Microsoft Begins anti-virus Software Development

An anonymous reader writes "From the article: Microsoft's announcement that it will enter the AV market next year, with initial trials starting next week, could be a sign of many things to come, says SecurityFocus's Kelly Martin. " Not unexpected, given their recent purchase.

Comments

Physician, Heal thyself !!

[fluffywuffy]

But don't pass the cost to your patients ...

Goals?

[Sierpinski]

Perhaps instead of "getting into the anti-virus market" maybe they should reconsider how they might make the underlying infrastruture less vulnerable.

There's a reason for user mode and kernel mode. Just because the "system" CAN have full permissions to everything, doesn't mean that it should!

Besides just think of all the money they can make selling books/classes on how to configure their newfound security!

Much more important point

[say]

The point of this security focus article - if you actually read it - is that MS might be going for a subscription-based licensing in the long run. See, you don't pay for Windows, MS Anti-Spyware and MS Anti-Virus, you pay to subscribe to all these, software upgrades and security patches.

That means MS could: a) make people more aware that they are paying for patches, making it more probable that they will use them; b) be able to roll out new OS upgrades instantly, and avoid having to support WinXP far into the 2020-ies; c) hunt pirates more effectively; and d) make shitloads of cash also on people who don't need cutting-edge updates.

It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows, and I think there are compelling reasons for Microsoft to make it this way. After all, MS can't live with the fact that many home users still use Win98 (think of all the lost revenue!)

Re:Much more important point

[HuguesT]

Sorry, I'm throwing away all of my mod points just to respond to this nonsense.

This is **NOT** the RedHat model coming to Windows. Redhat's subscription is 100% voluntary. You can still get all of their software, including the Enterprise stuff, without spending a single cent in subscription. Redhat's software is GPL, it is guaranteed to remain Free forever.

With RedHat, you pay if you believe their service actually add value to your business. With Microsoft, if you *don't* pay, your business can't run. Period.

Is it just me?

[voudras]

or is microsoft getting into the anti-virus market sorta like self fullfilling?

I mean really. I guess they dont make enough money just keeping thier products secure

3 words for you

[FidelCatsro]

Conflict of intrests

Re:3 words for you

[FidelCatsro]

I see this got moderated a troll for some god unknown reason.
Ok i better fill it out a little

Microsoft develop an operating system with bugs which allow worms and viruses and trojans to propagate .
Microsoft then continue to build an anti virus system to either sell with or give away with the system.
It is not a troll its a statment of fact , this is a conflict of intrests .
It would be better if they give it away for free but then that is incredibly anti-competitive and a conflict of intrests still to a lesser degree though.
if they sell it then they are creating a conflict of intrests because fixing bugs in their OS then becomes something which could detract from sale of the anti virus software.
it is a conflict of intrests plain and simple , i do not say this to troll only to point out that this is very much an unethical practice .

Re:3 words for you

[Tibor the Hun]

Don't worry about troll mods. These newfangled mods wouldn't know a troll if it bit them in the ass.

You know what scares me?
I thought with Longhorn MS would develop a somewhat virus secure system, that wouldn't need a full fledged AV.
Now, with this they don't have to. It pretty much means, in the Windows world, it's gonna be more of the same with respect to viruses... You're not safe without a good AV product.

Can you see how they're gonna spin this one? "We're so commited to our secure computing initiative, we've developed our own AV product, and made sure it "Just Works" with your current operating system!"

Re:3 words for you

[Evil Adrian]

Last time I checked, it is legal to compete with other software companies. The only time it becomes illegal is if they use their "monopoly" (monopolies are legal, by the way) to leverage their product unfairly. You're basically declaring them guilty before they've even launched the product -- very stupid.

Offering software to protect consumers... how is that unethical? Oh wait, I get it: it's Microsoft, therefore, everything they do is unethical and wrong. That mind of yours smells squeaky-clean from all the brainwashing.

Do us all a favor, too -- please learn to spell before you respond. Thanks!

The solution has been out for some time....

[Himring]

I installed Firefox 1.0 on my brother's computer months ago (6 months?). I checked his system last night with spybot and AVG AV (just installed AVG to see if it would find anything). Absolutely no spyware or viruses at all. Now, my bro does tons of surfing and so does his wife. They do ebay, email and are all-around fairly regular users. Of course, I also installed a software firewall on their XP system.

Microsoft already holds the key to an AV solution, and that is, bury IE so the user can't use it and install Firefox....

Different

[mattmentecky]

To offer up a different (aka unpopular and hated) perspective, Microsoft isn't alone in the field of companies that offer up an imperfect product or a product that will break with intention of selling more. And they shouldnt be treated like they are some super new-bread of evil, it has been around for a while.

Technology in industry has come to a point (heck, a while ago) that can produce never-dull razors, lifetime long light bulbs and lifetime appliances (has anyone had a refridgerator/washer/drier last more than 5, 10 years nowadays?) but we see none of these. Why? It benefits a company more to make broken-products or sub-par or eventually-break products than something of quality. Microsoft is no different. I guess thats just Capitalism? More money == 'good'

Re:Different

[Frumious Wombat]

In some cases, yes, but they're all much more expensive than the disposable alternatives.

Look at the most obvious example of why it's not necessarily a conspiracy keeping these fine products away from you; your computer. IBM, HP, and DEC made some high-end, virtually unkillable, PCs (and two of them still do), but they cost real money. People said that was too much money for a PC, so they bought Dell or Bob's WhiteBoxen instead, and complained when they died early.

It's not that the company loses future sales by not selling you an undullable razor for $50 now, it's that they lose present sales because Bob's FaceScrapers(tm) are only $2.50 at the check-out counter, and that's what the average short-term minded consumer will buy instead. You could use compact fluorescent bulbs, or LED flashlights as examples as well; some people will buy them, but most will say it's too expensive, and instead pony up for another tungsten bulb seven times as often, because it costs less at that moment.

Trite though the statement is, the business world really does run on the maxim, "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity".

Re:Different

[TwinkieStix]

I completely agree. It's all supply and demand. If consumers thought that a longer lasting unit was worth the additional cost, they they would purchase it. It's true that companies are out to make money, but that means that (given competition of course) they need to supply what the consumers demand. It doesn't make them evil.

Now, Microsoft is a different story. They've been found guilty of monopolizing a market sector, and so they need to be more closely watched and perhaps even regulated. This product is close to wiping out the entire anti virus industry, although the likes of Norton and Mcafee are doomed to get much leaner and faster else die from market share loss. At that point, the only anti virus makers left standing will be Microsoft, a new holders on, and perhaps clamAV (open source can't be killed that easily I bet).

So, don't compare Microsoft to Maytag. The washing machine maker is forced by competition to give us what we want (or at least what they think we want until somebody else proves them wrong). Microsoft is only inclined to give us what we want else face competition from Apple or Linux, which is not on their main radar at the moment.

Re:Slashdot search sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

That is probably because slashdot only supports OR searching. If you search for microsoft antivirus you are really searching for Microsoft OR antivirus. Google isn't any better as you could have to search through several hundred results to find the dupe.

Microsoft business model

[infernalC]

1. The anti-viral software will be made available for XP, but will be built-in for Longhorn (if Longhorn ever happens - we're still waiting).

2. The subscription cost will be built into the Longhorn price for retail copies.

3. OEMs will have a choice of becoming .dat file distributors or retailing subscriptions to MS' direct service. Distributors will either have to pay massive up-front fees or massive MS taxes. The initial subscription is mandatory (bundled) either way.

4. After you will pretty much be forced to pay for this software, you will quickly realize that it is INCOMPATIBLE with your third-party ftp client, web browser, etc. This thing is gonna be tied to IE (probably intentiontionally crippled).

5. Microsoft, respecting anti-trust laws, will provide an API for you to Microsoftize your Internet applications. The API specs and the library itself will of course be made available for a $10,000 licensing fee and signature on an NDA (Microsoft will disguise this as an effort to protect users' security). The API/library will not be available on OSS-compatible (much less GPL-friendly) terms.

6. Microsoft will sit back as they rape their userbase, who will believe that Microsoft is doing them a favor; even if they don't, vendor lock-in is a beautiful thing.

7. Profit!!!!

Don't tell me you don't see this coming.

Now if they could just fill in the missing step... wait a minute...

No kidding...

[koko775]

It's a rare thing for me to be able to find something I'm searching for, and I often find that my searches come up with irrelevant results. IMO the search needs some rethinking.

The Mouse Guards the Cheese ?

[ntsucks]

Who in the world would let the mouse guard the cheese?

This is such an oxymoron. Micro$oft writes vulnerable software then sells you software to protect the vulnerabilities. Does anyone see the the conflict? If Micro$oft would invest in writing tighter software the need for anti-virus products would be *greatly* reduced.

If Micro$oft cannot write tight software in the first place, why would you use their product that software?

Re:Resistance is futile

[NoOneInParticular]

I think that in this case the mantra will be "conflict of interest" instead of "anti-competitive". Having one branch of a corporation sell shoddy products security-wise, and having another branch selling the 'fix' sure sounds like a conflict. And to bring anti-competitiveness in as well, they might actually be tempted at some point to put in a bug in the OS, put the fix in the AV software, and put other AV vendors out of business by pointing out that they didn't handly the issue in a timely manner. They've done worse.

Microsoft AV should be better...

[Eric Damron]

An OS company selling software to protect its OS from malicious software designed to exploit flaws in that OS!

Can you say conflict of interest! Sure you can!

Well at least their AV software should work better than other companies AV software. At least I'm assuming that Microsoft SHOULD know where all the holes are...

Great business model

[tvaananen]

This is a great business model for Microsoft.

First create unsecure software that lets the viruses in, then provide virus protection software, and make the user pay for both. Simply brilliant!