I'm not sure why they ditched it when they made Windows 95 tho.

    2. Re:Not hard to control the anti-spyware market by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Back in the MS-DOS days, they had MSAV which did exactly that. I'm not sure why they ditched it when they made Windows 95 tho.

      Clearly, Windows95 was so advanced, it didn't need antivirus software.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    3. Re:Not hard to control the anti-spyware market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you really want a monopolist to supply your virus definition updates and spyware updates?

      They don't even bother to keep their available patches up to date.

    4. Re:Not hard to control the anti-spyware market by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Look at this as an opportunity.

      M$ has been tooting their own horn about lower TCO (and completely ignoring the facts). Now, if there is a subscription fee thrown in for this new anti-spyware tool, that drives up the TCO -> good for Linux.

      Of course, I am sure that M$ will skew the numbers so that they still have a lower TCO ("Linux causes your server to catch on fire, so you will need a new $2000 server every week -- Microsoft wins"). But this will make it harder.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Not hard to control the anti-spyware market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so users switch to Linux; where are the anti-spyware tools? Oh, right...somehow the advocates believe that spyware will never affect the Linux desktop. When it does, however, who will build the software to get rid of it? Windows was hit with attacks by aggressive advertisers that the developers never expected; when Linux gets hit with those attacks, will it hold up enough for the average user to avoid problems without using third-party software equivalent to MS Anti-Spyware or resorting to calling my tech support number? If not, where is the benefit? The systems are designed to do what users want; users want to install garbage on their systems to achieve things that are valuable to them. It's only a matter of time before Linux vendors make it as easy as possible to install third-party software and the system becomes just as vulnerable as Windows.

  3. Frankly... by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No. Not a hope. When Microsoft's Anti-Virus product is free (and, undoubtably, be bundled at some point) why would anybody buy or use another product?


    This'll be no different from the Browser Wars. In that case, Microsoft bought Spyglass and used its browser, offering it as a free download. In this case, they bought someone else and used their AV products, offering it as a free download.


    So far, there's not much evidence of any change in strategy. Enough so that several AV vendors are getting definitely twitchy. I'm not surprised. If they survive as long as Netscape did, it would be impressive.


    Oh, and don't expect the regulators to step in, any time soon. It was hard enough getting them to do anything when the Democrats were in office. There is absolutely sod all reason for them to do anything now.


    Finally, look at it from Microsoft's standpoint. They lost a court case in Europe, which harmed their share value and took a small nibble out of their pockets. With security being the current "watch-word", here is their big chance to take back some of that lost value. It'll also hamper European efforts to regulate them, as they can chown() technologies faster than the EU can ban them from doing so.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Frankly... by UNCfan4life · · Score: 1

      Agreed. 1) Buy some other company's product for below market value. 2) Bundle it for free long enough to drive everyone else out of the business. 3) Start charging 4) Profit!

      --
      Caution - poster has no actual knowledge. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, Microsoft bought Spyglass and used its browser, offering it as a free download.

      Actually, I believe that Microsoft only licensed Mosaic from Spyglass, they didn't buy the company. What they did do, however, was get it at a really low price, and promise a percentage of the sales profit to Spyglass. Of course, at the time, people charged money for browsers, so Spyglass didn't realise that they'd be getting a percentage of zero.

    3. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Not a hope. When Microsoft's Anti-Virus product is free (and, undoubtably, be bundled at some point) why would anybody buy or use another product?>

      Why? Maybe because their AV solution sucks?

      There are plenty of people who use Firefox, and even *pay* for Opera, because IE sucks.

    4. Re:Frankly... by digime · · Score: 1

      When Microsoft's Anti-Virus product is free...

      Your whole post is about Anti-Virus products, while the story has nothing to do with Anti-Virus products. Yay moderators.

    5. Re:Frankly... by shaka999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I'm no MS fan, doesn't anyone else see that they HAVE do start offering virus and spyware applications?

      MS gets killed for being vulnerable everyday here on slashdot. Now they are trying to put some tools in place to help the standard user and they get beat on for using their monopoly.

      This is a bit different than debating MS adding a media player or even a browser.

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    6. Re:Frankly... by jd · · Score: 1
      Yes and no. First, if they'd written the software themselves, it would be very different. They would not be seen as plundering a market, but rather entering it on level footing.


      Second, there's nothing to stop them "locking-down" any installed binary, such that the OS would prohibit ANY changes to those binaries unless the user specifically granted permission. That would kill any viruses that spread by infecting binaries, although embedded code would not be protected this way.


      Third, there's nothing to stop them "locking-down" RAM, such that out-of-bounds access is prohibited outright. That would kill many vulnerabilities based on buffer overflows and underruns, although any programmatically-correct vulnerabilities would persist.


      The second and third option would be simple patches that you could apply to the Windows OS. The second would be a fix to the filesystem handler, and the third would be a fix to the memory manager.


      I'm sure they could arrange terms with Tripwire, or some other similar organization, to include a filesystem monitor and/or host intrusion detector.


      None of this is difficult, or beyond the means of Microsoft. It would also show considerable initiative on their part, which I'd consider commendable, and would undoubtably assuage many fears in the security industry.


      No, what they did was buy someone out, so that they could use the IP. There's no guarantee they understand the code. Indeed, the fact that it was a working product and is now an unstable beta is strong evidence that they do NOT understand the code. Instead of being reassuring to all concerned, this is actually troublesome. Not because Microsoft is involved, but because the practices one might consider "normal" if a genuine concern for security were felt are not being followed.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Frankly... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      viruses and worm are a variety of malware just like spyware. I don't see that much difference between the three, a program that is installed w/o my permission and does thing not in my best interest.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  4. How the hell should we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Honestly, what the hell is the point of Ask Slashdots like this? Why would you want wild speculation about a nonexistent product from completely uninformed loudmouths who (if you believe them) don't even use the OS in the first place?

    If this is going to just be talk radio, here's a topic: would it be a bad thing for a good (or at least better) MS product to drive out the current crappy alternatives?

  5. In this case... by avalys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously, if Microsoft's software is better than the competition's, they will dominate the market. Microsoft usually gets along fine without selling software that actually works, so with that in their favor for once they should do even better.

    The real debate is whether Microsoft will still dominate the market if a competitor gets its act together and produces a product that works better than Microsoft AntiSpyware.

    I think the answer is yes - look at the success of Firefox. Even mainsteam users are slowly learning that there are superior alternatives to Microsoft products. I don't think any new Microsoft product that's worse than the competition will be able to survive long.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:In this case... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      If it comes bundled with a future release of the OS or a Service Pack, it doesn't need to be better - it just needs to be "good enough".

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:In this case... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Firefox is NOT a good example. The main reason that Firefox is better is because M$ has done NOTHING to their browser in the past few years.

      When M$ kicks things into high gear, they can add a lot of nice features to a product in a short period of time (meanwhile ignoring security and standards). Browsers are not somthing that they show an interest in right now (but that may change again if IE looses too much share). Spyware IS something that they are obviously interested in. Therefore, they should be able to do a good enough job to monopolize this market. Then, in a few years, they will move on to other things. Either this new tool will generate a constant revenue stream and be supported, or it will be ignored, allowing for competition again.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  6. Why not? by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They already control the Spyware market, so logically they have the most experience with it...

    Seriously, if MS's Antispyware app DOESN'T fail just as bad as the other products in the long run, then that's some pretty good conspiracy fodder..

    1) Become market leader in desktop and workstation software, but allow tons of security problems to get exploited until the problem reaches epedemic proportions

    2) Develop (or in this case, aquire and modify) additional software to fix the problem you created in the first place

    3) Profit!
    =Smidge=

  7. Answer by example by BrynM · · Score: 1
    Will Microsoft Control the Anti-Spyware Market?
    From the resounding number of posts from people rushing to recommend it (at this moment 0 of 2 comments ten minutes after /.'s posting), I say it's a definite no. Without any geeks/gurus recommending it - in fact bashing it - they won't gather momentum even if they shove it down user's throats via Windows Update.
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  8. Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus market by rueger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't see it. Already people like us are accustomed to running two or three different anti-spyware products each time. I can't think that an MS product will be any more effective over the long term than either of Spybot or Ad-Aware, or the other variants.

    Consequently even if you have MS Anti-Spyware running, you will double check with at least one or two other programs just to be sure.

    Let's not forget that MS even had anti-virus built into an OS at one time, and it disappeared, had backup software built into an OS, and it disappeared, and has at various times tried to undercut outside vendors without success.

    As well, it seems pretty obvious that the Bad Guys are going to find the security holes in the MS product very fast, and begin tailoring their products to exploit them. How fast can MS play catch up?

    --
    Three Squirrels
  9. They already have near total control. by ssclift · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Microsoft provides the avenues through which most spyware operates. By definition, therefore, they have total control over most of the anti-spyware (and spyware) market. Were they to remove the vulnerabilities in their software that allow spyware to be installed (unbeknownst to the computer's owner) they would eliminate the market for anti-spyware. If a user knowingly permits spyware on their machine it should, on a well-constructed system, be simple to monitor and remove.

    Buying risk-control software from the company who has, for the most part, generated the risk in the first place seems to be a silly thing to do. Microsoft suffers here from a severe moral hazard: you are rewarding them for bad behaviour when you buy their anti-spyware system. Also, what guarantees that their anti-spyware system is of superior quality to their operating system software, and does not open new avenues for attack (cf. their WMV DRM offerings)?

    I think third-party vendors of spyware should make this a selling point of their software.

  10. Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A) MS already did anti-virus YEARS ago when it licensed Central Point Anti Virus for inclusion in DOS and Windows 3.1 (I think).

    2) MS recently bought an anti-virus software company with the intentions of selling/giving it away.

    Those of you who complain that MS doesn't do enough in the security department seem to be the first to hit them with the monopoly/antitrust stick when they finally try to do something right in the security department. What do you want? The old days, when you even had to PAY for your tcp stack? I remember those days, and they sucked.

    1. Re:Two things by Redfriar · · Score: 1

      I guess my comment stems from the fact that I believe Microsoft's efforts at providing anti-spyware products to be a means for them to generate revenue from the fact that they produce products that are widely known to be inferior from a privacy/security standpoint.

      I use Microsoft products. I live in the same world as everyone else, with the same rules of business. And I wouldn't pretend that Linux/FreeBSD/MacOSX are ready to be the next alternative to 90% of the computing free world.

      But to make a product that has a history of falling short with regards to security and user privacy, and then to market/sell another product to protect you from those who would take advantage of those shortcomings.

      Not that all of this really belongs in an 'Ask Slashdot' anyway. But I feel like I would end up out of business if I were a plumbing supplier who sold you faulty pipes and fittings, and then sold you a product to remove the mildew from your basement after the leaks formed.

    2. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point taken. The conspiracy theorist in me has always thought that it was the AV companies that write/release viruses.

    3. Re:Two things by qurk · · Score: 1

      This is the first thing that Microsoft SHOULD do. They've been selling "upgrades" for their product for years for over $100, and they have done nothing but facilitate people (spyware, adware, trojan-horse ware) for all these years. Frankly, it's been soooooo nice to have a completely functional computer for the last several years (no MS). With all the billions they have in the bank? And they still expect Joe Moron Consumer to give them their hard earned cash to "upgrade"? Ya they can buy a anti-spyware program and there is absolutely no conflict of interest. When Microsoft (CD-ROM is the future! Buy our Encarta or any of our plethera of CD-ROMS, because internet is stupid!!!) finally joined the internet, and brainwashed millions of people to use "Internet Explorer".......well, they were stepping in deeper S**T than they expected (tied to the operating system?). This is the LEAST they can do :P

  11. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft buys a company that writes anti-spyware software and tries to sell the product. So essentially, if I got this right, Microsoft is selling software that protects you from holes in ...the software they wrote? Why doesn't that sound right?

    Yes, I tried the beta and it does have (by far) the best interface of all the anti-spyware products. That doesn't make it an instant winner though. Do people trust Microsoft to protect them? And if so, why didn't they protect us with Windows in the first place?

    1. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      It isn't as effect a marketing tool if they build it seemlessly into the Operating system.

      Like AOL's new Anti-virus shtick, It gives the average user a feature that they can wrap their head around. A system task that lets them feel like they have control over their computing environment.

      holes in ...the software they wrote

      I'd also like to point out that even precious Linux has security holes.

    2. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to point out that even precious Linux has security holes

      Yes, but isn't that tantamount to admitting they wrote something that is broken?

      If I buy RHEL, Red Hat doesn't try to SELL me a product whose sole purpose is to make sure their own poor design decisions are covered. They give me access to their up2date servers.

    3. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Windows users get free access to update servers for security patches and the rare service packs.

      Unless you've managed to purchase some odd windows license/software that doesn't allow you to access the Microsoft's Windows Update servers.

      You even have the option of not installing the updates if you wish.(at this point)

    4. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      So why not continue to offer security patches, rather than offering a whole new product that does what those patches were suposed to do? Why not release good software, instead of adding another layer to protect bad software?

      --
      Changa hates change.
    5. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      Read the above posts.

      As I said before, no software is perfect. Thus, no operating system is totally secure.

    6. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      > Microsoft is selling software that protects you from holes in ...the software they wrote?

      You're wrong if you think security holes are they main way this stuff gets installed. Spyware usually comes bundled with freeware programs (Kazaa etc) or is installed by social engineering (Your computer may be broadcasting an IP Address!!).

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    7. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Coffeesloth · · Score: 1

      Good point, but let's not forget all the wonderful ad ware that gets installed when you visit a website...

      I'm sure Microsoft could do something about that if they wanted to, but their new pop-up blocker really doesn't help all that much.

    8. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In those cases, removing the spyware is usually a breach of the software EULA. Something that companies like Microsoft and organizations like the BSA are very much against.

      Now, how many people actually believe that the final (non-beta) release will help people break EULAs?

    9. Re:WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?! by Changa_MC · · Score: 1
      Again, why not continue to offer patches, instead of trying to make money off of your own flaws?


      It's the conflict of interest that's blatantly disgusting about it, not merely the fact that windows is the most insecure operating system out there (since lispire is catching up on holes).

      --
      Changa hates change.
  12. Only Anti-Spyware? by b00stA · · Score: 1

    They will also control the spyware market itself.

    --
    Stop making that big face!
  13. Microsoft's Responsibility by qurk · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it be Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that their product (which millions would buy no questions asked) is secure from uncaring and spiteful companies wishing to spy on Microsoft's customers? I think this is in Microsoft's and Joe Consumer's interest. I haven't ran Microsoft (notice no M$ or "microshaft") for 5 years but I think this would be the least they could do considering they have they way majority of desktop computers running their software.

  14. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by Squatchman · · Score: 1

    The microsoft backup utility is still bundled with Windows XP/2000 Pro/Server. XP Home requires you to install it from another source.

  15. I wondered how long it would take. by Smilin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much time does it take between:

    Microsoft taking a stand on spyware because everyone griped about it.

    -and-

    Someone griping about it because they are abusing their monopoly by taking a stand on spyware.

    ??

    Wouldn't it be nice if your grandma's computer had a firewall, antivirus and anti-spyware when she took it out of the box? It might give the back of my firewall a break. It probably won't happen though. People will get sue happy as usual with MS. I'm surprised ZoneAlarm and Blackice and those guys haven't sued about the XP firewall yet (even though it's trivial). The lawyers at McAfee and Symantec already have their game plan ready if MS bundles an anti-virus. Heck if the EU lawyers had their way in America my 2005 PC wouldn't even be able to play music when I took it out of the box!

    As usual MS entered a new market swinging and everyone is crying foul when it looks like they have a hit.

    1. Re:I wondered how long it would take. by Stop+Error · · Score: 1

      You have a very good point. I am not a huge fan of some of Microsoft's business moves but your point is valid. If the path to a secure Windows PC out of the box is a bundled Firewall/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Virus then so be it. It will make it easier supporting the inlaws.

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
  16. It's not about spyware, stupid. by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is an example of a shrewd move on Microsoft's part, and it has very little to do with wanting to control the AV market.

    One nugget of info can be gleaned by going through the process of installing their Spyware removal software. They mention that you have a chance to verify your Microsoft Software is genuine, and they *also* mention that in the future doing so may be *required*.

    Think about that for a second. How many illegal copies of Windows are out there? How much money does Microsoft *not* make on those copies of Windows? They discovered a must-have software product (that I expect they won't charge for, other than the price of a copy of Windows if you're running unlicensed) that they can use to solve most of their piracy woes. It's clever, but I suppose it's fair.

    The diabolical part is that once you install their Spyware removal tool, they have a perfect way to scare the clueless into removing software that they (Microsoft) don't especially like. When I ran it the first time, it identified winPcap and WinVNC (the *client*, for crying out loud!) as spyware and gave me scary warnings about wanting to remove them. It's only a matter of time before OpenOffice makes the list, and a lot of people will either accept the defaults and delete whatever Microsoft Tells them to, or will be unsure about how safe it is to run a given piece of software and reluctantly delete it.

    There are a few companies I trust to give me a decent list of spyware apps to detect, and Microsoft isn't one of them. They don't want to control the AV market or the Spyware market, they want to decide for you about *any* programs you install on your PC.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    1. Re:It's not about spyware, stupid. by Redfriar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for getting rid of the pirated copies of Windows/Office/etc.. If OSS is going really make an impact, it will be in providing feature compatible alternatives to commercial offerings, reducing the amount of free market influence that commercial companies enjoy when somebody steals their software.

      I don't even mind them listing 'potentially' unsafe programs as long as they allow the user to select which programs are to remain untouched.

      "Safe" software is a very subjective term. If I noticed winPcap on my grandmother's computer, It would indicate to me that somebody is doing something they shouldn't be doing with her tcp/ip stack, since she is not likely to use tools like Ethereal/TCPDump.

    2. Re:It's not about spyware, stupid. by dstutz · · Score: 1

      winpcap is needed for xbconnect a tool which lets you play Xbox games over the internet with other people which otherwise you wouldn't be able to such as the first Halo. Since it can still be used for XBox Live enabled games of course they wouldn't want you to have it on your computer.
      From their website: XBConnect is "Next Generation" Game Console Tunnel Software for Windows that allows you to play Microsoft XBox System link, and Sony PSP games over the internet.

    3. Re:It's not about spyware, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted anonymously to protect my job...

      I have some insight into the behemoth that is Microsoft, and maybe I can clear up a few points. The Windows Genuine Advantage program you refer to originated and is run by a COMPLETELY different group at Microsoft than the Anti-Spyware product team. They of course have ulterior motives, but they're not quite as diabolical as you might believe. Microsoft doesn't make money by scaring home users in posession of grey-market software; the point of the WGA program is to get some numbers on valid vs. invalid licenses and track down dishonest System Builders who sell hundreds of counterfeit copies of Windows a month. Plans are ultimately to enforce validation, however, there will be a rather generous program in place that will grant you an override key (allowing access to Genuine downloads ONLY, not granting a valid Windows license) in exchange for information about where you acquired your Windows license/PC.

      Final pricing, if any, for an anti-spyware product has truly not yet been decided. However, given the spate of support incidents spyware generates, it's pretty much in Microsoft's best interests to offer it for free to home users. There is significant demand for corporate features in a product like this, however (easy deployment, controlled updates, centrally-administered scanning, Group Policy support, etc.), and I suspect Microsoft will leverage this demand into revenue (if not by directly charging for the product, by using it as a value-add to help sell other Microsoft products).

      There's no diabolical motives on the spyware product team either. Microsoft Anti-Spyware will not be used to 'scare' people away from open source software, now or in the future. Remember that Microsoft acquired this product less than a month ago and has changed very little other than branding for the beta. winPcap and WinVNC (and even, embarrassingly enough, a few signed Microsoft OS binaries) were all detected as spyware before Microsoft bought the company. You refer to 'scary warnings' and yet you don't point out that the default action on those items is 'ignore' and not 'remove' as it is for most truly malicious spyware. Talk about FUD.

      It's not a "a matter of time before OpenOffice makes the list." If you honestly believe this and are willing to put your money where your mouth is, reply to this comment and we can arrange a little gentlemen's wager. Microsoft has published criteria (although not the actual weightings or exact algorithm) for determing whether a piece of code is considered spyware or not, and you'd be hard-pressed to commit OpenOffice to more than about 1 or 2 of the criteria.

      Why don't you wait until Microsoft releases a version or two before you make your decision on whether you want to use it or not? In its current implementation, it's rather effective at what it does (more so than Ad-Aware and Spybot, my 2 previously-preferred anti-spyware apps), has a clean interface, and has a host of pre-emptive spyware-thwarting techniques. I generally don't recommend beta software for the non-computer savvy folks, but this beta has impressed me so far. I'll be watching to see where it goes.

      [PS, I really am serious about a wager. If necessary I can prove my identity later by providing the text that results in the following MD5 hash: 2970db24883f31c44e4a2dc29f8a053e]

    4. Re:It's not about spyware, stupid. by drakaan · · Score: 1
      There's no diabolical motives on the spyware product team either. Microsoft Anti-Spyware will not be used to 'scare' people away from open source software, now or in the future. Remember that Microsoft acquired this product less than a month ago and has changed very little other than branding for the beta. winPcap and WinVNC (and even, embarrassingly enough, a few signed Microsoft OS binaries) were all detected as spyware before Microsoft bought the company. You refer to 'scary warnings' and yet you don't point out that the default action on those items is 'ignore' and not 'remove' as it is for most truly malicious spyware. Talk about FUD.

      Actually, the default action in the drop-down list for each item (on my system) was "Remove", FUD indeed.

      Take my post for what it was meant as...a paranoid thought-excercise that points out the possible use of a bundled product that has the functionality that this one does. I have lesser reservations about Ad-Aware and Spybot for the same reasons (the fact that you don't have to pay for them via an OS license or straight purchase offsets those fears somewhat).

      Here's what I think about what Microsoft *should* do:

      1. Make it more difficult for spyware to be installed (kudos for SP2 and the firewall, just keep going with that)
      2. Make signed applications easier to create and make signatures easy to revoke
      3. Make a task manager that lets users see what's running (along with a little bit of info) and actually kill stuff that shouldn't be running. "DLLHOST.EXE" isn't exactly informative

      That would do a lot towards eliminating spyware and malware...I won't even get into the list of things that could be changed in IE.

      I don't hate Microsoft...I use their Operating Systems, and have for about 20 years...however, when I see something that's this useful to average people, and this potentially useful to managing people's perception about other software products, I speak up.

      I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, I won't be too surprised.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  17. So let me see if I understand this... by Xentax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If MS does nothing, it's being negligent (I've seen 'criminally negligent' bandied about before) by leaving the OS so vulnerable to spyware.

    If they *give away* a solution, they're being monopolistic against the existing or potentially soon-to-exist anti-spyware vendors (Norton, CA, et. al).

    If they *charge* for a solution, they're being greedy/capitalistic/whatever by charging for something they should be giving away.

    Sounds like a no-win situation to me.

    But, consider the Firewall situation. MS ships a *basic* firewall, blocks only inbound, not very configurable, but does support Group Policy settings and is thus enterprise friendly.

    This *seems* to have left a market for both corporate and consumer firewall software. Granted, there are both free and pay solutions out there for both.

    Maybe that would please everyone? If MS's solution was free, and reasonably effective, but not quite 'everything to everyone'? It would really NEED to be enterprise-friendly, IMHO, since I really think MS should be on the hook to provide at least some form of protection/removal as part of the OS (like the ICF in XP, the disk defragmenter, hopefully some future Anti-Virus solution as well).

    But, and the end of the day, if Company X can't make a cheap product that does Anti-Spyware better than MS's, there really ISN'T a market that people should be crying about the loss of. Remember, MS didn't drop a billion+ dollars into developing what appears to be one of the better solutions out there; they bought one of the existing product companies.

    Players like Norton and CA (should) be able to compete if there's anything there worth competing over -- be it breadth of coverage (signatures, mutation detection, etc.), ease of use (particularly where removing the nasty self-healing malware is concerned), time to updates when new threats surface, ability to block/blunt new/unknown threats, etc.

    Xentax

    --
    You shouldn't verb words.
    1. Re:So let me see if I understand this... by Eneff · · Score: 1

      Or, they could just solve the problem in the rist place?

    2. Re:So let me see if I understand this... by Xentax · · Score: 1

      And how is "solving the problem" different than "giving away the solution"?

      The problem with that solution - according to some - is that other companies (like Norton and Computer Associates) *sell* software to solve the problem; if MS gives it away, that's "anti-competitive".

      That MS's solution is fixing MS's problem is apparently lost on some people.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
  18. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by Smilin · · Score: 1

    Two or three anti-spyware products? Geez dude!

    I run zero. Never had a problem with spyware.

    The only time I've ever had it is from a Kodak photo-CD that the wife used while in my admin account. ..GrumblegrumbleKodakgrumble Bastardsgrumble..

  19. A few remarks... by yason · · Score: 1
    ...on why anti-spyware is different from browsers or office suites (both of which MS has gained a monopoly):
    • Microsoft might have an opinion or two about which software should be considered "spyware" (a competitor's product that "happens" to end up on their spyware list for a few critical months) and "not spyware" (Microsoft's or their partners' products that talk back home);
    • The extreme example would be that Microsoft Windows natively allowed installation of "approved" and digitally signed software only: an anti-spyware program is essentially just that but in a disguise, and less radical. The former would be shot down by monopoly legislation today, but there might be a time when installing non-approved non-signed non-bundled software would be considered "hacking" and be possibly forbidden except for authorized retailers;
    • Microsoft has even less incentive to actually fix any of their problems now: it'll be better PR for them if they systematically squash each symptom (e.g. a trojan) instead of rooting out the problems (e.g. IE holes).
    • Also, since the anti-spyware will be branded by Microsoft, it might help in creating a notion that there is always spyware everywhere regardless of the operating system or Windows version, just like every car gets dusty over time. That would be so, because if Microsoft could stop spyware in the first place they of course would do that, just like car manufacturers would produce cars that don't gather dust or need washing, if they only could. So spyware isn't Microsoft's fault, just like dirty cars aren't GM's fault. Right?
  20. Microsoft ain't what it used to be. by xutopia · · Score: 1

    It used to be that anyone going against MS didn't stand a chance but nowadays everyone is going after what MS has so MS has too many fronts to protect. Gates is just Napoleon or Hitler, one day everyone and everything goes against them and their plans fail, they cave in and suddenly the world is a better place!

    1. Re:Microsoft ain't what it used to be. by Smilin · · Score: 1

      You have it backwards. MS isn't defending on too many fronts. They are attacking on more and more fronts. They won't have to worry about defending as long as they win. History is filled with great conquerors who attacked on multiple fronts and just kept going. It's quite possible to take your victories to your grave like Qin Shi Huangdi, or Alexander the 3rd (the great). MS isn't even breathing hard yet. Heck, they just expanded their campus in Redmond!

  21. Yes. by M1FCJ · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why not? They already own the spyware market. I don't have any spyware running on my Linux boxes. The only platform I have which can get infected with this rubbish is my one and only Windows machine.

  22. Sure, why not by SunFan · · Score: 1


    They facilitated the whole spyware market, so why should we stop them from reaping the rewards? Go Microsoft!

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  23. Cringely's opinion by Glog · · Score: 1

    Mr. Cringely seems to think that Microsoft will tank in its attempt to control the anti-spyware and anti-virus market. I am not quite sure what his arguments are because he doesn't offer any but he promises to write about this extensively in his next column.

  24. Malicious Software Removal Tool - January 2005 by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

    Speaking of microsofts antispyware thing, anyone see windowsupdate lately? Theres a critical update called "Malicious Software Removal Tool - January 2005 (KB890830)"

    "This tool checks your computer for infection by specific, prevalent malicious software (including Blaster, Sasser, and Mydoom) and helps remove any variants found. You should also use an antivirus product to remove other malicious software that may be present. This tool helps maintain your computer, and its appearance does not indicate that your machine is infected with malicious software. After you run this item, you may have to restart your computer."

    More info at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=39987

    Looks like MS is going to start fighting viruses/worms via windowsupdate now, they're taking over everything!

    --
    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  25. They Should own the market by Ridgelift · · Score: 1

    Microsoft should own the anti-spyware market, and for that matter the anti-virus market as well. Both viruses and spyware are largely a product of Window's poor track record as an OS that can protect itself.

    I think it's nuts that Windows is so vulnerable out of the box that it cannot reasonably be connected to the Internet without a slew of 3rd party software JUST to make to do what it's supposed to do: be an operating system.

    If Microsoft can own the markets, then they will also own the responsibility of any and all major problems with Windows. So when a 13 year old snot-nosed programmer releases the next killer virus, we will only need to point the finger at one company.

    I personally think Microsoft will own the anti-spyware market and let the anti-virus market continue as usual. Why? Think about what spyware is for: market research. Microsoft loves to gather personal information on their customers. If they could control the anti-spyware market, they could conceivably own the spyware market too.

    Chalk up another revenue stream for Redmond.

    --
    Ruby on Rails Screencast
  26. +1 insightful +1 informative by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    I blew todays dose of modpoints and now comes a comment with a really important twist to the story! MS's earlier amnesty for folks with pirated XPs who wanted SP2 was not swaying a lot of those underserved, underground users. This may catch some of the less wary users. Great comment.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  27. Microsoft created this market by Dracos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm surprised it took them so long to become a player in it, not just the progenitor.

  28. Integrated with the Operating System by rlp · · Score: 1

    Unlike exverything else MS has tried to tie into their OS (GUI, browsers, media players, etc.) - I would REALLY like to see them build SECURITY into their OS. There's really no excuse to all the vulnerabilities to viruses, spyware, trojans, and other forms of malware. After stability, security should be MS's highest priority.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  29. Take over spybot by xecutech · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just lean on spybot and take it over. At least that's what they did during the browser wars.

    --
    Nashville Computer Repair http://www.pcdude.com
    1. Re:Take over spybot by jasondubya · · Score: 1

      That's more or less what they did, except it was Giant that they took this from.

  30. The more you tighten your grip, Gates,... by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...the more computer systems will slip through your fingers.

    The Linux installer. The ultimate remover for malicious spyware.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  31. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by niXcamiC · · Score: 1

    yeah, I would use antispyware, but I cant seem to find any good ones for linux, like what is with these idots?

    --
    Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
  32. Call me synical... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you found a Microsoft product that worked really well and where there was not a better alternative? MS Office? Na, Wordperfect is my choice. Internet Explorer? Nope, Firefox. Windows? Not really, I only run it because of the apps, and I have FreeBSD on another machine anyway (is that what they mean by "Windows Terminal Services"?)

    It's their rubbish software that lets the malware in. Having a tool to remove it after the fact is kinda missing the point.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  33. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by Smilin · · Score: 1

    It will hopefully be a long time until we need on for linux. The marketing guys are going to want to know what the firefox users are doing too I'm afraid.

    I'm actually a Windows user and don't have spyware problems though. I just stay out of the back alley of the internet and actually pay attention if I get an installation dialog out of the blue.

  34. and then.... by Tangurena · · Score: 1
    When MS has the market dominance in spyware detection and removal, I expect them to sell out like Aluria did (reported in this older slashdot post).

    Microsoft used to bundle a virus checker back in the DOS days. Where is it now? Gone. I expect this product to destroy most of the ecosystem and then get dropped for some business reason.

  35. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by buxton4 · · Score: 1

    All Your Spyware Market Belong To Us

  36. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by buxton4 · · Score: 1

    actually it is still on the home cd you just have to install it manually

  37. Maybe I'm just blind, but .. by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

    I installed MS's spyware detection tool through Windows Update ... and I can't find it anywhere. Start menu, control panels. Maybe it's in the security center? Nope. How about administrative tools? Nope. Guess I'll have to search the knowledge base for it or something.

    So they expect average folks to use this how?

    --
    I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    1. Re:Maybe I'm just blind, but .. by jasondubya · · Score: 1

      The tool that you installed through WindowsUpdate was likely not their Anti-Spyware tool, but the tool they created to remove several worms and viruses. Read this comment for more information on this tool.

      The Anti-Spyware tool can be found here.

  38. Of course they will!! by adolfojp · · Score: 1

    After all, they already control the spyware market ;-)

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Cheers,
    Adolfo

  39. Re:Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus mark by kchoboter · · Score: 1

    I have personally run Microsoft Anti-Spyware and both Spybot and Ad-Aware. M$ Anti-spyware did a much better job at finding spyware and it was able to fix one nasty bit of spyware that kept killing my system tray.

    But even if most of us in the /. community refuse to use Microsoft product there are millions of people who are massively infected with spyware and have absolutely no clue what to do, or what has happened to make their computers so slow and not work.

    I have seen this first hand for a residence computer consultant for a large university network. I would have had to make far less visits to the floor of 50 girls that I was assigned to [not that I minded to much ;)]. if microsoft had automatically installed Anti-Spyware with Windows Updates.

    Because of their control of the OS market, especially among clueless users, Microsoft MUST contribute to the anti-spyware fight!!

    --
    4B4556494E