Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Begins anti-virus Software Development

Posted by Hemos on from the long-expected dept.

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.

10 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Physician, Heal thyself !! by fluffywuffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  2. Goals? by Sierpinski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --
    And they said zombies weren't real!
  3. Much more important point by say · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!)

    --
    Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    1. Re:Much more important point by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  4. Is it just me? by voudras · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. 3 words for you by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Conflict of intrests

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:3 words for you by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:3 words for you by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!"

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  6. Different by mattmentecky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'

  7. Microsoft business model by infernalC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...