Slashdot Mirror
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.
Microsoft To Offer Virus Defense
because he can see a scam when he knows one
i cant wait for the lawsuits/class action to begin !
1, Sell OS which enables viruses to spread very easily
2, Create AV SW
3, Profit on selling AV SW AND new OS updates! Muhahaha...
Jeez, we're screwed...
MS developing anti-virus software to find the same viruses the company's own shoddy programming allowed to propogate is like the Slashdot editors developing a dupe search to find the same duplicates their own shoddy editing allowed to be posted.
But don't pass the cost to your patients ...
1) Sell OS with lots of vulnerabilities enabling viruses
2) Create anti-virus software
3) ???
4) Profit!!!
I guess the most depressing aspect of this is that I put almost no credibility in most of the statements MS makes. If they are succesful then it will be a weak middling product that probably focuses on protecting MS OS's and applications exclusively, probably will interfere with everyone else's products and will most likely be several years and several releases late. On the other hand it will probably wind up being 'free' as in you don't have to pay for it directly but because it will be cancerously embedded in the OS it will help keep the price of MS products absurdly high. And last but not least, the list of security patches for the AV tool itself will be extensive. Plus you can figure that it will absolutely crash Firefox and Openoffice.
It's just you...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.
slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.
slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.
Does it mean our favorite MSAV from DOS 6.22 finally has an update?
I read that as dopes not dupes. Though guess the editors could be dopes, so statement still stands true
..."We knew it was coming."
Microsoft's tactics can always be worked out by considering what action would show the most disrespect to their users and the least amount of pride or professionalism in their products or services.
Consider the recent "Thought Thieves" poster.
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!
First 'they build' and sell you an inferior OS, and then they'll sell you the stuff to make it secure ?!?
I am confused....why people cannot 'see'....very confused I am indeed.
...when the first virus spreading over the Microsoft Antivirus system is written...
BTW, will it be free? If not, I'd say, brillant strategy. First sell them system vulnerable to viruses, then sell them protection against them. Microsoft should start charging for security updates downloads too.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
It is you. You're increasing. I hope you know what it means when a person is increasing.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
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
All Slashdot posts are redundant by definition, since only certain stories are posted on Slashdot to begin with, and all of the comments are repeats from some earlier post. In about 15 years, the only moderation you will see is redundant...redundant...redundant, cause there will be no new stories by that time. This will be the sign that the Singularity is upon us, as Slashdot posts begin to come from an artificial intelligence faster and faster, then comments, then redundant moderation, then posts, then comments, then redundant moderation, then posts, then comments, then redundant moderation...eventually the virtual world is filled with Slashdot posts moderated redundant...
Such is the fate of mankind.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
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
Conflict of intrests
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
We used to complain that MS does nothing to protect it's users, now we will complain they don't do it half as well as some other company :)
If on one hand you sell an inefficient product that opens a body to disease and on the other the antidote, all you risk, (outside of your looking like an arrogant and dishonest charletan), is taking twice your customer's money. But this isn't where they're going to lose.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
now they do have an economic incentive to leave the bugs in .... I mean if they spent the money they are spending on this to get bugs found, and top get them out faster we'd all be better off ... instead someone's decided this will be a profit center ... soon enough they'll be putting bugs in and releasing viruses, all because it's good for the bottom line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchworm
Longhorn users won't need this.
y .mspx
See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/longhorn/securit
Imagine releasing anti-virus software on the eve of launching the "most secure version of windows ever".
With MS-AV it will be even MORE most secure.
Isn't this kinda like a brothel selling Valtrex and Penicillin?
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
...about viruses, it'd be Microsoft.
.NET developer envrionment before an ANTI-virus application.
Still, I would have expected an
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
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....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
how things turn out. It sure takes them Redmond gang a while to come up with anything, when looking at the purchase-company / product-to-market cycle...
People have launched a number of variations on the
"1. massively spread lame s/w w/ vulnerabilites
2. start seling antivirus s/w
3. profit?"
hypothesis. However, this would only turn out to be a correct theory only if the AV s/w worked remarkably well, shifting the virii vulnerability stories focus elsewhere. I wouldn't want to bet a dime on a conspiracy theory or on any type of a silver-bullet solution.
My bet is different - many Redmond products had flaws and some attempts at new niche markets were downright failures. Hence, I'd bet on an AV product that will fit 'normally' into the S win suite, reducing only part of the problems and introducing some (as typical of any s/w) new issues of its own.
A less safe bet, but not to be dismissed, is the ultimate toll-for-disaster scenario, also mentioned times and again in this discussion.
Remeber that MS purchased the Intellectual Property of GeCad which made RAV Antivirus a few years back.
Sean Milheim
iDREUS Corporation
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'
thanks dued now i have another wrom in my computer.
ok
bye
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.
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).
.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.
2. The subscription cost will be built into the Longhorn price for retail copies.
3. OEMs will have a choice of becoming
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...
This isn't some difficult to understand article like "Random company says obscure technical thing", which when presented different ways may slip past an editor.
This is "MICROSOFT IS MAKING ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE". It is a simple concept, and a memorable and controversal one at that. An editor could have searched on "Microsoft" or "virus" and seen the obvious dupe. Do a search for virus right now. It is amusing.
This place has really degenerated to dupes and several nonsense articles. They need new editors.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oxymoron .....Enough said
It's not the destination that matters, but rather the journey.
I don't think the flaws *could* be further underlined.
I said, c'mon... somebody mod that redundant.
Do I have to say it three consecutive times in a row?
Its a "good" idea for Microsoft because they now have good reasons NOT to plug their security holes.
Think about it, imagine a critical flaw is found in XP or whatever....(you don't have to imagine too hard). Microsoft now has a decision to make:
1 - spend a million bucks fixing the hole.
OR
2 - Say "We're working on that issue" and in the meantime SELL you an AV product to protect yourself, netting 5-6 million in the process.
Which do YOU think they'll go for?
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
Geez,
It's like an electrician setting your house on fire due to some dodgy wiring, and then offering to sell you a fire extinguisher as your house burns down.
What is CSSRepublic
Funny, I've already run the Microsoft AV program on my windows boxes. It's acutally quite easy.
;)
Go to...
Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt (on winXP) and type:
deltree c:
Then just install your favorite *nix!
Ok, fine, mod me troll. I just couldn't resist.
FLAMEBAIT? heh, we'll see...
120chars for a sig is teh suck
Really?
MSAV was a limited version of Central Point Anti-Virus. It did do checksums but that was so it could check for viruses that weren't in the database--which I don't recall ever being updated.
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.
This is MSFT casting around for ways to keep their quarterly numbers up. Their numbers come out of your pocket.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Cool!!
And the next MS Antivirus not only removes known virus from your computer. It goes one step beyond, stopping the use of potential dangerous ways of infection such as: Firefox, ICQ, Gaim, Winamp, etc... XDDD
GOD NO!! Not Norton!!
Of course Norton is already geared to take over your PC with mindless popups reminding you how stupid you are and if your system is "secure" or not, so the code should seemlessly integrate with any Microsoft Operating System.
My computer at school has been infected with Windows. Maybe they'll be able to remove it.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
Note to self: sell all shares in Symantec.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
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?
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
When Ford makes a car that is defective they do a "recall" and fix it so that it works the way it should have worked in the first place free of charge. What suckers! They could have just sold users the "seat belt upgrade" or "ignition switch that doesn't catch fire." The stockholders must be pissed.
You might be thinking "if a car malfunctions it's a life or death matter but who cares if a computer crashes or gets a virus?" But what if that computer is part of the air traffic control system? Windows (for some reason) is used in a lot of important environments. Sometimes it really is life or death.
Micro$oft Windows: What virus do you want today?
Micro$oft AntiVirus: We charge you extra for locking in.
I wonder if M$AV will uninstall Windows, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good AntiVirus.
What will be distributed first - Security fixes or Antivirus definitions?
I think that Microsoft has an ethical responsibility to provide free AV to its consumers.
First off, a large number of virus' out there are a direct result if the software flaws of the M$ OS. If M$ were to charge for AV, for the conspiracy theorists, it could almost seem that they were intentionally putting out flawed software to drive sales of their AV.
It's been reported that Microsoft was going to sell their AV, but at a price that completely undercuts the likes of Symantec. In other words, Microsoft is trying to bully their way into the market and make sure they get at least "enough" of their share to make it profitable, but while still trying to fend off anti-trust lawsuits.
With all the software that M$ has been putting out lately, including the anti-spyware tool and firewall, this is the LAST thing that Microsoft should be charging for. With such a small market out there actually keeping anti-virus, and up-to-date anti-virus, this has a big potential for Microsoft to really cut down on those rampant virus outbreaks. That alone would boost their image in regards to security with the general public.
As for anti-competitive behavior by offering it for free? Screw it. Anybody who's had to deal with Symantec tech support will be able to sympathize with the rest of those who have had to deal with their lousy support practices.
I'm not asking for some completely revolutionary AV software with uber functionality. However, I believe that M$ would be alienating consumers that are going to give them a really funny look when they see that the same company that is a result of the reason they lost all their data last time they had to reformat their HDD is now trying to hustle AV software onto them.
As I said earlier, I think it's both an ethical responsibility for M$ to provide AV software to their consumers at no additional charge, as well as a PR responsibility.
A community-oriented lyrics site
Keep in mind Ford doesn't have an agreement with each and every customer that says "If it blows up or are maimed by using our product, we are not responsible"...which Microsoft does.
Ford can't afford to ignore disasterous engineering failures. Microsoft can by writing it off with marketing. Lucky for us most durable goods don't come with shrink wrap licenses right?
What exactly about my comment is bullshit? Up until recently most linux distributions would come out of the box with security being dependent on the classic CHMOD filesystem security. I can only assume (hope) the ACL kernel patches have made it into newer mainstream linux distributions.
I'm well aware of OS security. My comment had nothing to do with BSD, or any other OS outside of Linux.
Can it fix the Microsoft so that it doesn't hang? or fix "Blue Screen" ? Great help if it does.
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...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Nobody here understands that since the DOJ consent decree, almost no big design decision at Microsoft happens without lawyers involved.
The most damaging legal argument against Microsoft (and one that was widely hailed by Slashdotters) was that it destroys competitors by bundling products for free in the OS. This is obviously a true charge, as experienced by Netscape, and much of the legal oversight at Microsoft is meant to keep walls up between different business units, to prevent illegal bundling of products.
If Microsoft shipped AV in the OS (which I personally would love) for free or greatly below market prices, McAfee and Symantec would be all over them with civil anti-trust complaints in a second. In addition, the judge overseeing the consent decree might (or state AGs) might reconsider some of the deals made in the past.
It is unbelievably hypocritical for people in this forum to both:
a) Celebrate Microsoft losing anti-trust battles, and reveling in the fact that there are now large legal hurdles to improving their products.
b) Complain that Microsoft doesn't destroy the desktop security software segment with free AV, on top of already free Spyware checking and firewall.
.. but I welcome Microsoft's entry into the AV marketplace. To put it bluntly, their product cannot possibly be less efficient, more annoying and more costly than Symantec and Mcaffee's offerings.
I'm so sick of Symantec's bloated product line that I'd gladly switch, especially if this meant I could get out from under their mafia subscription scheme.
First create unsecure software that lets the viruses in, then provide virus protection software, and make the user pay for both. Simply brilliant!
How much do you want to bet that this will be the first anti-virus software capable of getting viruses?
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
I love your sig, man.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
As I can see, if Microsoft sell a defective product to you, they must fix it for free. Every other industry work like this, if there is a defect there will be a recall.
Microsoft is just giving away arguments for even more lawsuits against them! How can they be so stupid? What they're trying to do has a name, and the name is FRAUD.
Microsoft: Hey, look... I got this wonderfull, secure OS, it's called Windows XP! Buy it and your problems with virus and spyware will disapear forever!
Customer: Oh, really? Here, have my money!
(...some time later...)
Customer: Hey, my PC is infested with virus and spywares! You must fix it!
Microsoft: Ok, you just have to purchase our new AntiVirus Software.
Are they really serious about this?! Do they actualy enjoy being sued?!?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Doesn't this constitute racketeering?
Selling protection from the threat that they create?
Godfather Bill strikes again....
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
When there's been no anti-trust enforcement!? Just a slap on the wrist,and a "Naughty boys" scolding. So what if there's lawyers involved, when they are all Microsoft lawyers?
Your point "b" is bullcrap and whiney bullcrap at that. No one above has complained that "Microsoft doesn't destroy desktop security segment with free AV..."
Doesn't matter if its free or not, what's to keep them from giving their own AV special treatment & inside info, and thereby screw the non-MS AV players like they did to WordPerfect & Lotus 1-2-3 developers when preparing Office to nuke the competition back in the days leading to Win95? See, the complaint here. Nothing. And what would the DOJ do if they caught them at it? Nothing.
Since there's no downside to destroying the competition, they may as well make a few extra bucks at it. Expect MS AV, AS and firewall to be mandatory with Foghorn. Expect to pay through the nose--or whatever orifice it amuses MS to extract it from--and on a regular basis, sucker.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Windows Antivirus Routine Check ....
SYSTEM ALERT! WINDOWS ANTIVIRUS HAS DETECTED CRITICAL TROYAN LINUX_2.6 VARIANT RED_HACK IN YOUR HARD DISK [CLEAN] [DELETE] ?
Now we are ready for the "Windows Antivirus Network Edition"...
unfinished: (adj.)
cant begin to imagine how hard it will be to remove msAV from windows... Cheers! ^_RaMoN_^
It seems everyone who posts on slashdot hates paying for software!
I think the M$ anti virus will be crap and no one will ever be inclined to spend money on it.
If you don't wnat to pay for anti virus, you can download AVG free edition or even better you can ditch windows completely!