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.

Comments

Watch for the Error.log file

[Cy Guy]

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.

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[aug24]

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.

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[mzwaterski]

To report bugs/request features you could try the newsgroup that they have setup:

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

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[ePhil_One]

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

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[dioscaido]

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.

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[afidel]

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 =)

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[jkujath]

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.

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[Wolfgame]

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

Re:Watch for the Error.log file

[soulhuntre]

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.

It wasn't a big change...

[garcia]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[DarkMantle]

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.)

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[AviLazar]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[pclminion]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[garcia]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[FluffyPanda]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[theVP]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[SunFan]

...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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[pclminion]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[nine-times]

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".

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[shokk]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[natedgreat]

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.

Re:It wasn't a big change...

[jerw134]

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.

Next week's news

[gowen]

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

Re:Next week's news

[Trolling4Columbine]

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.

Re:Next week's news

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Next week's news

[gowen]

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.

Re:Next week's news

[gowen]

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*

Re:Next week's news

[gowen]

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.

Re:Next week's news

[LifesABeach]

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.

Re:Next week's news

[bcmm]

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".

Re:Next week's news

[StormReaver]

"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.

Re:Next week's news

[nolife]

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.

Re:Next week's news

[Moofie]

"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?

Re:Next week's news

[rewt66]

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...

IE vs M$ Spyware App

[codesurfer]

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

What is up with the current Antispyware log file?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Makes sense to me

[Junior J. Junior III]

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."

not a 'turnaround'

[dioscaido]

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.

you know the best spyware tool...

[m2bord]

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.

Too Bad for Ad-Aware

[blackmonday]

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.

Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware

[gregm]

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

Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware

[JPriest]

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?

Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware

[Dausha]

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

Perhaps continue to provide a superior product?

Enterprise WILL be Charged

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged

[Lxy]

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.

Hopefully MS are reading

[dsginter]

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.

Re:Hopefully MS are reading

[theVP]

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?"

Re:Hopefully MS are reading

[pbranes]

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.

Re:Okay that's a start...

[badmonkey]

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

Duh!

[Sylver Dragon]

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.

Want a cookie?

[rindeee]

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.

A call for objectivity

[beef curtains]

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).

So it sucks?

[gelfling]

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.

I'll pass

[hsmith]

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!

Re:I'll pass

[natedgreat]

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!!!

Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE.

[Trolling4Columbine]

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.

M$ controlled Spam White List

[supergwiz]

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.

Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron..

[FluffyPanda]

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.

Change Caused by FireFox

[reporter]

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!"

Let see

[jerometremblay]

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!

Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD!

[dillon_rinker]

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.

Conspiracy theory suggestions

[Ingolfke]

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?
  

Not with IE.

[khasim]

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.

Brilliant on so many levels

[krygny]

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.

Whatever.

[khasim]

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?

Re:Whatever.

[Combuchan]

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?

Charge for a patch?

[LoaTao]

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.

Doesn't stop there!

[slot32]

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...

Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE.

[chrisopherpace]

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

I must disagree.

[LePrince]

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.

In related news...

[mandreiana]

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.

Is this a legal risk for Microsoft?

[enosys]

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.

Re:Of course.

[PurpleXanathar]

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.

Can you say "Libel"?

[abb3w]

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.

MS Anti spyware contains spyware!

[BillsPetMonkey]

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.

Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE.

[PitaBred]

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

Will MS get spanked for this?

[haitch]

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.

Re:Will MS get spanked for this?

[Zhe Mappel]

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.

Re:Will MS get spanked for this?

[Zhe Mappel]

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!

Bill's hopes THIS subscription service sells

[Locutus]

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

My Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Of course they're going to charge...

[disserto]

...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.

Word DOC

[Skiron]

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.

Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE.

[Moofie]

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?

A new drinking game!

[seven of five]

Every time Gates says 'innovate', take a drink.

It wont be free.

[Maxman92]

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.