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."

Comments

It should be part of the OS!

[k96822]

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?

Re:It should be part of the OS!

[daern]

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?

No, it shouldn't. If Microsoft *did* bundle AV with Windows, everyone on slashdot would be jumping up and down saying "Microsoft are being anti-competitive yet again!!". Microsoft have been (rightly) burnt by the fair competition regulations often enough to know that they cannot just bundle this in and need to offer their product so that it can compete on the open market.

That said, many people will use it because it is easiest to take it from the same vendor as the O/S, even if it's not the best solution, technically.

My biggest concern is that MS will use non-disclosed APIs to support their AV, leaving the rest of the market to use the current selection of cludges to make their work. Obviously, this would be unfair and they should be shot if they are thinking it...

Re:It should be part of the OS!

[dfn5]

Why do I have to pay extra to make my machine usable?

Microsoft refers to this as "a business plan for generating recurring revenue".

This ought to be illegal.

[TripMaster Monkey]

It seems to me that a company profiting from its own security holes is a serious conflict of interest.

From TFA:

Microsoft's decision to charge a fee is justifiable, he (Ryan Hamlin, general manager of the Microsoft Technology Care and Safety Group) said, because most consumers do not want to be responsible for the care of their PC's, but just want them to work correctly.

Let's break this down into steps, shall we?

1.) Market virus-prone OS
2.) Market protection from aformentioned viral threat.
3.) Profit^2!

I'm wondering when M$ is going to cut out the unnecessary fluff in their operation and just get a license to print money.

Nice...

[DarkMavis]

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.

This isn't the first time

[Dragonmaster Lou]

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.

Re:We'll give you virus protection

[TripMaster Monkey]

Yeah...."nice computer you have here...it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."

Re:No, not part of the OS, just fix the OS.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Viruses exploit a flaw in the security model of the OS."

No, they don't. Worms and trojans frequently exploit holes in the OS, but traditional viruses work by modifying executables. Unless we disable the ability to write to the disk (or disable the ability to execute code), viruses aren't going away.

Re:Also try AVAST!

[MarkGriz]

Another good, free alternative is AVG Antivirus

It's great for tinfoil hatters too, since you don't even need a registration code.