Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Offer Virus Defense
FridayBob writes "According to the New York Times, Microsoft plans to
enter the consumer antivirus business
with a subscription service next year.
Most of us will remember
Microsoft's assimilation of RAV Antivirus from GeCAD Software of Romania in 2003." From the article: "Microsoft plans to expand the service beyond its 60,000 employees this summer and offer an open trial for consumers this fall. No date has been set for a commercial introduction, but the executive in charge of the new business said it would ultimately be offered as an annual service by subscription."
No, no, no! It should be part of the OS. If I buy an OS and it is vulnerable to viruses, it is a flaw in the OS's design. Why do I have to pay extra to make my machine usable?
It seems to me that a company profiting from its own security holes is a serious conflict of interest.
From TFA:
Let's break this down into steps, shall we?
I'm wondering when M$ is going to cut out the unnecessary fluff in their operation and just get a license to print money.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
So, your offering a service, to secure the operating system... that you built insecurely... that I paid for... and you want me to pay you MORE?!?!? for this!?!?
its like paying to have GM take care of your car when they built it without brakes!
#include sig.h
It's like paying the mob for "protection" when you pay Microsoft for "security". Thanks but no thanks. I've seen enough Soprano episodes to know what can happen when you deal with the mob.
Microsoft used to ship a licensed copy of [then] Central Point Software's Anti-Virus program with MS-DOS 6.0. They stopped shipping anti-virus software with the release of Windows 95, however. I'm surprsied it's taken them this long to start shipping an anti-virus tool with their OS again.
Yeah...."nice computer you have here...it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
No, that would be Linux.
A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
Popularity does not lead to viruses, shoddy programming does. It is an achilles heel they created themselves. Now there is even LESS incentive for them to clean up their abysmal security, since they are making money off of it.
Finkployd
With all the OEMs that ship Norton or McAffee or whatever with their computers, I have to wonder how Microsoft is going to approach marketing this. I smell a deal with an OEM like Dell in the works, or at least imagine they are gunning for one.
Really, don't most major-brand PCs (Macs not included, but this isn't an issue related to Macs as I doubt MS will make antivirus for OS X) come with AV? And people who build their own, I would guess, are a bit less likely to buy *cough* a Microsoft AV.
Viruses exploit a flaw in the security model of the OS. Fix the flaw and the viruses cannot spread.
Anti-virus software should NOT be part of the OS.
But, by that same token, Microsoft should NOT be selling anti-virus software.
The fact of the matter is that many viruses don't bother taking advantage of exploiting Windows or Outlook flaws. They don't have to. By far, the biggest factor in spreading viruses is human stupidity. They don't patch their machines. They click on stuff that reads like this:
FROM: sploitr@fishyware.com
SUBJECT: DO0D YOO gotta secyurtee pr0b/.
BODY: Yer eemail will be canc3lled if y00 do not click the a7tached fil3.
ATTACHMENT: malware.exe
The only way you can seriously argue that this is Microsoft's fault is by saying that they made it possible for people *this* clueless to get on the Internet.
include $sig;
1;
Yes Windows isn't the most secure environment in the world, but any intelligent user taking reasonable precautions doesn't have much to worry about. The reason there are so many virii, malware, etc for Windows is because there are so many Windows boxes out there. Put Fedora or Mandriva on 90% of the desktops and laptops in the world, and see how soon before there are Linux virii. The most insecure thing in Windows is the user. Social engineering, ineptitude, and sheer stupidity can bring down the most stable OS, even DOS.
People rant about how Windows was designed to be insecure, and, in a manner of speaking, that's true. Windows 9x was designed for easy conectivity. Networking and the internet was exploded around them, and they made a conscience decision to write the OS "just work" as much as possible. Fastforward a 5-10 years, and we see that that might not have been the best approach. Hindsight is 20/20. Can we say that MS is evil/inept because they made the wrong choice? Was IBM evil/inept for trying to implement MCA architecture? Was Churchill evil/inept for trying to stop a second world war with appeasement? It's easy to be a "Monday night quarterback"
Free MacMini
Microsoft's goal has been to get users to pay a subscription fee for use of its OS and Office. This is one step towards that.
Expect a "trial" copy to be included in Longhorn that'll bug the fuck out of users until they break down and subscribe.
Microsoft will get its annual user subscription fee. It'll have NO incentive to fix its security problems. And we'll get shafted.
Thanks Bill!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Ah, good, someone else thought of the mob protection analogy. "Nice computer you have here. Shame if any viruses were to harm it."
What I wonder is why more people (you know, average computer users, not /. posters) don't think about alternative platforms such as Linux or Mac. But last night I was watching the local news and they had one of their typically sweeps-inspired scare stories about how letting your kids use their computer to go to gaming sites will lead to spyware, and adware, and who knows what else! Aaaaaah!
OK, ignoring the stupidity of tying gaming to evil, I found the reporter's conclusion interesting. Noting the steps that could be done to protect yourself, he said keep your OS up-to-date, run anti-virus software, run a firewall, and monitor what your kids do with their computer. I kept waiting for the obvious other solution: Get rid of Windows and move to a Mac. End of problem. I could just imagine the reaction of Joe Average watching this report if the reporter had said, "Or you could just switch to a Mac and have virtually none of these problems." Joe Average would have sat up and said, "What? Really? I had no idea!"
And that's the point, most people have no idea there are alternatives out there that minimize the problem. Not that Linux or OS X-based systems are totally invulnerable, but it's a lot harder for a virus even directed at such OSes to get traction when the first thing they have to do is explicitly ask the user for permission to run and ask for a password!
Watching that news report, I realized this is what my sister-in-law would be going through if she were using a Windows box. She is clueless about computers, checks her email faithfully every month or two whether she needs to or not (sarcasm), and is always connected through broadband. That's a recipe for disaster...except I recommended she get an iMac. Instead of having to clear out adware and spyware every time I visit, she just uses her computer as she wants without any problem in the 2+ years she has had the box. No way a clueless Windows user on broadband would be so lucky, but a clueless Mac user? No phone calls to me with tech support issues in 2+ years. If only more average users knew this kind of computing experience was possible.
Avast Home Edition - Free for personal use. This stuff works like magic. You *do* have to register in order to get a registration code but it is definitely worth it.
I've actually used this software to fix problems that McAfee couldn't (the boot time scan is not possible with McAfee).
More
Then it's likely that every time you get an update, it will make any competing anti-virus product stop working. Some of us still remember the old rhyme: The code's not done till WordPerfect won't run.
If MS eliminates all other anti-virus vendors then we are put in an interesting situation. We have all heard the rumors that some AV companies have made deals with some spyware vendors and with the government to ignore programs that the vendors don't want scrubbed from your computer and that the government uses when investigating criminals. If there is only one vendor of AV software on Windows, there is only one company anyone has to negotiate with to keep their software from showing up as a virus.
On the other hand, I believe that the security of the computer is fundmentally the job of the operating system. So the software designer in me says that's where it should go. It should be a loadable module of the OS and it should be layered so that it doesn't just look for signatures but for suspicious behavior. It should check the logs for bad behavior, etc.
Finally, I simply will never fully trust any software that is built from sources that I can't inspect. I dont' care if it's the OS or the anti-virus software. I don't believe in security by obscurity. I want to be able to make sure that my AV software isn't excluding some malware because of a little money changing hands. My computer is MY property. If the government want's to know what's on it, I think they should bring a warrant, not plant programs on it.
While I recognize the value of "wiretaps" in law enforcement, I think that establishing a back door through which the government can load malware onto your computer will quickly turn into a backdoor that any hacker can and will use. Whatever technique they come up with, someone will figure it out, steal it, or buy it from some under-paid government worker. It will only leave all of our computers open... kind of like they are now.
I strongly suspect that Microsoft is going to try to dominate the AV market and use that domination to push their "Trusted Computer Model," where, effectively, MS owns your computer and controls what you can and cannot do with it.
All of this reinforces my commitment to never buy another MS Operating System. I only use Windows now because I love computer games and computer game manufacturers have not, for the most part, embraced the Linux market. I wish they'd hurry up and start porting.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Microsoft has actually done a decent job with correcting flaws in it Windows.
The virus issue is an interesting question. Any operating system that allows code that the user introduces to the system to run with privelages of the user is vulernable to virus attacks. I mean to say, I can write a binary for a Linux box that wipes every file the user running it has access to.
Is that a flaw or just how things are?
Viruses that exploit bugs or flaws in the OS are deplorable, and show what a lax attitude MS had for so long. However, as MS is fixing those, what's more and more and more common are programs that trick/deceive the user into installing them and then do something that is pretty much malware. How should that be handled? They aren't viruses per se, but they are annoying.
That's whats really wrong with Windows right now. It's just sucky when dealing with stuff on your PC that you don't want.
As Windows is continued to be locked down this is the last "growth vector" around.
At some point, the virsues going around are no longer exploitig what Windows has to "offer", but rather, the users themselves.