Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm
thejuggler writes "Excite News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to buy Sybari Software Inc., which makes programs designed to protect business computer networks from viruses, worms and other threats. This is Microsoft's second purchase of an anti-virus company. The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software."
windows hungry! want more!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No Antitrust for you to see here, please move along.
1. Make bad software 2. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software 3. PROFIT!!!
Wouldn't it be better if Microsoft was to fix their bloody insecure software instead??
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Are you sure you aren't infected with something yourself?
yes it can copy and paste Miami Vice images...
The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.
I'd think long and hard about it too if I were MS. I could charge for it and compete like everyone else in those markets. Or I could give one or both away to consumers. I'm either going to completely undercut the competiton in perhaps a manner that get's anti-monopoly noise going again, or I could charge and be blasted for profitting from the flaws in my own software.
Makes me wonder why they even bought the companies in the first place. My predicition is they release crappy software that does the bare minumum for free, hoping to avoid the worst of both options.
The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.
I don't see how they couldn't, without risking further anti-trust-related accusations.
The coolest voice ever.
Manufacturer of spontaneously-combusting household furniture today announced that they would be charging customers for fire extinguishers.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Don't think- just release it for free.
I don't use antivirus software and have never gotten a virus yet.
I guess you also have no mirror, but know you look great?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Bucharest, June 10, 2003 – GeCAD Software has announced a definitive agreement with Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash., USA, by which Microsoft will acquire GeCAD’s antivirus technology. Microsoft has stated its intention to integrate GeCAD’s technology into products and services that will help secure customers."
http://www.ravantivirus.com/
RAV produced RAV AntiVirus Desktop for Linux [8.1.4]
By all accounts it was a really good product. MS scuppered my plans to try it out >:(
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
I wonder how they can argue that IE has to be a fundamental part of the operating system that they give away*, but a virus scanner is an add-on? Controlling which programs run seems like it should be an OS fundamental.
(* re: IE vs. netscape browser wars and the monopoly verdict)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Microsoft have certainly done a first class job in creating a demand for these services. Kudos.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Why, being the major operating system vendor on the planet and then charging subscription rates for anti-virus and anti-spyware would guarantee Bill Gates billions more $ to give to Africa, India, China and any other country he wants to (NOTE: Not an intended pub-<) curry favor with, by aiding the sick and the poor and generally being a heck of a nice guy in the public eye.
What do you have against all these people?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As we noted over at Ars, Sybari doesn't make an AV engine. Their main product allows customers to plug in AV engines developed by other companies, and in fact can support multiple engines at once.
Of course, MS does have their own engine now, which they bought back in 2003.
This is obviously another time Microsoft is horizontally integrating their business - branching further out into computer software. How far will they corrupt perfectly good software companies? No one knows.
Lets face facts. Anything that MS does not absolutely dominate and crush all comers they only manage to squeeze out a middling so-so product. Clearly their intent is to bundle bundle bundle and make it harder to install or use anyone else's products. That is, it's meant to bind you to their brand harder whether it works well or not.
Barring that it's probably another link in the chain of DRM dominance. Just how I haven't figured out yet but I'm pretty sure it's there.
MS can use the tools, viirus signature/knowledge base, etc to much better protect its software from outside attacks.
...
This is good for the industry as your average consumer and, more importantly, business purchase decision makers will have a reason to buy more software/hardware, create jobs, raise incomes, expand the economy,
Kinda like a B grade Scifi movie, release a disease and charge money for the cure.
...To the first person to write a virus attacking a hole in this...
For a while now, MS (among others) have been eye-ing the idea of a subscription service. Those old thin client ideas where you rent MS Office, save all your files online, and have it accessible anywhere.
Well, they didn't quite pan out. However, they see Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware as a possible subscription deal. You pay once for the software, and pay more for updates. If you've got your tinfoil hat on, you may eve think that before you know it, THIS IS what Windows Update will become -- a subscription service.
So why is MS considering this? Easy -- it's a steady revenue stream they can capitalize on because their superior marketing department has created a giant legion of Microsoft Weenies who don't know any better.
yup. and my gorilla repellant works wonders, too. haven't had a run-in with a pongidae yet.
A friend of mine called their tech support for problems relating to a virus. The guy on the other line said he would help if he could but he said "I have to do everything by himself. I work with a bunch of monkeys."
Just a guy with an opinion
I guess it comes down to this - can they bankrupt enough of the opposition, within the four years, to seize control of the market and prevent anyone else entering it?
As for arguments that Microsoft should fix their software - nice try, but the lemon laws don't apply to software and there's nothing else that's likely to compell Microsoft to change. Unless someone would like to try talking the most conservative Congress in living memory into applying standards to software - are there any geeks rich enough, other than Bil Gates? - I don't see a single reason for Microsoft to change what has always been a profitable tactic - sell trash, then sell an even trashier "upgrade" for lots of money, and THEN convince the consumers that they have the better end of the deal.
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)
It seems that they're saying "Ok - we can't fix all of the holes.. so we'll give you software to protect you from our own software."
Don't look to me, Bill. I will stay with my Symantec products.
Microsoft bought RAV some time ago- who made a fine Windows and Linux AV program. They also made RAV for most all of the UNIX mail programs such as qmail, courier, sendmail, postfix, etc.
Was sad to see it go... apparently it was also to include its technology, but if you ask me, it was more to get it out of the antivirus mail server market.
This is nothing new-- Microsoft buys anyone who has something to offer them or their competititors... yippie
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Hrmm I just installed some antivirus software for the first time a few days ago(5 months of running XP with no firewall and only SP1) and the AntiVirus software found nothing. Also the Adware software found nothing on my computer. Just to give you a hint of how much a I download, ive downloaded around 500gb of stuff in the past 5 months.
It would be more likely if it were given free and included in the default install.
Charging for it would look like they're being fair to competitors.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Microsoft starts making virus and spyware to sell more antivirus and antispyware ???
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I don't use antivirus software and have never gotten a virus yet.
I guess you also have no mirror, but know you look great?
Or you could go to Symantec's site and use their online ActiveX virus scanner.
Could someone explain why wingnut here only posted a link back to this thread?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
At least Microsoft isn't getting into the condom business. "Introducing Microsoft Condom 3.0, now it actually prevents pregnancy!"
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
First, Microsoft sends out free antivirus tools that when run, "detect" and "remove" several hundred "severe threats" on the faithful Windows user's PC (these threats include, but are not limited to, Firefox, Netscape, and Spybot S&D). The Windows-using population, convinced that the tools are "vital" to their PC's security, will go out to buy them from Bill when they're no longer free.
By Windows-using population, I mean the segment of the population who are either too ignorant/slow to use a decent antivirus such as Norton. These same people feel tech saavy when they use Kazaa, which won't be detected as malware since the makers of it paid of Micrsoft before the antivirus was released.
Microsoft is going to add anti-virus and anti-spyware software to windows? Does that mean we finally get a (real) uninstall function for Internet Explorer and Media Player?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Since viruses take advantage of Microsoft flaws, wouldn't Micorosodt selling antivirus be a conflict of interest?
This is why I don't rely on MS Anti-spyware solely either!
--- >
Microsoft got money for putting the spyware on your machine in the first place, and now they get more money for (maybe) taking it off?
"Hey, Mrs. Chicken, how'd you like to purchase this fine looking egg I found? For you, only twenty-five dollars, plus tax."
"Ooo, I'll take it! That egg looks just like the one I had in my nest this morning."
Don't beat up on the consumers.... eventually they'll figure it out, and I don't think that Redmond could last very long against an all-out seige.
Or you could go to Symantec's site and use their online ActiveX virus scanner.
Why does "ActiveX virus scanner" sound like an oxymoron?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
For the consumers, ya.. For Microsoft.. no.. they can make more money that way..
Sell you insecure systems, then charge you for security...
"here, buy our doors.. oh, and our locks too"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'll make a vulnerable product and then charge money to protect it.
Why does "ActiveX virus scanner" sound like an oxymoron?
It makes sense. Spyware companies use ActiveX because they need a high level of access to your system in order to infest it. It follows that you would need at least that level of access to scan for the resulting infestation.
Since Software has become such an important part in life than cars, there needs to be Federal Agency which will Force Miccrosoft to Recall unsafe products, levy fines for releasing Virus-prone Windows, and publish a recall history for such software.
But it will NOT happen. So, iam SWITCHING TO MAC.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I suspect that either this or RAV was for the definitions. This is the second AV company MS has picked up in the last 6 months, and integrating those codebases is awfully silly.
Unless MS wasn't to market their code to the Unix server market which seems unlikely, this is probably just a case of MS using it's money to squirt out a reasonable product in the least amount of time.
Virus definions and AV engines are pretty orthogonal, so MS can just buy two competeing companies and integrate their strengths. Voila, instant solid market presense.
In comparison, right from the outset, open source desktop platforms and applications have relied almost wholly on closing the infectable vectors, the exploited vulnerabilities used by malware, as quickly as possible.
Read the following Usenet thread from 2000 that covers the argument in detail [google.com]. David Harley and Robert Moir are two Anitvirus industry leaders. It also includes the prediction that Microsoft would eventually get into the antivirus industry.
If you have a spare hour, listen to Dr Dobbs' technetcast [ddj.com]:
Could someone explain why wingnut here only posted a link back to this thread?
The "it" pages on slashdot (as in "it.slashdot.org") use a pretty annoying color theme. By changing it to an unknown value, you can force the web page to use the (more reasonable) defaults.
According to some very informative posts on the Yahoo SCOX stock board, Symantec has the rights to a very key patent in this area and McAfee has a perpetual, fully paid-up license to the said patent. Neither company would relish MSFT moving in on their nice little market and may well have solid legal grounding for setting $FELINE amongst $AVIANS.
they will come... and buy our protection.
How about "I don't use antivirus software that runs as a background process, and periodic scanning using Trend Micro's HouseCall hasn't uncovered a virus yet"? Is that better?
http://beta.microsoft.com/
[...] one can not use an antivirus program on a daily basis and still be sure that they do not have a virus by checking against trend micro house call. [...] 5. Periodically scan system using HouseCall and Spybot or AdAware.
So if it runs as activex or java applet in your browser it doesn't count as "using antivirus software" anymore? Nice try. Try again.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
This is Microsofts second purchase of Anti-Virus sofware which runs/ran on Linux. Sybari announced Linux support last year and RAV was a very popular Linux based product already.
Good for Microsoft, bad for Linux and bad for consumers.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
cost of the PC and OS. PC's are getting cheaper and cheaper and and so is the OS. The windows platform has the advantage over linux in that it experiences more malware. Therefore there are more opportunities for businesses to make money from support. The support business will soon if not already be worth more than the PC business. Installing PC's will be a no brainer give them away ( they are almost free any way) and charge for endless disinfecting. So if you have a choice recommend windows machines and sit back and watch the cash roll in
Yep regardless of what they do they will fail because you never start out by buying out other companies. Once they go that path theres no turning back as far as trying to play it off as yours.
the theme of the "Mission Impossible II" movie.
(1) +create buggy & vulnerable software
(2) +"fix" bugs by selling newer software
(3) -extremely long delay in new OS release
(4) +buy antivirus and antispyware companies
(5) +subscription fees for AV + OS Updates
(6) ++profit!
Symantec should be worrying more about ISPs like Adelphia, which are offering free Internet security packages and weekly updates to all Windows subscribers.
Yes it was called "MSAV" MicroSoft Anti-Virus, and it sucked. Had 1/30th of the virus definitions that Norton did.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
You folks are all missing the true danger here, I suspect...
Anti-virus software companies tend to share virus definitions. They race to find them and release them first, but for the most part (not always) they share the definitions for the damaging stuff. This is the only way for these companies to keep up with the flow of viruses. Microsoft has access to this same information.
However, Microsoft also has (a) a vested interest in NOT telling people about viruses until it can plug the hole, (b) the bank account to make their anti-virus product really good AND give it away for free as part of the OS, and (c) the ability to have a big "REPORT A POTENTIAL VIRUS" button on the desktop by default.
As a result, many (not all) viruses would be reported by users directly to Microsoft instead of other companies. Microsoft could then create and quietly distribute a signature to their users, without disclosure to the public or other companies. Their users would be protected, while other companies were still finding out about the virus.
Now, Microsoft also gets a jump on fixing the exploit for this virus, and can sit on it while the other companies first discover the new virus themselves, then share the information with the public.
So now the other companies are scrambling to create a signature. Meanwhile, Microsoft announces that they already have a fix to the exploit (the one they were sitting on) and -bing- here it is -- "we fixed this exploit a few minutes after it was discovered!" they'll say.
Far-fetched? Well, consider that the antivirus software community will already be weakened by users who choose the free Microsoft solution over their own, which means fewer people collecting and studying new viruses. As the community shrinks, it will take them longer to discover and share new virus signatures, which will lose them still more customers.
In other words, this is a really good business decision for Microsoft.
I know.
I don't run MS software ('cept for games), but this reminds me a lot of Stacker and the memory management programs before DOS 6.0
Somone other than Microsoft was making money off enhancing the OS, and in those cases MS just made changes that rendered the other company's products unneccessary. Here, if all goes as it did in the past, MS will be doing the same to Symantec and McAfee.
It was nice knowing you...
There's always www.clamav.net
When we have an all day or all week RIOT in Redmond I will want to be there. Sounds like fun! Might even get to see Bill tarred and feathered or something like that. Maybe Bill will be out of town and Steve will have to be the sacrifice for the crowds...
Your Average Joe
1) Popularize use of computers in business and home
3) See scum take advantage of new capabilities via internet
OS/2 is BETTER than Windows!!
...that MS would charge for their anti-virus software, otherwise they might have another anti-trust lawsuit no their hands (no pun, seriously).
If a huge corporation packaged a good enough anti-virus suit with their operating system, that would seriously hurt Norton, McAfee, AVG, etc... The same reason why they were forced to provide a slimmed down version of their OS that didn't have a media player... it's unfair to the competition.
Avoid lawsuits and make a few bucks? Yea... I think they're going to charge for the software.
Hmmm....so they want to sell products to "fix" the security holes they have in their products?
It's like Ford selling fire extinguishers and fire insurance for their customers. It's just not right.
Thought there was a law against this sort of business practice. Like those companies that sell anti-spyware programs to remove their spyware that they install without the users permission in the first place.
No news here. Sybari already charges for Antigen. It's well worth the money, though.
And I'm still baffled by the whole thing.
In retrospect, they could have introduced these features into the install package years ago and been applauded (obviously for free or as a fraction of the price). Even if they weren't as good as third party software they would have been "fine" from a legal standpoint, and acceptable from a PR standpoint.
As it stands now, I can't see how they come out on top on both points, or even one point.
So, to use this security scanner I have to reboot to my most insecure OS, start up the most insecure browser, go to the options and turn the security level down, and then it'll tell me my computer isn't secure! I'd try it, but something tells me I'd go through all that and it'd want me to shut off my firewall and uninstall the patches before giving a final verdict....
Seriously though, that's idiotic. Only someone with high geek-paranoia would ever bother to turn activeX back on after using that scanner. But of course they do have an interest in getting people infected...
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
If Microsoft is buying Anti-Virus software companies that have versions for Linux then there is now a whole lot more incentive for Anit-Virus companies to put out Linux versions of their software.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
I can't find the link, but the irconic thing is that ClamAV, the free virus scanner, was once evaluated and found to update its database sometimes faster then both symantec and mcaffee.
Regards,
Steve
This Just In! Micro$oft purchases a national t-shirt firm for Windows attire. Micro$oft purchases new components which they had no part in making for Windows. Customers commit suicide due to the unimaginable amount of bugs. Micro$oft purchases Champion Steel Locks Corp., unfortunately, burglaries rise to new levels when these exclusive Micro$oft brand locks can be picked with a toothpick.
Fallout 3 will suck.
Ok, we get it Microsoft = Bad.
It would really be nice if someone actually posted something that made it sound like they actually wanted to start a discussion.
More and more everyday slashdot becomes usenet for leet-anti-micsoft-geeks. At this rate the signal to noise ratio will soon be so high that everyone will read the stories from an RSS reader and never even bother reading the comments. I guess I am a minority in thining that will be a sad day.
Didn't Slashdot used to be better read then http://news.google.com/science ?
Jorgie
Shouldn't it be the goal of an OS to protect their software? Why charge? Stupid M$
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
1. Write virus suseptible OS
2. Buy anti-virus program.
3. Buy more anti-virus programs.
4. Charge people to use AV
5. Profit!
Very well thought out too. No ??? anywhere.
*IF* Microsoft were to become a big player in the anti-malware arena, it would add even more weight to the belief that Microsoft creates a bad product by design. Current percieved motivation for making inferior products:
1. Create user desire to upgrade
2. End of life for products meaning no more security updates, goto 1
there will be a third -- to keep their antivirus business running.
Microsoft is partly responsible for this problem and now they intend to profit from the problems (the millions of dollars lost in time wasted, the vast amounts of data, on and on) for which they are responsible? I think even pro-microsoft people would think badly of this move.
But to buy businesses that utilize and support Linux? Highly anti-competitive and I'm surprised the DOJ isn't raising an eyebrow to this one.
We've used Antigen for 4 years and have never had a virus make it through it. Once it's been "tweaked" by microsoft I wonder if I'll be able to make the same claim.
Implementing that ruling would provide a lovely little dilemma for Microsoft to solve. Would they back off from software patents, or would they just brace for the inevitable oograh of lemon lawsuits?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They will offer variants of those scenarios. XP buyers will get a crippled version which will offer basic protection for Outlook and Explorer only and will probably do something unpleasant such as calling home (MS) every hour or so and disconnecting your internets if it misses a few connects.
There will be stern warnings embedded into the OS for home users who chose to use "unprotected" email clients or web browsers so that average users are scared off switching.
There will be a full version for sale which will work with other email clients/web browsers and will drop whatever anti-social behaviour is coded into the free version. It will avoid anti-trust issues by being priced as a premium product for enterprise users.
End result is more lock-in for MS and not too big a scare for the existing AV sellers. A win-win for everyone but the alternative email and browser makers, which makes it a big win for MS.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Oh yeah. Antigen absolutely rocks. During the three years I ran it at a previous job, we never had a virus get through. Plus I love the attachment filtering it has. Really makes it easy for proactive virus filtering.
I really hope MS doesn't put their own particular stink on it. It would be really nice if they included it as an Exchange feature pack or something.
Look at how Microsoft is going to handle their exploit problems compared to how Firefox did. I've analyzed this over at http://hawks5999.blogspot.com/
Wouldn't that be considered corporate blackmail? To sell a product that's knowingly full of holes and offering to fix it "for a price"?
Where's the friggin' Justice Department when you need them?
---
Yeah, you can mod me down all day, but you know I have a valid point.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
This is crazy. This just shows you how completely ruthless and unethical Microsoft is, but I guess that's how you become the "best". Isn't this like a car manufacturer releasing a car that doesn't have a lock and can be broken as easily as opening the door? Then buying a car alarm company instead of putting locks in the car?
The team has been around for over a year, and is part of the Windows group. They will be offering some sort of subscription ($) based security service. I'm sure this acquisition and the acquisition of the anti-spyware technology are not unrelated.
The team was placed in the Windows group in order to improve communication and turn around time with the developers. Hopefully this will mean faster resolutions and hotfixes to security issues.
Also, there is apparently some client code that provides a "heartbeat" back to the Microsoft servers.
I hope none of this information is sensitive... if it was I assume they would have had me sign the NDA.
Granted, my claim was made without any links unfortunately. However with a little googling, what I stated will become more obvious. ClamAV donors have paid subscriptions fees for ClamAV to be on certain select lists that anti-virus companies are on. I've never used these lists or interacted with them, but it is my understanding that they are kind of like mailing lists for virus companies to keep each other up to date on whats out there. According to ClamAV's site they more or less release updates daily. Perhaps they are small enough that they can bare the load. Major AV companies tend to toss out updates weekly unless something major is spreading. So it makes sense that ClamAV would beat them to it. Also, I know I've submitted at least 3 previously unknown viruses to Symantec and ClamAV and clamav did indeed update quicker( Symantec is what we use at my corporation, maybe one day I can convince the upper management to try out ClamAV, even if its just as a second defense) and I was also involved in a federal investigation regarding blaster. (I wasn't involved in creating it, but my network was one of the first 50 hit and so we had some valuable data and were known to be close to the source of the attack). I am by no means a virus expert and where as I personally like ClamAV for my own mail gateways, at my company we use Symantec, which is also very nice. I'm not saying one is better then the other, but am simply stating that ClamAV from my experience and also from the source that I unfortunately can't find, sometimes (not always)updates quicker
Regards,
Steve
Write your viruses.
Sell your Anti virus package.
Nice business model indeed.
Attn: Virus writers. Your services will be needed soon by none other than MS.
Sell a crappy OS, then sell people the ability to protect themselves from it. Could this be a new form of double-dipping?
I could see that, some sort of popup warning dialog box saying this or that app is unknown and not supported and it is dangerous to proceed. It might even bork any sort of fix for the user if there are *any* non approved programs installed that don't pass corporate muster with a paid off seal of approval. The virus scanner would just refuse to say the computer was "safe" or something. All in the name of security and they would have half a public point right there. You can see the PR person now... "How can we protect our valued customers machines? They depend on us and our advanced technological breakthroughs with security software and systems monitoring and yada yada. We have to be able to verify the programs, remember "malware"? If it's not verified we at least have to warn them"...and etc. Very slick if they do that..and they could...
How the hell they are thinking to buy this companies and then charge money from their consumers for antivir/antispy software ? They sold a bad (from security point of view at least) OS or other software - which are full of security holes - and now they are thinking to charge you for selling you the antidot .... Jesus !
On sybaris site they claim that MS has been using it internally for several months now.They are just now buying the company, so they must actually like what it does, and it's got to be cheaper than them trying to buy symantec or something.
I also think they might be grasping at straws about now, realising there's not a thing to do to actually make what's out there even reasonably safe. Everyone (practically) who has run windows for the past buncha years has at least one horror story that leads to cusswords quickly. This is not great advertising. They have tried to pass it off, that flew for a few years, but now even the dullest of the non sharp realise there's something...seriously broken there.
then by including its browser and mail client in their OS, and preventing by its maneuvers other products to have a chance (ie: being included by the OEM), microsoft forcibly extended its mono-culture to two other important vectors of virus and spywares...
combined with:
- the numerous security fails discovered in these product in a regular fashion.. some of them very stupid and dangerous: attachment that open by itself and execute, by using audio/x-wav mime type.
- bad default settings: hidden extensions (what have they done to prevent double extension scam in OE ?), netbios and co active by default on the internet connexion..etc..
microsoft created a ground very favorable to virus, spyware, worms: we could euphemistically that that they have some responsability here..MS attempt to make money with antivirus/antispyware not only shows their opportunism but also their prevalent cynism.
i guess that a antivirus and antispyware mono-culture is what we needed :/
BTW for those poor fellows still using OS oses ;) there is a great paper about network services minimization on windows 2000/XP (also available in french) a good way to close some present and future security holes, thanks to herve schauer consultants.
Hey Microsoft,
.HTA viruses anyone ?)
Stop trying to paper over the gaping cracks. Send all the marketroids away for as long as it takes and fix your damned O/s.
Don't make it so easy for scumware to get installed. Don't allow it so many places to launch itself from at startup. Write an applet that allows the user to control EXACTLY what gets started when Windows boots (no, MSConfig doesn't do the job as stuff can still get executed which isn't listed in there.
And wake up to the fact that the internet is a public place where anything goes. It's 2005 and you're still shipping an O/S that, straight out of the box, is not only totally unprotected, but is listening for connections from the internet. Were all your security staff on holiday when that design "feature" got approved ?
On this note you might also stop your browser/mail client/every bloody piece of software you produce installing code/accepting connections/running embedded scripts from anyone, anywhere at any time - often with no user intervention requied.
Sorry but the design of your O/S is fundamentally flawed and no amount of buying Anti Virus/Anti Spyware firms is going to help you, nor will it make it look like you care. It just makes you look incompetent and incapable of securing YOUR OWN O/S.
Lets face it. The current spyware and virus problems should not exist in the first place. The fact they do in their current state proves how flawed your O/S is. Even if they were able to get installed on your box the user should have enough control that they can trivially stop them running and remove them.
Last week I went to a frieds house after his wife told me their computer was getting really slow. When I got there I found an XP home machine, in a bog standard configuration as suppied by a large computer store, sitting on a 1Mb broadband connection. The machine also had automatic updates switched on and working.
But you can guess the rest. I installed the usual AVG, Zone Alarm, Spybot S&D, Ad-Aware and then switched off their network connection and got to work.
Over 16,000 viruses, more than 6,000 spyware compnents found by Spybot with an extra 300 plus found by Ad Aware. And all they'd been using the machine for is browsing the internet - mainly so their kid could do homework.
Your operating system sucks. Your designers are incompetent. Your coders are idiots.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Microsoft is trying to narrow the possibilities of purchase of security (anti-virus in this case) software that work in (beloved and stable) Linux platforms. I use RAV for almost 3 years in my gateway, of course that I had to switch... now I use Bitdefender ...Will Vexira or other come next?
_________________________________________________
Microsoft charging for anti-virus and anti-spyware must be the acme of nerve. Hell, scratch that, it's brilliant. Make people pay for defective stuff you already sold them once and get away with it.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
don't you mean:
1- Sell a crappy OS
2- Sell People the ability to protect themsevles from it
3- Profit
?
Woohooo !!!!!
If you're crap at doing something, just go buy someone who isn't.
Way to Innovate guys !
That's what this is called (I certainly wouldn't call it an antidote or a cure). This is so obvious, that I believe it's the only reason why M$ has avoided competing in this market for years. Until now that is. Why? I guess it's mainly because they're desperate to find substantial sources of income beyond their Windows/Office monopoly, but maybe it's also because they're hoping most people will no longer see how ironic this is. Hell, it's basically a scam.
>> They are screwed either way. If they give it away for free, people will complain that microsoft is product dumping. If they charge, people will complain that they are making money on their software bugs.
> In other words, given their current position as a convicted monopoly, the suitable option is not to get into the anti-virus business at all. Apparently they haven't decided to take that option. Is it any surprise they get blamed no matter which subtle variant of a fundamentally foolish decision they make?
Here's the problem; if they don't give away anti-virus stuff, they're also going to get criticised for not dealing with the problems with their products.
In fact, the only 'right' solution for them is either not to be a monopoly, or to release products without so many security holes.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
... a car manufacturer that also owns a refinery? Anyone else see this?
PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals!
that Apple is not a monopoly. HAND.
Now what is going to happen to all the virus writers of the world? They have families, and they need to make a living to support/feed their children!
Will somebody please think of the children!
The "home" version of the software will retail for $89, but it will not actually fix any of the virii it finds.
The "pro" version will fix any virii that it finds, but will retail for $159.
You won't be able to update your virus definitions, either. You have to wait for the next version to come out in 2 years, and pay full retail price for it.
You want proof? Here's one of countless others. Writing a virus is the BEST way to get hired by an AV company. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's the business model that has evolved, like it or not.
Now accepting PayPal donations!
Isn't awesome to see a large corporation gobble up smaller companies? On the upshot, all the people who started the smaller are now pretty well-off AND they don't have to worry about maintaining their software because they know, deep in their little hearts, that Microsoft will make their product better than it's ever been before!
And, think of the irony! The virus problem, if you really think about it, is really MSFT's fault because of fundamental design flaws in their OS. Rather than fixing the root cause of the problem, they buy someone else's solution. And then, they plan on CHARGING for the service! How f**ked up is that?
It's like a legalized Mafia!
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Does anyone remember when Microsoft's stance was that antivirus should not be built into the OS? It seems like they may be changing their tune. I realize that they're not building it in yet, but are they possibly bundling it in the future?
And this unsubstantiated claim (by an anonymous poster, no less) should be taken seriously because...?
Seriously, who is "we"? Would you please publish a URL? The whole point of reviews is so each and every user does *not* have to evaluate four different A/V scanners.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
...but he's in the QA department, so I hope he still has a job in a year (after all, who really thinks that Microsoft tests anything, right?)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Yes, they've even successfully closed off the biggest infection vector - the user - by making OSes no-one wants to use ;P.
america has very weak protection against most anti-competitive behaviour. this is because the courts/bodies have very few powers beyond breaking up the company.
a man whose only weapon is a nuclear bomb is not much good in a knife fight.