Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Anti-Spyware to Be Free of Charge

fubar1971 writes "During his keynote speech at the at the RSA Security Conference Bill Gates announced that the MS antispyware will be offered for free. From his speech: 'We've looked hard at the nature of this problem, and made a decision that this anti-spyware capability will become something that's available at no additional charge for Windows users -- both the blocking capability, and the scanning and removal capabilities.' Additional information at Government Computer News." Update: 02/16 16:57 GMT by Z : Microsoft was previously considering charging extra for this service.

470 comments

  1. Watch for the Error.log file by Cy+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative
    I've been running this on one of my XP boxes since it came out. Here are a couple of caveats:
    • It creates (what I consider to be) an absurdly large error.log file, on mine it had reached nearly 1Gb in about a month. I have since created a read-only dummy version of the file so it can't write to it anymore and it hasn't seemed to affect the program.
    • When installed while Admin it's installed for every user, which I guess you would want the blocking for every user, but not necessarily the scanning and program update features, - which leads to ...
    • Running as Admin it doesn't find suspicious Registry Entries in other users' User Registries, which means you could be the admin on an infested machine and not know it - this is on an XP Home box, so perhaps it's different on XP Pro?
    • Though called a beta, I haven't been able to find a way to report these bugs/flaws/'features' to MS.
    1. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the Error.log file in? What directory?

    2. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by aug24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's fairly normal for a test-phase application to do more logging than is even faintly reasonable for a release-phase application. Mine do.

      For the next two points, I have never thought the MS multi-user model was worth its weight in rat shit. YMMV ;-) "Fast user switching" should be, well, fast. Like pressing ctrl-alt-f8 fast. Ho hum.

      Last point? Well, I have always wondered if MS developers put their beta-ware out for testing, then sit back and go "hey, no bugs yet" for three months, then release it, all the while never even noticing that they forgot to build the feedback mechanism ;-)

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by mzwaterski · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I've been running for about a month as well and I cannot find any error.log file on my system. Where did you find this file?

    4. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >Start
      >Search
      >All files and folders
      >*.log
      Click Search

    5. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hmm I installed it via Windows update and haven't even been able to find out what it does yet.

      I suspect the one on WU is an earlier beta than you have... I have no error.log file.

      It's true it doesn't find much... I've even tried deliberately infecting myself. Missed it completely... maybe I have to log in as administrator first :)

    6. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by mzwaterski · · Score: 5, Informative
      To report bugs/request features you could try the newsgroup that they have setup:

      http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/defaul t.asp?ICP=spywareus

    7. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Though called a beta, I haven't been able to find a way to report these bugs/flaws/'features' to MS.

      MS has a newsgroup for this purpose. Yeah its lame, but its findable and web accessible.

      Fun bug: Put your task bar on the side of the screen (I keep mine there hidden but wide, when it pops out, lots of tasks are very readable). Now write a batch script and try to run it. A popup is triggered asking if you really want to do that, problem is it "scrolls" into the screen, but since there's no task bar in the way it keeps scrolling right off the screen! So you can't run your script and you can't clear the popup, which remains in highest in your - list till you reboot :)

      Mmmm, Microsoft goodness

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    8. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c:\program Files\Microsoft AntiSpyware\errors.log

      Mine is only 9kb, running since it first came out as well.

    9. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by rolfc · · Score: 0

      spyware are us ??

    10. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by hdparm · · Score: 1

      It may return slightly lower number of results if search criteria is "error.log".

    11. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he's referring to Linux's ability to instantaneously switch from one console/user to another as opposed to Windows which takes several seconds.

    12. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by generic-man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Compare Windows Fast User Switching to Linux's "ability" to switch from one X server to another X server. Windows wins every time if both users are logged in.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    13. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Offtopic, but what's slow about fast user switching on XP? Win+L then click on name and enter password.

      If that XP machine is a member of an Active Directory domain, like almost all at-work machines, then fast user switching takes forever - it's disabled on domain machines, which is INCREDIBLY stupid.

    14. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by chrisopherpace · · Score: 1

      c:\Program Files\Microsoft AntiSpyware\errors.log

      I think it is a problem specific to his PC, as mine was about 4 KB.

    15. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by dioscaido · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a known bug! It's quite fun to watch. :) And technically, it's Giant goodness, not Microsoft. The team is working on a fix.

    16. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone ever tests their software with the taskbar anywhere but at the bottom.

      I run mine at the top because, well, that's where it should be =)

      and the amount of times I've had to turn on auto-hide or somesuch just so I can ge to the control boxes of applications. The stupid "we know best" attitude where they don't enable alt-space (Winamp for instance) for moving windows via the keyboard really winds me up.

      Makes it worse after using elightenment and pressing alt-left-click to move windows around or 9wm/rio's right-click move/resize.

      "windows has superior ease of use" is usually said by people that haven't tried anything else

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    17. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by unapersson · · Score: 1

      I've tried it on my brother's XP machine (1.6Ghz) and it is excrutiatingly slow. Especially when compared to the equivalent functionality on my Linux machine (800Mhz). The switching is instantaneous (now that's "fast user switching").

      They should have just left off the "fast". Or should it be called "light speed user switching" under Linux?

    18. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      I'm at 8KB. Filled with a bunch of out of memory errors.

    19. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Aryeh+Goretsky · · Score: 1

      Hello,

      I too have been running the beta test version of Microsoft Antispyware too and when I looked on my PC and found the ERRORS.LOG and CLEANERS.LOG in the installation directory. They were 8KB and 2KB, respectively. To contrast, Spybot - Search & Destroy had 188KB of logs in its \LOGS directory and Ad-aware had 1.4MB (although these seemed mostly to be related to installation), so perhaps it is an issue with your computer's configuration? Either that, or perhaps it found malicious software and removed it--something my installation did not.

      The program is still in beta, so support isn't available through normal Microsoft channels, here is the link to the support newsgroup.

      Regards,

      Aryeh Goretsky

      --
      Dexter is a good dog.
    20. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not logging off completely then logging back on? That would be quite slow (akin to loading KDE on the same system I'd say).

      If you lock the workstation (or pick Start -> Log Off -> Switch User) then when you do go back to THAT user (or any other user you have switched from or locked the workstation as) it should be pretty quick.

    21. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by chrisopherpace · · Score: 1

      Yeah, mine have the same thing:

      7::ln 10:Out of memory::gcasDtServ:ScheduleScans:Update::1/21/2005 2:00:08 AM:1.0.501


      About 50-60 of those in the file.

    22. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Another fun bug was that it would flag "you're trying to run a script!" when I tried to edit a script. So the dialog would pop up ('cause my task bar is on the bottom, where it should be :P), and I'd say "yes, allow me to run the script" since I wanted to edit it.

      And then it would run it, not edit it.

      Turns out you can disable that "feature" by simply deleting the "ShellExecuteHook" found in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Explorer\ShellExecuteHooks (remove the space). It should be marked "AntiSpyware" or something like that. DO NOT DELETE THE KEY LISTED ABOVE. The key to delete to disable the "run a script" detection is one of the subkeys, but I can't remember which one, because I deleted it. :)

      Apparently this hook also messes up domain scripts, so Windows administrators also might want to remove it if they find their logon scripts aren't being run.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    23. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? You must be out of memory. It takes me just about 1 second to make the switch in Linux (using ctrl-alt-f8, etc). In that time, I can barely find the "switch user" menu buttons in windows.

    24. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The complete FAQ for the beta, including almost all known issues, is located here.

      The massive log files are flukes. They're usually full of a single repeating line. If that's the case, reinstall; the problem usually goes away.

    25. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by afidel · · Score: 1

      Or, for even faster switching hit and select a user who is already logged in, nearly instantaneous!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    26. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      So THATS why that happens. I always wondered why the message window just streaked across the screen like that.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    27. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cy Guy (user56083) sez-
      Running as Admin it doesn't find suspicious Registry Entries in other users' User Registries, which means you could be the admin on an infested machine and not know it - this is on an XP Home box, so perhaps it's different on XP Pro?


      Dunno about the other things you mentioned, but until the Beta turns Gold I've been doing this for spyware removal. For the more experienced geeks and techs out there this might seem like a "Well, DUH!", but I'm on a budget. Also sometimes there is no choice, but to admin a Windows PC. If anyone has any better/more intelligent ideas, please share.

      1. Run this Beta. Carves out a big chunk, but as previously mentioned by Cy Guy, it doesn't do it all. I also had a problem with it occasionally taking up 50% of the processor time at any given moment. So I run it, keep it in the background and selectively choose the agents I'm going to run. For real infected folks who are chronically infested, crank all the settings like an AC unit in August. All on high, all agents running.

      2. Run Pest Patrol by Computer Associates. I have my personal beefs with CA for most of their other software *cough*ArcServe*cough*, but this application will usually examine the whole registry and everyone's profile on a deep scan.

      3. Run Adware/Spybot etc. These older players tend to do well on clean-up. I haven't had too much success with them doing stand alone spyware clean-ups even if it IS a registered version with all the spyware definitions updated.

      4. Run Hijack This and check it out. Just to verify that something happened and clean out the odd registry file or BHO that escaped the cleaning process.

      5. Delete files from each Profile's Temp folder that aren't detrimental to the operation of the Windows PC. It's an ambigous definition, but each geek should know enough not to kill the crucial stuff.

      6. Delete all items from Temporary Internet Items folder. Sure, I could do this from IE, but do I trust it. . .

      Why don't I do steps 5 and 6 first? When I tried that initially, 1 or 2 of the spyware removal tools would have difficulty removing a particular spyware, since some required pieces for removal seem to reside in either Temp or Temporary Internet Items.

      Good luck Y'all.

    28. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and it is a systemic problem. When Windows 2000 came out I worked at a very large network equipment manufacturer, and most of our engineers had dual headed windows machines. Well most engineers also run an X package to talk to their Unix workstation and/or the Unix servers. So we upgrade a couple dozen test users to 2000, and 3 of them are having really weird graphics problems with the X package. I get on the phone with tech support, and after going through first and second level support I get placed in contact with the developer. We eventually figure out is that windows sends incorrect screen geometry if the taskbar is anywhere but at the bottom of the left display with autohide disabled, if it's anywhere else, including on the right monitor, or at the top ala mac's then windows sends essentially garbage screen geometry data. He came out with a patch within a couple weeks and we tested it and everything was ok from then on, but man was he pissed at the MS code monkeys and test department that let that through =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    29. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be using nVidia's official drivers. It takes at least 20 seconds to go from X to the text console and 20 to get back. The GPL driver is much faster, but then there's no OpenGL.

    30. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by seigniory · · Score: 1

      You can't get MS's Anti-Spyware app through Windows Update. You probably downloaded one of the smaller threat-specific ones.

    31. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by jkujath · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that you may be talking about the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool (which is available in Windows Update) and not the Microsoft Windows Anti-Spyware software which you have to download yourself from their website I believe.

      --
      "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
    32. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by rimskij · · Score: 1

      I suppose you should have posted it to your nearest Microsoft's Customer Service office.
      Tried that in Poland -- just doesn't work (how come?);).

    33. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by nihilonian · · Score: 1

      ">" Agreed. However, M$ bought out an existing, sold-in-the-market tool called Giant Anti-Spyware. Why do they need the Beta in the first place, if not to guage the industry reaction to their latest move!!

    34. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

      The complete FAQ for the beta, including almost all known issues, is located here.
      The massive log files are flukes. They're usually full of a single repeating line. If that's the case, reinstall; the problem usually goes away.


      Hey, thanks AC. That's a lot easier than combing through the MS newsgroups. It sounds from what other are saying here like the large error file may be the result of running on a machine with limited memory and perhaps because it also had limited HD space.

    35. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Wolfgame · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft bought out Giant Company, and relabelled their antispyware product. Their general definition of "beta" would be more along the lines of "search and replace Giant Company with Microsoft".

      Although the spyware reporting tool looks good. I'd like to see some kind of heuristics, but all in good time, I suppose. Personally, I've found the Giant/MS AntiSpyware product to be among the best of breed of this type of app.

      Also, no scanner does multi-user scanning. They'll look at the directories, but that's as far as it will go, because user registries aren't loaded when the user's not logged in.

      But yeah ... no built in feedback mechanism isn't all that great, but then again, there's always microsoft's newsgroups: http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/defaul t.asp?ICP=spyware&sLCID=us

      --
      -- My childhood bathtoys were Toaster and Hairdryer
    36. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Bob+4knee · · Score: 1

      Re: MS products. They are all beta. You are paying to test for them, and they will ignore your feedback until you can make it happen again and again.

    37. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the error.log kept? I've been running it since Day 1 of the public beta so I'd like to poke around and see how big it's grown. I did a simple search of my HD based on size and went down to all files, everywhere, 100MB and larger before I gave up trying to find it that way. Looked in %UserProfile% and found where the defs, etc. are kept but no apparent error log.

      Then again, I pretty much refuse to run IE unless the website demands it - and it's required to perform my job (so far, besides WU, it's been a grand total of two sites). So my error log is probably pretty damn small compared to the average IE-caused spyware lovefest.

    38. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by iwan-nl · · Score: 1

      Are you, by any chance, a frequent wikipedia contributer? Because IMHO, your linkage is a bit over the top.

      --
      I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
    39. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if this was a google product, you'd be saying "cut them slack, it's just a beta!"

      i realize that ms-bashing is a favorite pasttime for pseudo-intellectuals, but please at least be aware of your irrational biases.

    40. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I'm a different AC.

      And you must be an idiot. Who in the fuck said anything about nVidea? Of the 2 boxes here with active X sessions, one has a Matrox card w/ nothing proprietary and the other happens to be running flgrx [1] w/ an ATI card. Both switch between an arbitrary console and back in less than a second. Further the Matrox one will switch between 2 X sessions in about 1 second.

      [1] plenty of other problems here (inside the damn proprietery part -- nice null checking there ATI).

    41. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by soulhuntre · · Score: 2, Informative

      The MMSRT (the removal tool) does not install anything, it leaves behind no icons or whatever and you don;t have to "run" anything after.

      the "installation" mechanism runs the tool, which does it's job and leaves nothing behind. No further action is required.

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    42. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I found it. That's a lovely spot. c:\program files\microsoft antispyware\errors.log

      They should move that somewhere inside C:\Documents and Settings\All Users (or C:\WINNT\Profiles\AllUsers if you're an old school installation) like all well behaved multiuser applications.

      My file was 10KB by the way. Little over a month and a half of logging there. Yep. Firefox. Love it or get used to disappointment.

    43. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far it false positives on VNC, Home World (Cat.), some other game I had forgot I had.

      It false positived on several batch files I have for administrative purposes.
      It false positived on Novell Zenworks and breaks it.
      It didn't find anything (True positive)
      It doesn't run when no-one is signed on (aka as a service.)

      The GUI is second to none, though. GIANT did a great job on that.

      Do you really want the largest IT company creating your antispyware software? Think of the legal implications and lawsuits. Gator's already filed some with other anti-spyware companys.

      I'd rather have some 1 man company in germany doing my anti-spyware (http://www.safer-networking.org/en/news/2003-08-0 5.html)

    44. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by jnhtx · · Score: 1

      They should have used MFC for their GUI, they'd have got alt-space-move for free.

    45. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello they created this problem in the first place,
      by not doing anything. does win98 ring bells, 6 Years and they have done nothing.

      Duh!

    46. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by narrowhouse · · Score: 1

      My biggest caveat with this announcement is that I see no mention of free updates. I expected the program to be free, but you has to refresh the data on these things...

      --


      Insert pithy comment here.
    47. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of things Winamp *should* have done.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    48. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're most welcome. I think we ACs are underrated ;)

    49. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't run any XP machines atm, but it takes several seconds on friends' boxes. A user change on my Linux and X box takes less than half a second. As I understand it - I could certainly be wrong - the inactive user sessions are saved and reproduced on switch in XP whereas Unix and X support true concurrent users with concurrent graphical sessions.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    50. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by XMyth · · Score: 1

      It depends how you switch in XP...that's what I'm trying to say.

      You can Log Off or you can Switch User. Logging off kills everything...if you go BACK to a logged off user it will take several seconds.

      However, if you Switch User then everything is still running (you can see their processes in task manager if you're an admin). Going back to a user that has Switched is instantaneous.

      XP however, doesn't support concurrent users in the GUI. They want you to buy terminal services for that.

      If you remote desktop (RDP) to an XP machine then the local GUI (console) just shows the welcome screen (login screen). If you login from there while someone is in remote then the remote user is kicked out.

    51. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by aug24 · · Score: 1

      I certainly meant switching, not logging off. I didn't consider it instantaneous, and from what you just said I would suggest the delay I observe is the gui initialising, whereas under X it's still there just not connected to the video card.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    52. Re:Watch for the Error.log file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmmmm, a developer who blames someone else's code for theirs not working properly..... haven't heard of that before.

      Sometimes I have to wonder if some things are really bugs with MS or bugs with other software vendors who claim that they are MS bugs.

  2. It wasn't a big change... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the first Slashdot article blurb (emphasis mine):

    rscrawford writes "CNN reports that Microsoft may charge extra for security software. So first they edge their competition out of the browser market, then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health, and now they want to CHARGE users to fix it?"

    From today's Slashdot article blurb:

    Quite a turnaround from charging extra to free.

    Looks like they never said for sure that they were going to charge extra. As you can see above it said "may". Now, are we all going to whine that MSFT shouldn't be distributing software with their OS to combat spyware because it "may" edge out competition in the spyware removal market or are we just going to complain that they considered charging people to use it when they aren't now?

    Because MSFT software (browser, OS, and extras like ActiveX) should have been programmed correctly in the first place I would expect MSFT to distribute this software for free. People should be able to clear their computers out of what shouldn't have been there from the get go.

    Personally, I don't care. I will likely continue to use what I have been using all along (although I have been trying to use the Mac for most surfing) as recent testing has shown MSFT's solution to not be quite as good as third party offerings.

    1. Re:It wasn't a big change... by DarkMantle · · Score: 4, Informative

      MSFT's solution to not be quite as good as third party offerings.

      Perhaps you forget, this used to be a third party offering. And the reason MSFT bought them is they were the best at remeoving the spyware, and had the best detection methods.

      I was using Giant Antispyware for a few months before MS bought them. And I've seen very few changes (maybe because the Giant Company developers are still working on it.)

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    2. Re:It wasn't a big change... by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like this anti-spyware program (was Giant's). I use it in place of adaware and spybot (which i used previously).

      While active-x, IE, and windows has its security holes - your statement makes it sound like it MS's fault for all of these spyware/virus programs. In all reality, it is the fault of the spyware/virus writers - they just found exploits in MS. So lets pass the blame accordingly.

      It is very nice of MS to offer this program "free" - considering they paid a big chunk of change for it. I don't actually consider it free, just an add-on to the OS that I already paid for.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    3. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

      recent testing has shown MSFT's solution to not be quite as good as third party offerings.

      Funny - so far it would seem most testing shows MS AntiSpyware finds much more than AdAware of Spybot Search & Destroy find. You have something that works better than either of those?

    4. Re:It wasn't a big change... by pclminion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Now, are we all going to whine that MSFT shouldn't be distributing software with their OS to combat spyware because it "may" edge out competition in the spyware removal market or are we just going to complain that they considered charging people to use it when they aren't now?

      Uhhh... I don't think anybody's complaining that it'll "edge out" the competition. I'm all for the complete elimination of this entire industry. Spyware should not exist, and solutions to Spyware shouldn't be necessary.

      Here's why it's psychotic for them to have even considered charging for it: remember those Firestone tires that were blowing up left and right and killing people? What if Firestone had "considered" charging people to get those tires replaced? "On second thought, we figured it'd be nice to fix them for free." NO SHIT, Firestone/Microsoft.

      To even entertain a glimmer of a notion of a possibility of a thought of charging for this would have been moronic.

    5. Re:It wasn't a big change... by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's why it's psychotic for them to have even considered charging for it: remember those Firestone tires that were blowing up left and right and killing people? What if Firestone had "considered" charging people to get those tires replaced? "On second thought, we figured it'd be nice to fix them for free." NO SHIT, Firestone/Microsoft.

      It's kind of sick that in your mind you can justify equating possible HUMAN DEATH to spyware infections.

      Tires blowing out due to design flaws can end someone's life. Spyware infecting a computer due to design flaws can cause someone to format their hard-drive.

      Two entirely different worlds that are not comparable.

    6. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      That's not what I've read. What I've read from several sources is that it PROTECTS more than Spybot, but finds little more than Ad-Aware and Spybot used in combination - and does not find things that the other two do - just like the other two.

      In other words, run all three to enhance your protection.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    7. Re:It wasn't a big change... by FluffyPanda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bingo. People here on /. tend to forget that prefering linux doesn't mean that microsoft is always wrong.

      Maybe there are more exploits to be found in MS code than should really be the case, but that doesn't mean we should be knocking them for sandbagging the leaks as best they can.

      It seems to me that things are improving in MS land and, while I'll always prefer free/open source software, I won't be actively trying to find things to criticise when the beast actually does something right.

    8. Re:It wasn't a big change... by theVP · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find that when I use this software, it still misses a bit, and I still have to use Ad-aware SE, which still misses a bit, and I still have to use Spybot. And then I'm ok.....sometimes......

      Quite frankly, valuing one anti-spyware software over another is foolish. It has been proven over time that no anti-spyware software has been a true solution, and that using more than one is the best way to go. I would never replace one anti-spyware product with another in any near future. Rather, I would add it to the list of anti-spyware software that I already use. That being said, I still like MS Antispyware, because it has a few tools on there to get rid of shell hooks and the rest of that noise. I just don't depend on it. I've run into countless issues where MSAS didn't get rid of a problem, and then when I ran Adaware SE, it DID get rid of the problem. BUT I've also seen it happen vice-versa, hence why I use a plethora of anti-spyware software and not just one program.

      --
      "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
    9. Re:It wasn't a big change... by SunFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...it is the fault of the spyware/virus writers - they just found exploits in MS. So lets pass the blame accordingly.

      Okay. Microsoft Windows is like an expensive car parked in a bad part of town with the door unlocked and the keys in the ignition. The only thing lacking is the owner's signature on the title showing the transfer of ownership. Where Microsoft comes in is that it is not completely the owners fault: the car locks don't work all the time and the key is welded in place.

      There really are no "safe surfing" guidelines for new users. Do PC suppliers walk the user through buying the proper AV software and a dedicated firewall box for every sale? Do they or Microsoft tell people up-front to avoid websites with ActiveX? Wasn't it only recently that Windows XP firewall was even active by default?

      I feel fairly safe on the Internet--but I run UNIX on a non-Intel computer with a hand-tuned set of services and stack execute protection and a dedicated firewall running BSD. It took days to set this up, and I have a degree and work experience in IT. And I still worry, a little. Who knows when a JavaScript anomoly will be found, for example.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    10. Re:It wasn't a big change... by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Tires blowing out due to design flaws can end someone's life. Spyware infecting a computer due to design flaws can cause someone to format their hard-drive.

      Don't be naive. The risks of spyware go far beyond lost data. I could write a piece of software than installed itself on my enemy's system and downloaded a bunch of kiddy porn. Or, I could install something onto the workstation of an FBI agent and manipulate data pertaining to a capital investigation. Or I could leak the identities of government agents. Need I continue?

      Spyware is a lethal risk. Just because nobody has written spyware of the sort I just described (actually, it probably does exist, we just don't know about it) doesn't mean the risk isn't there.

    11. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...your statement makes it sound like it MS's fault for all of these spyware/virus programs. In all reality, it is the fault of the spyware/virus writers...

      Love this attitude. In fact, it is MS's fault! They can't even claim ignorance of the ways that certain design decisions could be misused by unscrupulous individuals, because many people pointed it out to them while they were merely running up trial balloons to see how they would take.

      As simply the latest example, look at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1749993,00.as p.
      When this was first announced, lots of the boards that I visit predicted exactly course of exploitation, long before it was actually implemented in Media Player.

      Now, I do agree that spyware/virus writers are to blame, but I reserve equal contempt for the people who, unwittingly or not, continue to help them! And I reserve even more contempt for those who, after being burnt sooo many times in the past, are perfectly willing to help them yet some more in essentially the same way! Let's face it; this is no different than the way ActiveX was misused.

    12. Re:It wasn't a big change... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I like this anti-spyware program (was Giant's). I use it in place of adaware and spybot (which i used previously).

      I like the software, too. I'm not sure it catches everything, but it seems to do a pretty good job. Plus, for the features present in Microsoft/Giant Antispyware alone, I had been running a whole host of free tools (spybot, adaware, spywareguard, spywareblaster, hijackthis!). I thought it was good software when made by the Giant Company, and so a free (and hopefully improved) version should be a nice thing to have.

      It is very nice of MS to offer this program "free"...

      Well, like I said, it's nice that it's free, but I wouldn't say that Microsoft is "being nice" by releasing it. They're merely protecting their business interests. People/businesses really are looking at OSX and Linux more and more as feasible alternatives to Windows, and with all the frustration people are experiencing associated with spyware, Microsoft is looking at a problem that could potentially be huge. They have a much better chance of maintaining their market dominance if they can demonstrate that Windows is a secure platform and that Microsoft is committed to keeping up with new security threats.

      BTW, I'm not complaining. I'm not saying, "Microsoft if evil because they're only doing this to keep their OS on top!" I don't think it's bad for a business to try to please their customers for the sake of long-term profitability (which this seems to be). What I have a hard time with is when businesses try to screw their customers for the sake of perceived profitability (which MS seems to do as well). In neither case, however, is Microsoft being "nice".

    13. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its fundamentally the same thing
      it is about a company attempting to charge fixing a faulty product

      no one else besides software, no matter how trivial can get away with it.

    14. Re:It wasn't a big change... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      They are comparable from the standpoint that allowing either danger to continue puts the company at risk to lawsuit and losing customers. In both cases it was advantageous to fix or replace the problem rather than deal with the results of unmitigated risk. I believe that was the point he was trying to make.

    15. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are REALLY digging here and you have still failed to prove that spyware is "lethal" regardless of what 11 O'Clock News scare-tactics you have attempted to employ in your posts.

    16. Re:It wasn't a big change... by mr.newt · · Score: 1

      That's a nice little straw man you've got there. Last I checked, spyware doesn't kill people.

    17. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Maybe there are more exploits to be found in MS code than should really be the
      > case, but that doesn't mean we should be knocking them for sandbagging the
      > leaks as best they can.

      Maybe Windows is intrinsically prone to exploits though? That would mean that Microsoft, through its poor design as regards security, IS to blame. Playing catchup isn't really a solution, is it?

    18. Re:It wasn't a big change... by shokk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, I believe they were talking about the Personal version when they said "free". For a centralized corporate edition, they would most likely charge a fee. I would be very surprised if they didn't.

      If it were free for corporate use this would sink Spysweeper and CounterSpy, who both charge a per-seat license for a separate scanning system.

      Symantec is talking about adding spyware detection into their existing virus scanning software this March and we'll have to judge how effective the product is vs Microsoft's solution. Since they already offer a virus management solution in the corporate edition, this would allow companies already using it to just get the benefit in a simple upgrade that pushes from a central server to the clients.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    19. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not being naive. You are just assuming that there is risk that just doesn't exist. Do you really think that a spyware removal tool would remove your theoretical "spy"ware? No.

      Spyware companies create a database of known attacks. I highly doubt that they are going to be able to come across a terrorist cell's "spy"ware infiltration and make sure to safeguard everyone's computer via their database.

      Even if they did the terrorists would have likely already achieved their goal.

      So you are just spewing horseshit over nothing.

    20. Re:It wasn't a big change... by pclminion · · Score: 1, Insightful
      That's a nice little straw man you've got there. Last I checked, spyware doesn't kill people.

      The fact that Firestone was killing people was not my point. The fact is they released a faulty product and it would have been a fucking joke to attempt to charge to fix it.

      You're deliberately looking past my real point. In other words, you're the one with the straw man.

    21. Re:It wasn't a big change... by jmulvey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your post is so over-the-top, I had to read it again just to make sure you weren't being sarcastic. You weren't.

      I hope you don't go outside very often. Have you considered the risks of crossing the street? Do you fully understand the probability of an airplane flying over your head right now dropping a piece of toilet ice that could kill you?

    22. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Instead of badmouthing MS for its flaws, the linux community should be thanking them. If MS plugged the secutiry holes, and made it as secure as linux, and if they declared that Windows was only going to work on a subset of hardware on the market today (as linux does, though that subset is growing) which would fix much of the stability issues with the OS (other issues are those of the developers of 3rd party apps) then linux would never stand a chance. Windows is not 100% consistent in its interface or interoperability, but it sure as hell beats anything the linux community has to offer. Don't whine that Gnome/KDE are so nice. They are clones. They are the lniux opportunity trying to make the machine as easy to use as Windows has already done.

      The linux commuity and the windows world have just gone down 2 different paths:
      Linux - stability/security
      Windows - interoperability/easy of use

      Linux is making gains in the interop and ease of use department. Windows is making gains in the stability and security departments. It only remains to be seen who can gain on the other's strong point fastest. The number of diversity of developers in the linux community would make you think that linux would have the ege, but my money is on MS. The number & diveristy is both the linux community's strng suit and weakpoint. MS only has to agree internally to do something. WIth 10,000 linux developers each with their own idea of what is great and every linux user saying that this is what is wonderful about linux, MS can actually move faster when they need to.

    23. Re:It wasn't a big change... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      You are REALLY digging here and you have still failed to prove that spyware is "lethal"

      Obviously Firestone was a bad example because you are deliberately looking past the real point here. Okay, assume the tires were NOT killing anybody. Just totalling peoples' cars. Is that a closer equivalence for you? The fact remains that charging to fix it would have been a fucking joke.

      Now quit your disingenuous line of argumentation and step up to the plate with something real.

    24. Re:It wasn't a big change... by natedgreat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What product are you using that is better than MSFT's new tool. I have found that it cleans better than Ad-Ware and Spybot. I used to run both tools to clean up what the other could not, however since installing the MSFT product, I have only had t orun one.

    25. Re:It wasn't a big change... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      "People should be able to clear their computers out of what shouldn't have been there from the get go."

      You can... Windows shouldn't have ever been loaded on that thing. Use an alternative, they do in fact work rather nicely.

    26. Re:It wasn't a big change... by pclminion · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, did the adult words burn you?

    27. Re:It wasn't a big change... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      You were just lucky. I've seen machines so infected that no matter what you threw at it, is was still screwed up (XP). Nothing to do but a re-install.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    28. Re:It wasn't a big change... by the_brat_king · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a design flaw, it was careless driving + bad vehicle and tire maintenance. It was a high center of gravity, poorly designed suspension, underinflated tires, and driver error. I watched the NTSB test videos, to try to recreate the rollovers. They couldn't, until the overloaded the Explorer (which has a combined carry capacity of about 1K Lbs -- that includes passengers and all extra). They also had to load unevenly, and then sharply snap the wheel when the tire blew, or hit the brakes while snapping the wheel.

      Firestone was gracious in replacing the tires, because the media ran a smear campaign against Firestone and Ford. I don't like either of them (Firestone/Ford Motor Corp.), but they were unfairly targetted. They should have targetted the mechanics and sales people recommending the lower tire pressure (lower than minimum recommended by Firestone) for a "smoother" ride. They also should have targetted the advertisors who pimp small pickups and SUVs to families as great vacation/heavy hauling vehicles (an average 2 adult 3 child 6 day camping trip will add enough weight to most small SUV models to make it unsafe -- the Explorer, the S10 Blazer, the Ford Ranger, the Chevy S10, etc.)

      The Miniscule number of fatal wrecks wasn't really even worth noting, neither was the fact that improperly cared for tires kept failing. I'm sorry, but when a person doesn't follow manufacturer guidelines, any ensuing problems are that person's fault. I agree that Ford should have shared some of the blame, after all they paid the sales/mechanics/advertisors that misrepresented the capabilities of the vehicle, but Firestone should not have been blamed. The persons almost solely responsible for the wrecks/destroyed tires/damaged vehicles were the owners of those vehicles. That's the person responsible for maintaining the vehicles safety and integrity, they failed that, and because of that failing people were injured/died.

      As far as comparing spyware and the wrecks (again a miniscule number of deaths, more people died of High Iron poisoning in that same time frame -- rant against vitamin makers too! -- of course vitamin makers put Iron poisoning warnings on their vitamins, just like Firestone put a DO NOT UNDERINFLATE warning on their tires); the comparison is fair... stupid people not following the manufacturer guidelines are causing machines to malfunction and break down (remember, you have to change your default security settings in XP to allow ActiveX to run unchecked on a computer system.) The comparison of the results, that would be unfair, but the comparison of the acts, that's very fair.

      Bottom line -- if your computer is stocked full of spyware, it's YOUR FAULT! Don't blame the company that made the Operating System, YOU are the one that failed in your duties to due diligence. Same goes for if your Ford Explorer rolls over and kills your family -- YOU ARE THE ONE THAT KILLED THEM, you did that by failing to properly maintain your vehicle. Again, same applies when you leave your SuperDupperUltraGotItAll Ultimate Mega Super Vitamins (now in Grape flavour) lying around and your child eats them and dies. It's YOUR fault, for not exercising due diligence. Personal responsibility.

      It's mean, and nobody likes to say it, but that's the way it is; we as people make decisions those decisions have consequences either negative or positive, and we are the ones liable(I smoke, have for 23 years now -- that's MY fault, not R.J. Reynold's the purveyers of the World's FINEST FILTERLESS cigarette!)If you don't take responsibility than quite whining when the government regulates everything (I'm sorry sir, but 30 ounces of water is illegal, don't want you getting water intoxication.)

    29. Re:It wasn't a big change... by bokmann · · Score: 1

      You don't think spyware has the potential to cause injury? Do you have any idea what kind of things people are stupid enough to let computers, running windows, connected to the internet do?

      Power systems, security systems, medical information, percriptions, health care, financial, etc... Any and all of these things could be - hell.. HAVE BEEN - compromised thanks to these security problems.

      How many people would be injured if Los Angeles' 911 call center were crippled due to problems with a handful of critical resources?

    30. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Windows was only going to work on a subset of hardware on the market today (as linux does, though that subset is growing)

      Whoa, stop right there. Mod me flamebait or offtopic if you want, but it's not Linux that doesn't work with every single piece of hardware out there, but the hardware (non-standard, secret specs, refusal to provide drivers...) Don't blame Linux for that, but hardware manufacturers.

    31. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you fail to understand why Linux doesn't work with all hardware. It is the WinTHIS and WinTHAT hardware/firmware that is the problem along with the vendors who won't release specs for there hardware. Which begs the question... how much of this is influenced by Mircosoft?

    32. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Lispy · · Score: 1

      Actually the "expensive" part is where Microsoft comes in.

    33. Re:It wasn't a big change... by m3j00 · · Score: 0

      As popular as it is to bash Microsoft on this site, you have to remember that the vast majority of spyware is installed only after the user clicks "Yes" to install the software. It's not much different from the verification method that firefox uses before installing extensions, which can be used to propagate spyware in the same manner.
      When the Firefox userbase reaches critical mass and spyware writers take notice, which is coming soon, you'll see spyware infesting Firefox profiles. I wonder what all of the bandwagon MSFT haters will have to say when FireFox spyware becomes popular...

    34. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm running xp and have never had a virus/spyware problem, nor has it ever crashed btw. i know slashdot pseudointellectuals love perpetuating the myth of "unsecurable" windows, but it is nonetheless a myth. and a pretty tired one at that.

    35. Re:It wasn't a big change... by ChrisPee · · Score: 1
      Tires blowing out due to design flaws can end someone's life. Spyware infecting a computer due to design flaws can cause someone to format their hard-drive.
      Many medical devices run on customized Windows PCs. See here .
    36. Re:It wasn't a big change... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that it was/is the best. I think it likely was the only one willing to sell.

      I still find Spybot + Adaware to be good. I recently got Webroot Spysweeper, which is often indicated to be near the top in detectors.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    37. Re:It wasn't a big change... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Well, of the spyware removal tools I've run, (Giant/MS, AdAware, Spybot, Spysweeper) MS is the only one to ever turn up false positives.

      So now I don't run it. I personally find it ridiculous that it pegs VNC as spyware. There was another obviously legit program it pegged as well, might have been proxomitron. At that rate, it ought to peg IE and WMP9+...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    38. Re:It wasn't a big change... by neurojab · · Score: 1

      Personally, I prefer "Hijack This" to remove spyware from Windows systems. It requires the user to pick out what is spyware and what isn't, but it will tell you exactly what programs/plugins are suspect and can remove them. I've had a couple of pretty nasty spyware programs that could only be removed using it.

    39. Re:It wasn't a big change... by jerw134 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't list VNC as spyware. It detects it, mentions what it's used for, and asks if it should be removed. VNC can easily be used to spy on people without their knowledge or consent. If someone snuck VNC onto your computer, it's great that AntiSpyware lets you know about it. If not, two clicks tells AntiSpyware to ignore VNC forever.

      Jesus Christ, you act like it just goes ahead and deletes VNC without even asking. I think it's great that it lists VNC. You are just too self-centered to see the reasoning behind it.

    40. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

      The best example is one I can give from working on an executive's (heh - they ALWAYS get in the most trouble) machine here where I work.

      Ran Ad-Aware....found 8-9 pieces of spyware and removed them. Ran Spybot S&D - found about 15 more and removed them. Ran MS and it found over 1300 additional spyware-related files and over 5000 registry entries all keyed to spyware in some way, shape, or form.

      So, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you about running all 3 - I do too, however, in my experiences here in my corporate environment, MS will find more stuff that SpyBot and AdAware miss than the other way around.

    41. Re:It wasn't a big change... by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      Still, MS giving something away for free...I wonder why...

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    42. Re:It wasn't a big change... by SunFan · · Score: 1


      It is likely you are smarter and/or better educated about the issues than most people in Microsoft's target markets. And it could be luck, too. Out of my immediate friends and family who have Windows XP, three have had worms installed on their computers. They are average computer users whose life revolves around everything but the computer. It takes a lot of prodding to get them to update their virus software or anything for that matter. They generally don't quite understand that there are automated software programs out there who can scan thousands of computers for open ports and exploit known vulnerabilities without them clicking on anything.

      I know about these things because I read computer-oriented news and see the queries in my firewall log files. The fact that there are still queries for Windows filesharing, for example, shows that the classic attacks must still work enough for the crackers to keep trying. That's why I like having OpenBSD and pf between my network and the Internet. I don't know anyone but myself who has the patience to go through the touble of configuring a firewall to the point that I do. It really shouldn't be this way, but even some of the pre-packaged firewalls out there have stupid default passwords or technical support holes in them.

      IMO, Windows on the Internet is a very good example of why anarchy is a bad model for society. Protecting one's self shouldn't take such a huge amount of time and resources as it does with respect to networking.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    43. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe there are more exploits to be found in MS code than should really be the case...

      Bullshit! Most of the problems in MS code are not bugs, they are deliberate design decisions that never should have been made! Damn it, I am all for "don't punish them for bugs", but these are not bugs! these are deliberate design decisions that should never have been made or, having been made, should have been canceled for implementation when the possibilities for abuse were made clear!

      Most of MS's probelsm are stupidity, not programmer error!

    44. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

      None of it is influenced by Microsoft per se, it's just that MS has the largest market share.

      Blaming Microsoft for most hardware being Windows compatible and not Linux compatibile is like blaming the English language for the amount of books that are printed in English as opposed to Hindi.

    45. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my University loads up our computers with this program that lets you send print jobs to nearby printers in the University. Microsoft pegged that has some sort of adbar. Don't ask me how they arrived at that conclusion.

      Still, I like MS/Giant's stuff. It might have false positives, but it also catches a lot more spyware, at least in my family's computer. My family loaded so many adbars, and did everything on IE. It was a disaster area before AntiSpyware came in.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    46. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Coward rated this "Overrated" when it hadn't been modded? Are you too chickenshit to voice your straw-man opposition to it? Are you to simple to form a reply? Or did you kill your family because you can't drive, and had a Ford?

    47. Re:It wasn't a big change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then of course you're contradicting a number of studies that tested the available antispyware software packages and concluded that none was better than 50% (detection rate), but Giant was still the "best".

    48. Re:It wasn't a big change... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      Despite the flames your post has drawn, the fact is there are off-the-shelf spyware programs that steal your banking info and let someone liquidate your account. That may not kill anyone, nut it's sure a pain in the ass.

      -a

  3. Next week's news by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Doctor's who leave sponges and surgical instruments inside you body during an operation will now remove them at no extra cost to you!

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Next week's news by Trolling4Columbine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft is doing the Right Thing (tm) here, and all you have for them is more snide remarks?

      How effective this tool is remains to be seen, of course. But what's notable, IMHO, is that Microsoft is making a responsible gesture to their customers.

      It's OK to show a little appreciation sometimes, even for Microsoft.

      --
      Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
    2. Re:Next week's news by walders · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but the analogy isn't quite right, IMHO... Doctors who operate on you in dirty hospitals aren't necessarily held accountable when you get MRSA. The anti-Microsoft sentiment (and I agree with most of it) has at least produced some action from them recently; this being an example. They're on my evil-list for anti-competetive behaviour and cynical FUD campaigns. But for this effort I applaud them.

    3. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know you're trying to be funny by bashing MSFT, and that's obviously popular on /. and other places, but...

      Your analogy doesn't hold water. Spyware/Adware is a malicious program maliciously written by someone to take advantage of a lack of total, perfect security. A more apt analogy would be holding a truck manufacturer responsible if someone slashes your tires because they manufactured an insecure truck insomuch as they didn't prevent the malicious person from maliciously slashing your tries.

      I'll never understand this mentality that someone who puts out a product is responsible for not stopping people with malicious intent from screwing with it. This standard is only applied to software, and it's ridiculous.

    4. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That truck manufacturor should include, for free, a .357 Magnum with every purchase of said truck!

      Either that or boobytrap the whole truck. :)

    5. Re:Next week's news by gowen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, yes, I was going for the cheap laugh (Hey! It's what I do, but...)

      Security holes get left in software by accident, and by sloppiness on behalf of programmers. If that happens, bad things can happen (malware gets in).

      Surgical instruments get left in bodies by accident, and by sloppiness on behalf of doctors and theatre staff. If that happens, bad things happen (bacteria gets in, the contents of your bowel seep into your stomach).

      Now MSFT's programmers aren't to blame for the existence of scumbags like Malware writers, anymore than doctors are to blame for the existence of bacteria, or easily lacerated bowels. But if it's through their own laxness and/or incompetence that these bad things can get in ... then they've a certain moral imperative to clean up after themselves. For free.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:Next week's news by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      This tool came from Giant, one of the best anti-spyware program writers. As far as I know, the only thing MS really did was relabel the program and make it free (it was a pay program before.)

      As for the grandparent poster - his analogy was poor - MS didn't leave the dirty sponge inside the patients body. It might be better to say that MS didn't seal up the cut to the persons body very well, allowing malware to enter it. In actuality, Windows and all its apps are huge - there is bound to be errors, bugs, etc. Nobody is perfect. People find exploits in MS products...just like people are finding exploits in Firefox. Soon people will find exploits in Linux, as it becomes more main-stream (right now it is still really geek-stream).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:Next week's news by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their software was faulty, and it allowed hackers to turn machines into spam spewing zombies. Several years later, they partially fix the problem (although they treat only the symptons, and not the assorted IE/ActiveX holes that constitute the disease) and you want me to thank them?

      *boggle*

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    8. Re:Next week's news by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      I can see it now.

      Microsoft trucks!

      Just look at our huge fluffy tires made of tissue paper...and loaded with flammable hydrogen to make them light and airy...

      A uniguely friendly consumer experience...

      Where do you want to go today on our tires?

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    9. Re:Next week's news by Alien54 · · Score: 1
      There is no US patent declared for the personal computer.

      Please nobody tell Microsoft. It might give them ideas.

      ;)

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    10. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on this internet superhighway you need slashproof tires on your truck...

      if not you'll be driving on the rims really quick on a Windoze brand truck...

    11. Re:Next week's news by Trolling4Columbine · · Score: 1

      More accurately, it allowed hackers to turn insufficiently protected machines into spam spewing zombies.

      I use Windows. My machine isn't a "spam spewing zombie" because I use anti-virus, anti-spyweare, and firewall software. It's called due diligence.

      Why is it that Windows (the OS) is blamed for it's security vulnerabilities when users don't practice due diligence, but when someone logs into a *NIX as root by default, it's the idiot user's fault, and not the OS?

      --
      Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
    12. Re:Next week's news by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because logging in as root is like leaving your car unlocked.

      Running Windows (pre XP,SP2) is like buying a car whose locks don't work, only to have dealer explain that if the car is stolen because I failed to buy an expensive, third party lock, immobiliser and alarm, it's my own fault for not displaying "due diligence." Sorry, but operating systems, in their default setup, should prevent arbitrary third parties from running code on my machine.

      PS : Why am I replying to someone who's called "Trolling4Columbine". I must be stupid.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    13. Re:Next week's news by LifesABeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I tell my kids, "its what you do AFTER you've made the mistake that tells people who you are." As my children get older, it is dawning on them what I mean.

      So I submit this tensor:

      Difference ( Good Guy, Bad Guy ) == The Good Guy can do what the Bad Guy does, but doesn't.

    14. Re:Next week's news by Trolling4Columbine · · Score: 1
      "Running Windows (pre XP,SP2) is like buying a car whose locks don't work, only to have dealer explain that if the car is stolen because I failed to buy an expensive, third party lock, immobiliser and alarm, it's my own fault for not displaying "due diligence."

      I ran Windows 2k before I got XP, and even then my machine wasn't a spam zombie. Nor did I have to buy expensive third party "locks". I used (and continue to use) free tools like AntiVir, AdAware, and ZoneAlarm.

      If you went out and paid oodles of $$$ for similar software, that just makes you a sucker.

      --
      Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
    15. Re:Next week's news by gowen · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't the expense of third party locks, it's the need for third party locks. (And it's an unadvertised need, too. I don't imagine your Windows PC, when first turned on said "CAUTION : This machine is vulnerable to numerous viruses and IE exploits. Please download and activate free tools like AntiVir, AdAware, and ZoneAlarm before continuing". I know mine didn't).

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    16. Re:Next week's news by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That funny, I was thinking the same thing, only more along the lines of "someone slashes your truck's seats, because the door didn't lock properly and the alarm didn't go off".

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    17. Re:Next week's news by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Microsoft is doing the Right Thing (tm) here, and all you have for them is more snide remarks?"

      The right thing to do would be to fix or remove the entry points malicious software uses to compromise a system. Since I.E. and Active-X are the entry points for the vast majority of malicious programs, and Microsoft has been unable to fix them after many years, the right thing to do would be to remove Active-X and and to remove I.E.'s ability to automatically execute code.

    18. Re:Next week's news by gowen · · Score: 1
      This standard is only applied to software, and it's ridiculous.
      If someone breaks into my car by smashing the window, it's the thief's fault. If someone breaks into my car because the auto manufacturer made it so that an individual key can open every cars of that model, I'm sure as hell going to blame the manufacturer.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    19. Re:Next week's news by jwsd · · Score: 1

      It's OK to show a little appreciation sometimes, even for Microsoft.
      No! Never!
      When Microsoft gives away free software, it's for evil purpose with a hidden agenda. When the OSS community gives away free software, it's for noble causes just for the welfare of the world. The two can never be compared, not on slashdot anyway.

    20. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always get a kick out of you people from the "Nobody is perfect" "all software has security holes" crowd.

      While you are technically correct, there is a big difference between several bugs per 1000 lines of code and 1 bug per 10000 lines (which a code review of Linux recently found.)

      Also, many Windows security flaws are not even code problems. They are design and feature choices (like ActiveX.) Very often security and tech professionals warn MS loudly about the risk and then MS goes ahead and does it anyhow.

      Suppose a carpenter builds me a house complete with alarm system, break-resistant windows a steal door with a deadbolt. When I move in I find that the door latch is mis-aligned and can be forced open. Yes, that is a security risk. But it is one that can be corrected cheaply.

      If he builds me a house with no window or door locks, single-pane glass on basement windows and no alarm system then what? Would you say that I should just chalk it up to "everybody makes mistakes?" This house may be cheaper for me to have built, but am I getting the best value for my money?

      Oh, I know. If I get the 2nd house and get robbed then it's the burgler's fault and the builder is blamelses, right? No! We live in a world where bad people exist and break into homes to steal stuff. The builder should certainly be aware of that.

      If I settle for the 2nd house because it's cheaper and a little easier (don't need to arm the alarm and no need to worry about locking windows or doors) then I guess maybe I deserve it. Just like someone who stays with Windows/IE maybe deserves the crap they get on their system.

    21. Re:Next week's news by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      Your key analogy strikes me as funny - because it's (kinda) true of many GM cars from the 70's & 80's.

      Case in point; A friend of mine locked his keys inside his ~1987-88 Chevy S-10 pickup. My brother-in-law pulled out his 1972 Chevy Suburban key and unlocked it for him. He then told us that you have about a 50-50 chance of a GM auto key working in any given GM door lock.

      Makes me glad to be a Mopar Man... :-)

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    22. Re:Next week's news by Kwil · · Score: 1

      So you say we should appreciate Microsoft for finally putting out something to deal with the problems they created in the first place with an insecure browser/OS?

      I'm sorry, the closest I can get to appreciation is "It's about time."

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    23. Re:Next week's news by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Because Microsoft "markets" Windows for dummies. They market it as being easy to use. It's not the techies that have the problems near as much as the dummies that have no idea what an OS is. They hook up their new box via broadband, and as far as they can see (for a while), everything is working, they can surf the net and do their e-mail. They have no idea that their box is a sypware-infested zombie. Months later, they can still surf and e-mail, but maybe the machine is slower, and even then they accept that. Unless they are really paying attention, they just don't know. It's not until the machine is so screwed up that they can't surf or e-mail will they start to suspect something is wrong.

      But, the user did not do anything wrong. They purchased a product that was marketed as being easy to use, but it ends up not being usable. Many will waste money on a new machine.

      Microsoft does not tell the user that they need to do *extra* stuff to protect their machine.

      That is the fault of Microsoft, not the user.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    24. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations for never getting a virus before the virus signatures were available for your AV program.

      Congratulations for never visiting a site with a bogus ActiveX component or one that spys on you which you have to accept before you can get to the content you really need on the site... again before the signature was available for anti-virus.

      Congratulations for never trying to open a DRMed windows media file which requires you to install an ActiveX component before the DRM allows you to view the video or listen to the song. Again.. at least not one that is too new for your AV and ASW software.

      Congratulations for being more technically capable than the average target consumer that MS sells to.

      Congratulations for only doing all this on a home PC which you can find free versions of this software for. (Since nearly all the free AV and AntiAd/SpyWare software is only free for personal home use. I'll just assume you don't violate the license on a business-owened PC.)

      And finally, congratulations for protecting your Windows system. My Linux box "isn't a "spam spewing zombie"" and I don't use any Antivirus or Anti-SpyWare/AdWare programs. My parents (who definately are in MS's target market) haven't had a problem on their Linux box and they don't use those Anti-whatever tools either. Go figure, huh?

    25. Re:Next week's news by Trolling4Columbine · · Score: 1
      "They purchased a product that was marketed as being easy to use, but it ends up not being usable."

      Then car dealerships better start telling their customers that they have to put gasoline and oil in the car, or it will stop running. And they better start telling them to have their brake pads replaced periodically, as well as windshield washer fluid, transmission fluid, antifreeze, etc. Otherwise the owner might not know what's wrong when something breaks because of their failure to properly maintain the vehicle.

      Yes, a bit of an exaggeration, but seriously, proper PC maintenance should be a given by now. It's as hard as double-clicking on the "New Updates are Available" icon in the system tray.

      Here we have Microsoft giving the proverbial "oil" away for free, and Slashbots want to spit in their face for it. Shame on you for your petty sour-grapes attitudes.

      --
      Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
    26. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember right it was actually 1 in 11 chance. At the time they had 11 different key patterns for both the door and ignition.

      So you had a 1:11 chance of unlocking the door and a 1:121 chance of both unlocking the door and starting the car. If the owner only took the keys with them and didn't lock the door, then of course you had a 1:11 chance of getting a free car.

      Of course crooks who managed to collect all 22 keys had a 100% chance of unlocking and stealing the car.

    27. Re:Next week's news by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

      You want responsible? How about get to the root of the Spyware problem.

      Provide a control panal app or a button on IE that shows and allows removal of IE BHO's. Take it a step further and only allow BHO's to be installed through that button or CPL. How about a single function or button that shows ALL locations and all programs that are set to start on bootup (even the ones that can hook and hide themselves from showing when using regedit). Not make the users trudge through 20 or so different hidden locations that msconfig does not even show. How about when I remove something from that startup list, it can't come back or a gatekeeper to allow much more control of what goes in there. How about a method to stop a process and prevent it from starting again?

      All of these functions would be seem relatively simple and provide protection or at least prevent spyware from hiding from the user. Those steps would be user friendly compared to a spyware infection and would be leaps and bounds having to constantly remove spyware app of the week that uses these sneaky unchecked methods to get onto and wreck your system. Third parties have solutions that offer some of what I suggest, MS should start with those before even thinking about a signature based product.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    28. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant slashdotproof tires!

    29. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then car dealerships better start telling their customers that they have to put gasoline and oil in the car, or it will stop running. And they better start telling them to have their brake pads replaced periodically, as well as windshield washer fluid, transmission fluid, antifreeze, etc. Otherwise the owner might not know what's wrong when something breaks because of their failure to properly maintain the vehicle.

      Car dealers DO do this. They usually even offer the buyer a maintenance package to bring the car in for regular service. Your analogy isn't "bit of an exaggeration", it's stardard operating practice.

    30. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then perhaps manufacturers should get their shit together and start making cars that don't require tedious maintenance. All that work is putting a huge burden on idiot drivers.

    31. Re:Next week's news by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the real numbers. It was pretty funny to see the look on my friends face when the B-i-L opened his car; part relief, part horror at how simple it was. Not long after, he traded it in for a Dodge Dakota. Heh...

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    32. Re:Next week's news by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      "When Microsoft gives away free software, it's for evil purpose with a hidden agenda"

      Uh, yeah. That's been the historical truth. Do you have a counterexample?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    33. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volvo did actually.....

    34. Re:Next week's news by rewt66 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Car dealerships do that. It's called the "owner's manual".

      So, um, where's the owner's manual for Windows that tells me that if I don't have a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware running, it's going to be like running a car with no oil in it?

      Yeah, I know, you and I don't need to be told. We aren't average computer users, though, and Microsoft isn't aiming their OS at us. It's aimed at the non-techie user (which is a brilliant move by Microsoft, by the way, since there are lots more of them). But the non-techie user doesn't know what they have to do to protect their machine, and Microsoft doesn't tell them.

      Now, credit where due, Microsoft finally turned on the firewall by default, turned on Windows Update by default, and if you let it go that way, Windows Update will also keep your anti-spyware up to date. (Still no anti-virus, though.)

      But the original point was valid, and I don't think your response addresses it very well: Microsoft releases software with features that constitute gaping security flaws. Rather than remove the features, they put on a bunch of bandaids, trying to keep the feature but not let it be misused. But since the feature itself is inherently a security flaw, the bandaids leave a lot of room for new exploits to keep appearing.

      To go back to your analogy: If you sell me a car that needs an oil change every 10 miles, and other cars need an oil change every 3000 miles, and you're not going to fix the car, you better be giving me the oil for free. And it's not "sour grapes" to be disappointed even then, and to have the expectation that you really ought to fix the car.

      Disclaimer: I work for Symantec, and they are also starting to get into the spyware removal game. I don't think that my viewpoint is biased because of this, but feel free to ascribe bias anyway. And, of course, I don't speak for Symantec...

    35. Re:Next week's news by dcam · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is doing the Right Thing (tm) here, and all you have for them is more snide remarks?

      Snide remarks are in order. They may be doing the right thing now, but it is going part of the way towards redressing the balance for thw wrong they have done. The comment about doctors cleaning up after their mistakes is spot on.

      --
      meh
    36. Re:Next week's news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is doing the Right Thing (tm) here, and all you have for them is more snide remarks?

      No, no, NO! The right thing would have been not to have provided these holes in the first place! Now that they have provided the holes AND everyone is taking advantage of them, I should laud them for kinda, sorta blocking them? ...and, being generous as they always have been, not charging me for their mistakes?

      Riiiight!

    37. Re:Next week's news by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      It's called due diligence.

      No, it's called inexcusable product defects. Active X, integrating IE into the system wherever possible, services running all over the place AND piss poor privledge seperation is a recepie for trouble. The blame rests entirely on Microsoft's shoulders.

    38. Re:Next week's news by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Actually, next week's news has already been cancelled. Due to circumstances (beyond?) MSFT's control, the US Congress has passed a tort reform bill that effectively strangles all class action lawsuits that the Feds don't approve. The class action lawsuit against MSFT for their buggy vulnerable OSes and Apps (to the tune of Billions of US Dollars) has been averted.

      Oh, and thank you MSFT for finally providing (some?) countermeasures for your buggy vulnerable OSes and Apps (so there, parent post)...

    39. Re:Next week's news by jwsd · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. That's been the historical truth. Do you have a counterexample?

      It all depends on a person's perspective. Let's see...
      Microsoft gave IE away for free. As a Windows user, that meant I didn't have to pay for Netscape. But for Microsoft haters, they did it to kill a competition, a hidden agenda.
      Microsoft gave AntiSpy ware away for free. Again for Microsoft haters, they did it to kill a competition, a hidden agenda.
      Microsoft gave MediaPlayer away for free. For Microsoft haters, they did it to kill a competition, a hidden agenda.
      OSS gave Linux away for free. For Microsoft haters, they did it for the benefit of human race, a noble cause. The fact that they want to kill their competition, Microsoft, and control the world desktop afterwards, is not a hidden agenda.
      What can I say? A bunch of hypocrites.

    40. Re:Next week's news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      There is no "OSS" that is making corporate decisions (as in, with a central "hidden agenda".)

      There are people who develop for Linux who want to kill their competition and control the world desktop, but a) they're not running the show and b) they couldn't do it anyway.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    41. Re:Next week's news by jwsd · · Score: 1

      Without the backing of corporate heavyweights like IBM, Oracle, Novell, who happen to be Microsoft's biggest competitors, without corporations like Red Hat and , Linux would not have been as widely adopted as today. Those corporations emphasized the grassroot aspect of Linux to make it a great marketing story. But their true intention is to drive out their biggest competitor, Microsoft, and dominate the world afterwards.
      I understand your argument that Linux will still be here without the support of those corporations, but it will be far less widely adopted as today and a nonentity for Microsoft.

    42. Re:Next week's news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What do IBM's and Novell's and Oracle's motivations have to do with Joe Average Linux developer?

      Nothing.

      What do Microsoft's motivations have to do with Joe Average Microsoft developer?

      Everything.

      Linux's raison d'etre has nothing to do with corporate domination. Corporations may well be attempting to use Linux to achieve corporate domination.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    43. Re:Next week's news by jwsd · · Score: 1

      What do IBM's and Novell's and Oracle's motivations have to do with Joe Average Linux developer?
      I am not so sure. IBM employees have contributed to Linux codebase, sometimes encourage by IBM.
      I am a long time software developer myself. I learned in my career that there are many things average programmers outside big corporations don't know, no matter how smart they are. It's not a matter of intelligence or motivation, it's a matter of experience. Without the direct contribution from experienced corporate developers, Linux will lack many enterprise critical features which makes it unlikely to be adopted by enterprises.

    44. Re:Next week's news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      But that has nothing whatsoever with your imagined scenario where "OSS" is hypocritical because they want to take over the world.

      There is no hive mind. Different developers have different agendas. Some are corporations, some are meaty humans with BO and lots of hair.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    45. Re:Next week's news by jwsd · · Score: 1

      But that has nothing whatsoever with your imagined scenario where "OSS" is hypocritical because they want to take over the world.
      Because they do want to take over the world, otherwise, why would they focus most of their energy on Microsoft, who happens to dominate the world desktop market at the time being? Just because there is no central command, doesn't mean they are not working toward the same goal. Do you think every guerilla fighter in Afganistan and Iraq is directly controlled by the same leaders, say Bin Laden? But do they share a common cause? Yes. Do they all want to end the world dominance by the US? Yes. Do they want to dominate the world if given a chance? Yes. The only difference here is that they are bony humans with lots of hair.

    46. Re:Next week's news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Who is "they"? Do they have a secret handshake?

      You're talking about a disparate group of people on every continent in every nation that has electricity and phone service. There is no common goal. They are all users and developers of a set of tools, and those tools they turn to the service of their own goals.

      Microsoft does not figure into the overwhelming majority of those goal-sets. Microsoft could continue their hegemony on the desktop until the sun cools and not affect the Linux community in any meaningful way.

      You, my friend, have a persecution complex.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    47. Re:Next week's news by jwsd · · Score: 1

      You have been consistently trying to play down the fact that there is a strong force within the Linux camp to dethrone Microsoft, and big corporations like IBM are behind the force. If Linux is just an amateurs' hobby, then it won't bother Microsoft very much. But it isn't, maybe not to you, but to many Linux supportors who want to use Linux as a weapon to fight Microsoft in the business world. We can argue whether those people are representative of the Linux supporters or not, but we don't think we can agree on this issue. I also found that when I argue with Linux supportors they tend to focus on finding faults instead of trying to understand a different perspective. So let's just agree we disagree and get back to our lives.

    48. Re:Next week's news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that IBM isn't part of the Linux community. I don't, however, think that the majority of the community shares IBM's aims.

      IBM's aims are IBM's. They do not speak for the Linux community.

      There is no hive mind.

      Me? I think Linux is way too much like work. I'm delighted to pay Apple to abstract all that grody UNIX-ness under the best GUI on the planet, so if you think I'm a Linux partisan, you're mistargeting a bit.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  4. WOOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Whoohoo! However, to help recoup the expenses for offering the anti-spyware for free, Microsoft will be selling information about known vulnerabilities in the software to the spyware vendors.

    1. Re:WOOT by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Better yet, they'll patent it!

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  5. IE vs M$ Spyware App by codesurfer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean they'll cancel each other out, leaving the user with nothing?

    1. Re:IE vs M$ Spyware App by super-momo · · Score: 1
      Does this mean they'll cancel each other out, leaving the user with nothing?

      No. They annihilate and you'll get Long Horn shortly.

    2. Re:IE vs M$ Spyware App by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      it'll be like the cat and buttered toast thing. They'll flip uncontrollably until they tear apart the room.

  6. Read your own stories! by atlasheavy · · Score: 0

    Zonk's being rude. The first story that he linked to very clearly uses the word "may" as in "Microsoft *may* charge for this product." It was never definite that they would. Then again, this is Slashdot. sigh.

    --

    iRooster, the Mac OS X a
    1. Re:Read your own stories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Zonk's being rude. The first story that he linked to very clearly uses the word "may" as in "Microsoft *may* charge for this product." It was never definite that they would. Then again, this is Slashdot. sigh.

      The idea that Microsoft would even consider charging for it, given the abysmally poor state of their software and the billions in losses it has caused, is very rude. Then again, this is Microsoft. Sigh.

    2. Re:Read your own stories! by bonch · · Score: 1

      Of course, it doesn't affect us OS X users either way. :)

      It's nice they "may" be including free anti-spyware, but it's sad there was a need in the first place. Spyware typically hooks into flaws in the system. A big problem is the way Windows loves to run as Administrator all the time. In this day and age, it's just unacceptable. Come on, Microsoft, it's 2005 now. Time to force people to pay attention to user privileges.

  7. What is up with the current Antispyware log file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I removed Microsoft's antispyware program because it was creating a log file in the hundreds of megabytes (this was only after one week). I thought there might be a setting to turn off the log -- it really screwed up my disk defrag program because the file has a few thousand pieces scattered over the hard drive -- but I couldn't find anything.

    Anybody know if this is a bug that was fixed, or how to stop it?

  8. Makes sense to me by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gates went on to say, "Much like our Internet Explorer and Outlook Express products, we feel that it is best if we charge for these tools what they are worth."

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Makes sense to me by cashman73 · · Score: 0
      Gates went on to say, "Much like our Internet Explorer and Outlook Express products, we feel that it is best if we charge for these tools what they are worth."

      Finally, we get the true value of Internet Exploder, right from the horse's mouth himself! ZERO!

      Long live Firefox!

    2. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox costs $0 and is worth every penny of it.

  9. not a 'turnaround' by dioscaido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quite a turnaround from charging extra to free.

    This is not a turnaround; the linked slashdot article simply cried wolf. MS hadn't ever released a statement committing to a pricing-model for MSAS. At most they had said they were investigating the options. Now they have finished their investigation, and the price is $0.

    1. Re:not a 'turnaround' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a turnaround; the linked slashdot article simply cried wolf.

      Is it not disturbing that we have to make up reasons to have a good Microsoft bashing here?

      Like this story yesterday. In no uncertain terms dismissed as total fiction by the prime minister himself. But it made for a good indignant group rage.

    2. Re:not a 'turnaround' by pclminion · · Score: 1
      MS hadn't ever released a statement committing to a pricing-model for MSAS. At most they had said they were investigating the options. Now they have finished their investigation, and the price is $0.

      It did not require an investigation. Do you think that when Firestone produced a whole run of shitty tires that blew up and killed people that they "investigated" whether they should charge to get them replaced?

      Maybe the law doesn't require Microsoft to warrant their products, but in all ethical and moral senses it is required. To even entertain the idea of charging for it is unethical.

  10. you know the best spyware tool... by m2bord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    common sense. it doesn't matter how many tools joe user has on his pc, if he/she doesn't exercise sound judgement in surfing, no amount of anti-spyware tools will help.

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
    1. Re:you know the best spyware tool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if you are aware or not but spyware does not only come from IE and bad surfing habits. Spyware can also come with software that you install. IE: kazaa has some built in.

  11. Not entirely true... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 0

    You'd have to sell your soul and give up any common sense.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  12. Too Bad for Ad-Aware by blackmonday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Lavasoft may be in a hard position now. Ad-Aware is also free, but they depend on the paid version to keep them afloat. Now that MS is offering theirs for free, I wonder what Lavasoft will do to stay competitive.

    I hope MS doesn't turn around and start charging once the competition is eliminated.

    1. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lavasoft has a large non-US market. They should have no trouble.

      And as long as non-US companies reject the desire of the FBI to be ignored by spyware applications, applications such as Ad-Aware will still have a place on my US-based computer.

    2. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by gregm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's assumming Microsoft keeps up with the trends and maintains a decent solution to the problem. They won't and people will still have to use third-party solutions like Adaware. Just like people use Firefox/Thunderbird and some even pay for Opera.

      G

    3. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by JPriest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lavasoft has found a new way to make money. Aparrently Ad-Aware no longer removes WhenU spyware. I wonder if the kickback from taking bribes will be enough to offset the sales losses created by MSFT's product?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    4. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by bender183 · · Score: 1

      you know they will, that is thier buisness model. Eliminate the comptetion by charging nothing, then turn around and charge you, assuming you will pay because there arent any viable competitors left. They used to give away windows back in the 80s....probally dont have to tell anyone how that ended up working out.

    5. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Matey-O · · Score: 1
      I hope MS doesn't turn around and start charging once the competition is eliminated.
      Name a single instance in Microsoft's 'illustrious' career where they did this.

      Outlook Express? Still free.
      IE? free.
      Messenger? Free.
      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    6. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Dausha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I wonder what Lavasoft will do to stay competitive. "

      Perhaps continue to provide a superior product?

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    7. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless Microsoft is able to overturn the widespread belief that they cannot produce secure, reliable applications and operating systems certainly Lavasoft and others can bank on the negative reputation of Microsoft to continue business.

    8. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by CoderBob · · Score: 1
      I, for one, would rather pay for Ad-Aware than use the MS one. I just don't trust them to keep up the support as I would like. I trust Ad-Aware a great deal, while the MS one is new to me, and until I see a reason to switch, why bother? Spybot S&D will also stay installed on my PC, as well as HijackThis (helps with stray issues here and there, and has found a couple things Spybot and Ad-Aware left out- not spyware per se, but just system hogs that I could do without), and PeerGuardian will stay running in my system tray as well.

      On a side note, I don't run the "background" process portion of Spybot, just weekly checks. PeerGuardian gets rid of a large amount of annoying Internet crap (it just quietly drops packets from IPs/domains that are "blacklisted", which includes most tracking advertisers and the wonderful RIAA), so if I'm doing any web browsing, actually speeds up the process of page loading.

      Also, PG doesn't seem to slow the system down that much at all- World of Warcraft runs just fine, as does UT2k3, and even huge compiles from the Cygwin Bash shell.

    9. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by nine-times · · Score: 1
      I hope MS doesn't turn around and start charging once the competition is eliminated.

      Well, if we use IE as an indicator, they won't start charging, they'll just halt development.

      Kidding (mostly). The thing is, it's in Microsoft's best interest to provide security tools to consumers. It seems this may be different from many of their other products, in that it's a utility-- a support for the OS. When a large percentage of Windows users are so infected with spyware that their computers won't work anymore, other operating systems will start looking mighty good. So I'm pretty sure that (for the time being) Microsoft is genuinely interested in helping consumers protect themselves from spyware.

    10. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you use all three of these products without purchasing Windows? If not, they're not exactly "free" are they?

    11. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then linux isn't free because you can't use it without a computer, right? Oh you're bullshit argument doesn't hold up now does it.

    12. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they won't charge for it explicitly, they will just raise the cost of Windows (unless you're a large organization publicly looking at Linux).

      What Microsoft does have a career of is killing competition by "bundling" their version of the product. Once the market starts making lots of money, then Microsoft enters it and uses is position to wipe out the competition.

      They were convicted of this with IE in the US, and with Media Player in the EU.

    13. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      You could follow The Linux Mentality, and write your own kernel to run on your WizBang! Toaster 3000, complete with a blinking LED to say the toast is done... Wait...had to buy the toaster...I guess nothing man creates is "free" as in beer- somebody had to pay for it, somehow. Wonder if I can get the details on the electrical schematic WizBang! Toaster 3k...sounds like a fun project...

    14. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by BP9 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Ad-Aware misses lots of stuff that Giant doesn't. I used the usual mix of Ad-Aware and S&D on a recently infested machine (Nov or so) and while both ran clean some junk was still in there; the Giant thing (pre-microsoft) found and wacked it.

      I've since had this same experience on one other family members machine (sigh), assuming MS doesn't water down Giant's database this seems to be technically superior, at least in my limited testing.

      I still wish I could just run a scan from a CD w/o installing gobs of stuff, but the Giant product does seem pretty good otherwise.

    15. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Outlook Express? Still free.
      IE? free.
      Messenger? Free. ...
      Free... once you purchase a copy of their operating system that is."

      So aren't you legally allowed to download IE bundled with OE and run them on wine? I think so, but honestly am not 100% sure.
      Even if you can't run them without purchasing Windows (cos they're Windows apps, surprise, surprise), you can get the files for free.

    16. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      At my place of work, we *tried* to buy Ad-Aware for about a month. Nobody at their sales address would ever send us any emails back. So we gave up and just started installing the Microsoft anti-spyware solution even though it's still beta.

      Ad-Aware might be great software, but they're a terrible business.

    17. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the EULA you must have a Windows license to legally use MSIE and OE. That means that according to the EULA you can't just download them and use them with Wine. Of course, if that clause is not legally binding where you live, then it doesn't matter.

    18. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure what Giant finds is actual spyware? Giant uses dumb keyword/filename matching as opposed to intelligent scanning. It even detects eMule as the spyware infested eDonkey. This happens with both Giant antispyware and Microsoft's antispyware so it has nothing to do with it being in beta.

    19. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The argument holds up just fine. While it is possible to run them on Wine without having to buy Windows it is not legal to do so according to the EULA assuming you live in a country where that restriction is legally enforcable. That is why your argument about "Linux isn't free because you need to buy a computer" is bullshit. Linux can be legally run on anything, MSIE can only legally be run on Windows even though it is possible to run it without Windows.

    20. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it will be a problem. Usually when Billy-ware like this come out it sucks. Billy has to make concessions all the time for his partners and their borderline malware that they pay kickbacks for.

      Plus, Microsoft reuses so much code that entire applications are probably written with CTRL+C and CTRL+V. This sloppy stitched up code is why spyware works. I don't see how they can solve the problem with more loose code.

    21. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, did you ever run MS first, and see if the others then found stuff? What about Spysweeper (What I think is currently the best)?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    22. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I actually find the background part of Spybot - teatimer, to be the most useful. It provides great real time registry protection IME. And uses very few system resources.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    23. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      Worse than that. What if Microsoft bundles this in to the next version of Windows or IE7? I think Lavasoft, SpyBot, and the rest should get their lawyers ready for another round of "When Monopolies Attack".

      You can also bet that Microsoft will claim that removing it will make the OS stop functioning, etc.

      And, one this note: anti-virus companies are next. Microsoft will probably wrap this in to Longhorn also.

    24. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Not free like beer,

      Not free like speech,

      Not free like sex, lunch, herpes, a cell phone, or a Gilette razor,

      It's close to the kind of free you get when you pick options for your car, except with a car, there are no third party option packages available, so you can't really price compare unless you look at the price of the whole car...

      Free like metallic paint on a car with no warranty.

    25. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by glacote02 · · Score: 0

      This is called "predatory pricing" and has been an habit from Microsoft from day one. They managed to escape antitrust though. Until some high-profile gov. representative gets so upset that a simple lunch with good wine isn't sufficient as an "explanation". Hope so at least...

    26. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by warpSpeed · · Score: 1

      This is a troll!?!?! It is the truth... sheesh...

    27. Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
      So aren't you legally allowed to download IE bundled with OE and run them on wine? I think so, but honestly am not 100% sure. Even if you can't run them without purchasing Windows (cos they're Windows apps, surprise, surprise), you can get the files for free.

      Read the EULA that comes with the "free" software that Microsoft distributes.

  13. Free capabilities by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    both the blocking capability, and the scanning and removal capabilities. (will be free)

    What about the updating capability?

  14. Enterprise WILL be Charged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Consumer version will be FREE. Enterprise/Corporate version is NOT. They only let out one side of the story, for PR effect, it worked. You missed the flipside, for Enterprises they will charge.

    1. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the big organisation be better off donating to things like spybot? (of course you have to rely on the integrity of the maintainers)

      I kind of think that Microsoft would allow affiliates to be added to an invisible white list within their final version.

      Microsoft should be obligated to provide this to everyone free. (which really just means in my opinion they should)

    2. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by Lxy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I R'd TFAs, and I don't see any mention of the enterprise. Got a link to back up your claim?

      Considering the wealth of free for home/expensive for enterprise software out there, I wouldn't be surprised, but the articles never mentioned the difference.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    3. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by HeliumHigh · · Score: 1

      Surely the USS Enterprise wasn't running on MS software? That would explain ALOT... like why propulsion ALWAYS seems to fail right before you need it.

    4. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by vk2 · · Score: 1

      Better yet - they should just take reimage the machine and take away the net browsing privileges from the employees that get infected with spyware on company machines.

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    5. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't the big organisation be better off donating to things like spybot?

      Not unless they can control the direction that Spybot takes. For example, there's not "spybot server" that allows you to push updates, monitor scanning results, and generally remotely admin hundreds of computer's spyware scanning at once. So it's not really an "enterprise product".

      On the other hand, if Spybot were released under the GPL, it might be worthwhile for somebody to pay programmers to work on it so as to develop some feature or another, and this might include enterprise features.

      Frankly, I don't find it surprising that Microsoft would charge for an enterprise solution, since it will have extra features that many enterprises would find "worth it". I also doubt they'd include the sort of invisible whitelists you're talking about, since it would make businesses far less likely to pay for it, as well as contributing to the bad reputation of the security of Windows.

      Essentially, they are providing "it" (spyware protection) to everyone for free. They're just providing additional centralized management features to enterprises for a price.

    6. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      Enterprise, eh? I thought it was cancelled? ;P

    7. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's only fair! I mena, they paid more, collectively, and they suffered more from every virus attack, so they should pay... wait a minute!

    8. Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged by bedessen · · Score: 1
      Gytis Barzdukas, director of product management in Microsoft's security business technology unit, said the free anti-spyware tools would only be available for a "personal edition" and made it clear that an enterprise version with management capabilities will carry a price tag.

      "We're planning a refresh [of the anti-spyware beta] within the next few months. In the meantime, we're talking to enterprise customers, asking them about the management capabilities they need. Once we figure all that out, we will release a managed version," Barzdukas said in an interview with eWEEK.com.

      Source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1765389,00.as p
  15. Hopefully MS are reading by dsginter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Great suggestions... it would be nice to see them in the finished product. One thing that I'd like to see:

    IDIOT PROOFING

    Right now, the software is far too intrusive in many modes. I just want something that will run when the screensaver comes on (or the PC is locked) and eliminates a predetermined "level" of crap. This would be a blessing for anyone who has to remove this crap all of the time.

    --
    More
    1. Re:Hopefully MS are reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can't idiotproof anything. They'll just build a better idiot.

    2. Re:Hopefully MS are reading by theVP · · Score: 2, Informative

      IDIOT PROOFING

      That's a point I made when we were considering utilizing this software with our users. I only use it when someone has a problem, and here's why: The thing runs just like zonealarm. Now, I LOVE zonealarm and things that alert me when things aren't going the way they should for MY PC, but the average user usually has no clue what they are looking at when they see messages asking them "Allow or block". I would like to see security levels with this software, so that you could simply tell it how secure you want it, or what specifically to always allow, and block everything else. Then I wouldn't get a million calls from my two test users every day, asking "Which one should I click on this, allow or block?"

      --
      "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
    3. Re:Hopefully MS are reading by pbranes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's interesting to note about the press release is that Microsoft is going to offer (for a fee) a managed anti-spyware solution. Since the beta that's out now, can't be deployed over an enterprise with any ease, they will make one that can be pushed out and managed from a server. Right now, Webroot Spysweeper has the monopoly on enterprise anti-spyware technology, but we'll see if MS can give them a run for their money.

    4. Re:Hopefully MS are reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is available to ALL users of XP then it will be a great first step to protect us from the infected masses.

      If it is only available to people after running Microsoft's authenticity check then it offers ME no protection from the 90% of the population who won't be bothered by something requiring more than a single 1 click installation.

      Its like a flu shot -- the dozens of people I come in daily contact with who are always coughing and sneezing in my direction should get it. I don't need it and I don't want it.

    5. Re:Hopefully MS are reading by ChrisPee · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten to consider the IDIOTS who create these "malware" lists? After the first time you've had software automatically deleted because someone, somewhere doesn't like it, you'll rethink your suggestion.

    6. Re:Hopefully MS are reading by malfunct · · Score: 1

      So turn off the "Agents" that do the realtime protection. It will get rid of a number of cool things that the software does but it will get rid of those issues. Then it will be a scan only piece of software.

      You can also turn each agent off individually so that agents that block normally allowable things never run and agents that block always disallowed things run. Then you can tell people if they see a pop-up from the software to just say "don't allow".

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

  16. Re:Okay that's a start... by badmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why does the world need IE 7 on the mac? Safari is fine, and firefox is better. The mac can do without IE.

  17. isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by MasterOfUniverse · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I always hated anti-virus and anti-software programs. This is more of a philosophical question.. Antispyware/AV runs all the time to detect any spywares/Virus. The main problem with spywares /virus(among many others ) is that it uses up your cpu time. However, to beat that we run antispyware/virus, which also usesup the cpu time (if running in real-time mode)!

    --
    "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
    1. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by freeshoes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True, but does antivirus spy on you and record your keystrokes, maybe while your logging in your CC number, then use your CC number on a dodgy porn site, then the police arrive at your door and your reputation is ruined as well as your life because you get 10 years in the slammer?

    2. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by FluffyPanda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are many problems associated with viruses and spyware, and the tiny bit of cpu time used by a real-time scanner can help to protect against them.

      Also a bit of common sense while browsing / collecting email on a non-secure OS (read: any OS) doesn't hurt either.

      Also, if I want to get really picky (which I quite clearly do), antispyware is NOT an oxymoron since merely using a few cpu cycles does not make a program spyware. QED.

    3. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by freeshoes · · Score: 1

      None I heard somewhere it has rfid tags that track my movements.

    4. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It counteracts the fatfoil.

    5. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by MasterOfUniverse · · Score: 1

      But in anycase we are giving away our tiny bit of cpu time so that the virus/spywares do not get more (also do not get our private info). In real life we pay cops to be safe, so that others don't kill or hurt us. However, we dont let cops hurt us a little bit so that others won't hurt us a lot! I know its very simple analogy, but the point is that this kind of security is very different from the traditional sense..ok i will stop now..:)

      --
      "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
    6. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to get a faster computer if you're worried about a couple of CPU cycles.

    7. Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      we dont let cops hurt us a little bit so that others won't hurt us a lot!
      No, but you pay taxes to have them around (a small hurt in your pocket if you will)

      You are talking about AV/AntiSpyware taking up resources from your CPU to do their job. Well, the same analogy applies to cops, you pay taxes (paying with some of your hard-earned resources) to have them protect you.
  18. Duh! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We've looked hard at the nature of this problem, and made a decision that this anti-spyware capability will become something that's available at no additional charge for Windows users
    --Bill Gates


    Yes, its called AdAware and SpyBot S&D. Free spyware killing tools on Windows has little to do with MS putting one out for free.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
    1. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf are you talking about? You took his comment out of context to make a bad joke. The MS AntiSpyware solution is a good product - MUCH better than spybot and it includes a real time scanning for free - which adaware doesnt. -1.

    2. Re:Duh! by sulli · · Score: 1

      And if you don't run IE at all, no spyware.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    3. Re:Duh! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      And if you don't run IE at all, no spyware.
      If only this was true. I support several students at a university's Masters in GIS program, many of them have converted to FireFox. However, many of them also like to install programs like Kazaa Media Desktop, Gator, etc. One of my recurrent problems is uninstalling crap like WhenU from the students laptops. Unfortunatly, the laptops belong to the students, so they have full control over them, I just get to support them.
      Spyware isn't just an IE problem, its a windows and user problem. If you think you're safe, just because you don't run IE, might I suggest you give Spybot or AdAware a whirl, the results may suprise you.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    4. Re:Duh! by sulli · · Score: 1

      Well, that's true. If you're dumb enough to install Gator, you're obviously stuck with spyware.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
  19. my bet is in... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Here's my bet: use is free, but then they'll start charging for updates.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:my bet is in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if they do? This is not something that uses a file format you become dependent on. moving to another competing product would not be an issue.

      dont be a fucking moron.

    2. Re:my bet is in... by somedude8889 · · Score: 1

      Well, the same I thought. They actually say "oth the blocking capability, and the scanning and removal capabilities" but they didn't mention anything about updates... So probably they will charge later for updates

  20. Re:Okay that's a start... by codesurfer · · Score: 1

    What about producing any app for linux?

    You've got some valid points, but I've got to say that as a linux user, I'd be a little leery of of anything they developed for linux, at least until I had a chance to dissect it.

  21. Want a cookie? by rindeee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Great. Why is MS making a big toodoo about it. Wait, I'll answer my own question. It's because they had planned to charge for this previously. Still, making a big hoohah over giving away a tool to clean up spyware that infests one of your other products due to very poorly designed security is hardly wise. "Hey...look at me. My product sucks, but I'm giving away duct tape and bailing wire so you can fix'er right up." Brilliant.

    1. Re:Want a cookie? by webweave · · Score: 1

      It's like adding duct tape and bailing wire to fix duct tape and bailing wire!

    2. Re:Want a cookie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mehhh, most Linux users i hate and i will always hate because of their snobbish ways of giving advice. Literally if i see a Linux advocate on the street i will get in your face. Buncha weasels on this site with their thumbs up their ass thats all this place has come to.

    3. Re:Want a cookie? by rindeee · · Score: 1

      So you'll confront a "hated" Linux user on the street, but you don't have the brass to post other than anonymous? Unless I'm mistaken, my post had nothing to do with Linux. I was pointing out what was, in my opinion, a poor business decision on MS part. Here's hoping to run into you on the street.

  22. A call for objectivity by beef+curtains · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's be honest - this is a Good Thing. Hopefully they'll start pushing it as hard & in as widespread a manner as they do MSN Search, etc..

    Actually, how cool would it be if this was rolled out as an automatic update?

    I'm all for any solution that might stem the tide of adware/spyware-filled systems, and the bot-driven-spam & "my computer's broke" complaints that they bring.

    This probably isn't said very often on /., but kudos to Microsoft for not trying to turn consumers upsidedown and shake the change out of their pockets (more so than they currently do, that is).

    --
    Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    1. Re:A call for objectivity by Lxy · · Score: 1

      Good for consumers, maybe, but not good for other Anti-spyware packages. Bundling a free anti-spyware tool could be considered anti-competitive.

      Of course, anti-competitive is probably better than the extortion scheme they were planning originally. It's that PoS browser that started the problem in the first place. Why would I want to pay the company that created the problem to remove it? I do agree with you that despite the anti-competitive nature of giving away the product, this is a good move by MS.

      Asking for money == extortion
      Giving it away free == anti-competitive

      Of course we all know that when the product ships it will be a classic MS PoS, so there's nothing to worry about :-)

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
  23. Re:Okay that's a start... by mrseigen · · Score: 1

    Not making a version of IE for the Mac is probably a good thing. The OSX version is pure trash.

  24. So it sucks? by gelfling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess the jury is in. It really doesn't work very well but we can probably leverage it to force people to pay for something else down the road, so let's give it away.

  25. New Feature Request by sinfree · · Score: 1

    Does the anti-spyware tool remove IE? If not, someone needs to support the security hole.

    1. Re:New Feature Request by RalphLeon · · Score: 1

      Actually, at this same conference I belive, MS announced they would be releasing Internet Explorer 7 which has a slew of bugfixes


      ( probably not as good as firefox though)

  26. Removing MS own spyware by tmonkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

    so does this mean it will remove its own phone home in Windows XP (windows acivation, error reports....

  27. No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by khasim · · Score: 1

    IE's default security settings are the problem.

    IE needs to, by default, deny ANY apps, unless specifically added to a white list.

    1. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by Trolling4Columbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spyware doesn't only infect computers via IE backdoor. I'd venture that most of it comes bundled with other "free" apps that people have to actively download and install.

      And keep in mind that the beta of IE7 is due out this summer, so we may get just what you're suggesting.

      --
      Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
    2. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      Spyware doesn't only infect computers via IE backdoor. I'd venture that most of it comes bundled with other "free" apps that people have to actively download and install


      And burglars are more likely to get in through a window. But I still lock my doors.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by chrisopherpace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I recall correctly, IE7 will only run on XP or Longhorn, correct? What about Windows 2000, which is still "fully supported"?

    4. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by slimak · · Score: 1

      But they are only more likely to get in through a window because the door is locked. Its far less suspicious for someone, even a stranger carrying a laptop/tv/etc, to walk through a front door than to crawl through a window.

    5. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not just XP, but it has to be XP Service Pack 2. I know a few people who just won't run it.

    6. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by Surye · · Score: 1

      So on one hand, they're only fixing it in a new IE version, and you people bitch and moan because a lack of patch. On the other hand, they fix a lot of the issues with XP, and rather then putting them in Longhorn, they patch the current version, and you people bitch and moan. Make up your fucking minds.

      And it should be noted, I don't own one Windows system, gentoo linux all the way. Just some of you anti-MS trolls really get under my skin when you fail to use logic to prove a point worth proving.

    7. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1
      Since you don't run Windows, you don't realize that SP2 for XP created as many problems as it fixed. I was forced into SP2 at work, but at home I refuse to install it. The firewall is cumbersome and difficult to deal with; the popup blocker isn't much better.

      Yes, they should patch existing versions of IE. Yes, they should continute patching Windows. However, the fixes should not create new problems that can only be resolved by a version upgrade.

      So, IMO since you don't run windows at all, you should be less critical of issues that you really don't have a clue about, which gets under my skin.

      Cheers.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    8. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by Surye · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should have mentioned I DO use windows and IE at work by policy. I work for a company that does outsourced IT for small businesses, After converting out XP machines to SP2 with very little issues, we converted our clients one by one. Been about 3 months, and no real issues.

    9. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no "make up your minds". Microsoft designed the system poorly, and now they're having to hack together a solution that's still not going to solve the problem.

      Why should I cut them slack? Why should I not bag on their shoddy workmanship?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And keep in mind that the beta of IE7 is due out this summer, so we may get just what you're suggesting.
      Well, that's fine and dandy for the 38% using Windows XP SP2, but what about the rest of the Windows world?
    11. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by jerw134 · · Score: 1

      The firewall is cumbersome and difficult to deal with; the popup blocker isn't much better.

      What the hell are you talking about? The firewall is one of the simplest firewalls in existence, and it's incredibly easy to deal with. It's also incredibly easy to disable if you don't want/need the protection it offers. The popup blocker is the same way.

      Would you mind qualifying that incredibly outrageous statement?

    12. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1
      The only thing I found to be simple about the firewall is disabling it. I was unable to manually configure it to allow any program to run through it; it was pretty much an all or none proposition.

      As to the popup blocker, I had issues with it blocking everything that tried to open a new browser window, and had several issues with it forgetting what I'd said to always allow to popup windows.

      I suppose it's entirely possible that they've since corrected those issues, I refused to install it at home after being forced into the beta for work.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    13. Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. by jerw134 · · Score: 1

      You can't go off of the things you experienced in the beta. Lots of things got fixed.

  28. Re:Okay that's a start... by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

    So, until they bow to your foolish whim, you think they are evil?

  29. I think Everyone should use by KingBahamut · · Score: 1

    Elinks. Just eliminate the issue entirely. =)

    --
    "God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
  30. I'll pass by hsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been spyware free for the past 6 months since i switched to firefox, which will always be free.

    It may be a good product, but it is no longer necessary for me!

    1. Re:I'll pass by natedgreat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use Mozilla as well and I can assure you that you will get spyware on your machine. I have been using Mozilla since it's creation and initial release. I still from time to time come across a new little spyware file that tries to move things around. Bottomg line is don't trust any O/S that MSFT puts out to protect you. Always install all the tools; AV, AS, FW, and NAT... wait, why not switch pver to linux and use Mozilla there, that way we don't need any of this and I get more speed and flexability from my computer!!!

    2. Re:I'll pass by weicco · · Score: 1

      So you stopped installing porn.exe apps to your computer after you switched to Firefox? Or are you just a troll...

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
  31. you forgot the biggest one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    if you read the anti-spyware EULA, you'll find that the spyware removal tool is at least as bad as the spyware it purports to remove.

  32. Ad-Aware is not free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for commercial applications. SpyBot S&D, on the other hand, is. So maybe corporations will turn to Microsoft in this respect.

  33. NOW FREE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With any purchase of Windows XP or Longhorn! Act now! Supplies are unlimited!

    1. Re:NOW FREE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supplies of the anti-spyware software or of Windows XP?

      ...actually, now that I think about it, it's not too hard to get a free copy of either...

    2. Re:NOW FREE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, go ahead and poke holes in my loose sketch of a future scenario! :D Longhorn isn't available for purchase right now, either, of course, and when Longhorn is released I'm sure it won't be called Longhorn anymore, but basically I'm just predicting that there's a chance MS won't have a separate free download for XP users (or at least an updated one) by then.

  34. M$ controlled Spam White List by supergwiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the spam front, Gates said that Microsoft is working with all of the major ISPs on an initiative to positively identify the senders of e-mail. The system will rely on data from the DNS infrastructure to ferret out the true IP address of e-mail senders in an attempt to defeat the address-spoofing that is de rigeur for spammers. Gates said the system may be up and running by this summer.

    Sounds like they plan to have their own White List of ISPs that play nice with M$. I wonder M$ will leverage this new free spyware tool to lock out smaller competing email systems that will be marked as "unsafe" by default.

    1. Re:M$ controlled Spam White List by Lxy · · Score: 1

      Take off the tin foil hat for a second.

      It sounds like what it's doing is comparing the alleged sending domain against the IP address. If the lookup or reverse lookup fails, it rejects the e-mail as bogus. This would theoretically prevent zombie spam relays.

      Not a bad concept, but I'm sure MS would find a way to screw it up.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:M$ controlled Spam White List by enosys · · Score: 1
      I first thought that's kind of crazy and paranoid. Then I remembered:

      This will probably use Microsoft Sender ID which is incompatible with open source. This would be a really big problem. Fortunately even AOL rejected it. Meanwhile Yahoo has developed DomainKeys, which are compatible with open source.

    3. Re:M$ controlled Spam White List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll probably simply attempt to reverse lookup the sending IP address and if it doesn't resolve to a compatible host name then it will block the email. This is already deployed in a number of email servers as an option.

      If a client from IP 123.234.11.1 connects to your SMTP server and attempts to send an email from blah@myhost.com, but that IP address doesn't resolve, or it resolves to something that doesn't end in *.myhost.com, then the email is ditched.

  35. WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It was sites like this that made a big hoohah shouting about if MS charges it will be a conflict of interest, anit-competetive, and every other anit-MS jargon they could spew out. MS is simply responding to it saying no, we are not charging for it.

  36. Free? by dj245 · · Score: 1

    Will it be available to people with 8in1 XP Pro official Bittorrent Edition versions of XP? Last I heard patches would not be available to known keys that were leaked. Would this be denied as well? Microsoft- Making the internet a dangerous place so that they can protect us from it.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaddaya want for nuthin... rrrrrrrrrrrrubber biscuit?

  37. They can't charge for it anyway by SunFan · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what would people say if Microsoft tried to charge money for their baseline security software? They don't charge money for security patches, nor do other companies I know of. Given the magnitude of the problem of spyware and viruses on Windows, I'd say that they are right up there with basic security holes in needed a fix for free. I'd even bet that lawyers would agree.

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    1. Re:They can't charge for it anyway by bitswapper · · Score: 1



      "Seriously, what would people say if Microsoft tried to charge money for their baseline security software?"

      Nothing. They'd pay for it. Its not as though most windows users are aware they have choices.

  38. Wonderful smokescreen... by Caspian · · Score: 1

    Great. So now Microsoft gets some good "Free PR" (as if Joe Average or Jim Pointyhair actually needs any more reasons to respect or admire Microsoft...), thereby further distracting the average Windows user from the fact that MS software is a spyware magnet to begin with.

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  39. How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before Microsoft starts selling banner ads to supplement their income on the windows toolbar? Or on certain program splash screens?

  40. Disagree by rindeee · · Score: 1

    Whatever. I agree with you in part, that sites like /. contribute to the hoohahing. I do not however agree that Mr. Gates used a keynote speach to rebut the likes of /.

  41. Between the Lines . . . by Dausha · · Score: 1

    Being a fine, upstanding company, Microsoft will never change its mind. So, you can be certain that they will never "decide" that their once-free product needs to come at a price.

    I mean, I turned down their "update" for their product because I didn't want to have to pay for it when they decided to.

    Besides, MS security products seem to have a pinchant for being thwarted. I like a 3d party tool to keep MS honest and my computer safe.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
  42. Change Caused by FireFox by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The current situation is that Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) is more highly susceptible to malware (e.g. spyware) than FireFox. You can confirm this situation by (1) using IE for a month to browse porn sites that are chock full of luscious, blonde lesbians and (2) using FireFox for a month to do the same thing. With IE, your computer will be so contaminated with spyware that you will be forced to re-install Windows. With FireFox, your computer will remain intact.

    So, in order to make IE competitive with FireFox, the management of Microsoft was forced by the economics of the market to give anti-spyware software away -- for free. Basically, FireFox and its startling growth in marketshare forced Microsoft to be generous.

    Bill Gates once said that your computer screen is the most valuable piece of realestate in the world. The management at Microsoft intends to continue to be the owner of that realestate.

    Oh. Yes. "Thank you, Mozilla and Firefox! A job, well done!"

    1. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by typobox43 · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure that you... tested this theory... to make sure you were correct, right?

    2. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by maxpuppy · · Score: 0

      So it now safe to vist porn as long as you are using Firefox?

    3. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes. Enjoy the porn! The negative aspect is that you'll run low on vaseline more often.

    4. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      There is a slight problem with your thinking.
      I would rather browse sites where I wasn't pounced upon at any point.

      Your description sounds like being the big arrogant beekeeper walking around the hive without protection.

      One day he will get stung.

      Firefox doesn't have the experience or exposure yet to say its secure, but I agree, its a damn sight better than the rest so far :)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by kyojin+the+clown · · Score: 1
      Are you comparing spyware to Bees? or Firefox to Bees?

      FOXES AREN'T BEES! [/sarcasm, pointed mostly at the spyware/tire-explosion-death argument raging above..]

    6. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually IE will be just fine. nice bit of baseless speculation though!

      it seems the fashionable thing to do these days is to attribute anything microsoft does to firefox. "ew! steve ballmer wore a red tie today! he's scared of firefox's momentum!"

      let's be serious folks. firefox has 10% browsershare. it is a nice, but largely insignificant, little project.

    7. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you're a big enough dickhead that you install every ActiveX control those porn sites send your way, even through the security bar...

    8. Re:Change Caused by FireFox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - a little project with four downloads per second.

  43. Re:What is up with the current Antispyware log fil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anybody know if this is a bug that was fixed, or how to stop it?

    One person stopped it by creating a fake log file of the same name and making it read-only.

    Other people claim their version doesn't create a log file.

  44. Let see by jerometremblay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BEFORE

    they were evil because they wanted to charge for something everybody using their crappy OS needs.

    AFTER

    they will be evil because they will bundle useful software with their OS killing competing third parties.

    Have another good day on /. Microsoft!

    1. Re:Let see by FluffyPanda · · Score: 1

      Damn right!

      And in between they were evil for taking too long to make their minds up.

      Tomorrow they'll be evil for sneakily hiding their undoubtedly evil intents by NOT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING EVIL!!!

      Lets face it, they're just evil period.

    2. Re:Let see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL :-)

    3. Re:Let see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm.. It's only "useful" because they caused it to be useful.

      An example would be if I had a restaurant with leaky pipes running above all the tables causing customers to get wet. Then someone decided to start a little side business selling umbrella's to people before they enter.

      Me, as the restaurant owner, decide to help out my good customers by offering restaurant-branded umbrellas that can only be used inside the restaurant (you have to give them back before you leave).

      Why not fix the leaky pipes you ask? Well, why should we?? We have umbrellas!

    4. Re:Let see by nine-times · · Score: 1
      I've been saying for months that there's no good way for Microsoft to handle the spyware problem. And by "there's no good way" I mean there's nothing that they could do that wouldn't make someone angry. They could have:
      • not entered the spyware scanning/blocking/removal arena. This would leave MS reliant on 3rd parties to make their operating system secure. If the 3rd parties do a less-than-effective job, Windows reputation as "insecure" keeps growing. People will ask, "why doesn't Microsoft do anything about this?"
      • offered a spyware protection suite for a price. It's, shall we say, ethically problematic. I might go as far as to say this reeks of racketeering, like the old neighborhood protection schemes. 'Yeah, we try to use our monopoly to make it so you pretty much HAVE to use our operating system and web browser, but if you use them, you'll get infested with spyware. Oh, wait... you want a computer that works?! Well, that's gonna cost you."
      • offered a spyware protection suite for free. Then someone's going to scream 'anti-trust' because "they're leveraging their market position to drive out competitors".
      However, I do think the situation is different from Internet Explorer and Messenger and WMP. First, this antispyware shouldn't be delivering "content". In fact, they have no real interest in creating or maintaining a monopoly in the field of spyware removal. As far as I can tell, only have an interest in protecting users from spyware, since spyware running rampant on the Windows platform risks losing customers.

      Additionally, it appears that AntiSpyware will be a free download, but there has been no statement that it will ship already bundled with the OS. There's also no indication that it will have the problem of being impossible to remove once installed. If you remember, nobody had a problem with Microsoft creating IE, Messenger, or WMP. I don't remember anyone complaining even when they were offered for free. It was when Windows shipped with them already installed, without any supported means to uninstall them, that people started suing MS.

    5. Re:Let see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lets also go back to the origins of .net nuttyness..Please realise that by perverting html in the first place MS made unintentional installs possible! There is no reason why MS windows could not be as secure as any other OS windowing. All you have to do is go back to the idea of the browser being something that does nothing but read and write interpreted net languages. The whole activeX crap is the problem.

      The problem also lies in the fact that to keep competition out of the internet language business MS created .net activeX. In doing so they courted the devil, by alowing any OS security problems to be exploitable. If Sun had alowed them to use Java for free then things might have been different. But MS again tried to pervert Java so that they could kill it. The fact that Linux browsers, Firefox, Netscape and Opera render java much faster than Internet Explorer tells the real story. Internet Explorer just boots quicker because it has proprietary system hooks. I use all of these browsers in both Linux and Windows and find that the Java VM is much slicker in all the other browsers. This is because MS deliberately codes down Suns JVM and hooks in activeX .net. End of story.

  45. Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by dillon_rinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judging from Microsoft's behavior, they believe that spyware is bad - so bad, that they are willing to devote large sums of money to produce a product that they will charge $0 for. Why? I would guess it's because spyware can denigrate overall system performance, making it seem that Windows is slow or insecure.

    On the other hand, Microsoft refuses to provide security patches for free. If you haven't paid for a license, they will not provide you with security patches. If spam zombies and worms find their way onto your unsecured system, Microsoft doesn't care. I presume that this is because the spam does not appear to be a problem with Windows.

    But it is. I conclude that Microsoft is not concerned with security, but with the APPEARANCE of security.

    1. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      Well done!

      For an encore, prove that black is white. Just watch out for the next zebra crossing. :p

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    2. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As surprising as it may be, Windows is a commercial endevour for Microsoft. They don't give security updates to people without a licence because those people did not pay for the product. It doesn't have anything to do with their motives on security, they just want people to purchase a license. Providing updates for unlicenced copies of Windows would only encourage people to pirate the software.

    3. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How was this modded insightful?

      Someone who installs an unlicensed copy of Microsoft's operating system won't get complimentary security patches, so Microsoft is, in conclusion, not concerned with security?

      How does this even make sense, much less add any insight?

    4. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by ssj_195 · · Score: 1
      They don't give security updates to people without a licence because those people did not pay for the product
      If I recall correctly, Microsoft in fact do (and will continue to) provide security updates for unlicensed installs, but not if you try to get them by visiting Windows Update; rather, it only works if Automatic Updates are turned on, which has always struck me as a better means of getting updates than manually checking, anyway. Anyone know the definite answer on this one?
    5. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by GerbilSoft · · Score: 1

      Do you really think MS will allow users of unlicensed copies of Windows to download the final version of their anti-spyware app? It will probably require the Windows validation scheme they're implementing right now for security updates.

    6. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by maaleron · · Score: 1

      To continue the trend of car analogies, this would be the same as the car thief complaining that he can't get a new set of keys from the dealer for the car he had 'borrowed from a friend'. Microsoft's responsibility in this situation is to protect it's customers and not the internet as a whole.

    7. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by spicyjeff · · Score: 1

      Your argument is flawed. You would also have to pay for a license to have a copy of Windows to run the Anti-Spayware software on.

    8. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      maybe ms antispyware technology can only be used on non-pirated versions of windows, and thus is, in effect, spying on those who use it.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    9. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

      This is like releasing a disease out in the wild and selling the disease in the market. It causes disease to get maximum exposure.

      Of course, they only give you the antidote if you acually bought the disease in the market. If you want the antidote, buy the legitimized version of the disease.

      Which means all bastardized versions of the disease will have to legitimize themselves or be denied the Antidote.

      Kashif

    10. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by DaFrog · · Score: 1

      Time out - If you have not paid for a license (i.e., if you are illegally using the software), why do you expect Microsoft to support you?

    11. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by Kusunose · · Score: 1

      Microsoft refuses to provide security patches for free? You are wrong. MS allows unlicensed users to download security patches via Windows Update. What they won't provide for free are additinal upgrades.

    12. Re:Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      why do you expect Microsoft to support you?

      Because blocking pirates from upgrading Windows hurts Microsoft's paying customers too, as well as just about anyone who has an email account. Salon had a nice article talking about virtually the same points as the parent poster.

  46. In related news by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    local brothels will now be offering free penicillin with every night purchased! Come on down, any way it ends up, in a year you will be syphillis free!

    1. Re:In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the first couple pills are free. We're considering charging for the full run of antibiotics.

  47. Re:Okay that's a start... by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1
    You need it in order to read sites that are served up as malformed HTML... not the least of which include most sites produced by FrontPage.

    --
    OCO is Loco
  48. Desktop only version still free for Exterprises by atomkraft · · Score: 1

    I spoke to the programme manager yesterday and he said that the desktop product will still be free for Enterprises. I asked about things like GPO integration and centralised policy management and they are planning a server component but this will not be free. No timeframes yet either.

    For me this mean that I will stop waiting for the Enterprise version and move striaght to evaluating the competition.

  49. Conspiracy theory suggestions by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well, so far many posts have done a good job in demonstrating a significant level of paranoia, but we can do better. So here are some thoughts... talk amoungst yourselves.
    • Microsoft will allow people to purchase a CD w/ the new anti-spyware product. The CD will be laced with a newly developed and extremely addictive mind control drug.
    • Microsoft releasing anti-spyware software to counteract a leaked internal memo revealing that Bill Gates writes trojan horses in his spare time for kicks and giggles. Bill Gates screen name, G1ll_B4t3s will still be reavealed to the world.
    • Massive log files will not go away after the beta and will be used to fill up the average user's hard drive, forcing them to purchase a new PC, and thereby purchase a new copy of Windows through the OEM
    • All non-Microsoft products, media, and websites will be considered spyware. End users will be "protected" from them by immediately deleting the files, downloading an acceptable Microsoft replacement, and conventiently charging their credit card.
    • Secret code within the anti-spyware tool will hunt down and delete all evidence of Steve Balmer's presence on The Grassy Knoll.
    • Microsoft does not need to charge for this tool because they're being funded by an alien venture capitalist bent on subjegating all of mankind.
    • The code for the tool has been reverse engineered by an elite team of Russian crackers. They have found the cygwin libraries embedded deep within the code... and a single comment. That read. // Core library required to run beowulf clustering software. Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?
  50. Not with IE. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All it takes is for you to type in the URL incorrectly, one time.

    Microsoft needs to fix IE's security model.

    Instead, they're promising band-aids for removing the crap they allow to be installed in the first place.

    1. Re:Not with IE. by m2bord · · Score: 1

      in retrospect you are right. there are a lot of landmines out there but still, endusers can and should demonstrate some level of intelligence before hitting the enter button or clicking on the Go button on the browser. misspellings will happen but i know to look up anything i'm not sure of and i know the ramifications.

      --
      Is it 5:30 yet?
    2. Re:Not with IE. by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      They are planning too.

  51. ::dream sequence:: by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1, Troll
    ---
    thank you for running microsoft anti-spyware.

    the following DANGEROUS! COMMUNIST! FASCIST! INFECTIOUS programs were detected and were removed.
    • mozilla firefox
    • openoffice
    • pegasus mail
    • winamp


    future installations of these programs may lead to system slowdowns, resource shortages and critical errors. do you wish to keep your computer safe by adding these programs to autoinstallblock list?

    [(green checkmark)OK] [(red international no symbol) Cancel]
    ---

    or even worse:

    "all dangerous programs were removed. your system is completely safe and secure with Microsoft product updates automatically installed. all is well. we have always been at war with eurasia."
    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  52. Re:Okay that's a start... by pclminion · · Score: 1
    You've got some valid points, but I've got to say that as a linux user, I'd be a little leery of of anything they developed for linux, at least until I had a chance to dissect it.

    No need to dissect it, just run strace and see what it's doing. There's nothing of any consequence a program can do that won't be revealed by strace.

  53. Fanboys unite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow it only took 2 posts to start bashing MS, oh wait its M$ here isn't it? Go slashdot fanboys!!

  54. Wouldn't you guys be upset... by skogs · · Score: 1
    if this wasn't free? This is something that is necessitated by the software that they have already put out. It is 100% M$ fault that their software yields insecure hardware. It only took them a decade to start moving in the right direction and starting to create 'safe' code.

    I think this is kind of like America in the days prior to WWII. We all kind of wished it would all go away and that if just left things alone nobody would come and bother us. It did not work, and after Pearl Harbor, we awoke to the new reality that we must defend ourselves overseas or be destroyed at home. Ever since America has been pro-active in its regard to security and the world stage.

    This is the beginning of M$ looking out upon the world and realizing that it must move on its own, or be moved.

    Moderators...please disregard my obvious American slant toward the world. :)

    --
    Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
  55. Brilliant on so many levels by krygny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's too hard to make our products truly secure and it's too easy not to. And we have shitloads of money so we'll buy some anti-malware technology we don't care about, from some company we don't care about ... better yet, we'll buy the company ... and incorporate their dogshit into our dogshit. We'll make it free because nobody would pay for it, and cutoff Semantec's and McAffee's air supply. Not because we need to from any strategic standpoint - just because we can. Just because you can do something, is exactly why you should.

    Now all we need is for somebody to explain to us why we should devote resources toward getting out virus definitions in less than our own sweet time.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  56. Re:What is up with the current Antispyware log fil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind that it's a beta release and beta releases often log more than necessary in order to diagnose problems because the program is fully released.

  57. Wish I had a mod point for +1 Funny by eseiat · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the laugh! One of the more intelligent jokes made on /. over the past few weeks. Bravo!

  58. Whatever. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Spyware doesn't only infect computers via IE backdoor. I'd venture that most of it comes bundled with other "free" apps that people have to actively download and install.
    Whatever you want to believe. In my experience, it is from holes in IE.
    And keep in mind that the beta of IE7 is due out this summer, so we may get just what you're suggesting.
    Fuck their "betas".

    That's the same bullshit I hear from them with every single problem.

    "Wait until the next version."

    "You should upgrade to the newest version."

    Why is it so fucking hard for them to just issue a patch for their existing versions?

    1. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like IE? Use Opera or Firefox. Nobody is forcing you to use a browser that you think is crap.

    2. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? last time I checked...I COULDN'T remove IE. If you can do it without crippling the OS, by all means, let us know...

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

      Just because IE is there, that doesn't mean you have to USE it.

    4. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he does.
      He doesn't know any better -- otherwise he would have known this.
      and you *can* remove IE completly from your system.
      crackbaby.com used to have it however they went down from some obscure reason -- but it *IS* possible.

    5. Re:Whatever. by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      That's the same bullshit I hear from them with every single problem.

      "Wait until the next version."

      "You should upgrade to the newest version."

      Why is it so fucking hard for them to just issue a patch for their existing versions?


      Yeah, you NEVER hear anyone associated with Open Source software suggesting that the user upgrade to solve their problems!

    6. Re:Whatever. by Combuchan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it so fucking hard for them to just issue a patch for their existing versions?

      Why does the local phone company suck ass? Why do products break shortly after their warranty expires? Why do people dread returning stuff at Giant Box Retailer?

      The answer to all these questions is that they have your money already, and there is little incentive for them to care about you after the fact. In perfect competition, post-sale satisfaction is as crucial part as any, but in monopolistic, nobody really cares if you take your business elsewhere, or tell your friends to not shop there. Providing good customer service isn't worth it these days.

      This is why I can't wait for software by subscription like Microsoft is proposing. Every month when the software bill is due more people will be apt to consider other alternatives. Would you pay $X/month for something you're irritated by?

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    7. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why is it so fucking hard for them to just issue a patch for their existing versions?

      At a guess, it already is patched and band-aided together to high heaven?

  59. Hah.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta love how the moderators support trolling Anti-MS dribble but when the fanboy community of the site gets trashed its delete-on-sight.

  60. I am taking bets now by sbassett · · Score: 1

    I am willing to bet that the final version, or a near future upgrade will be itself what it is trying to detect. Read the EULA carefully. Of course, I have nothing to back this up with, except my own suspicions of Microsoft. But they have been going on about the pirating factor a lot lately. Alright so I'm paranoid.

    --
    OOOOH, the internet.
  61. Charge for a patch? by LoaTao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS Antispyware should count as a patch. Until (and a big IF) they address the problem of spyware at an OS and program level then it is little more than a security update.

    --
    The smartest man in the whole, wide world really don't know that much. - Mose Allison
  62. Re:I already full proof spyware blocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    People like you make me really wish someone would start writing software that fucks up Linux PCs.

  63. Free?! by tommyth · · Score: 1

    I laugh at them trying to call it 'Free'. Obviously it only runs on an OS that costs $100+, made by the same company. That's like calling Windows Explorer free, and charging $100 for the NT kernel.

    1. Re:Free?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called capitalism. Don't like it? Move to China and jack off to Linux.

    2. Re:Free?! by tommyth · · Score: 1

      Calm down dude, I'm a fscking libertarian, so don't preach that crap to me. Second off, you really missed the point. It's a joke on the fact that a company is selling something, then advertising a free peice of software for it, instead of just treating it like every other free piece of software they have to download. Ever see an ad on TV that says "Buy product X and get product Y free!"? It's just marketing trying to ad the word "free" instead of just saying "you get product X and Y for Z dollars"

  64. Doesn't stop there! by slot32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DSO Exploit (for example - there are others!)doesn't require you to open any browser, but can launch bots into your machine.

    Just the fact that you are connected to the internet is enough if you machine is unpatched.

    It's not ONLY the broswer choices you make that decide if you get botted... Running an unpatched xp system without any firewall or NAT in between will get you botted...

    Just using Windows XP is enough. Keep your system up to date... Or better still, keep moaning at MS for creating such a weak system that forces you to install almost 100MB and over 40 patches to become 'slightly' safer than before and still require you to install AV, FW, SB, and Firefox software just to keep it afloat... Then add a dumb (average Joe) user with Administrative rights and start your stopwatch...

  65. What I want to know is... by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

    ...when can I get free anti-spyware for my OS X and FreeBSD systems?
    Oh...wait...

    --
    I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    1. Re:What I want to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When in your dream world MS goes out of business and all thats left to target is OSX and *nix, I doubt youd be able to make that comment.

  66. the free version will feature.. by scenestar · · Score: 0

    The microsoft spyware killer whill have to versions.

    There will be a expensive "pro", but but for regualr users there will be a free version too.

    The freeversion however will be half its functionality and will be adsupported with 3rd party programs.

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:the free version will feature.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awww did all the other fanboys take the funny replies to the post? poor you.

  67. I must disagree. by LePrince · · Score: 2, Informative
    I work in IT, and been working with computers since at least 7 years professionnaly.

    The other day, on my lunch break, I went to look for song lyrics on the 'net. A few hours later, my comp started acting weird. I scanned it and BANG, there were quite a few spyware on it.

    Granted, I was running IE (latests patches) on Win2k SP4 with a user that has administrative privileges (which no one should do but heck at my company my only user is admin on all workstations what can I say), and I didn't go surf on porn and/or discutable websites; I went to look for lyrics on regular websites.

    Therefore, even though I'm really pissed when I need to clear machines that have spyware (I got 2 this morning only), it's clearly not the user's fault most of the time.

    Of course our user aren't admin on their workstation but with all the BHO and ActiveX vulnerabilities, this doesn't prevent crap from being installed......

    I now use Firefox at work, even though it's technically prohibited... I don't care. I'm often surfing to look for solutions for many things, and many "anti-spyware" websites contain themselves spywares... I'm not surfing with IE for NOTHING except our internal ticket application and our apps, which were developped using IE-standards.

  68. Re:What is up with the current Antispyware log fil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone suggested above, you can just set the file to be read-only and the program won't complain

  69. nothing with MS is free by MERVERNATOR · · Score: 1

    theres got to be more to it than a public service.. Im sure next week on slashdot we will see the article about how MS-Antispyware has spyware of its own collecting and sending all sorts of stuff that even the spyware people never thought of.. for MS OS and App tracking this is an easy in to your system for them...

  70. Recent Slashdot Interview by feidaykin · · Score: 1
    I thought it was interestnig that in a recent slashdot interview with Microsoft's Martin Taylor, he was very careful to leave the question about charging for Microsoft's spyware tool up in the open. Here's what he said:

    Roblimo: How much would these add-on programs cost you? People like you and me, lets say, as a journalist, I too can get free software from anybody. What would it cost you as a regular user?

    Martin: Well today, XP SP2 is free if you're a genuine or a valid Windows XP user. It's just a matter of downloading. And today the spyware product that I've downloaded is also a free beta and we've not announced any pricing terms or plans for the product as of yet. So everything I'm using today is free.

    I listened to the MP3, and the way he said "as of yet" kinda stuck in my head. I don't think Microsoft will charge for this though... While there are a lot of average Joe users out there that will sheepishly buy whatever Microsoft says they need, the concept of buying extra protection from Microsoft to fix the holes that shouldn't be there to start with might not hold too well with even the most loyal users.

    Charging extra for spyware tools would almost give Microsoft a monetary incentive to make the operating system less secure out of the box to make sure there is a market for their spyware tools.

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Recent Slashdot Interview by spells · · Score: 1

      His "as of yet" was probably because he didn't want to steal Gates' thunder from his keynote address.

      As for the second part of your comment - I would love to see how much spyware is installed through MS errors as opposed to users installing stuff they don't understand or browsing with their security levels too low.

  71. In related news... by mandreiana · · Score: 5, Funny


    With it's 7.x version, Red Hat is offering free of charge SSH, an application which encrypts communication between two computers enhancing security

    Debian started to include for free a verifier for weak passwords, integrated with "passwd" command.

    Novell/Suse, in order to remain competitive, included a firewall in it's Linux kernel, named iptables. No extra charge.

    In a special offer, ending never, Mandrake included free of charge Tripware, which checks integrity of the most important system files.

    However, none of Linux distributions include a free Spyware or antivirus. Windows is still ahead.

    1. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad for your jab at MS that Windows XP has all of the above. It's all a matter of market share and general hatred for the company that MS products get targetted. Why would anyone attempt to spread Mac spyware or viruses when their marketshare is less than 10% for home users? Not only that, the motivation to fuck the OS over isn't there like it is towards Windows.

    2. Re:In related news... by natedgreat · · Score: 1

      How can Windows still be ahead? They are actually behind since their product is the primary reason there is a Spyware market. I have never installed spyware software on my Linux boxes simple because I don't get any... MSFT can't say that, load an O/S and start the stopwatch...

    3. Re:In related news... by JasonBee · · Score: 1

      >How can Windows still be ahead?

      Your sarcasm detecter needs checking

    4. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the fact that every version of windows since 95 ships with a really handy 'disk defragmenter' This tool is so useful and so important to system performance it just couldn't be left out.

      Where is the linux answer? I can't find disk defragment anywhere on my SuSE install! Oh wait, the problem is with the VFAT/NTFS filesystems becoming fragmented... so linux needs no defragger.

      Sound familiar?

  72. Weird Message by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    It just flashes "Windows"

    "Windows"
    "Windows"
    "Windows"

    I think they will need to fix this.

  73. and... by dual_boot_brain · · Score: 1

    it's worth every penny.

    --
    There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
  74. Is this a legal risk for Microsoft? by enosys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this a legal risk for Microsoft? They are providing an add-on for their operating systems that prevents certain applications from working properly. Sure, these applications aren't popular but many of them are legal.

  75. I'm just glad it's not an auto update or svc pack. by techstar25 · · Score: 1

    Giving it away free is good route to take, here's why...Those who need it get it for free (like a windows update), but those who don't need it (people who use firefox) don't have to run it. So it's like a windows update in that it's fixing something that Microsoft should be responsible for, yet it's not really required.

    By the way if I use Linux and I use apt-get, how do I know that it does't install spyware in the background? I really don't know what all those additional packages do. It's no different than somebody installing Kazaa and just clicking on YES for everything. I trust that apt-get is getting the software I want and nothing else. I've never heard that issue discussed.

  76. Re:Of course. by PurpleXanathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This raises an interesting question. Of course you can flame MS down as you want and surely in the past they used integration in the OS to smash down opponents (DoubleSpace vs Stacker, IE vs Netscape).

    But, alas, any OS comes with a bunch of applications in the package. Sometimes they can be uninstalled (galeon) sometimes they cannot (internet explorer, konqueror if you use kde) - but does this really matter ? Does the average Joe stop using IE and use Firefox instead if IE could be uninstalled ?

    Seriously some applications move towards the OS itself. This was for file compression, for local disk browsers, for disk checking programs, then for internet browsers and for media players. The chance for the third party market to survive lasts as long as the OS integrated tool is not up to (some users') expectations (for example zip folders didn't destroy WinZip's and WinRar's market, and Defrag didn't quite kill third party defragmenters and XP firewall didn't kill third party firewalls).

    The question is : how much can be integrated in any OS [or any other product] ? This is a question which hits the Linux market hard, too. Most distros have more and more software integrated every day. Sure it's free software, but when you work at Opera, does really make a difference if you lose your job to Internet Explorer or to Firefox ?

    Figure this scenario out : MS buys Jasc (the authors of Paint Shop Pro). They integrates PSP in the OS. Adobe sues MS. MS line of defense is : hey every OS around has a a similar great program built in! Look almost every Linux distro comes with this "the Gimp" installed. Why they can and we cannot ? It's normal for an OS to have a graphics program built in..

    This is not to say MS is not interested in blowing away opponents with unfair competition, and I don't want to say that it's wrong to have Linux distros inflated with so many sw packages including office suites (EEK!), browsers, media players, CADs, games, servers of any kind. Still this is a problem which is hard to solve.

  77. Nope, the point is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the price of windows goes up ("but less than inflation!") and is justified with "well you get so many good programs with the new version of windows that you didn't get with the old one, so it's fair". Unfortunately, this is never tied to the people who tell us that "IE is free!" or "Media Player is free".

    The point is a couple of miles eastward. You may be able to find it now.

  78. Good news? by webweave · · Score: 1

    During his keynote speech Bill Gates announced that band aids will be given to windows users for no additional charge. Bill also said "We've looked hard at the nature of this problem, and made a decision that KY will also be free."

    --Happily removing windows from PCs since '97.

  79. antispyware viral agent by micromuncher · · Score: 1

    Isn't it just a matter of time before someone turns M$ antivirus/antispyware into a transport mechanism for a virus? I think it would be funny...

    My personal peeve.. Anything that randomly, spurriously starts scanning files on my computer is killed with extreme prejudice. Anything that hooks into the opening/reading of files is erradicated with abject hostility. I will be uber upset if this crap becomes an integrated part of the OS.

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
  80. Re:I'm just glad it's not an auto update or svc pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh,

    Of course you have not heard it discussed, because any discussion of that subject would be akin to having to admit that there was a potential problem.

    Now some would say "Well, those servers only contain vetted code from major distributors so you are safe". But of course not even Red Hat goes through every line of code of their 5 daily updates. I would suspect that at any point some enterprising OSS developer could sign up with an ad spam company and slip their software into his and no one would notice for months (delayed activation etc).

    It's coming, and it'll hit Linux like a ton of bricks because the Linux community has their head a good two feet underground WRT these sorts of things.

    I will both laugh and cry watching it happen. Hey, actually it's happening now with FF security holes and tests that show it crashes on random HTML data. Hello attack vectors!

  81. Possible typo in software name... by JOhn-E+G · · Score: 1

    I think you have an extra 'anti' in 'MS antispyware program'.

    On a more serious note I wonder what they mean by 'free'

  82. What's the name of this Software? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    MicroSoft AntiSpyware Software

    or

    MS A.S.S.

  83. Can you say "Libel"? by abb3w · · Score: 4, Informative
    Lavasoft has found a new way to make money. Aparrently Ad-Aware no longer removes WhenU spyware.

    Lavasoft has put out something on that in their press release yesterday. The removal is not because of bribes, but because apparently WhenU no longer meets their threat threshold to be included in the spyware definitions database.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Can you say "Libel"? by jafac · · Score: 1

      The removal is not because of bribes, but because apparently WhenU no longer meets their threat threshold to be included in the spyware definitions database.

      . . . . because of a bribe. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    2. Re:Can you say "Libel"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but if you can't prove it with evidence you have now, that's libel under any Anglic legal system. Can you say "subpoena" children?

  84. MS Anti spyware contains spyware! by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When the program scans, it flags media files and reports them to the MS Anti Spyware community website. Not a problem, but because the program also sends what is known as "basic computer information" including IP address, hardware GUIDs etc, and if it finds

    The.Aviator.FullDVDRip.avi 793MB

    it will autmatically flag it as suspicious and by the same token share that information with "the MS Anti Spyware Community".

    The lesson is, if you use this program TURN OFF THE COMMUNITY UPDATE FACILITY.

    --
    "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
    1. Re:MS Anti spyware contains spyware! by kisielk · · Score: 1

      Can you cite a source verifying this behavior? Or explain how I can verify what information is being sent to this "Anit Spyware Community" ? I'm really interested in what it's actually sending. More info please. Thank you.

    2. Re:MS Anti spyware contains spyware! by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 1

      The best thing is to give it a try. While communicating with the MS Anti-Spyware server, in the status bar it tells you which files are being reported to the MS anti-spyware community.

      The computer also sends the "basic computer information" as listed in the privacy statement with the software. This contains your IP address.

      --
      "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
  85. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that eweek url is from RSA 2004 (last year). this is the story from this year's conference.

  86. Cool! Just one quesiton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they port it to Linux? Or will I have to run it with Wine?

  87. In the Microsoft world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Microsoft world, anti-spyware spies on you!

  88. Now that it's free by jessecurry · · Score: 1

    will they still keep it up to date? Or was making it free just the result of the realization that they would then be held responsible for keeping the definitions up to date?
    Being a mac user I normally wouldn't care, but I bought my GF a PC so she could play the Sims, so I kinda have to keep it working for her.

    --
    Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    1. Re:Now that it's free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Being a mac user I normally wouldn't care, but I bought my GF a PC so she could play the Sims, so I kinda have to keep it working for her."

      But dude, there's been a Mac version of The Sims for years... Isn't that kind of like making unneccessary extra work for yourself?

  89. Microsoft's reactive policy destroys industries! by kingjosh · · Score: 0, Troll
    Here we see yet another example of Microsoft ruining an entire industry, in order to avoid fixing a problem themselves. We must look at the history of the spyware problem first, to see what really happened.


    Spyware has been around for a long time. Microsoft knew about it, they saw it and even were around to watch an entire industry spring up to combat the spyware. Initially they did nothing, simply patched their operatins system occasionally and watched as companies begin to spring up offering combative services to spyware infiltration.


    Once an established group of companies, which were both competent and profitable begin showing up, Microsoft started eyeing who to buy. They had discussions with many companies, including Giant and Webroot. They even made Webroot an offer, which was countered and finally rejected by Microsoft. Only then did they decide on Giant (perhaps it was cheaper - not better).


    Now, instead of charging they are going to give it away free!! This is awful, and at the very least extremely anti-competitive. It would be one thing if they changed the operating system to be strong enough to eliminate attacks, but buying out an element of an industry they are not involved in (other than having created the need) and then GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE will cost the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of people!


    Why would they do this? I believe it holds the "God" like image that MS seeks to maintain. They wish to provide solutions, without third parties so they can maintain the illusion that they are the be all and end all to the desktop. In fact, MS has admitted in the past that not only do they refuse to be proactive in design, they actually wait until a product is released and simply copy the functionality! Who wants to bet IE7 will contain many FireFox features?

  90. Or... by Delta2.0 · · Score: 1
    We've looked hard at the nature of this problem

    And the problem of course has nothing to do with you products.

    How about devoting time to fixing active x and IE instead of cleaning up the problems that they create.

  91. This Just Means We Are All Going To Pay For It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh! If MS are including this as part of the OS, the costs associated with it will just be bundled into the licensing fee for the OS, spread across everyone. It's not that it's "free", any more than Internet Explorer was "free". It's simply that *you* *have* *no* *choice* *but* *to* *pay* *for* *the* *acquisition* *and* *development* (plus handsome margin) *of* *this* *bundled* *software*. Jeez. You IT guys need to learn a bit of basic accounting. :)

  92. Waiting for announcement that the problem's fixed by lkcl · · Score: 1

    I look forward to seeing an announcement from Mr Bill Gates saying "We've fixed the problems in Windows, Spyware is a thing of the past!".

    I also look forward to the ReactOS team porting the SE-Linux security model to their NT-interoperable Operating System, such that it becomes possible to run Windows programs in a confined manner, thus _also_ making it impossible for Spyware to run...

  93. Smart by dark_fishbowl · · Score: 0

    Smart move not to charge. It limits their responsibility towards that product. When it does eventually collapse in upon itself, people can feel mad, but they can't feel ripped off, like I felt when I bought every iteration of Windows from 3.1 to 2000, and especially with ME.

    --
    -- juggling flaming chainsaws --
    1. Re:Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Smart move not to charge. It limits their responsibility towards that product."
      Also anticompetitive. And illegal in Australia, unless you have a good lawyer who can argue that the incremental cost of producing the product is nothing.
  94. Will MS get spanked for this? by haitch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't this just another anti-trust lawsuit in waiting? I'm sure Lavasoft, McAfee, and Symantec will have something to say. Most of us want a more secure windows world (even me, I use OS X) so I can't fault MS for trying to do better, but what are they thinking?

    Clearly there is a thriving market for anti-virus/ anti-spyware software, so MS jumping in with a free product doesn't bode well. If MS had added this product before they they created a market for it, fine. Really what MS should do is remove the market - then it's difficult to complain they are competing unfairly. That would mean producing a more secure OS, which I thought was their top priority for over 3 years now.

    I don't mean to bash, the more antispyware the better, I'm just curious... where will this lead?

    H.

    1. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      If an automobile company sold vehicles that were easy to break into and some third party sold replacement door locks to fix it, would that third party be allowed to sue the auto company for fixing the flaw in factory built vehicles? The Windows operating systems are so ridden with spyware and viruses primarily due to flaws in the OS. I can't believe we can even entertain the idea that Microsoft should be stopped from trying to alleviate the problem. If Microsoft actually fixed the core of the OS making it completely immune without addons, would the anti-spyware and anti-virus companies also be allowed to sue?

    2. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

      no, you've got your analogy a little mixed up... you're asking th esame hypothetical question as the parent.

      In this case, the auto maker is now giving away similar "replacement door locks".

      IANAL, but I think that the makers of the third party locks would have a legitimate greivance here.

    3. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by soulhuntre · · Score: 1

      Isn't this just another anti-trust lawsuit in waiting?

      It is if the OSS zealots have anys ay in it. I think in the end thats their plan - complain long and loud about MS products, then sue them for trying to fix any problem as "anti-competative".

      * When MS didn't have spyware removal built slashbots complained.

      * When they added it and might charge the bots complained more that it shoudl be free

      * Now that it's free the bots will scream for a lawsuit

      They knwo that if they let MS do what MS is good at (technology, improvements, getting things right over time) it will crush Linux. The only hope they have is to run to the goverment for help.

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    4. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      The market only exists because of their crappy software. Is it against the law to create a market and then to destroy it?

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    5. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Here's the problem with the analogy: it's that there are lots of automakers, and they haven't twisted arms to ensure that their car is driven by 97% of the market, and they also haven't taken illegal measures to prevent others' products appearing in their cars.

      But if the above conditions were true, then it is possible that the auto maker in question, like Microsoft, would be governed by a consent decree that restricts its options in an effort to reform it and prevent further injury to consumers and competitors.

      (But let us also be realistic: after years of litigation the automaker would in all likelihood have been let off with a slap on the wrist, just as Microsoft was by the administration of George W. Bush, to whose campaign it has contributed handsomely.

    6. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it will probably require a series of events to occur, as happened with netscape.

      1) One or more non-MS companies have huge market share;

      2) Their market share plummets as MS gives away free versions of similar software;

      3) Watch massive lawsuits ensue.

      So, I'm sure McAffee and Symantec's and Microsoft's and the Government's lawyers are already sprouting big grins...they know they are soon to be in the big, big money!

    7. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Funny
      It is if the OSS zealots have anys ay in it.

      They knwo that if they let MS do what MS is good at (technology, improvements, getting things right over time) it will crush Linux. The only hope they have is to run to the goverment for help.

      My god, Agent Z-X9, we've been discovered! Even our Hidden Island Fortress of Zealotry was no match for their best, if somewhat dyslexic, minds! Grab every distro you can before they're crushed, and somebody start pleading with Washington! There'll be no stopping MS if it's allowed to do what it is good at--deploy overdue fixes years too late!

    8. Re:Will MS get spanked for this? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      The idea is that the original door locks were flawed and the automaker decides they should be changed. If they aren't a monopoly, changing them is fine, but if they are, they should be barred from fixing the flaw? How far would that go? Should they be barred from fixing a problem that cause their vehicles to roll-over if another company is selling a "solution" for thousands of dollars? Just because they are a monopoly?

      By that same token, shouldn't Microsoft be hauled into court for just patching flaws in Windows since those are potential markets for anti-virus companies? $20 for Symantec Anti-BlasterVulnerability, $20 for McAffee Anti-SasserHole and so on? $5 for every TrendMicro addon that blocks one of a dozen buffer overflows in IE?

  95. Sooo Nice of Bill.... by Beefslaya · · Score: 0
    to give us a free fix to spyware, cause god knows all the vulnerabilies are free.

    Gee, thanks.

    Maybe we could even make it a security patch???

  96. MS should be moved towards a 'distro' model. by monkeyGrease · · Score: 1

    They won't do it themselves though. A MS distro approach would help alleviate the monopolistic results of things like including anti-spyware.

    The fundamental problem is that a useful desktop OS install needs a kernel, utilities, email client, browser, desktop, anti-spyware (if the kernel is windows), etc. If MS provides all of this stuff by default, they tend to get a monopoly...intended or not.

    However, if they were forced to vend pieces, from which OEMs or whoever could assemble distros, the anti-spyware companies, browser companies, etc would not automaticly be near death as soon as MS included what they really need to include to have their own viable distro.

    This is what the justice department should have driven towards. Splitting off the Office side would not have accomplished this.

  97. free by H9000 · · Score: 1

    makes free of charge the product from such company better in any way, I don't believe we have seen this in the past IE as an example. my 2 cent

  98. The important missing words: by gidds · · Score: 1
    ...FOR NOW.

    I don't see anything preventing them from releasing this for free, installing it as the default everywhere, and making it impossible to disable and/or play nice with any other anti-spyware software. Then, when all the others are out of business, either letting the product rot, or charging for it. Or both.

    I mean, it's not as if they've never done that before, is it?...

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  99. Re:What is up with the current Antispyware log fil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Anybody know if this is a bug that was fixed, or how to stop it"

    Since the software is still a beta do you think that this log could be for debugging purposes? Maybe they are would like to see if what their software is actually doing.

  100. Bill's hopes THIS subscription service sells by Locutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What better way to hook almost every MS Windows user right back to microsoft.com? Not to mention, this would probably mean a weekly or even daily fix( as in drug addict ).

    I'll bet that this mechanism will be used for system and application patching too. They already said they were considering a fee based security patching system.

    After all, did Bill say the software AND SERVICE were going to be free? I recall only hearing that the software would be free....

    None of this is good for McAffee or Symantec investors or employees. Nice knowing you.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  101. My Opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In my opinion, WhenU is adware. It pops up ads while surfing. Lavasoft cleary states in its point system, Malware behavior is Changes browsing results (browser hijack/redirect, replace text/graphics, opens random websites)". In my opinion, whenu clearly violates that rule by popping up ads. I feel, Lavasoft is not giving the full side of the story.

    In my opinion, IANAL but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

  102. Mozilla Spyware??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before Mozilla/Firefox is considered spyware?


    For that matter, will LILO be considered malicious?

  103. Of course they're going to charge... by disserto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...for better security and anti-spyware. It's called "Longhorn".

    They're really going to spin this right in front of the consumer's eyes. They distributed a buggy, hole-ridden system to some huge percentage of computers out there, and now they'll charge people to get off of it with the promise of fixes to these holes.

    What I really don't get (or like) is how they'll charge for the betas when they come out. I thought that was the most ridiculous thing when I saw it for XP. Who the hell pays money to test their pre-release software? I can understand downloading and testing a beta for free for the good of the community, but to offload testing costs to the consumer (perhaps even making a profit!) is either stupidity or genius.

    Actually, I guess it's genius, considering the success of the program.

  104. Isn't this just like Netscape all over again? by jp31415926 · · Score: 1

    Just like Netscape, Microsoft is adding something to their OS add a service that is already available, for free. Perhaps to run the others out of business?

  105. Re:I'm just glad it's not an auto update or svc pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you were so inclined, you could easily find out what each of those additional packages does, and even read the source code for them, just by looking them up on the Debian site. So it's not the same thing at all. ;)

  106. So now that it'll be free... by tbase · · Score: 1

    ...will they be charging Spyware companies more to bypass it, or will they be seeking a higher number of these "marketing partners"?

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  107. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mircooft windoesnot am i rite?

  108. Readable version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  109. Here's something funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed this when it was released and I was pleasantly surprised by how well it worked. However, when I go into my command prompt & try to run, say, "ipconfig", I need to navigate to my system32 directory for it to work. This is all in Win2K - it worked fine *before* I installed the MS AntiSpyware. Try it and see.

  110. Hurray! That's the end of the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... confusing Anti-Virus-Software-Market.
    Now there will be only one product which
    is used by everyone. This will be like heaven on earth... ;)

    Bye, bye, programmers of Sophos, AntiVir, Kaspersky Labs, McAfee and so on. Try to hire @ M$-JobMachine (TM).

  111. Poor patch for poor design an ability? by letdinosaursdie · · Score: 1

    Isn't Microsoft benevolent for granting its customers all of these abilities? Almost like an SUV that automatically flips itself upright after overturning due to manufacturer defects. Spyware removal software is the ultimate in ugly hacks... it is a band aid, not an ability.

  112. Now they can be sued by RayDude · · Score: 0

    If they make their anti-virus software free, then they'll they'll surely be sued by Symantec and others. Basically they are trying to buy the anti spyware market and put other companies out of business. Its true that it helps the end users (assuming it doesn't have more holes than it plugs) but utlimately I don't see this as an act of good will but just another way to dominate the software industry. Then again, if there weren't so many holes, Symantec and other wouldn't have grown as big as they are. Microsoft giveth and Microsoft taketh away. Raydude

  113. Word DOC by Skiron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ahhh... but wait for the finished GOLD version - that will use a MS Word format as the log file, so you will easy reach 10GB in an hour.

  114. Re:Okay that's a start... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

    No it's more about theory- that they use IE as a tool to create a monopoly- or windows media player-- Microsoft's entire business model is about creating monopolies- not about innovation, not about being the best- just simply securing power and control. Microsoft has been a criminal organization in the past, and in the EU continues to disrespect the public-trust it was given.
    It's why they ship poor products. It's why they are releasing Xbox2 as soon as they can. It's why they lobby governments. It's why they create coalitions. It's why they create DRM.
    It is a disgraceful practice, it is both anti-capitalistic, and unethical. Despite the fact they actually fixed a problem they had created, I think it will take a little more for me to garner some semblance of faith in their corporation. I would begin to respect them if they attempted to show that they are willing to work towards creating, and respecting standards that should be available to everyone-- This should be an act of goodwill, and also as a strong desire to see something, such as the internet, progress into something better (and perhaps even profitable to them and others in the future).
    It's unfortunate that I had to explain myself in greater detail- but I hope that clarifies things for you.

  115. But does it phone home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well does it?

  116. Sure the Program is free.... by jzarling · · Score: 1

    the updates will cost you.

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  117. I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that Microsoft doesn't pattent its vulnerabilities instead of patching them. MS could then licens out access to the holes and increas company revenue.

  118. In other news by crunk · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Spyware to Be Free of Charge

    --
    It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
  119. It has started by mikrorechner · · Score: 1

    Now we know how it all started:

    The third way Windows AntiSpyware protects users is by stopping the latest threats, and a key piece of this is SpyNet, the worldwide community of Windows AntiSpyware users.

    Of course, the "p" will be a "k" soon, because "SkyNet" simply sounds... aehm... friendlier.

    And the Terminator is really a very advanced Anti-Spyware drone in auto-clean mode.

    Better have a look at the EULA, who knows what they let you sign!

    ;-)

    --
    "Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
  120. Uhm.. this is not good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Garbage at any price, even free of charge, is still garbage. And M$ puts out lots of garbage (ie. IE, Windows OS's, etc.).

    Install Linux and you won't have too much to worry about in the way of viruses.

  121. Got to give it to microsoft this time by marcybots · · Score: 1

    Stop insulting microsoft even when they did something good...no matter what they do they are wrong to to alot of people here. I dont like em, I dont trust em, but I will say that when they do things like this that are really good ideas and help millions of people for no profit to themselves I applaud that and wish they did this more...think how much better the computer world would be if microsoft did positive things like this all the time...and I encourage them to do these magnanamous acts more. If this keeps up mabey they can win the hearts and minds of the computing public (though I doubt it)

  122. Can not be installed on Win98 by TakaIta · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity i downloaded it. I saw some stuff about "genuine windows", and wondered if that is related to "penguin windows". After some further reading i estimated that it had nothing to offer for my Windows98 installation. Yes, I still run Windows98.
    I could dowload it without being "genuine". I could not install it. It requires Windows 2000.
    Why? Is the program so advanced that it uses features that Windows98 does not have? Or is that a beta-feauture? I feel ignored by Microsoft. I paid for my Windows98. It was long ago, but i paid for it.

    1. Re:Can not be installed on Win98 by gregarican · · Score: 1

      Let's face it. Windows 98 was released over 7 years ago. How can you expect any software company to continue offering backwards-compatible support for something like that? And it's across the board, as the Linux distros don't work in such a fashion either. There are plenty of underlying differences in the 9x and NT branches of the Windows software tree. A lot of recent Microsoft application releases require things like .NET Framework installed and the like. The .NET Framework won't run on a Windows 98 platform. I haven't seen the anti-spyware application but perhaps it's a similar requirement. Microsoft is requiring an OS version that's (gasp) 5 years old. That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want them to demand bleeding edge requirements. Especially since I'm stuck with roughly a dozen legacy Win98 boxes at my work I have to keep up :-(

    2. Re:Can not be installed on Win98 by TakaIta · · Score: 1

      I understand that Windows98 is old. But most day-to-day programs do still run on it: lavasoft, firefox, anti-virus programs to mention some. I can understand that new advanced games don't run on it (apart from my hardware being out of date for that). I can even understand that stuff like desktop search requires win2k.
      But anti-spyware from Microsoft? I don't see the point.
      BTW, when opening windowsupdate from Windows98, i do see the option to install the .NET Framework. Haven't tried installing, but i guess it should install.

    3. Re:Can not be installed on Win98 by gregarican · · Score: 1

      No it shouldn't. It's not supported or available as an option for Windows 98. For my corporate environment I had to edit some of the setup files for it in order for it to ignore checking the Windows version when installing. Then it would work. But otherwise it wouldn't. The .NET Framework is a huge resource and storage hog. Either Microsoft was figuring most Win 98 workstations wouldn't be able to handle things from a hardware standpoint or else the split between 9x and NT branches was otherwise too tough to make the jump.

    4. Re:Can not be installed on Win98 by TakaIta · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe it depends on the version. I have Windows 98 SE, and could install the .NET Framework without any problems.

  123. Ja, I know it's free, but by Onan+The+Librarian · · Score: 1

    you still have to pay for the host, right ?

    yuk yuk yuk

  124. Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this what they got into trouble for with putting netscape under with a free IE? Offering a bundled free product aimed at undermining estblished markets. They paid millions for the Antivirus company and then don't intend to make a profit out of it? If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly this wouldn't be a problem. But they do and it sure sounds like monopolistic bullying to me.

  125. My predicition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The final installer will detect the OS version and even though it would work on any version of Windows from 9x upwards, it will only allow installation on Windows XP.

  126. Flash: Anti-spyware vendors commit mass suicide... by ScooterBill · · Score: 1

    Film at 11

  127. Anti-Microsoft Spyware? by Lycestra · · Score: 1

    thats how i read it at first. Easy mistake, seeing as how that is free too. :)

    --
    Lycestra
  128. This is good news? by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

    I love to hate Microsoft, really. My gut reaction to this announcement was that Microsoft will do to anti-spy vendors what they have done to web browsers and I assume that I will be correct on this observation.

    Still, the Microsoft monoculture is what got us into this trouble and it is only right that they get us out of it. By offering it for free and by providing regular updates - they can help to fix the problem. My only question about this is: "Why is this different from virus problems?"

    I've harped on this before and will probably harp on it again. The biggest problem is the fact that when so many computers share so many similarities, they can get exploited. In one sense, Microsoft isn't the problem, it is the herd like mentality of the public and corporations. Microsoft is simply giving "us" what "we" want (kinda like the friendly neighborhood drug dealer). Still, there isn't enough choice out there in the market; we need more than a couple of choices. Some of those choices should probably be restricted to people/computers with specific needs (hardened OS's for military, police, banking, and so on would be an example).

  129. The Real Question by ssimontis · · Score: 1

    Will it work on my Linux machine? Or what if I get a Mac? It's very important that this kind of software be cross-platform to deal with spyware threats. Speaking of that, does anyone have some spyware they can send to me for Mac or Linux?

    --
    Scott Simontis
  130. Re:I already full proof spyware blocking by SQLz · · Score: 1

    Obviously, someone has spyware problem they can't handle.

  131. RE: Microsoft Anti-Spyware to Be Free by OblivionExpress · · Score: 1

    Microsoft giving away free anti-spyware is like tobacco companies giving away free oxygen tanks. Why doesn't Microsoft fix the Windows operating system so that such band-aids are not required in the first place? Instead of designing their operating system so that it can be used as an advertising platform, they should design it as a secure working environment. What a bunch of pathetics they are...

    --
    Where does information go after it has been erased?
  132. A new drinking game! by seven+of+five · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every time Gates says 'innovate', take a drink.

  133. ObHibbert by sharkey · · Score: 1

    I left my Porsche keys inside Mrs. Glick!

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  134. It wont be free. by Maxman92 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reason I think it is "free" is because if it costs money it wont sell. Ironically, since its made by Micro$oft you'll probably end up paying for it somehow. The last security "update" was SP2. For non IE users, or to word that better, non idiots, that did nothing. For IE users, or idiots, it did nothing. Micro$oft wouldn't have to buy the "anti" spyware program if SP2 actually did its job. In my opinion, they would still release it just for the hell of it. Trust me, they will end up directly making money from this.

  135. Here's Key Mold #1, here's Key Mold #2 by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    If GM ever gets into the house-construction business, count me out!

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  136. Someone mentioned this by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    Apparantly you can make a dummy file that's read only? AntiSpyware will try to write to it, and since it can't, it gives up (or thinks it wrote to it).

    More info on this on either the first post to this article or a child of that post... too lazy to provide a link. Sorry.

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  137. my log file is small by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Not sure what MS did to the "Giant" version of this software, but I bought the Giant version about 2 months before MS bought Giant. I've been running it ever since, and I checked my error log file, it was only 42k in size.....

  138. Not really by bitspotter · · Score: 1

    MS Antispyware, Internet Explorere, SP2, et al, are not "free".

    I have to buy Windows to use them.

    So, in effect, all of these "free" programs are actually the most expensive applications in their class.

    Why would I pay a hundred bucks or more for a web browser?

  139. Difficult to charge for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be difficult for MS to charge for the software considering what it does. All kinds of issues rise to the surface when you offer stand off software that addresses issues that should find remedy within the original product instead.

    At that, issues remain aplenty. IF the MS operating system was not directly or casually exploitable by surreptitious third parties, the exploitability of under educated and gullible users remain. That they have wittlessly agreed to terms and conditions of click through contracts is an overriding issue ... that of the validity of click through agreements, the validity of an agreement that a user failed to understand or perhaps even read, and the legality surrounding third party applications violating the terms and conditions of such contracts.

    Beyond that, by Microsoft entering the anti-spyware market and giving their product away free does result in the capture of market share with the very real tendency of denying competitors who wish to charge for product, income. Microsoft may not directly profit from such a venture but they can in significant regard control the market and limit competition.

    On the surface, offering a free solution to such a monuental problem can be seen as a significant public relations win for the company, but under the covers we can see the Microsoft monopoly becoming ever more constrictive in result. The effect is encouraging their user base to become even more Microsoft centric through reductions in choice which can lead to higher levels of profitablity down the road which in great liklihood could serve to decrease the imputus to fix the underlying problems with the operating system and ancillary software in the first place.

    Obviously such methodology has proven tractable for the company in the past, on slopes of equal if not greater lubricity. I do not doubt for a moment the rewards forthcoming Microsoft in this latest endeavor.

  140. corporate economics 101 by ewe2 · · Score: 1

    Let's look at the costs involved for MS. Could it possibly be cheaper in dollar terms to grab an anti-spyware tool and not even sell it, versus actually fix ActiveX etc? Well that was easy.

    Try it from the other side. How much does the potential risk cost spyware "providers"? Nada. Does it cost MS? Only in mindshare terms to other OS's, in itself worth the cost of anti-spyware.

    Notice how neither side thinks of the OS itself as a cost? That's because we're paying. For the anti-spyware, the spyware and the OS. Candy from a baby. You're missing the point if all you're concerned with is whether MS anti-spyware is good or not, that's irrelevant. They're still playing, you're still paying.

    Candy from a baby. A whole lot of babies.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  141. Most annoying POS ever by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    I first encountered this clusterfuck today at my new job. MS Anti-Spyware has got to be the most annoying fucking software I have ever encountered. It's worse that BlackICE Defender in the amount of frivolous BS it spits out. I can't see any possible use for it other than to greatly annoy the hell out of the user (even highly experienced users, not to mention novices) and chew up valuable CPU time. What a pain in the ass.

  142. Free cure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another mallware removal tool for windows...
    Its like taking headache pills against cancer.

    Happy Norwegian Kanotix user :)

  143. Re: Let see,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at last some one who see's it like it really is, look at ALL of M$ ventures, and look at there rivals in the early days, and read the PR material relating to them, if the product was a big competitor they sued them, or offered a free version till all major rivals went down the pan.

    this is how M$ work.

  144. Microsoft giving away free security software by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    Think about it for a minute --- and Bill Gates' comments about (not) getting what you (don't) pay for....

    Personally, I'd run screaming.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  145. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't have said it better. This is one of those /. stories that draws low-brow M$ drones like fat people to an all-you-can-eat buffet.

    Loved the eight step spyware removal guide. I'd like to see that drooling progress-bar-watcher disinfect the 3000+ doze boxes I gotta deal with.

    Last Post!
    M$ sux
    WOO HOO

  146. Re:Okay that's a start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.techimage.net/files/antispyware.png