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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
why does the world need IE 7 on the mac? Safari is fine, and firefox is better. The mac can do without IE.
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.
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.
;-) "Fast user switching" should be, well, fast. Like pressing ctrl-alt-f8 fast. Ho hum.
;-)
For the next two points, I have never thought the MS multi-user model was worth its weight in rat shit. YMMV
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.
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..
/., 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).
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
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
Well, yes, I was going for the cheap laugh (Hey! It's what I do, but...)
... then they've a certain moral imperative to clean up after themselves. For free.
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
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
BEFORE
/. Microsoft!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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...
Visit London Scalextric Club
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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
In my opinion, IANAL but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
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.
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...
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.