Microsoft Discusses Anti-Spyware Plans

LaughingCoder writes "Microsoft has announced their plans for the (currently free) AntiSpyware application, which is now in Beta. It is currently slotted to be bundled with Windows Vista. The end-user has the option of switching it out and using a different vendor's spyware protection if they want." From the article: "Microsoft gave an official name to its software for protecting computer users against spyware. The software, which has been known as Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1, will be called Windows Defender when the finished version becomes available next year, a Microsoft spokesperson said Tuesday. A posting on Microsoft's TechNet Web blog announced the change on Friday and also revealed some details about capabilities coming to the software. The current version of Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1 has 18 million users, the spokesperson said. "

Comments

can Microsoft do this?

[yagu]

Okay, a couple of thoughts:

• First, Microsoft is announcing this anti-spyware will be free. I'm wondering how could they charge for it? Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas? I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies. (Oh, you want air in those tires? We have an addon, called valve-stems which, for now, we're offering for free.)

  And I know some claim this isn't Microsoft's fault that spyware happens, but it really mostly is. They designed Windows to be as easy and automatic to use as possible, which really is the gateway for much of the malware wreaking computer havoc.

• Second, is this a step in the direction of violating their consent decree (if that is what the DOJ imposed, I don't remember technically what it was)? They say you can swap out their anti-spyware for any other vendor's, but seemingly putting theirs in place by default, and making it free sounds a lot like a previous browser war to me.

• Third, assuming this all goes according to Microsoft's plan, and if they do this, and if anti-spyware companies go out of business because their air supplies have been cut off, is Microsoft going to ratchet their price just a wee bit more to cover this cost (I've gotten posts in the past asking for an example where Microsoft's done this -- they don't actually add to their price in an itemized way, but their price for their software/OS certainly hasn't attenuated to the same curve hardware has in the PC industry... and it's not because they couldn't sell it for less and make a profit... it's because they don't have to sell it for less.)

If I were a anti-spyware vendor, I'd be pissed. (Unless I was the one Microsoft bought out.)

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that there is no price depreciation over time, but how many other software companies do this? Certainly not Apple, they simply stop selling the old version. Games are an industry in which this sort of price drop occurs, but they seem to be more of an exception than a rule.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[serano]

Third, assuming this all goes according to Microsoft's plan, and if they do this, and if anti-spyware companies go out of business because their air supplies have been cut off, is Microsoft going to ratchet their price just a wee bit more

Worse: consumers are left having to trust Microsoft that spyware has not been installed. Microsoft could define as spyware any competitive software or technology it feels threatened by, and it could define as non-spyware its own or partners' software which most reasonable people would consider spyware. "That's not spyware. It's data we collect to help your future shopping experience." This is a case where competition (i.e. having a choice of vendors) is important and trusting a monopoly is a very bad idea.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[DaveM753]

Microsoft keeps adding "FREE" things to Windows. But didja ever notice the price of Windows keeps going up? Windows 98 retail box cost $90 if I remember correctly. Can you get Windows XP Home Edition retail box for $90? I don't think so...

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a classic Anti-Microsoft post. Let's look at an example with an auto manufacturer such as Ford. You seem to be the type to fault Microsoft no matter what they do. If they are to charge for it, you criticize...they offer it for free and you bitch as well.

Very few people blame Ford when their vehicle gets broken into with a hammer through the glass.

Your First Point - If Ford was to include a free alarm system, people would be happy about it, and wouldn't think twice. Yes, they do sell a car with deficiencies (It could be bullet proof glass), AND they would be offering a free solution to the problem!

Your Second Point - They put it in free and allow you to swap it out. Big deal! You would never fault Ford for putting in a free system. If you are unhappy with the free system, upgrade it. Nobody is forcing you to keep it.

Your Third Point - Simple economics. We don't live in a world where we only want the best for everyone else. If all other competition closes up, it wouldn't make sense for them NOT to increase their prices. Suck it up -- let the market determine the price.

If you were an alarm system installer I'm sure you would be pissed too, but welcome to the real world!

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[dtfinch]

My Ubuntu system at home came with thousands of programs, with many thousand more available in their repositories. An Office suite is installed whether you want it or not, unless you choose the minimal install, which few people do. The whole thing leaves very room for commercial competition for what runs on my desktop. Whatever someone wants to sell me, I probably already have some preinstalled equivalent on my Ubuntu system. Maybe this is unfair to others who would like to sell me something, but as a user I really don't mind getting a better system for the same price. Anti-virus vendors have had over 20 years to find other avenues of business, and now they're upset that after all this time Microsoft has decided to compete with them, not to sell as a standalone program, but to improve the security of their desktop operating systems. I'd actually like to see Windows bundled with Office and Visual Studio. Hell, why not throw in the whole enchilada? Because it saves consumers money at the expense of third parties software publishers?

Traditionally, a lot of OEM's have been bundling antivirus/antimalware trialware with systems, which times out after usually 60 days, leaving the system worse off than if it had no antivirus at all, unprotected but with all the slowness and instability that comes with running antivirus software.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[stunt_penguin]

Surely defending against spyware and security breaches should be a primary function of the OS, rather than an application that is built to run on the operating system. People who make antispyware software are making up for a deficiency in an operating system that people already havbe paid good money for. They should have no complaints if Microsoft take it upon themselves to actually fix what's wrong with their operating systems. If Microsoft were somehow 100% successful in defending against spyware & malware and suddenly no-one needed any antispyware, that's just tough for antispyware companies, and it's great news for computer users everywhere. Similarly, say windows Vista was (you'll laugh at this) 100% secure against virus attack (as if!) and no-one needed any antivirus, surely that'd be a great thing and we could have a big bonfire with all our copies of Norton.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Red Alastor]

There could be a compromise. Microsoft make the anti-spyware but it opens the format for spyware signatures. Think of it like Debian repositories. You could add ad-aware, norton or anybody you trust in your source list. They could even sell a subscription to you if they wish.

But I don't think Microsoft would like it.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[dtfinch]

TigerDirect will sell you XP Home for $89.99, and it's not the upgrade version. That's not the retail price, but nobody buys at retail price these days. If I search Froogle, I can find much lower prices, but I wouldn't trust anyone selling below $60 or so.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[CastrTroy]

I don't know what you're talking about. you should check your information before you post it.

Home, Non upgrade, $192.99
Home, Upgrade, $98.99

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[eyegor]

Microsoft bundling anti-spyware software with their OS is kind of like a shipbuilder installing an automatic leak plugger in a new ship.

It'd be better to build it so it didn't leak in the first place.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Rayaru]

Well, I think some of it can be attributed to inflation.

What cost $90 in 1998 would cost $104.29 in 2005. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1998, they would cost you $90 and $77.67 respectively.

Source: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[CastrTroy]

If microsoft actually goes and fixes the wholes in thier operating system then I have no problem with it. What I would have a problem with, is microsoft just building an antispyware/antivirus application that runs on top of their operating system, just like all the other antispyware/antivirus applications.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[stunt_penguin]

E-zactly, and if they choose to plug the leaks themselves, then the companies with leak plugging machines can all go out of business and not a tear will be shed.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but Ford isn't a monopoly, an oligopoly ***maybe***, but certainly not a monopoly. This is where the anti-competitive nature comes into play. So change your example a bit. This is more akin to the IRS deciding to offer their tax preparers for free, they'll even send one to your house at your convenience when you're ready to do your taxes. There'll be an across the board $100 tax preparation recovery surcharge added to every citizen's tax bill regardless of whether they use this service or not. So, now you have no option other than to pay the IRS the $100 surcharge but you still have to have your taxes prepared. You have the option of emigrating to another country, but that's wholly unrealistic, pay a 3rd party to prepare your taxes, bt you're already paying the IRS for that service, or just let the IRS prepare your taxes for you. This is NOT a perfectly competitive market, yeah, there are options, but shy of being part of the Accountant Union of America, 99% of folks will just use what they're already being forced to pay for.

This is why monopolies are BAD, it's not a competitive situation, it's certainly not the "real world" free market economists like Adam Smith envisioned. That said, Microsoft didn't build their monopoly alone, they had help. Personally, I say GOOD, I hope these Anti-V companies get decimated much like Netscape, Sybase, and Real did, if only so that yet another set of CEOs learn that when you make a pact with the Microsoft, you WILL get burned in the end. When Microsoft chokes off enough of the eco-system supporting their monopoly, that's when we'll see competing solutions finally gain the upper hand. Word to the wise, Microsoft's "partner" programs are simply a means of getting others to develop markets for them, once those markets are good and mature, don't for an instance think MS isn't going to try to grab that pie for themselves.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[crimoid]

"If I were a anti-spyware vendor, I'd be pissed."

As a consumer I'd be pissed if Microsoft did nothing about malware. I want them to either fix the core problem(s) or bundle a free desktop app as a workaround.

It seems like this is a total win for consumers. Sorry, screw anti-spyware vendors. Not all markets were meant to last.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[BronxBomber]

First off, your analogy in your first item is not accurate. While I agree that they really shouldnt charge for it, saying that the reason malware exists because of the "poorly architected Windows environment" is like saying Cavendish is responsible for the H-Bomb. I doubt Billy had the foresight to see a business model being built upon a poorly designed system.

Second, while IANAL, despite the DOJ's imposition, MS still has the right to design and develop and brand products bundled with their OS. Putting theirs in place by default does not seem to violate the court's order. They provide customers with an "out", and I think as long as its spelled out clearly how to remove the software without any ill side effects or instability (heh), then I dont see how this could be a point of contention.

The community cannot have it both ways. Windows is the most prevalent OS out there, everyone knows its a security exploit waiting to happen. As such, if MS attempts to do even the "apparently" right thing by designing software to fix what they screwed up, and try to distribute it, then it appears they are pushing out other anti-spyware companies. Yet these companies would not exist if it were not for MS's security exploits. If they do not attempt to distribute it, they are seen as being criminally complacent.

Perhaps MS should just leave them alone, so each respective company's revenue stream will not dry up, and give something to the /. members to post about?

While I dont doubt that somewhere MS has some type of revenue-generation card up their sleeve (and should not be allowed to play), I think that perhaps the tech community can try to take this with a grain of salt and see where it goes before predicting its MS's first move in taking down the anti-spyware establishment.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[harley_frog]

Well, John C. Dvorak ranted about this earlier. Yeah, I know, it's Dvorak, and I'm not his biggest fan either, but he does have a point: Why correct the problem when you can provide another piece of software to make up for the defect? Think about it. If it's going to cost you $1000 to replace the A/C compressor on your ten year old car, are you going to fork over the money or roll down the windows instead? I'm sure in Microsoft's way of thinking, it's more cost effective not to fix the code but instead have a outside application that should (in theory) protect the system from spyware. Of course, the underlaying problem still exists, but it's now out of sight, out of mind. That is until something fails, which almost invariably happens in complex systems.

So, for Microsoft, it's a purely business decision. That does not make the decision the right one for consumer. Which comes down this: would you prefer an operating system that is widely known to be flawed, will never be made secure and, in addition to regular patches (which may break) needs additional software to be even remotely considered to be secure; or are you going to buck the system and go with one of the alternatives that have smaller market share and may not currently run the software you need?

Microsoft is betting that consumers choose the former. I, myself, choose the latter.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[colin_young]

"I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies."

Isn't this more or less what the credit reporting agencies are doing when they try to sell you credit moitoring services? It may be unseemly, but apparently it's legal.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[pixelpusher220]

welcome to the real world!

Really? are you planning on visiting anytime soon?

A busted window, while quite the nice irony, has no bearing here. If Ford released a car that *any* key would open and start then you'd have a comparison.

First Point - now, that 'free' system to stop people from exploiting a basic security flaw would be a realistic comparison. And since they built the flawed system, selling or giving away free something others sell to fix THEIR flawed system is very thin legal ice. Fix the Flaw, fine, but not sell a fix for your lack of quality.

Second Point - every hear of Internet Explorer? They put in free but WON'T LET ME swap it out. And on top of that it's amazingly insecure.

Third Point - this is why I can't shoot people like you, the free market DOES need some controls and safety valves to function properly. Otherwise, there's no reason I can't go blow up my competitors facilities...I mean, it's just extreme economic competition isn't it? Your point is even more ridiculous in that Microsoft only GOT to be so big and powerful by being an illegal monopolist.

Sheesh

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[it_waaznt_me]

So true .. It has happened before creating illusion for novice users that they are protected ... Another question is why are they gonna release it for Vista ..? I thought Vista was built around Secure Architecture ..

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[max born]

Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment.

That's just plain wrong. I'm a Linux user and I'm no Microsoft fan but to be fair, spyware isn't Microsoft's fault. If a malicious programmer wants to write a program to say, monitor your keystrokes, or send your computer ads, and a user willingly installs it, there's really nothing Microsoft can do to stop it short of prohibiting the user from running any and all programs.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

First, Microsoft is announcing this anti-spyware will be free. I'm wondering how could they charge for it? Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas? I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies. (Oh, you want air in those tires? We have an addon, called valve-stems which, for now, we're offering for free.)

No, it isn't. While Spyware has used "drive-by-downloads" and other Windows flaws to install itself in the past, today's spyware is almost universally bundled with software that the user downloads and installs. Web toolbars, screensavers, background utilities, file sharing products, and other shareware is frequently loaded with spyware.

Spyware can be written for any platform. What's to stop spware from modifying your .bashrc? Or your GNOME session?

Add to that the fact that most software is installed as root, and there is no limit to the damage that spyware-infected software could do. Even your Kernel and bootloader aren't safe.

Spyware is a problem that can affect any platform. While some spyware is undoubtably based on Windows flaws, spyware bundled with software can affect any platform.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[David Horn]

On the other hand, remember that Apple includes iLife with MacOS. Bit unfair to prevent MS from including *anything* with the OS.

A final point would be that I ran my computer for six months this year with XP SP2 and a permanent internet connection. I had no antispyware software installed. When I finally remembered, both Microsoft AntiSpyware and Ad-Aware came up blank.

'Spose I should point out that I've been using FireFox.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if it does leak? Would you rather drown while you're bitching about the manufacturing of the boat or have the boat have some simple safety measures built in? You're post is idiotic at best.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[dtfinch]

Home, Non upgrade, OEM :), $89.99

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[delus10n0]

In other words, you can legally buy a copy of Windows XP Media Center Edition (or any OEM edition of Windows XP for that matter) from any authorized reseller as long as you buy it with a power cord. Or a mouse. Or a keyboard. OK? That's the legal, official answer. (Note that this is not true of OEM copies of application software, like Office, or server software, like Microsoft Exchange. Those can only be sold with a fully assembled computer system.)

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[hswerdfe]

er...most spyware comes not from poor OS design but from user issues.
user clicks OK!
and then its all over with, its that simple.
you don't have to login as Admin every day, blame Dell, HP, IBM, or your work IT guy for that.
you don't have to install that program to give you Smilies in your OE.
you don't have to turn on ActiveX controls...

there is a lot of things you don't have to do.
most people don't understand, not do do them.
its like letting people drive before explaining to them not to step on the gas and the break at the same time.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[TheSpoom]

I've been using my laptop without antispyware or even antivirus software for oh, about three months now (ever since I had to reformat it as I had to get it repaired, and didn't want them snooping my files). I probably should be running an antivirus, but it's completely possible to be safe without any antispyware software. You just have to be a) behind a router or software firewall (choose one, not two, because both is overkill), b) run anything but IE, c) don't download things that mysteriously require IE (huge red flag), and d) keep your apps updated. In fact, if you followed a, c, and d, I suspect you could even run IE as long as it had decent security settings. I just wouldn't advise it because you'd be missing out on so much.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[linforcer]

Add to that the fact that most software is installed as root, and there is no limit to the damage that spyware-infected software could do.

Good thing all my software comes from portage and has been past a whole lot of maintainers of my operating system to ensure I get safe software :)

Yes there are always going to be risks to third party software, but when an operating system like Gentoo Linux provides the packages for anything I need, (in my case it has so far) the risk is minimal.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Mike Peel]

On the other hand, remember that Apple includes iLife with MacOS.

No, it doesn't. Apple provides iLife with the computer. If you go out and buy a plain copy of Mac OS X, that's all you'll get. (Well, sort of - but no more stuff than Microsoft include, i.e. browser, email, etc. iLife is sold separately.)


If you're careful about what software you install (which includes avoiding ones that Internet Explorer accidentally installs), then Windows generally won't pick up spyware - if, however, you go off the beaten track and start downloading and installing various random programs, you'll more than likely end up with spyware or similar.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[KarmaMB84]

The suggested retail price of Windows 98 UPGRADE was ~$99 (which ended up being $90 from Wal-Mart and the like) which is still true of Windows XP Home UPGRADE last I checked.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>It seems like this is a total win for consumers.

not a total win. it sets the precedent that having a secure OS is not a fundamental part of the OS, but the job of an extra program which is currently free but may not be in the future. the same way MS decided Home users don't need some of the stuff in Professional, they may decide that in the future Home users only need "basic" anti-spyware whereas Professional is the real thing. the whole Home vs. Professional thing is already a scam to get more money from those who are worried they need the "better version".

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[jambarama]

I think the concern isn't with spyware that gets on because of a user. You are right, that isn't Microsofts's fault. They have a lot of idiot users who click "I Agree" and "OK" far too easily. In fact I think a lot of the fabled security reputation Linux enjoys is because of those who run Linux. We know good security proceedures. We don't run as root all the time, we use a firewall (hardware or software), we can change permissions and on and on. I think Linux will start seeming less secure if more idiot users switch to it.

But I have to disagree somewhat with your post. A lot of spyware gets on through security holes, not by users permission. My grandmother uses IE on XP, she never installs anything and we have the security settings on IE pretty high. Yet she still got infected with spyware in a major way. After clean up, she uses firefox and hasn't had a problem. She didn't get spyware because she allowed some shady activeX control to run (or installed something that was piggybacking spyware), but because IE is a security nightmare and lets through a lot of things that shouldn't.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[drsmithy]

Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas?

How is an environment that runs what the user tells it to run "poorly architected" ?

You *are* aware that most malware gets in via users clicking "OK" in the wrong places, executing malicious email attachments, and installing software that includes the stuff, right ? Most of it - assuming the software is up to date - doesn't get in through software bugs or flaws.

Your "poor architecture" environment implies that it would be *impossible* to run Windows and not fall victim to malware. This is blatant FUD and couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[vsprintf]

saying that the reason malware exists because of the "poorly architected Windows environment" is like saying Cavendish is responsible for the H-Bomb. I doubt Billy had the foresight to see a business model being built upon a poorly designed system.

First, I agree with much of your comment. Second (not your usage, I know), I really dislike "architected" because architect is not supposed to be a verb, and it just sounds dweebish. But to the point, foresight or not, Bill decided to make money on an inexpensively produced OS that was not designed with security as a goal. Even in the days of DOS 3, all kinds of MS malware abounded, and there weren't all that many PC users.

Even as MS became large and rich, the focus was never on the security of the product or the user. The company was never committed enough to break with old, bad practices, and they continued to provide backward compatibility with old software and all the holes that entails. The 'net turned all those somewhat isolated MS petri dishes into a connected septic system that endagers everyone. Only in the last couple of years has MS paid more than lip service to security. Lack of foresight does not excuse the lack of hindsight, especially considering the cumulative grief imposed upon millions and millions of paying customers (sorry, I mean consumers of course).

While I dont doubt that somewhere MS has some type of revenue-generation card up their sleeve (and should not be allowed to play)

They've already played that card - it's called subscription licensing, and it will be seen a lot more in the future (by Microsoft users). The rest of us will pay in the freedoms lost as more laws are passed to restrict what we are allowed to do with our equipment.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[drsmithy]

Surely defending against spyware and security breaches should be a primary function of the OS, rather than an application that is built to run on the operating system.

Anti-virus/spyware software doesn't really "defend" against the attacks, they clean them up after they've happened.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[drsmithy]

it sets the precedent that having a secure OS is not a fundamental part of the OS [...]

Windows, like any other mainstream OS, is a secure as the end user makes it.

the whole Home vs. Professional thing is already a scam to get more money from those who are worried they need the "better version".

Yeah. A scam. Because it's not like pretty much every other vendor in the world uses the same sort of product differentiation.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[drsmithy]

It'd be better to build it so it didn't leak in the first place.

When you come with a way of detecting whether or not the user really did mean to type 'rm -rf /*', you'll have a point.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Mortlath]

A busted window, while quite the nice irony, has no bearing here. If Ford released a car that *any* key would open and start then you'd have a comparison.

I still think it does. Once I take my car out of the garage, it becomes vulnerable to any amount of damage. Why, someone could damage my car by "keying it" with a key that's not even mine!

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[spectre_240sx]

It depends on the software. I know a lot of people still buy older copies of Photoshop because they don't want to pay for features that they've decided they don't need. Personally I don't agree with it, because they're getting stuck behind, but they're saving money.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[stunt_penguin]

And defending/protecting against them should be a primary function of the OS.

And they do actually defend in a lot of ways, preventing modifications to the registry, stopping spyware installing itself and stopping viruses getting executing on your machine by scanning files as they are opened/run.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[drsmithy]

And defending/protecting against them should be a primary function of the OS.

Which Windows does.

And they do actually defend in a lot of ways, preventing modifications to the registry, stopping spyware installing itself and stopping viruses getting executing on your machine by scanning files as they are opened/run.

They only need to do this when the user (or a software bug) has circumvented or otherwise nullified the protection offered by the OS. I consider that to be cleaning up after the fact, rather than stopping it before it happens.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was supposed to be funny, bunghole.

Re:can Microsoft do this?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's just plain wrong. I'm a Linux user and I'm no Microsoft fan but to be fair, spyware isn't Microsoft's fault. If a malicious programmer wants to write a program to say, monitor your keystrokes, or send your computer ads, and a user willingly installs it, there's really nothing Microsoft can do to stop it short of prohibiting the user from running any and all programs.

You're wrong on both your points. First, a lot of malware (most infections) run without user intervention. That is certainly MS's fault. Second, assuming all malware is installed by users, MS can do a much, much, much better job of both providing users with application level privileges/ACLs and with a much better user interface for informing a user what is going on. When a user installs a little game, or just tries to view some data, like pictures, users should be alerted and given options to apply permissions to programs. Let users know when something is an executable, let them know when it wants to connect to the internet, let them know when it wants to touch their files, let them know when it wants to make alterations to the OS. More importantly, let them know all of these things in clear English, with a default option of stopping the action. Throwing up a OK/Cancel dialogue box is crappy UI design, especially when paired with text in techno-speak. Your false dichotomy of all programs can run and do anything vs. users can't install anything may be the way Windows works now, but it is not the proper behavior for a well designed OS.

Ideally the system could have warnings on the level of, "This program would like to record all your typing, even when you are using other programs. (Stop it from recoding your typing)(Allow it to record your typing)(Allow it to record your typing only when it is in focus)." This is doable, but even some basic default restrictions and virtual machines for programs just downloaded would be a huge obstruction to spyware. A lot of people claim ignorant users will agree to anything, well give them the choice and we'll see. And for the love of Buddha, get rid of the stupid OK/Cancel scheme. Asking someone what looks like the same question, not in English, over and over again while training them that "OK" means that things will work to pick out the few instances where that is not true is the most ridiculous UI idea I've ever seen.

Alternatively...

[intmainvoid]

Of course alternatively, you could build the OS so that spyware can't install itself silently and start phoning home. Or would that be an anti-trust issue for Microsoft these days, if it put all the anti-spyware/virus companies out of business???

Re:Alternatively...

[BandwidthHog]

While you’re right that you can’t get software to install silently under OS X, it would be trivial to trojan a download, and even to this day, a great many (most?) Mac users will gleefully enter their root password when prompted by any random installer.

As to the phoning home part, IPFW doesn’t, as configured in OS X, do egress. I run a $25 app to have real time veto power over outgoing packets. So while the malware situation on OS X is currently infinitely better than that of Winders, I wouldn’t be using that ‘c’ word if I were you.

Re:Alternatively...

[generic-man]

1. Provide download for Mac OS X
2. Require user to run installer to run program, as happens on occasion with Mac OS X software
3. Prompt user for their password in installer, as often happens with installers
4. Pollute user's Mac with spyware that phones home constantly over port 80
5. Profit!

Re:Alternatively...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Of course alternatively, you could build the OS so that spyware can't install itself silently and start phoning home.

Do not make the mistake of believing that your platform is immune.

Spyware works on any platform because users are stupid. Almost any user will gladly reveal their administrator password if promised "free screensavers". At that point, all of the access control in the world won't help you.

No operating system that allows the user to take control of their system is immune from spyware. There are always users who will give spyware whatever permissions it needs to install.

Re:Alternatively...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then WHERE are they? WHERE are all these spyware programs for Mac OS X, eh? It's been FIVE YEARS since OS X was released, and there are millions upon millions of users, yet, nothing. Not one, tiny, little incident. Hmmm. I would be inclined to believe your argument, yet there is absolutely no proof at all to back it up.

Re:Alternatively...

[NardofDoom]

So what you're saying is that we need to eliminate users, since they're the largest security hole.

I don't have a problem with that.

Re:Alternatively...

[generic-man]

It's been FIVE YEARS since OS X was released, and it still has less than a 10% market share among personal computers. What hacker would develop spyware for such a tiny userbase?

Firefox, Linux, OS/2, Amiga, and CP/M are all spyware-free! Aren't you happy?

Re:Alternatively...

[Anonymous Coward]

well, yes... yes, I am!

Re:Alternatively...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are arguing the "security through obscurity" phenomenon, which Vista pretty well proved false. When Vista was released there were only approximately 10,000 Beta users, yet 5 viruses were written within 8 days of release.

That 10% market share Mac's hold accounts for what, 16-20 million users at present estimate? I believe that's a worthy goal for any hacker. The notoriety alone would be overwhelming, yet we still aren't seeing anything. I'm not saying that Mac users are immune, I'm just saying that at present Windows users are plagued by hundreds of thousands of viruses, spyware and malware, and it would stand to reason that the Mac should have a 10% share of those problems, but they don't. That says something about the design and implementation of OS X versus Windows, regardless what the MS apologists say. It's REALLY hard to argue with 100% success, yet Windows users will do it time and time again. Sad that so many people settle for spending hours of time ridding themselves of a problem they do not have to experience. If you think that's an exaggeration, take a look at the other posts in this discussion regarding people using 3 or 4 scanning tools to rid themselves of something millions of Mac users absolutely never have to deal with. Sad, really to see people defend that.

Re:Alternatively...

[generic-man]

Oh, come now. We all know that Windows Vista is going to be used everywhere, just like the similarly-doomed-and-delayed Windows 2000 and Windows XP before it. That's why all types of applications, from office suites to viruses, are being ported now. By contrast, nobody will write viruses for Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" because only Mac users (a much smaller portion of the computer userbase) will ever buy that.

Re:Alternatively...

[Anonymous Coward]

along with the other 1 million plus windows users who switched this year (see recent /. article claiming as much), and the other millions that will switch by the time Leopard is released, because they are tired of the MS game.

Go ahead and spend your evening downloading updates to and running scans with AdAware, SpyBot, Norton, MS Anti-Spyware, ad infinitum, and I'll be here actually USING my computer! Laughing the whole time!

Believe me... I used MS religiously until about a year ago, and would never return. I cannot explain the TIME I got BACK from my life when I didn't have to scan and search and delete CRAP off my Windows computer. Never again.

Re:Alternatively...

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses aren't switching. There are no enterprise-class applications like Microsoft Access or Microsoft Small Business Server 2006 for the Mac or the Linux. You have to use shareware programs like "Patchy web server" and "Progress SQL." It is for reasons like this that your so-called "statistic" is moot.

Re:Alternatively...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, my law office just switched the entire organization (150+ computers plus all the servers) to Macs. We used MS Access and as our client database and MS on our servers, but it appears it was worth the firm paying untold thousands of dollars to switch to a proprietary database and dump the Windows fiasco. We actually had a small party and toasted with glasses of champagne when the x-Serves went live and the desktops were installed. Just shows how sad the situation is when the secretaries complain about the operating system environment!

So, it is irresponsible and inaccurate to say in totality that "business don't switch", because they do. Sure, not at the rate of personal consumers. Yes, it was a challenge to switch, but not the challenge it was to run a Windows setup everyday. And we're lucky enough to have a full-time IT staff.

Re:Alternatively...

[jambarama]

I know I'm going to get killed for this comment, but it has to be said. As a disclaimer I do love macs, I use them all the time at work.

Macs are easy, and currently not affected by much of what plagues windows. But I fear that Apple is growing a group of computer idiots for users. I don't mean you guys on slashdot. There are plenty of brilliant people who use macs because of the nice BSD underpinnings. I mean the users who can't handle Windows maintenance so I advise them to use a mac. So the people capable of maintaining up-to-date security patches and whatnot with Windows stay with Windows, those who can't do this switch to a mac. I know there are better/more common/other reasons to switch to a mac, but I suspect a lot of users are going for this reason alone. Because of this growing trend I think there is going to be some major problems in a few years for them (once their market share hits critical mass).

What happens when someone releases a worm like the sasser on a mac? Even some exploit for the mac version of IE like there is for windows. All these macs aren't running firewalls (I know they have almost no ports open by default, but M$ didn't think they'd have security problems prior to actually having them either), no one uses a virus scanner (truthfully they don't really do anything yet) and users don't understand permissions. Basically Apple (or people like myself encouraging others to switch to a mac) is encouraging bad behaviour.

See what I mean? Safety comes from good computing practices regardless of what OS you run. I run a firewall and virus scanner, and I am on an up-to-date Debian system.

Re:Alternatively...

[obeythefist]

Most spyware is bundled with applications like Kazaa (hence the development of Kazaa Lite et al).

When you install an application with bundled spyware, let's say, WoW for example (that lovely Warden software that gathers details about system processes and sends it on to Blizzard), the software is installed and generally either hidden or made to look like part of the application.

When you install software, even on a Windows box secured and using Run-As to install software (much like a Linux or Mac install process will allow you to elevate your access temporarily), you trust the install to do the right thing because you want Kazaa/WoW, right? So you enter your admin password and let the spyware move right on in.

How is OS X protecting you from this spyware? Does it come bundled with an antispyware product like Windows will? Can you download third party ones? OS X will not magically save you from bundled spyware. The only recourse you have is the same as the Windows users - Don't play WoW, don't run Kazaa. Has anyone even bothered to check what backdoor processes WoW is running on the Mac version?

With Apple entering back into the PC market, and gaining quite a bit of share lately, it's entirely possible, if not likely that Mac spyware will become prevalent. Best take a note or two from the Windows users who've had to deal with the negative side effects of running the defacto-standard OS around the world.

Re:Alternatively...

[lordofthechia]

"[users are] the largest security hole."

Thank you for purchasing Norton Internet Security 2006. To begin please read all these instructions FULLY before beginning the cleansing... err... "securing" process.

1. First unplug your computer from the internet.
2. Sign the waiver included in the box.
3. Make sure all users of the computer are in the room (if you only purchased a single user license then you may skip this step).
4. Unpack the following items from the box. A) Norton Personal Security Revolver B) Norton User Security(TM) ammunition.
5. Load the Norton User Security(TM) bullet (or bullets if you purchased a multi-user version) into the revolver.
6. Aim the Norton Personal Security Revolver at your* temple
7. Gently squeeze the trigger to begin the installation process.
8. If for some reason you get to this step, please fill out the form below to order additional Norton User Security (TM) ammunition and avoid using your computer until then.


*for multiple users start with their temples first and repeat steps 6 & 7 as necessary. When no more user installs are left but your own then aim the Norton Personal Security (TM) Revolver at your own temple and begin the final install. Users in large corporate environments may want to purchase Norton Professional Clean Sweep Full Auto which makes securing large offices a breeze. Administrators can perform up to 20 installs a minute and comes available in 30 User License clips. Sniper Scopes are available for remote installations.

Re:Alternatively...

[Ilgaz]

Believe me, if companies dare to do it, there will be spyware in OS X.

Super user scheme? Well, many gives password to install p2p applications already.

It's just more profitable to spy windows right now.

(I am an os x user too btw, using only g5)

Crazy question

[Tibor the Hun]

This may come off as a crazy question but why would Vista need anti-spyware?

Aren't they gonna implement a secure user-privilege levels?

Even if someone does mess up their own home directory, they won't be able to touch system files?
So theoretically one could log in as an admin and easily remove the unwanted warez.

Or is Vista going to be more of the same when it comes to file permissions?

Re:Crazy question

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Since vista is not out yet and the anti-spyware is beta, i would assume it is for windows 2000/Xp

Re:Crazy question

[Wesley Felter]

Even if someone does mess up their own home directory, they won't be able to touch system files?

Spyware doesn't necessarily need to modify system files to spy on users. The information in your home directory is the most valuable.

So theoretically one could log in as an admin and easily remove the unwanted warez.

Sure, but most Windows users don't even know they have spyware. That problem needs to be solved first.

Re:Crazy question

[vertinox]

Sure, but most Windows users don't even know they have spyware. That problem needs to be solved first.

Well, if Windows was not able to get spyware then Windows users would not have any spyware to know about.

Re:Crazy question

[ad0gg]

Because spyware is bundled with P2P applications like bearshare or whatever. Or people download some stupid cursors program or messenger emoticons.

Re:Crazy question

[vertinox]

Oh and I forgot...

Spyware doesn't necessarily need to modify system files to spy on users. The information in your home directory is the most valuable.

Right, but most people don't keep items in their homedirectory worth spying on. Most spyware programs don't search your system for xls files or docs for credit card number because it would provide nothing but useless information for the phisers to sort through, but it is when they highjack the browser and then OS to keylog to get your personal banking information when they tag you going to a pre-defined list of banking sites.

Secondly, more people are concerned with malware which doesn't spy but takes up system resources and makes their browser go to porn/casino sites and make pop up appear when thy normally don't.

Often times, Joe six pack doesn't really have anything important in home directory and wiping the home directory to remove spyware is less painful for him than formatting and reinstalling the OS.

Re:Crazy question

[KarmaMB84]

Yes, heaven forbid users be allowed to install software on their own computer. Jesus Christ, what were we thinking?

Re:Crazy question

[Tim C]

Aren't they gonna implement a secure user-privilege levels?

They did, in NT. In the 9x series didn't have anything like that, but then I've always maintained that that family of OSes was a bad joke.

Re:Crazy question

[obeythefist]

Spyware isn't like a virus that exploits an O/S vulnerability, it's more like a trojan that relies on social engineering.

Want to use Kazaa? Enter your root password so you can install Kazaa (and all the bundled spyware along with it). User-privelege levels won't save you there!

People who know the root password will probably just give it to any application that pops up during install and says "Hey! I need your root password to help you download free MP3's! (and send all your credit card numbers to claria)! Please enter at the prompt!"

You need an active mechanism to detect and remove this kind of junk outside of the (easily) circumventable password system. Why have a padlock when you can have a padlock *and* a guard dog?

Re:Crazy question

[eikonos]

Users installing software is different than software installing itself without asking by using security holes.

Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

The end-user has the option of switching it out and using a different vendor's spyware protection if they want.

Kind of like how XP SP2 didn't recognize Norton Anti-Virus as a anti-virus software and warned you that you didn't have any anti-virus software installed? Symantec had a patch that disabled this warning right after XP SP2 came out.

Re:Yea Right

[CDPatten]

well to be fair, the newer versions were noticed. You are talking about an older one that didn't follow the windows anti-virus api's for the security center.

That comment is quite misleading.

Re:Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

You are talking about an older one that didn't follow the windows anti-virus api's for the security center.

Umm, I'm not talking about an "old" version. I'm talking about NAV 2004 (and this was in 2004 when XP SP2 came out). Perhaps the "current" version of NAV didn't follow Window's security center API but I find that hard to believe.

Re:Yea Right

[Moridineas]

Yes, the point was that Microsoft created a new security framework that AV software needed to know about to hook into properly. Old versions of software didn't. New versions do. For what it's worth, IIRC McAfee had patches out before SP2 was officially released that make it show up immediately. What's the problem?

Re:Yea Right

[Dagda]

This is so typical, actually this was not Miscrosft's fault at all.

We license Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition for all our public schools and when this issue happened we talked with our Symantec reps and they admitted that they had screwed up. Microsoft had given them plenty of time and the specs necessary to avoid this issue with SP2 but Symantec dropped the ball. They basically got busy with other things and kinda forgot about this, according to the Symantec tech support person we were dealing with at the time.

They fixed it pretty quickly which was nice.

Re:Yea Right

[CDPatten]

Seriously do you think before you type?

According to your first post. "Kind of like how XP SP2 didn't recognize Norton Anti-Virus as a anti-virus software and warned you that you didn't have any anti-virus software installed? Symantec had a patch that disabled this warning right after XP SP2 came out."

When Symantec wrote that version they didn't have the Security Center's APIs. Why you ask? SP2 wasn't out when they wrote their software and the info wasn't available for them to interface. Since the launch of SP2 Symantec's NEW anti-virus software is seen by the Security Center, Why? Because they now have the APIs and can interface.

Why is this important? Well, to make your program seen by the sp2 security center in windows, you have to tell windows you are installed. How do you do that? With the APIs written for the Security Center.

Symantec didn't know the code to interface with windows when they wrote your anti-virus software... it didn't exist at that time.

Don't be such a dumbass. It's not like this stuff is complicated.

Re:Yea Right

[drinkypoo]

Actually, it warned you that you might not have antivirus software installed, and told you to contact your vendor for an update. Why didn't Symantec make an update available before SP2 shipped? I did the update on the very first day SP2 came out, went to symantec's website, and found an update there right away.

The real problem here is with Symantec, whose autoupdater often fails. Using even the corporate edition (versions 7 through 9) I often found that even kicking off an update manually would fail to retrieve new definitions and software updates. The fix? Reinstall the scanner, after which updates would work again. Symantec Norton Antivirus is craptacular, and I heartily suggest that people use AVG. (I used to use Avast! but I find AVG to not suck :)

Re:Yea Right

[Shawn is an Asshole]

You do know that SP2 was in beta for a while, don't you? It's not like they didn't have a chance to look into it before it was released.

Re:Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

Don't be such a dumbass. It's not like this stuff is complicated.

Wow, thank you for that very enlightening comment. According to your theory:

1. NAV 2004 is released without Window's security APIs because they don't exist yet
2. XP SP2 comes out in 2004.
3. Since NAV 2004 isn't programmed against such APIs windows can't recognize it (for the purposes of our discussion).

And this is not Microsoft's fault (going by your theory)? If they're going to change their APIs they need to have some backwards compatibility. I'm not saying go back to Win 98 or anything but if they know the average person updates their anti-virus software once a year then their APIs should be backwards compatible with AV software created in the past year. You don't release an API spec and expect everyone to instantly adapt to it.

Anyways, other people have commented that Symantec did in fact have access to the API specs ahead of time and just dropped the ball in which case it was Symantec's fault and not Microsoft's

Re:Yea Right

[pintomp3]

the patch didn't disable the warning. it updated symantecs product so windows could see that it's there and know if the definitions were old or not. you could disable the warning yourself if you didn't want to update or patch your A/V.

Re:Yea Right

[CDPatten]

First, you are welcome. And let me continue to enlighten you.

"If they're going to change their APIs they need to have some backwards compatibility."

THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEM! THEY WERE ENTIRELY NEW. ADDED TO THE OS. These features didn't exist before SP2.

And as far as "backwards" compatibility. NO they shouldn't in this case. There are 1000's of antivirus programs and version in existence. MS should not be building unique custom validation (installed and working) for them in Windows Service Packs. It is up to the anti-virus maker to provide update to their software (like Symantec did).

If MS made loopholes in the security center so some software could be listed without proper validation then it would be a SECURITY HOLE! To do that they would be in essence "hacking" the virus software in itself. Kinda defeats the purpose of the Security Center doesn't it?

"You don't release an API spec and expect everyone to instantly adapt to it."
When it's something like this you do. SP2 was almost considered a new OS for WELL OVER a year before its release, and offered many betas and RCs. The Security Center was well documented, and conferences on how to develop for it were given. This didn't sneak up on anymore. This comment suggests that you clearly are not a software developer; probably don't even know what an API is.

Seriously, you zealots are so desperate to complain about MS its pathetic. There are lots to complain about, but this isn't one of them.

PS. your list, 1,2,3. Yes that is accurate. Its not theory, they are historical facts.

Re:Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

the patch didn't disable the warning

Actually, yes it did, at least the patch I'm talking about. There may have been one later that did what you are saying. And yes I know I could have just disabled it myself very easily but it didn't really bother me.

Re:Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

Umm, did you read the last paragraph of my comment? Yes, as other people have pointed out Symantec had plenty of time to respond to this and it was probably them who dropped the ball (and as such I stand corrected). I was merely pointing out the fallacies in your theory - not trying to re-assert my original comment or to say that SP2 magically appeared one day without warning. And yes - I am a software developer and I certainly do know what an API is thank-you-very-little. Oh, and one other thing. If I were such an anti-MS zealot why would I be running Windows XP in the first place?

Re:Yea Right

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel sorry for the company that employs you. Your n00b understanding of versioning will forever curse your work and doom you to mediocrity.

Re:Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

Hmm, slashdot is full of assholes who know everything, isn't it? Did you actually read what I was saying? I was formulating an argument within the theory presented. Apparently you need some schooling in logic if you didn't understand that. While you're at it I could give you a lesson in versioning. Where do you want to start? Source control? Branching, tagging? Version numbering (I like the Major.Minor.Patch scheme myself)? Configuration management? I can teach you a few things if you'd like. I feel sorry for the company that employees an arrogant prick like you. Anonymous Coward is right.

Re:Yea Right

[delus10n0]

I don't believe they ever released a patch that outright disables this functionality (that'd be stupid); rather, they fixed the problem with their software:

Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the Windows Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec security software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and is available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products. The update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you have the Windows Security Center installed.

The blame solely lies on Symantec, who had months and months to prepare/patch their software (they didn't even have to wait for SP2 to come out.) In fact, many other AV vendors had already updated their APIs before SP2 came out.

Re:Yea Right

[mysqlrocks]

I don't believe they ever released a patch that outright disables this functionality (that'd be stupid)

Actually, as stupid as it may sound, they did. I saw it with my own two eyes. It did first confirm that you wanted to disable the warning. As you say, a later patch fixed the underlying problem. Also, you are most likely correct that Symantec had plenty of time to fix the problem and dropped the ball. My assumption that it was MS not playing nicely with others was probably wrong.

Re:Yea Right

[pilgrim23]

Think of it as....One Giant leap for Microsoft.....one small step for mankind...

Re:Yea Right

[ichigo 2.0]

Damn, you're pretty good. Here's a cookie. It's laced with acid. Didn't have any fire arrows left. Bye bye now.

An "engineering change"?

[sczimme]

Making the engineering change from "Windows AntiSpyware" to "Windows Defender" took a lot of careful coordination across our team to ensure that the strings in the UI got changed, the help files all got updated, registry keys, file names and properties, as well as a couple of images all got changed.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:An "engineering change"?

[Red Alastor]

Personally, it's the "defender" part that I don't trust. After all, defender was about saving civilians but you ended up shooting half of them by mistake and would die in 3 or 4 level due to the overwhelming number of bad guys.

Re:An "engineering change"?

[fohat]

C'mon, Everybody now!

"I'm the Defender, a mutant bender.
I'm the Defender, a mind bender.
I'll defend this state to the end;
I'm the captain of this ship and its men."

-Buckner and Garcia

Re:An "engineering change"?

[daeley]

I prefer this one:

"And if you pull my card you pull the ace
And if you ask me turn up the bass
And if you play Defender I could be your hyperspace..."

-Beastie Boys

Plans!?

[darth_MALL]

Somehow I think they will involve a wheelbarrow and a holocaust cloak....

Can this program do it ALL?

[dividedsky319]

I've become fed up with the anti spyware programs...

I've had Adaware detect things Spybot doesn't, Spybot detect things Adaware doesn't detect, MS's program detect things Spybot doesn't detect, etc etc etc...

My usual course of action to thoroughly cleanse a system is to boot to safe mode, run adaware > spybot > MS antispyware > HijackThis ...

My question is... will there ever be a program that can detect it all? Becuase so far, I haven't found one.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[AviLazar]

My question is... will there ever be a program that can detect it all? Becuase so far, I haven't found one.>

While I cant say "ever" because well, that would be a pretty strong statement I have to defend, it seems feasible that one product will catch something another product doesnt. Maybe a patch/upgrade/definition came out for MS's before Adawares, or the spyware knows how to bypass SpyBot, but not hijackthis, etc.

So in the near forseable future...no.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[88NoSoup4U88]

From my understanding, Hitman Pro uses all those programs under one roof. It's a dutch site for me, but from the download section I see they also offer English versions of them.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[gcw1]

It would be nice to be able to run your favorite app and know that you have cleared all the crap off of your computer, but since there doesn't seem to be any standardizations in place, I'll continue to do scans with 3 or 4 different apps.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a really boring use of your time. I hope you can find an alternative someday, whether it be a new program or a new OS.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[thrill12]

Yap, it's a nice program. A little biased here as I know the programmer, but I can recommend it wholeheartedly.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[Braino420]

good god man, how much spyware do you have?! I don't use IE and run Zonelabs Firewall. My advice to you is to use Firefox and stop visiting so many pr0n sites.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[mikefe]

Uhh, he probably cleans up other people's computers.

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[dividedsky319]

Uhh, he probably cleans up other people's computers.

Bingo! I don't have any problems with my home computer, or my computer at work.

But... friends, family, coworkers... I'm the one everyone goes to to fix their computer.

Oh well, such is the life of a computer geek ;-)

Re:Can this program do it ALL?

[Viper233]

Have you tried:
"stop browsing porn sites all day long"
"don't click on advertisements offering things for free just as soon as you download their program"
"Installing firefox?"

And just to be a Slashdot user
"Install Linux/MacOSX"

Another app...

[CupBeEmpty]

It just seems IMHO that the operating system itself shouldn't allow spyware. Will "Defender" also block commercially bundled "spyware?" Will it allow any old "official" spyware free reign on your system? I feel like this is a lose/lose for them.

Re:Another app...

[AdamWeeden]

Another question that needs to be asked is, what about SpyWare people actually WANT installed? I know it's rare, but I have seen people who actually LIKE having things like Gator and Bonzai Buddy installed.

It might make Windows more stable

[saskboy]

But can you trust Microsoft anymore with stopping spyware from installing on your computer? Have they added protection from Sony's rootkit? What will they do with Claria/Gator/GAIN spyware technology that they now have access to?

Microsoft might remove spyware apps that break Windos, but is their goal to really remove anything that can spy on you, this being the company that's introduced Microsoft Genuine Advantage?

Re:It might make Windows more stable

[Jugalator]

What will they do with Claria/Gator/GAIN spyware technology that they now have access to?

Due to their policies for threat levels, according to Microsoft themselves:
Microsoft Downgrades Claria Adware Detections

Funny it coincided a bit too well with the acquisition rumors of Claria.
And that was discussed before this was found out.

However, before anyone brings it up, I think this was found out to be simply a fake screenshot:
Microsoft AntiSpyware thinks Firefox is Spyware

Re:It might make Windows more stable

[TClevenger]

Yeah, Microsoft Antispyware leaves Gator/GAIN alone, but wants to remove TightVNC. Go figure.

Rewrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of wasting time (CPU cycles) and bandwith (downloading the newest definitions), why doesn't Microsoft start from scratch and make a secure, stable OS? It is embarassing that the company that makes the OS distributes the cure(?) for the disease instead of preventing it.

Re:Rewrite

[jimicus]

why doesn't Microsoft start from scratch and make a secure, stable OS?

They've already done that once when they started the plan to move everyone from '9x to an OS in the NT family. Look how well that worked.

Re:Rewrite

[Peeptophe]

Apparently you have never used it.

Your argument is lacking to say the least. You base your comments on the assumption that Microsoft Spyware works ONLY with spyware installed via I.E.

That is an incorrect assumption. It also alerts to spyware/adware that is installed unknowingly to the user when they install software.

Re:Rewrite

[holy zarquon's singi]

Yes indeed. The brothel should provide condoms, not antibiotics for it's customers.

Re:Rewrite

[Niet3sche]

I believe they've started doing just this. There was a /. story a couple days ago talking about Singularity (http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/) as a new scratch-built OS in development. Interestingly enough, Tuomas Aura is working on it. I only know (of) him in the steganography domain, but this should be interesting to see Singularity unfold with time. N

Re:Rewrite

[Dan Farina]

I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or not, but gaining sensible (read: any) memory protection was a big leap.

Re:Rewrite

[Saint V Flux]

It's physically impossible to write a 'perfect' OS. OS X can get screwed with spyware (thanks to widgets), I've seen Linux crash, and I've also seen Windows XP Pro run rock solid for 3 years (only re-booting when necessary for updates). It's impossible to take into account all of the different possibilities for hardware and software or how new software could have flaws that screw with the system. Until new hardware and software stop being designed, it'll be impossible to make a perfect OS -- and we all know that technology always keeps moving forward.

Re:Rewrite

[jimicus]

Yes I know ;). There seems to be this wonderfully naive idea on /. that as soon as Bill's Evil Empire (TM) is Crushed By the Almighty Penguin, spyware, viruses and other assorted rubbish will simply cease to exist.

My guess is it will still exist, largely because people will do everything as "root". Either that or they'll happily punch in their root password when some random dialogue box asks for it - and if all your trojan has to do is gobble up lots of CPU and RAM and connect to the outside world using a port >1024 it doesn't need to be root anyway.

It's all very well arguing that the plethora of Linux distributions prevents this, but if your trojan is a statically-compiled binary and it follows the expectations laid down in the LSB, it could easily affect the most common distributions.

That popping sound is of my karma exploding. Mod me troll, see if it scares me.

Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[gatkinso]

don't hook keyboard messages.

It will probably break alot of code, but one kind of spyware instantly disappears.

Also, global CBT hooks are probably a bad idea to have around (who uses them for CBT purposes anyway? THAT concept has long since vanished and the things were hacked into a plethora of other uses).

Re:Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[Keeper]

The presence of those APIs doesn't matter. They'll just write code that sits at a lower layer (ie: a driver) if a higher level API is unavailable.

Re:Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[slackmaster2000]

I wrote some software years ago that would monitor a device in the background, and then when the user hit a "hotkey" sequence on the keyboard it would paste data from the device into the user's application. Not your every day typical program, but for my users it was very handy. Of course I hooked the keyboard to make it work.

Perhaps limiting the scope of keyboard hooks would be a good solution that would allow for exceptions like these without the current security issues that global hooks introduce? (for instance, don't fire on all keystrokes, but a limited set of combinations, like CTRL+some range)

When I was writing my application I became very aware of the fact that I really destroy the usability of a machine without a lot of effort...even perhaps by mistake. And of course that monitoring keystrokes with malicious intent would be trivial.

Re:Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[gatkinso]

sign all trusted drivers

Re:Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[Keeper]

Spyware companies can sign drivers; some already sign their binaries.

Re:Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[gatkinso]

You install drivers you are unfamiliar with? If it doesn't come from M$ or from a hardware vendor, it isn't going on.

Re:Modify SetWindowsHookEx

[Keeper]

No, the install package for the spyware (that you don't know is installing) does it without telling you.

I understand that

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Back in the day, Ford was willing to sell you a Ford fire extinguisher to go with your Pinto.

Trademark Problems?

[geomon]

I thought the software title Defender was already taken.

Re:Trademark Problems?

[saskboy]

You think that will cause problems? Just wait until Gates announces his latest brainchild, a Windows search utility called:
Windows Goggle.

-/It does nothing.

Lies

[Scott Swezey]

To bad windows update installed that anti spyware crap of theirs for me. I think it called it the "Malicious Software Removal Tool." Oddly though, it has yet to bug me, but I suppose I should count my blessings. In any case, at best, all this shows is 18 million windows computers that run windows update regularly.

Re:Lies

[mastergoon]

Microsoft Anti-Spyware and the Malicious Software Removal Tool are not the same thing.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

No - that's a separate piece of software. The "Malicious Software Removal Tool" runs once, then removes itself (until it is downloaded again the next month).

Re:Lies

[puppyfox]

The "Malicious Software Removal Tool" is actually a different software altogether. It just checks for a few virii/worms, not spyware.

Re:Lies

[game kid]

To bad windows update installed that anti spyware crap of theirs for me. I think it called it the "Malicious Software Removal Tool." Oddly though, it has yet to bug me, but I suppose I should count my blessings.

That tool shoudn't have "bug"'d you anyway. A new version of the "Malicious Software Removal Tool" you speak of is installed and run by Windows Update periodically (monthly?) to simply check once for Blaster and other viruses (not necessarily spyware, and vice versa, I'm sure). That just runs once, and silently, after it's downloaded and installed; it shouldn't bug you.

The article refers to Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware, a different tool (and not among the "Windows Update"s). It usually shows an icon in the taskbar and (when that is clicked or tabbed to+ENTER pressed on) a window from which you can scan the PC, update said AntiSpyware, etc.

The "anti spyware crap of theirs" you mention is not the subject of TFA.

More court time needed

[zappepcs]

And I don't mean the tennis courts either. All products that are not OS related, where the OS doesn't rely on them, should be add-on software. I don't know that MS should be broken up like AT&T was, but allowing them to 'push' their add-on software out with the OS is an unfair practice as regards the rest of the software industry that is trying to make a living with that OS.

Its a bit tricky, because, hell, its MS's OS, why can't they give extra value software? Well, maybe so, but they are so large that such a move is completely bullish on the rest of the industry. This is/was common practice before antitrust laws were enacted, and stopping this is what they are for. The antispyware vendors have to compete with a product that user's don't even have to lift a finger to install... that's not easy.

If all antispyware software (as an example) had to be purchased, then it would still not be fair as the user's get a demo copy of MS software with the OS. I truly wish there were an easy answer to this bullish practice that MS is using... there of course is no easy answer, other than using Linux or Mac (I use *nix) so this is not so bad for me, but MS can then use this same practice to try to bludgeon other businesses into bankruptcy... Even though Google and others are making a very good play against MS, I think they need some help in the form of more court time for MS.

Re:More court time needed

[moosesocks]

So you're saying that by adding value to their operating system, Microsoft is being anti-competitive?

That sounds a lot more like good old fashioned capitalistic competition to me. If you start losing customers to another vendor (Apple) because their product is better, you improve upon your own product to retain your customer base.

That said, you can fault apple for doing the same thing by bundling a Mail app, a calendar app, a movie editing app, a photo app, a music app, a development environment, etc..... into their OS. And using the same logic, you can also fault most modern linux distributions for bundling every friggin package under the sun into the OS (half a dozen volume control applications -- because we can!)

Re:More court time needed

[generic-man]

Microsoft also bundles Notepad with Windows. Are you saying that they should remove it because people are discouraged from downloading a competing editor?

Should I be forced to download my own image manipulation program because MS Paint is anti-competitive?

Should I have to go get a third-party calculator because Calculator discourages competition?

etc., etc., etc.

Re:More court time needed

[ProZachar]

So you complain that Microsoft is being anti-competitve with their added value programs, and yet you admit that you use a competing operating system? Sounds like the market is working after all...

Re:More court time needed

[Anonymous Coward]

You say use Mac to avoid this business behaviour, but does Apple not ship tones of apps with their system as well? By default are many not using all the play things in the OS that there are very good alternative for? How many Mac users actually go out and replace the applications that come with their system?

I can't say anthing about your comment on Linux as you are correct, but when it comes to people saying Apple does not rip the users off or discourage compitition.....

Re:More court time needed

[Senjutsu]

So you're saying that by adding value to their operating system, Microsoft is being anti-competitive?

No, he's saying that by leveraging their monopoly in one market (Operating Systems) to enter another market (spyware/virus software), they are breaking the law. The Courts have already found them guilty of doing this very thing before.

That sounds a lot more like good old fashioned capitalistic competition to me.

If letting monopolies go unchecked sounds like the height of "capitalistic competition" to you, you might want to read the theories on the subject of this crazy guy I've heard of, name of Adam Smith

If you start losing customers to another vendor (Apple) because their product is better, you improve upon your own product to retain your customer base

You're not seriously claiming that Microsoft cannot improve their product without leveraging their way into Yet Another Software Market, are you? They could as easily solve the spyware problem by closing the legion of security holes that allow it to propogate, rather than leveraging their way into the Clean Up After Our Stupidity software space.

That said, you can fault apple for doing the same thing by bundling a Mail app, a calendar app, a movie editing app, a photo app, a music app, a development environment, etc..... into their OS

No, you cannot. Apple has never been ruled by any court to be a monopoly in any market, and they certainly have never issued a consent decree explicitly admitting that they themselves agree that they are such. You cannot be found guilty of illegally leveraging your own monopoly in another market if you don't have a monopoly in any market. I should have though that would be blindingly obvious, but I guess I overestimated your intelligence.

Close your eyes and follow Linux

[RingDev]

"Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas?"

Yes, Windows was so poorly architectured. I mean, what bafoon decided that a process should ever be able to listen to the keyboard. And who was the moron that thought running more then one process at a time was a good idea. I tell you what, if I couldn't type on my keyboard, then no one would have made a key listener. And if I could only run a single process at a time, then I'd be able to immediately know if something I didn't like was running.

"They designed Windows to be as easy and automatic to use as possible"

What were they thinking!?! We should line the designers up and shoot them, right next to the invetors of the Automatic Transmission, Speed Dial, and Milking machines. Those bastards. Making things easy for consumers to use.

There's only one thing left to do. Just close your eyes and follow Linux. Its okay, there is nothing to fear, just hold on to the coat tails infront of you and keep those eyes closed.

-Rick (Yeah, I'm expecting a Troll rating for this one)

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[BushCheney08]

Rick (Yeah, I'm expecting a Troll rating for this one)

And you certainly deserve it. Why is it that other companies can prove that it is possible to develop secure and easy to use systems? Why is it that Microsoft itself (albeit, after the fact) has shown that they are capable of securing the very same parts of the OS that many warned them were vectors for viruses and malware?

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[thelexx]

Show me where the parent mentioned Linux. Seems like the truth stung a little too much and your knee jerked.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[BandwidthHog]

We should line the designers up and shoot them, right next to the invetors of the Automatic Transmission, Speed Dial, and Milking machines.

I couldn’t agree more on the automatic transmission thing. People driving a stick tend to pay more attention to what’s going on around them and use less fuel to boot. In addition to that, I doubt this nation would be overrun with six ton jacked up station wagons if those ignorant monkeyjugglers had to juggle a cell phone and a gear shift while drifting across three lanes of traffic. (Speed dial I have no feelings on, and milking machines I’m not gonna comment on unless posting anonymously.)

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[nbert]

What were they thinking!?! We should line the designers up and shoot them

Agreed ;)
But all joking aside there's a problem affecting every security measure Microsoft has established: If there is any hole in this system (by definition there are at least several) it will likely be exploited and since the vast majority of Vista users will rely on this software we'll end up with another massive breakdown. That's just what happens if everyone relies on the same software vendor for the OS, browser, mail-client, anti-spyware...

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[yagu]

From your reply:

Yes, Windows was so poorly architectured. I mean, what bafoon decided that a process should ever be able to listen to the keyboard. And who was the moron that thought running more then one process at a time was a good idea. I tell you what, if I couldn't type on my keyboard, then no one would have made a key listener. And if I could only run a single process at a time, then I'd be able to immediately know if something I didn't like was running.

I'm not even sure where to start:

• a process that listens to the keyboard... well, that's certainly been around for a long time, and to my point of poor architecture, it isn't what I was referencing. Not even sure what you mean by that.
• bafoon? (emphasis mine)... So are you talking about a baboon, or a buffoon. I guess the difference my be nuanced so if you can't figure it out, that's okay.
• multiple processes running at the same time... again, certainly not what I was talking about. Multiple process machines have been around for a long time, and Microsoft finally jumped into the 80's with their true pre-emptive multi-process system (would be nice if they could provide multi-user).
• making things easier to use... well, there's a difference for making things easier to use, and making reasonable security and "partitioning" architecture choices. You could make a car so easy to use you just hop in and push the gas pedal and it goes! Most car manufacturers provide a key to make that a little more difficult for any people other than the owner. Go figure.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[Stanistani]

>bafoon?

Similar in usage to "What a maroon!*"

*not to be confused with maricon.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[drinkypoo]

People would still be doing all those things if there were only manual transmissions. It would just be more dangerous. Most people are too stupid to handle driving and shifting at the same time.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[grogdamighty]

Sarcasm lessons are offered on Mondays and Wednesdays at 6:30, Saturdays at noon. Please sign up in advance so that we can order a large enough fruit tray.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[RingDev]

"Why is it that other companies can prove that it is possible to develop secure and easy to use systems?"

I'm sorry, I must have missed that decade where some other company reached the market penetration of Microsoft. You could argue that BeOS is the most secure OS in the world because it has never been hacker or infected. But then again, there are what, 5 people using it? (Not to rag on Be, it was a great project)

-Rick

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm expecting a Troll rating for this one

Nonsense! Even to the casual reader, it's quite obvious that you are flamebaiting, not trolling.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[BandwidthHog]

Most people are too stupid to handle driving and shifting at the same time.

Step 3: Darwin!

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[Brushfireb]

Step 4: They still kill you!

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[drinkypoo]

That doesn't contradict darwinization at all. You need to be able to get out of the way when someone else is attempting to autodarwinate.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[BandwidthHog]

Thank you. That is exactly why I drive a small, highly manuverable car and pay close attention to conditions around me. I see people attempting high-energy autodarwination all the time, and am more than courteous enough to give their noble efforts all the space they may need.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[drinkypoo]

I drive a large, fairly manouverable car, and pay attention to things around me :) (Mercedes 300SD W126) Sometimes, things happen too fast to really compensate for, because the world is a chaotic place where small inputs sometimes cause large outputs :)

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[ashtophoenix]

Very insightful. Only that it doesn't explain the plethora of spyware that installs itself on my Windows Professional Partition but not on my RH Linux system. Also it gives me no explanation of why my Windows (almost on a daily basis) quits in the midst of things showing me a blue screen (and to top that, this morning a disk read error). Also it beats me why all these fancy things don't happen on my Linux system. Missing features??

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[bwcarty]

I showed up at 6:30 last night, and I didn't see any such class, much less a fruit tray!

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

because the world is a chaotic place where small inputs sometimes cause large outputs

Agreed... you see, I had this little piece of rancid chili the other day and then... ... ...

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[SillySlashdotName]

And we thank you for signing up.

(see? the lessons are working!)

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[dotgain]

I'm sorry, I must have missed that decade where some other company reached the market penetration of Microsoft.

Obviously something has passed you by. You must have also missed all of Microsoft's responses to the same. Still, at least you're awake now.

You could argue that BeOS is the most secure OS in the world because it has never been hacker or infected. But then again, there are what, 5 people using it?

Why take it to such a stupid extreme? He didn't argue that BeOS was the most secure OS. Stop being such a bigot in defending your OS in this way. All you're saying is "Yeah sure other OS's are better, but nobody uses them".

Wake up dickhead. People do use them. They've often made a conscious decision to place themselves in a minority group in the computing whole, so why do you think they'll be jealous of your majority share argument?

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[RingDev]

"Stop being such a bigot in defending your OS in this way."

Its not "my" OS. It is the market leading OS. I dual boot at home, Ubuntu and XP. For a long time I used a FreeBSD firewall (recently switched to a hardware firewall/router)

"All you're saying is "Yeah sure other OS's are better, but nobody uses them"."

No, what I'm saying is that the market share of alternative OSs is small enough that they are not targeted as often as Microsoft. There is a proven financial gain to be made off of infecting Windows machines. If Linux had Window's market share it too would have a profit potential for these slim balls that infect our PCs.

"so why do you think they'll be jealous of your majority share argument?"

I don't. Every OS will have flaws and vulnerbilities. Any OS that permits user interaction is about 100 times more likely to have vulnerbilities. And which ever OS holds the majority of the market share will be the one most likely to get hacked. I hope that in 5 years Linux makes it to 40%+ penetration. And when it does I will gladly defend it against those claiming that it is weak and insecure.

-Rick

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[bhtooefr]

Besides, it's not like MS hasn't had an antivirus program built into their OS before...

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[yuri benjamin]

If Linux had Window's market share it too would have a profit potential for these slim balls that infect our PCs.

I remember back in the eighties, when home and small office PCs usually weren't networked and viruses spread by floppy disk, there were quite a few viruses for DOS.
I expect that there are as many linux boxes now as there were DOS boxes in the eighties, so by your logic there should be as many linux viruses now as there were DOS viruses in the eighties. Given that today's ubiquitous Internet would spread viruses faster than the old floppy days, you might even expect more viruses today.

Vulnerability to malware is more a product of design rather than market share.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[reikiwes]

Precisely. Your argument of 'security through obscurity' was proven false when MS released the Vista Beta. At only 10,000 users at release, within 8 days of release there were 5 viruses written specifically for it. Clearly, installed user base makes no difference to hackers.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[petermgreen]

both have some effect.

viruses in the dos days afaict spread in 3 main ways

1: warez (pretty much impossible to avoid viruses)
2: shareways and other legitimagely redistributable software
3: using the same read/write installation media on multiple systems.
4: accidental floppy booting

1 is a risk to any user that uses warez but linux users rarely do

2 and 3 were caused by insecure sources of legitimate software which isn't really an issue for any platform anymore (most legitimate software comes either straight from a trusted source over the network or from read-only optical media)

4 was pretty much unavoidable with the original pcs standard hardware architecture but remained an issue far longer than it had to due to bad bios designs (it would have been avoided if bioses had the hard drive first in the default boot order and encouraged use of an override key to floppy boot).

so out of the 4 only one was really something the platform could have done much about

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[RingDev]

"I expect that there are as many linux boxes now as there were DOS boxes in the eighties, so by your logic there should be as many linux viruses now as there were DOS viruses in the eighties"

No, that is specificly what I am NOT saying. Market share = %, not #. 1.5 million DOS based PCs out of 2 million PCs is 75% market share. 98.5 million Windows PCs out of 100 million PCs is 98.5%. Even though that leaves 1.5 million non-windows PCs (the same as the number of DOS PCs) they represent a significant smaller market share. [Note: All of those numbers are hypothetical for the purpose of demonstrating market percent, not actual market penetration]

-Rick

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[RingDev]

"Your argument of 'security through obscurity'"

I didn't say security through obscurity. I said vulnerbility through profit potential. Vista beta drew out the exploiters because it is going to be the next large market share OS. A zombie/spyware author is going to be working on cracking it as soon as its available. If the next Ubuntu release was predicted to hit 25% market share then you can bet those people profiting from spyware would target it.

-Rick

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[GoldAnt]

Or the fact that only an idiot would waste time fishing in the smaller pond, don't worry, there are a select few.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[dotgain]

OK. While I still don't quite agree with you, at least I don't think you're a troll anymore.

I don't know if Linux or some other will ever even up with Windows for market share. But if it ever did happen, Linux surely will get targeted as much as Windows does now. That's where we can agree, I think.

I believe, however, that the "other OS", be it Linux or a BSD etc., will stand up to a greater proportion of the ensuing attacks, proving it to be just as secure when widely deployed as it is now.

That's because I believe it to be better by design. OK, I haven't written any source in the kernel, and I haven't read all that much of the source, only what's given me trouble. But I've got no access whatsoever to Windows source, and its security and authentication, so I've no idea how horribly shonky and dodgy it is. I've just got a hunch that it's pretty bad, don't ask me why.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[Overly Critical Guy]

You deserve your troll rating.

What makes Windows susceptible is its poor design. Hello? Blaster rebooting two-thirds of the world's computers? VBScript executable attachments opening by default for years?

You're just trying to look hip and enlightened by "going against the grain," but it's making you look stupid because your position is, frankly, dumb.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[RingDev]

"What makes Windows susceptible is its poor design. Hello? Blaster rebooting two-thirds of the world's computers?"

And given the general status of the internet and user knowledge world wide at the time, had Linux been in the #1 market share seat we would have very likely seen a similar worm for it.

"VBScript executable attachments opening by default for years"

I beleive that was an issue with Outlook, not Windows.

"You're just trying to look hip and enlightened by "going against the grain," but it's making you look stupid because your position is, frankly, dumb"

No, I'm presenting an alternative train of thought. Which I am defending with logic as oposed to personal insults. Although my initial post was pretty heavy with sarcasm, it was not ment to be an insult directed at the parent, just a humourous way of showing my dissent.

-Rick

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[petitgars]

Hey, lookit that! Someone doesn't understand the concept of 'market share', as in 'percentage points', not 'raw numbers'! DOS was also the dominant OS in those days: therefore, DOS was targeted more than others.

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[16384]

That proves that we europeans are superior :-)
We seem to do just fine driving manual transmission cars.

Now seriously, I suppose it may take longer to learn how to drive a manual transmission car, but once you know how to do it, it's just second nature and you don't think about it (and the car has better milleage, and you have better control of the car)

Re:Close your eyes and follow Linux

[drinkypoo]

That proves that we europeans are superior :-) We seem to do just fine driving manual transmission cars.

Interestingly enough, I drive a Mercedes 300SD (W126) and it was not offered with a manual transmission, at least here in the states. It was made in Germany and came over here on a boat.

How original...

[rwven]

"Microsoft Defender" has an almost patriotic ring to it. I think microsoft purposely does this sort of thing to make people think certain things are more important than they really are... It kinda reminds me of a dumb old man. :-P I have a feeling that they namd Defender as such because they couldnt find anyone to take that job. Who wants to defend Microsoft anyway? :-P

Re:How original...

[goldspider]

Companies giving their products names that inspire confidence and suggest value?? What has this evil, greedy capitalistic society come to?!?

What really matters

[Anonymous Coward]

is will this application do a good job?
Microsoft anti spyware bata is really GIANT's anti spyware.
They were gobbled (upcomming holiday pun intended) up and improved upon. Yes, it is really good software, but not a perfect catch all.

Who really cares if they put it into their os though? because you can't use just one of those programs. if you come across a machine that is infected, you have to use 15 differant spyware removing tools anyway because not one of them covers everything from every other program.

Although... this is just my opinion, due to experience working on client machines who didn't know what a fire wall was, but spent money to get cable so they could write e-mail faster.

Spyware is truly evil, and I hope the new POPE does something about it!

The interface is wonderful!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possibly the first anti-spyware program to use a joystick. Malicious executables appear as little moon landers and you have to shoot them before they can abduct your good files. I actually look forward to getting infected with spyware, but my thumbs start to hurt after a time.

tried Foxie?

[conJunk]

Have you looked at the foxIE suite? The browser plugin is so-so, but the "sweeper" - its spyware seek/destroy widget is pretty impressive

Keep it free.

[CDPatten]

The only potential conflict of interest I see is if MS charges for the software. As long as it is free its a GREAT addition to Windows.

However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry. That is a problem, but not MS's problem. Its a free market issue, and the market will adjust.

As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.

All in all I tihnk this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do? MS is making the correct decision to include it in Vista. If they charge extra for it, or turn it into a paid subscription service, that is an entirely new issue. That would be a conflict of issue, and morally wrong, maybe not legally, but it would hurt their business.

Re:Keep it free.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.

I disagree completely. Markets are defined by products and the flow of money, not by how technologically similar or dependent upon another product something is. If they made the OS better so it did not have so many bugs and was not so susceptible to viruses, and thus ruined the anti-virus market, well that would be fine. As it is, however, a market exists that MS has not been in and they are not only moving into that market (which is fine) but they are bundling their product with Windows. That means everyone has to buy it, regardless of whether or not it is the best solution. That is bundling and is specifically used as an example of anti-competative business practices in anti-trust law.

All in all I tihnk[sic] this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do?

It is a textbook abuse of a monopoly. If they wanted to do the right (and legal) thing, they would secure their bloody OS, stop exposing services to the network that have no business being there, implement good, user level permissions, fix all the local escalation bugs, and implement virtualization or other ACLs to defeat the trojan vector. Of course that would require good coding and development, and MS "just doesn't do that sort of thing." Maybe you should take a look at anti-trust law and think about how many companies this will put out of business before you decide it is legal and "right." What makes you think this is either, other than the fact that you get stuff "free" even though the price of the OS goes up mysteriously?

Re:Keep it free.

[MagicMerlin]

However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry. That is a problem, but not MS's problem. Its a free market issue, and the market will adjust.

fallacy of the broken window.
If what you said was really true, we should be paying people to write worms and viruses because it creates all that business when in fact it just diverts resources from more productive things.

Merlin

Re:Keep it free.

[CDPatten]

"If they made the OS better so it did not have so many bugs and was not so susceptible to viruses"

That is stupid. Many viruses are files that users are tricked into opening. "Look Pamela Anderson naked" and they click the .exe. There is no way for windows to distinguish what programs a user wants to run vs not run. That program could be a virus or it could be a spread. If it's a spread the user would be pissed they couldn't see it (if windows blocked it).

PS. ALL Operating Systems are susceptible to this type of attack. Its just the other markets are puny and virus writers don't often waste their time on them.

"It is a textbook abuse of a monopoly"

Actually no its not. IE and Windows Media were textbook cases. They entered a new unrelated market and bundled the software for free to do it. Your case is comparable to saying Automatic Updates is an anti-trust issue. Of course it's not. This software is designed to protect the OS (or the 'product') from threats, just like auto-updates.

"Of course that would require good coding and development, and MS 'just doesn't do that sort of thing.'"

You can't be serious. MS might put out some crappy products, but they also put out some really good ones. Office comes to mind. Bad coding? Server 2003 is very well written and is the OS that has given them huge increases in market share for the server market. It's not cheap either.

MS has recruited some of the best "coders" in the word. Ever hear of Ray Ozzie's Groove Networks? Stop spreading FUD or get a clue.

"Maybe you should take a look at anti-trust law and think about how many companies this will put out of business before you decide it is legal and "right." What makes you think this is either, other than the fact that you get stuff "free" even though the price of the OS goes up mysteriously? "

Abuse of a monopoly isn't decided based on "how many companies this will put out of business". Maybe YOU should read up on antitrust law.

You are what has become the cliché of Slashdot: an average guy with mediocre intellect trying to "come of age" by blindly bashing MS... most likely over weight playing in his mom's basement, with an unoriginal and stereotypical arrogant zealot mentality who has no original thought of his own.

Good luck with that.

Re:Keep it free.

[techwrench]

So...is it Anti-Spyware, or another round of patches?

Re:Keep it free.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That is stupid. Many viruses are files that users are tricked into opening. "Look Pamela Anderson naked" and they click the .exe. There is no way for windows to distinguish what programs a user wants to run vs not run.

First, the majority of infections are from worms that require no user interaction. Second, decent user permissions partially mitigate trojans, especially if MS would fix their bloody local privilege escalations. Third, assuming MS did both of the above and malware writes adapted and moved mostly to trojans, a decent OS should still run downloaded binaries in a jail, virtual machine, or with kernel enforced, application level, ACLs. Sure lots of people want to look at Pamela Anderson, but their is no reason why pictures of Pamela Anderson need permission to touch any other files, run binaries, connect to the internet, modify the host OS, or do much of anything else other than be opened by an image viewer. Right now other OS's only have mediocre or experimental support for that functionality, and the UIs are still weak, but that is because other OS's don't currently have a trojan problem, unlike Windows. It's not like 99.999% of viruses, worms, and trojans cannot be prevented with some simple permissions and good, well made UI. If MS had to respond to their customers or lose business they would have fixed this a decade ago, or someone else would have. That is a big part of the problem with monopolies. They don't have to innovate, since they have their customers trapped.

PS. ALL Operating Systems are susceptible to this type of attack.

Actually, most are much less susceptible than Windows and you can bet dollars to donuts that if this became a problem on Linux, Mac OS, or Solaris the problem would be fixed in short order.

Your case is comparable to saying Automatic Updates is an anti-trust issue. Of course it's not. This software is designed to protect the OS (or the 'product') from threats, just like auto-updates.

Yeah, you go to court and try arguing that the similarity of the end result of a service is the definition of a market. Markets are defined by cash, sales, and the companies that compete in a space. There is a difference between making a market go away (preventing viruses) and entering into that market (making a competing product and bundling it). No other companies sold updates to Windows, hence no market. Lots of companies sell AV, hence a market. maybe you're confusing the term "market" with "product."

You can't be serious. MS might put out some crappy products, but they also put out some really good ones. Office comes to mind. Bad coding?

Word consistently corrupts and fails to open large files. My favorite is when the spell checker would see certain acronyms, think they were spanish, and change the whole menu system into spanish with no way to change it back, other than restarting. Yeah, that sure is some stellar programming.

Server 2003 is very well written and is the OS that has given them huge increases in market share for the server market. It's not cheap either.

They had no where to go but up in the server market. People don't buy Server 2003 because it is better, they buy it because they only know Windows (due to monopoly) or because they need something to talk to Windows and MS has broken compatibility with standards (abusing a monopoly to move into the server space).

MS has recruited some of the best "coders" in the word[sic].

But somehow their products are technologically inferior in most ways. MS generally hires people straight out of college and yes I know a number of people who have worked there. I know exactly what kind of coders and environment they have. Just because they hire some competent people does not mean that they can or do produce good products and the fact that they have not put out any real additions to their OS in so many years is a good example of that. They don't have to compete on quality, which means

Re:Keep it free.

[platyduck]

However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry.

They DO give it away. Spybot is entirely free, and Ad-Aware has a (wonderful) free version as well. And yet the paid spyware protection industry still lives on. This reminds me of all the pipe dreams of Linux growing to such a point that Microsoft will perish completely. It's not going to happen, because enough people will keep paying enough money to keep it alive and well.

Re:Keep it free.

[drsmithy]

Actually no its not. IE and Windows Media were textbook cases. They entered a new unrelated market and bundled the software for free to do it.

How can you say that when IE was available as a standalone download (and gained most of its market share) *years* before it was integrated into Windows, and media player was included with Windows for *years* before there even was a "media player market".

Re:Keep it free.

[obeythefist]

I don't get it - Slashdot (part of the OSDN) heavily advocates software that's free as in speech, and is generally more supportive of the free as in beer software too.

Now, Microsoft releases software that's free as in beer and that's a bad thing too!

Internet exploder is free as in beer, but that sure as heck never stopped me from using Firefox!

The whole culture of open source, and one that we must support and encourage everywhere, is that software should be as free as possible.

Just engineer the software properly in first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Security:

Ring 0: kernel level
Ring 1: apps level
Ring 2: user level

There's no excuse for outsiders having install level capabilities on any OS.

I'll bet everything I've got

[Anonymous Coward]

That Microsoft will start charging for Defender (or Defender Plus).

Helpless against serious spyware anyway

[Slashdoc Beta]

Not to mention most spyware nowadays is sophisticated enough to reinstall itself after you remove it with any of the above mentioned programs.

Re:Helpless against serious spyware anyway

[dividedsky319]

Not to mention most spyware nowadays is sophisticated enough to reinstall itself after you remove it with any of the above mentioned programs.

Very true, I should have mentioned that.

That's another big problem with anti spyware programs today. They remove the program, but they seem to focus mainly on the files themselves... and not the trojan code that's in your system that goes and redownloads/reinstalls the software.

That's one nice thing about MS's anti-spyware program, you can go into advanced and view BHOs, startup programs and activeX controls... it's like it has HijackThis built in. Unfortunately, it still doesn't allow you to remove everything.

Oh well, I suppose the programmers' goal wasn't to make things easy to remove...

Microsoft Anti-Spyware

[comzen]

...is hypocrisy, as the great MS platform 'calls home' every chance it gets!

I may be overly suspicious here

[barefootgenius]

but couldn't they make money from the companies inserting the spyware? If you pay M$, then Windows Defender will classify your program as non-spyware and allow you to keep collecting information.

Re:I may be overly suspicious here

[Tarwn]

I don't see how this would be differant than any of the other multitude of anti-spyware apps. Any one of them, during the time in their life when they were at the peak, could have done the same thing. In fact, maybe they did and thats why we all moved to the next best anti-spyware app.

Although according to our records it looks like you are still running your old anti-spyware software. But you don't need to upgrade. Also, it looks like your recycle bin is full again, you might want to empty it.

Re:I may be overly suspicious here

[jerw134]

Couldn't the people who make AdAware? Couldn't the people who make SpyBot S&D?

Of course, the answer is yes to both of those questions. I know we're talking about the big bad "M$" here, but come on. Do you think a few bucks from some spyware company would mean more to multi-billion dollar Microsoft, or small-time Lavasoft?

Re:I may be overly suspicious here

[Vacendak]

Looks like they already did. Gator is your friend now. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1834607,00.as p

Re:I may be overly suspicious here

[barefootgenius]

"Do you think a few bucks from some spyware company would mean more to multi-billion dollar Microsoft, or small-time Lavasoft?"
Thats true but we are talking about a bundled application with every copy of Vista here. Microsoft could make megabucks authorizing data miners from other companies to check for illegal software, usage, type of usage, etc....Most normal customers don't even know that Lavasoft exists. They will use the tool given if it seems to work.

An example of typical Microsoft quality:

[Futurepower(R)]

I just tried to update my spyware definitions through Microsoft AntiSpyware. I got an error message: "Could not connect to the internet."

Somehow Slashdot has no problem, however.

Re:An example of typical Microsoft quality:

[jagilbertvt]

Somehow I dont think you have Slashdot installed on your PC. Perhaps you have a web browser installed that can connect to Slashdot's website.

Re:Just engineer the software properly in first pl

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no excuse for outsiders having install level capabilities on any OS.

Yes there is. Your mother complains that none of her software that worked fine on Windows XP works any more.

Even today, you can demonstrate this by not running as administrator. You would be surprise at how much software on the market breaks because they expect to write to Program Files.

Ambiguous...

[Sr. Pato]

"Windows Defender"... If it isn't a new kind of *nix-based OS; then it a'int defending me against Windows.

I knew I heard that name before

[Zunni]

I wonder if Bains Digital has any sort of recourse considering their product is also called Defender...

Maybe a nice fat check to purchase the name?

Wow the real beta...

[Crypticdust]

I have a co-worker that runs windows anti-spyware now, and it pegs his cpu/memory usage through the roof.

Guess that's why I think I'll try windows anti-spyware when the real beta 1 comes out, and that's when vista hits RTM, sadly.

Re:Wow the real beta...

[tompaulco]

It spikes the CPU on mine, as well. Then, after many hours of it eating CPU and doing nothing, I kill the MS Anti-spyware process, but then I have to remember to kill the giantantispyware process as well, as that process starts grabbing several MB per second of memory until it burns up all the physical and virtual memory available.

How Microsoft got the name...

[G4from128k]

It seems someone else was using "Windows Defender" until MS sent in their lawyers. Tucked into the agreement was a line making the prior owner give all rights to the "Defender" name to MS. Two weeks later, MS announces the new name.

This is just great... (not!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, not only can they start charging for a subscription service, once all the other AV companies are out of business, but they will also increase their profit margin by _not_ fixing all the exploitable bugs, quickly enough.

Thank You Sir, May I have another!?

[anicca]

The mere fact that MS feels the need to include anti-spyware software is because they FIXED NOTHING. It's NT 6, XP repackaged with a snazzy GUI. Rather than find some way to prevent worms, virii, and other malware from getting in, they will be providing 'tools' to fix the OS on an ongoing basis? Sounds like MS users will still be spending countless hours scanning, fixing, restarting...

Re:Thank You Sir, May I have another!?

[dirk]

You do realize that a lot of spyware is user installed, correct? GAIN is usually approved by the user. Backweb installs with Logitec and Kodac software, so the use actually runs the program to install it. Many people LOVE weatherbug and make sure to install it on their system as soon as they get it. How exactly is MS supposed to stop this? Make it so people can't install software?

Re:Thank You Sir, May I have another!?

[Deviant]

This is analagous to the French Maginot Line vis a vie the Germans post WWI. "Instead of building a robust military/defensive/resistance capability to deal with the Germans when they get in why don't we just build an impenetrable wall to keep them out." I know that is a simplistic analogy and view of history but I figured it was appropriate.

The virus makers, and even more so the spyware/adware makers, will always find a way to force or trick their way onto a PC no matter what you do. Especially when the ultimate master/defender of the PC is your average clueless PC user - and as long as they have privilages to install software on their PC there is a possibility of installing something harmful. If Windows Defender(tm) can alert people whenever an app it doesn't recognize as a genuine one is trying to do weird or possibly harmful things and clean out the spyware/adware when it finds it then it fills a vital role as another layer of defense and protection.

By all means Microsoft should give us a real limited user account and force the software vendors to honor the model. They should find and plug security holes and exploits in IE and in all the services that you are running out of the box that they can. However, I for one am happy they are including this too - you can never be too spyware/adware free. To actually express the sarchastic sentiment of your subject - Thank You Microsoft. However, it is a fair question to ask "where was this two years ago?"

Re:Thank You Sir, May I have another!?

[NardofDoom]

Fixing stuff would take time. Time the Microsofties don't have. I mean, if they're fixing bugs and tightening up their OS, who is going to swim in their pools filled with money? Their trophy wives?

Re:Thank You Sir, May I have another!?

[Dan_Bercell]

By all means Microsoft should give us a real limited user account and force the software vendors to honor the model

http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security/ Well they did, but forcing software vendors to complie with it is a bit much. Microsoft is really good to developers and help them with as much information as they can give... THey know that they heavily depend on software packages for Windows to continue its success. If you look around you will find information you need, you can start here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/about/

should find and plug security holes and exploits in IE and in all the services that you are running out of the box that they can.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,177 6290,00.asp They are doing this, but as you can tell from looking at the security issues of other browsers (non of which even match the amount of users IE has) security in browsers is a hard one to beat. Because there is money to be made in Spyware/Adware, people will always find ways to 'sneak' in.

I predict even after MS forces people to run as non-admins, fix/improve security in IE, include an outgoing/ingoing firewall, and include an Anti-Virus and Spyware clients, people will still find way to get spyware/adware into the computer.

This isnt a rant against you (Just didnt like the two quotes I added to my reply), but to a lot of people who complain about MS security. If anyone doesnt think MS is trying to make computing more secure I'd like to know how they can do more.

People dont seem to understand the difference between MS and other server/desktop OSes

No because

[Solr_Flare]

The serious spyware writers design their programs to try and avoid detection. So, often times things get missed. Bottom line, to keep your computer completely clean either:

A) Never go on the internet, ever.

B) Use an OS other than Windows.

C) Try and get MS to improve Windows so that spyware has limited impact(good luck there)

Re:No because

[Anonymous Coward]

How 'bout, learn how to use Windows multiuser environment and you won't have to worry about A, B, or C.

Sony DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it block installation of the Sony DRM rootkit?

Re:Just engineer the software properly in first pl

[afaik_ianal]

That easy, huh? So when my grand-mother wants to install HyperBingo3000, how exactly does that model stop it from spying on everything she does?

People seem to be assuming that spyware is something that magically appears on PCs. That is rarely the case - It is usually bundled with other software.

OS design...

[Dwonis]

Sigh. Does anyone else see the irony in having the maker of the OS release an anti-malware program that runs in user space?

Re:OS design...

[Stumbles]

I don't think your the only one that sees that.

MS did this with NT 3.5[1]

[sczimme]

Ring 0: kernel level
Ring 1: apps level
Ring 2: user level

Microsoft did something similar to this with NT 3.5/3.51, and these releases were quite robust.

However, for NT 4.0 they moved the display drivers and GUI to ring 0 to increase performance. This created huge stability issues as buggy display drivers (and coincidentally a sub-optimal IP stack) caused NT 4.0 systems to be extremely fragile. The anticipated performance increases were eclipsed by downtime caused by reboots and BSODs. Some of these issues were not patched sufficiently until the release of Service Pack 6/6a. There's an unintentionally funny article here that talks about the changes. I love this particular quote:

"In all my testing with NT 4.0, I haven't encountered a graphic-induced crash. Moving the heap to the kernel makes sense. Upgrade!"

/adjusts the onion on his belt

MFUD - Microsoft Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

[Pvt_Waldo]

What a bunch of MFUD! I'm not arguing the merit of the product, I'm arguing the holes in the argument. When I saw the first point I just had to reply (I blame the intarweb's alure)...

Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas? I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies.

So, if I go to install some program, and it's got spyware that installs with it, that's bad architecture? Or if deep in the EULA there's a little clause that says I'll get "something extra" when I install, it's Microsoft's fault I didn't read the EULA? Or that it was written by lawyers?

And I know some claim this isn't Microsoft's fault that spyware happens, but it really mostly is. They designed Windows to be as easy and automatic to use as possible, which really is the gateway for much of the malware wreaking computer havoc.

Easy and automatic to use. You mean like a Macintosh? Or like Linux is trying to become? If "easy to use" was a criteria then Macs would be swimming with malware.

Discusses

[1336.5]

Shouldnt discussion take place before promotion? Somewhere between lies design, and inginuity.

Re:Discusses

[1336.5]

100% overrated my fucking balls. MS antispyware? The two shouldnt even be allowed in the same sentence.

the same thing it once did in the browser sector

[NaBadanga]

In my opinion, the main thing following from the words of Microsoft specialists in the blog, is not the change of name but the fact that the software giant, I think, is about to do the same thing it once did in the browser sector.

"The engine is now moved to a system service ..." means that anti-malware (anti-virus) solution will be built-in in the next Windows. Why I call it anti-virus? Because like some time before the word "virus" was used for almost ALL malicious programs, now they are trying to call them "spyware". Anyone can see it in the Anti-Spyware Coalition site's chapter Examples of Spyware and Potentially Unwanted Technologies (http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/documents/def initions.htm).

Here is another quote from the Microsoft Anti-Malware Engineering Team blog: "The detection mechanisms have also been radically improved by applying to spyware threats all the great detection technology we use in our antivirus engine."

There can be no doubt that Windows Vista is going to incorporate the feature we would usually call anti-virus. Is this "system service" going to be charged or free? This is the question I am worried about.

Which ships do, in effect

[Flying pig]

Ships have bilge pumps because there are just so many ways a leak can start. In fact, back in the day of wooden ships it was not unknown for the Dutch to fit old ships with wind powered bilge pumps and just keep them pumping so they could be used beyond the normal lease of life. The analogy is not exact, but it is common for any very complex system to have continuous maintenance needs that in theory could be avoided. I'm not justifying MS, just pointing out that your analogy would lead to MS building in the equivalent of automatic bilge pumps, fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, just like you have to have on a ship. Which seems to be what they are at last doing.

Re:Which ships do, in effect

[jordie]

They've got bilge pumps because there's a big hole with a steel shaft going through the hull into the water...which is fine and all until you want it to start turning your prop and make you move somewhere.

Granted, you can call the stuffing box anti-virus but Windows doesn't NEED the holes it has.

It'd sure be nice if my "fire alarm" didn't go off so often and I didn't really need my fire extinguisher. In all my days on the boats I didn't need EITHER of them once, why should I need them once a week w/ Windows?

MS Anti Spyware does not work. XP is fscked

[seven of five]

My wife's PC got infected with some horrible spyware/adware a couple weeks ago. Norton antivirus cleaned up some things (which the virus rootkit(?) promptly reinstalled), so I tried Hijack This, which removed some things which the virus reinstalled, so I tried MS's solution, same outcome, and a couple other worthless POS packages, same outcome. Loads of fun.

Finally reinstalled the OS from the vendor (Sony, damn them all to hell) package... which wiped the C drive and replaced everything with a pristine copy. That worked. Now spending days reinstalling/reconfiguring all our apps again, and being better about making the effing backup DVD.

Also looking around to see if there's any good real estate software available on the Mac for her to use. Unfortunately, Real Estate lost its balls years ago and ran shrieking straight for MS IE only web sites. Bleah.

And your point is...?

[Spy der Mann]

Besides trolling, you don't seem to care anything about the discussion. Yes, the GP poster has a point. But you don't contribute anything to the discussion, you just take parts of the GP argument and turn them into a horrible straw man.

The next time you're sarcastic, please try to make a point of it. I admire the Windows user interface (well, most of it - some things i can't stand, like that stupid online registration), it's just that their security COMPLETELY SUCKS and their closed source + monopoly just makes things worse and very hard to maintain.

It's microsoft's fault their crappy OS is so open to spyware (*cough* IE, ActiveX, poor security scheme, services enabled by default, etc. etc), so, yes, MS should PAY to keep the OS we spent $200 on, clean. IMO Microsoft should pay us so we can purchase *ANY* antispyware, not necessarily theirs.

Re:And your point is...?

[rtb61]

Well I can agree with microsft having to pay for other companies products, as for their own really "soft" software products having had to clean up computers running the microsoft versions, they just seem to be yet another excersize in marketing hype rather than an actually secure product.

MAS actually works, but shouldn't be needed

[RyoShin]

I went around work installing the program when it first came out, despite setting restrictive rights and other such software on the computers (before I came on, many of the users had admin access when they didn't need it, mainly because some of the software they had purchased was worth shit, and the guy before me didn't want to bother setting things up correctly.)

While Microsoft AntiSpyware wasn't a catch-all (neither were the other two programs I used in conjunction with it,) it worked out well. Whereas Ad-aware would give you a long listing of individual files with sometimes-useful information if you double clicked on an item, MAS would list the various programs (clumping the files together) and give a threat level, the main things they do (both good and bad) and a few other small tidbits. It's enough information that a regular user would be able to figure out what to do without being overwhelmed.

I have it on my own Windows machines (though I almost never have to run it myself.)

However, as has been pointed out, this shouldn't be shipping with Vista. With Linux coming to the forelight, and Macs becoming cheaper, Microsoft should know that they can't do the "There are only 1000 holes instead of 5000, it will be fine" thing they've loved to do in the past. Vista should be secure enough to not need this kind of thing, or it just shows that Microsoft would prefer to pretty up the OS some more and give us the same crap in a different box for another $300 than to actually strive ahead.

Then again, that's nothing new.

Isn't

[Filoviridae]

Isn't the term "Web blog" redundant and repetitious.

Re:MS Anti Spyware does not work. XP is fscked

[astonishedelf]

To get totally off-topic, I think everyone is missing the point. At this point in time, personal computing for the masses is an immature technology and clearly has some way to go. An example of a mature technology would be a fridge. I switch it on and it just works. It's completely intuitive. My two year old son can figure out that we keep food in it to keep it from spoiling and it is virtually (touch wood) impossible for him to either damage or crash it. Apple is currently ahead of the game at the moment, but at one point, it was IBM, and I still have a soft spot for the Amiga OS. All current systems are too complicated to use and I include OS X and Apple in this group. I use both Windows XP, and OS X, am currently writing a database for my law firm, and have dedicated myself to totally understanding the OS X Tiger (No, I have no plans to go to Leopard), and despite sixteen years of IT use (first computer - the Apple II), still find parts of IT tricky and complicated to use. Grandpa and Grandma don't really stand a chance.

We get it. They should make the OS better.

[dslauson]

OK, yeah. MS hasn't done a good job so far protecting their operating systems from malware. We all know that.

Still, I'm already sick of reading people's comments about how they should just design their OS better. Of course there are things they can (and hopefully will) do to reduce the risk of malware. Ditching default root privelidges comes to mind.

End users are still going to compromise themselves, though, with software installs and stuff. Let's face it, as long as Windows is the big target, it will be the OS that spyware developers go after.

So, they're bundling spyware software, and they're making sure you can exchange it for your favorite, if you like. What's wrong with that? There's no reason not to cover your bases, right?

OK, yeah, Windows sucks, and current versions are just begging for spyware infections. If MS hasn't made some drastic revisions in Vista to handle the problems, they're morons. Still, not having a contingency plan in place for if Malware finds it's way through would be just as stupid, in my oppinion.

Nope.

[antdude]

Same for AV programs. Not all AV products can find and clean everything. There is NO perfect programs.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO perfect programs.

Their are know perfect grammer, two.

Make IE a switch-out option too!

[JBoogie]

"The end-user has the option of switching it out and using a different vendor's spyware protection if they want.The end-user has the option of switching it out and using a different vendor's spyware protection if they want."

They should also do this with Internet Exploder.

Re:Make IE a switch-out option too!

[Dan_Bercell]

IE integrates with Windows nicely and cannot simply be 'switched'. Any user has the ability to install additional browsers and make them the default (Being the default means that browser will open Webpages for the user. IF the user wants the browser to open further pages he/she can associate the file extensions within Windows itself.

Until other browsers can match the functionality (for more then just webpages), there is no point in completely removing it, many people require the activeX functionality.

Re:Make IE a switch-out option too!

[drsmithy]

They should also do this with Internet Exploder.

If someone actually madea functional equivalent, they might consider it.

Re:Make IE a switch-out option too!

[Anonymous Coward]

IE integrates with Windows nicely [...]

Nicely?? Funniest /. post ever.

Until other browsers can match the functionality (for more then just webpages), there is no point in completely removing it, many people require the activeX functionality.

LitePC.com takes care of that problem. Funny, I have never needed IE and never will.

Re:Just engineer the software properly in first pl

[jimicus]

In a corporate environment that may ring true. Even then, it breaks down entirely if users are able to execute a file which is located at any arbitary location on disk - who says the spyware needs to go through a formal install procedure?

However, at home (where a lot of these infested boxes are), users need SOME means of installing software.

Drop default admin

[jofi]

Boom. Problem solved. The firewall is already enabled by default, but that is useless if they run something that easily adds itself. (Even Apple adds iTunes as an exception during install)

Those who say Microsoft should make a secure operating system... well you've been living under a rock.

Oh yes, and Linux is free from all evil

[hwangeruk]

from today, Linux worm: http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/11/08/140203.sh tml?tid=220&tid=106 and of course, rootkits don't exist for Linux, oh no: http://la-samhna.de/library/rootkits/list.html MS are trying to do something about security, Vista will not stick you straight in as admin. Shame you /. types can't see passed the end of your biggoted noses. I love Linux, and I stroke my OpenBSD box goodnight, but come on Bill is not the anti christ, XP/VS/SQL/Exchange are all fine products, not everything MS does sucks or made out of spite, they really are trying to make improvements with each iteration. Stop the madness pls, it doesn't do "the cause" any good if you all act like spoilt children. At least Vista will tell you that you have a rootkit installed, will your Linux distribution do this out of the box? Exactly.

Re:Oh yes, and Linux is free from all evil

[freeweed]

Vista will tell you that you have a rootkit installed

If your OS can tell you that you have a rootkit installed, it's pretty much not a rootkit. Not a very thorough one, anyway.

Re:Oh yes, and Linux is free from all evil

[Anonymous Coward]

"from today, Linux worm: http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/11/08/140203.sh tml?tid=220&tid=106 [slashdot.org] and of course, rootkits don't exist for Linux, oh no:"

One or two worms vs whole companies building businesses upon fixing 1000's of worms/virii? Rootkits can exist for anything but anyone talented enough to get a rootkit on a linux box would also cut thru windoze boxes like a hot knife thru butter. At least a wannabe hacker has to work to compromise a linux box.

"MS are trying to do something about security, Vista will not stick you straight in as admin."

They did that in XP and none of my programs would work without root priveliges. You cannot even play MSN games on MSNs site without admin priveledges. How screwy is that? I wanted to make all the users I service switch to limited user accounts but no chance since they want to be able to install all the garbage anyway. We'll see. I'm packing in however...I am switching my desktop to linux.

"Shame you /. types can't see passed the end of your biggoted noses."

Prejudice of MS is only based upon hours of time being wasted fixing it. It's crap and we know it's crap.

"I love Linux,"

Good there is hope for you yet.

"and I stroke my OpenBSD box goodnight,"

Girlfriends are much more fun. They stroke back!(There goes that hope!)

"not everything MS does sucks or made out of spite"

Not spite, neverending profits.

"I had servicing and parts contracts for 25 years! Who cares if the damn thing works!"

"they really are trying to make improvements with each iteration"

Improvements to the share value.

"Stop the madness pls, it doesn't do "the cause" any good if you all act like spoilt children."

Is there a 'cause'? I thought we were talking about which one was better ;)!!!

"At least Vista will tell you that you have a rootkit installed"

And it will tell me what I can watch, listen to, and pay. Does DRM count as a rootkit?

"will your Linux distribution do this out of the box?"

Out of the box, linux does not have any rootkits installed...can the same be said for XP?

Re:Oh yes, and Linux is free from all evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista isn't here yet; Linux and BSD are.

browser war indeed, but one difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right about this smelling like a browser war, but there is one significant difference. Anti-spyware is (arguably) something that should be built into the system. As is (again arguably) anti-virus. It should be interesting to watch this unfold.

The already well-entrenched antivirus companies would no doubt throw a fit were MS to try and include some kind of AV in their next OS. I daresay that's the reason MS never has mentioned an AV solution being built into windows. I'm wondering how the not-so-entrenched anti-spyware companies will react to this...

MS may not admit it, but we and they both know that everyone's lives (MS and the internet as a whole included) would be better if windows had an antispyware solution built in. Including it would help improve the "overall windows-user experience." Everybody wins (except the anti-spyware companies). But besides that, they may not even legally be allowed to charge for it. I can't pinpoint the law that charging for it would violate, but there seems to be something wrong with that picture.

Then there's the antitrust thing... will it become an issue? Is this a form of reverse discrimination, where a company can no longer improve its product because another company has already built a business model around the first company's lack of needed improvements? What kind of a world is this becoming? The possibilities of this issue are endless.

Should be very interesting indeed...

GIANT Software refs. remain.

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Microsoft still hasn't changed the program to remove GIANTsoftware references in it, although they took the time to prevent it from running on Win9x (it will work on W2K however). Take a look at it using SysInternals Process Explorer and you'll find the executables all still say GIANT.

Also Age of Empires III won't run on anything below XP, but there's no reason I can think of for such a restriction, esp. against Windows 2000, except to push towards the newer platforms.

Already been done

[freeweed]

Sounds like it's just a subset of this.

Re:We get it. They should make the OS better.

[Skiron]

I disagree on this. The Windows registry (which I am _convinced_ was a deliberate design concept to stop user intervention of their computer) is the most nubilous system ever - no documentation really.

The Sony 'root kit' charade proved a bit of that (plus the old NT4 client-to-server hack) - and that is from a 'kosher' vendor'. God knows whatever else it does.

All the time you have deliberate obsuration of operation, you will have problems, as noone knows what is going on.

Personal Responsibility

[vertinox]

While you're right that you can't get software to install silently under OS X, it would be trivial to trojan a download, and even to this day, a great many (most?) Mac users will gleefully enter their root password when prompted by any random installer.

Yes it is trivial, but so is writing your password on sticky notes on your monitor. If you are given the choice of installing the software with a notification of the OS and prompted for a password then it is clearly the fault of the user for typing it in. Hence personal responsibility.

When people visit a website, put in a cd, turn on AIM, or open an email from what appears to be a friend or any other average every day activity and silently get their system rooted, then it is the OS's fault.

One of these we can control through education. The other we have to control through removal programs.

Re:Personal Responsibility

[BandwidthHog]

Either you missed my point or I wasn’t clear, but I can type this faster than I can go back and check.

That statement of mine was directed at my fellow Mac users who tend to feel that we are immune from these problems. It could be said that we have a *much* stronger immune system, but we are not actually invulnerable. And a false sense of security and/or bravado amongst our numbers will not do us any good.

In other words, I agree with you completely.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

2000/XP has user permissions.

[massysett]

Even if someone does mess up their own home directory, they won't be able to touch system files? So theoretically one could log in as an admin and easily remove the unwanted warez.

You can do this in Windows XP right now. There are (at least) two classes of users: Administrators and Users (sometimes called "Limited Users.") The Administrator is like a Unix root and has free rein to install anything/wreak any kind of havoc. Users can write only to their home directories and cannot trash other users, change the startup sequence, etc. (This of course assumes that there are no security holes on the system that allow malicious programs to gain Administrator access.)

In theory if most users ran as limited users, there would be a lot less spyware. A limited user can't install software that can insert itself into the startup sequence.

The problem is this: first, most (if not all) Windows systems are not configured to run with Administrator/Limited User bifurcation by default. Most users probably don't even know the difference. Second, a lot of Windows software--even recently written software--only works properly if an Administrator is running it. Limited User accounts break the software. If the user only wants to run MS Office, IE, and Firefox, she will be fine. If she wants to use Winamp, Napster, or The Sims 2, it won't work under a limited account. (No Linux programmer could get away with writing a music player that only works under a root account.)

The third problem, which is likely the biggest of all, is that Windows users are not educated. They often will run the latest downloads on Kazaa only to find out that they have spyware; I think they likely would switch to Administrator to run malware if they were asked nicely. MS does not seem interested in pushing users to run only as Limited Users, likely because it would break so many poorly-written Windows apps.

And a side note: programs that break when run under Limited User accounts often work poorly when used on PCs with multiple users--e.g. different users cannot save their own personal settings. No Linux program could get away with this. One of Linux's biggest advantages is that it was written for multiple users from the start. Multiuser support and security has only recently been grafted into Windows.

My guess is that MS will strive to ensure that Vista does not break old Windows apps. Thus, users will still need to be Administrators to run software. Worms and spyware will wreak havoc. Furthermore, application programmers will continue to be lazy and write software that only works if the user is an Administrator. More antispyware packages will come out, which usually cannot even delete spwyare. The cycle will continue.

Theorically impossible.

[DrYak]

In theory this is impossible.

If suddenly such an überantispyware appeard, that can detect everything better than anyone else, it'll suddenly become "teh new target" that every spyware-writer will try to circumvent. And with so much effort put on this, of course there will be new spyware that won't be detected by it.

Historically the same has been seen with anti-virus software :
- When Thunder Byte AntiVirus was out, it was THE holy grail of anti virus. It had a heuristic (simulator) engine, whereas other antivirus software were signature-list based. While not all signature-lists were able to detect every last single polymorphic virus, TBAV was able to detect even new unknown virus.
- Quickly it became the software against which all virus creator tested their latest creation, and started to design special virus which were able to detect and cirumvent TBAV's new generation engine.

Spysweeper

[stu9000]

In recent tests Webroot Spysweeper apparently removed the most spyware (95% or so). If you want to use only one, this is the go.

Re:Spysweeper

[QCompson]

How do you like working at Webroot Software? Do they have a dental plan?

Re:Spysweeper

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is, that 5% that's left will in very short order reinstall the 95% that you just got rid of. Once your computer's pwned it's pwned. Spyware works on the "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" principle. Which means that while spyware programs A, B, C, and D might presumably come from different vendors, they are all designed so that A will reinstall B, C, and D if any one of them is removed, and so forth. So in effect, if you have even one of them on your computer you have them all. Spyware programs that (re)install other spyware are often known as downloaders, droppers, etc. The anti-spyware folks don't yet seem to have caught on that this "downloading/dropping" behavior is mutual and collusive.

Re:Spysweeper

[stu9000]

I don't work for Webroot, I just like Spysweeper. PC world rated them here.

Trust

[capicu]

Anyone here have both a hotmail account and a gmail account? Any of those who said yes also a user of ebay or amazon?
Then you'll have noticed that hotmail never marks a single amazon or ebay message as spam, whereas gmail does.
So, if amazon wants to put a program on my computer "to better undertand our demographic subspace variant molecularity", how am I to trust Microsoft?

Re:Trust

[BCW2]

If you do a fresh install of Windows from 98SE through XP sp1 and then run Ad-Aware you will get between 9 and 13 instances of Alexa. You will get a few more when running Spybot afterwords. Alexa is Amazon.com's own personal spyware. I wonder who bribed M$ to include it? Why would anyone trust either one of them?

I now remove M$ Antispyware from every computer that comes through our shop it is a waste of space and resources. Ad-Aware and Spybot work better, run faster and use less memory. They are also on every computer that leaves our shop. Firefox is on every computer that has broadband or a non-third party dial-up(no AOHell, Earthlink or others that require IE) access.

Re:Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

well holy shit. thanks a lot for the info. you see, i was happy enough using my windows partition from time to time, "safe" in the "knowledge" that I was such a careful and occasional user that i was probably secure.

as it stands, i run xp sp2, so i'm not necessarily covered by what you detailed, but the only thing stopping me from believing that there might be this kind of official spyware was the fact that i didn't believe that microsoft would go that far. a practical, real world example, fixes that. what trust i had is gone.

if you think i'm wrong for taking so much from a slashdot comment, relax. i did some research before writing this reply. i'll be telling my brother about this - he runs sp1, as does my mother.

Re:Crazy question - Easter Egg, of course!

[Prairiewest]

I think they chose the name DEFENDER so that they can hide a really cool easter egg in this new software. Of course, who wouldn't welcome the chance to download bloated software just to be able to play one of the best arcade games of the 80's!

Don't think they won't do it... I had fun playing the flight sim easter egg that was hidden in Excel 97!

Trolling

[Z34107]

Yeah, I'm expecting a Troll rating for this one

Lawl, you as of this post, you got +2 "Insightful." That was some of the best trolling I have EVER seen, though :-D Too bad I don't have any mod points, or I'd give you a cookie or whatever you turn them in for.

If the final is like the beta

[queenb**ch]

1) Do you really want to trust a product that says that GATOR is *not* spyware?
2) We use CounterSpy here, which is the parent product of Microsoft's Beta. The Beta scans come back clean while the CounterSpy scans come back with some 40-50 items on most of the machines we tested.
3) Didn't Microsoft already get nixed over the whole anti-virus thing already? I think I recall reading something about that. If so, how is this any different?
4) Wouldn't the time, effort, energy, etc. be better spent in figuring how to make the OS work properly in the first place?

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:If the final is like the beta

[delus10n0]

Huh? I thought Microsoft bought GiantSoftware, and turned their anti-spyware app into Microsoft Antispyware? That CounterSpy looks like a direct rip-off of GiantSoftware's program. Unless that product is made by GiantSoftware's side company, or something? My brain hurts.

Vista

[s-twig]

Doesn't including Anti-spyware with an OS, scream that there is something wrong with the OS. Why doesn't MS address the shortcomings of the OS that allow Spyware.

18 Million Satisfied Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

The new slogan..
"Windows Defender - Millions and Millions of proud customers served."

Isn't it a clue when 18 million + are using a tool to fix your product?
Whats worse is that instead of fixing the problem, they are just gonna bundle the repair tool. If other industries had this kind of support

Just a thought...if microsoft was selling cars...
Customer: "Whats this pouch in the trunk for?"
MSFT: "Its to help you reattach the wheel that will fall off while driving on bumpy roads."
Customer: "Why not strengthen it?"
MSFT: "Its not our fault that there are bumps out there. You should only drive the car where its perfectly safe and smooth. But just in case here is the kit to fix it."

Then you have Sony to sneak in a fuel filter that cannot be removed without damaging the car.

Sony

[yuri benjamin]

I hope Microsoft has no partnership deal with Sony that might affect the efficacy of their anti-spyware utility.

Re:We get it. They should make the OS better.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

End users are still going to compromise themselves, though, with software installs and stuff.

Currently most infection do not involve user interaction. If the OS was secure enough that they did need user interaction, a lot could be done to stop them via that interaction. Running all new applications in a virtual machine with no internet access, access to to other files, access to the system, etc. without specifically warning the user and asking for that privilege would be a good start. There will always be users that will agree to everything (especially when presented as OK/Cancel that is the dumbest UI convention ever) but that number is very small. Give users the tools, and make those tools actually make a difference and you'll find that education solves 99% of the problem.

So, they're bundling spyware software, and they're making sure you can exchange it for your favorite, if you like. What's wrong with that?

A monopoly bundling a product as a way to dominate a new market is the first example the antitrust statues use when explaining what abuse of a monopoly is.

Still, not having a contingency plan in place for if Malware finds it's way through would be just as stupid, in my oppinion.

I agree, users should have a contingency plan, but it is illegal for MS to provide it on unequal footing. If they want to sell it fine (yeah conflict of interest there too) but bundling is illegal and with good reason.

ScriptKid,Virus,Worm != Spyware (no bugs exploits)

[DrYak]

We're not speaking about virus but spywares.

- Virus are maliciouse software that exploits bugs to enter into your computer (without the user knowing it or even without the user doing whatever), then try to gain full control over the PC (gaining root access. Which is easier in crappy OS that run at administrator privilege), then propagate by sending themself over the network (and abusing further bugs on these computers).

- Spyware are softwares that come *with* some other installer, and being installed following user interaction (he willingly started an installation. He just may not be aware of *all* software he's installing because he didn't read the EULA or the spyware isn't mentionned in the EULA). Then the software starts invading privacy and gathering info (most of which, like browsing history, is naturally accessible by the user-level access with which the user is running his applications - including the spywares he installed). The software calls home (using normal privileges the user has).

Bug fixing is mostly against virus and script kiddies. It'll patch holes that can be abused.
Spyware on the other hand is about the user running trash software.
Maybe there is some spyware which uses bugs or bad designs (admin-level by default) to gatter even more data (using a key logger). But even a bug free system could run spywares as long as the users isn't well educated enough to install them.
You can even design spywares on Linux ! If some moron is dumb enough to install binary software from shady sources (instead of : a. installing binary package that came with his distribution CD like a normal user, b. compiling tarbals from signed and trusted sources like a normal geek), this software could read the user-readable history files and send them over internet.

The only things one can fix an OS against spyware are :
- Fixing bugs to avoid the admin-rights-abusing spywares (keylogger, ...) ...this won't stop all spywares. Only a tiny fraction.

- Starting some white-list based scanner/firewall, to limit which software can connect to internet (ZoneAlarm should grant internet access to your favorite MMORPG, not to your "display naked dancer" screen-saver/winamp plugins) ...will hardly help. Educated users may use this to detect and stop spywares. But most joe 6-packer will either start complaining on online supports because they can't connect to WoW any more, or "OK-clic-thru" without thinking everytime a pop-up shows up and grant internet access even to spywares.

- Trusted computing : only legitimate software should be signed. ...will never work. IE was supposed to work like that, but there are many certificate from thrusted source that have been granted to weird companies (I've read that a malware maker even managed to have a certificate with "Microsoft in it's name"). And on the other hand plenty of legitimate software cannot afford to be signed (mostly open source software).
In short : permission is likely to be granted to the wrong wares.

- User education. ...won't work. Do you really think you can explain to Joe 6-pack the difference between "www.coolwarez.com" and "sourceforge.net" ?!?!?

- Redesign the OS completly from scratch to create a system that enables programms to store sensitive data in a private isolated from other process way (in other words, access to data depends both on running user profile & software profile). ...although it exists in some small ways (FireFox and Java uses such sandboxed design to limit access rights to online applications, even if those applet are run from the users account. Passwords wallets like KdeWallet or Palm Keyring ask user permission before transmition passwords, ...) a complete OS redesign is very unlikely. Just look how many times Microsoft has tried to even change the file system (WinFS) or some other component and hasn't fulfilled promise. Do you really think they'll redesign an OS from scratch ?

This isn't about the anti-spyware at all

[EosDominus]

This is about the one thing microsoft is REALLY good at. Control. Windows pre-packing their OS with thier own brand of anti spyware expediates thier goals, because they will have the power to influence the movement of billions in advertising dollars. The main reason there is spyware these days is to help people sell you $hit thru invasive advertising. Microsoft having control of whos adverts go the what group of users is just another step towards putting thier competitors like google and yahoo who depend on advertising, out of buisness.

why not just secure their operating systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

a novel idea, huh? Instead of shipping weak code, why don't they put an end to viruses and spyware? It sounds too simple. Think of the lost buisness in the anti-virus anti-spyware market.

Re:An "engineering change"? like MSCE?

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

heh, they use that word a lot, just like the MSCE, eh?

Re:We get it. They should make the OS better.

[dslauson]

"...bundling is illegal and with good reason."

That's not necessarily true. MS got in trouble for bundling IE because they didn't offer a way to uninstall it and replace it, and they made it impossible for anyone to compete.

If you're saying that any form of bundling is illegal, then when you buy an OS, all you should recieve is the kernel. Adding in a window manager is bundling. Adding in a file explorer is bundling. Right?

I got a remote control "bundled" with my DVD player. That doesn't stop me from going out and buying a universal remote, though.

"Bundling" is not inherently anti-competitive, and it is not always illegal. It's all a matter of how you do it, and whether or not the end user has a choice. That's why MS is allowing you to swap out their software, if you want.

Windows costs money?

[conan_the_trollarian]

Good thing I didn't pay for it, but I'll still bitch about it. I'm sure the parrot on my shoulder will enjoy Vista too!

You'll never be safe from spyware on Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

But isnt it conveinent there are a whole bunch of free OSes out there? The countless linux distros, BSD, OpenSolaris, and some other ones.

Microsoft Defender?

[esp_ex]

Microsoft Anti-Spyware Beta 1 never finds anything on my computer. Lavasoft Ad-Aware does it all.

Is it really defending? Or is it just not finding anything?

Microsoft Discusses Anti-Spyware Plans

[SeaFox]

"Microsoft Discusses Anti-Spyware Plans"

Of corse, those plans don't include making Windows less prone to spyware to start with.

Re: I'd dig it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when I hear "Windows Defender," what I really want to hear is "Williams Defender." I love that game! (laser blast) Take THAT, spyware!

Bullet proofing....

[Fengpost]

Agreed! I am not a MS fan either, but I agree with you. I thought of Windows security issue as buying a car. If I buy a car from Ford, and someone shoot at me with a gun and damages my car, I would never get pissed off at Ford for not building it bullet proof. It is hard to guard malicious intent of people today. The firewall and anti-spyware software are just like the bullet proof after market upgrade for cars. However, MS does have the corporate responsibility to improve the product as the malicious intents (spyware) becomes part of the environment, as they are doing now. In the mean while we will just have to the aftermarket solutions.

Software freedom, not permissions, are the issue.

[jbn-o]

Fancier file permissions won't protect users against what proprietary software can do running in that user's name, with that user's privileges.

The real threat of spyware is the threat proprietary programs pose—they are uninspectable, unmodifiable, and undistributable. So even the most skilled can't really tell all of what they do, can't change them in any significant way to do something else, and if they somehow figure out how to change the binary they can't legally distribute the improved version to their community. Free software spyware doesn't suffer these problems because when the spyware is found, the program can be legally modified and shared, and the community can switch to the improved version.

Let's be pedantic

[Flying pig]

The only source of leaks in normal use into a small boat, like my own steel-hulled 12M, is via the stern tube. But eventually something will happen - perhaps a rust hole, perhaps an underwater obstruction, perhaps being driven against a weir - and I will be very relieved to have a bilge pump going while I try to plug the hole and make it to dry dock.

However, when my father had his little steel hulled boat in WW2, he had more interesting problems - fire from the Germans and the Japanese, mine detonations and shells at a distance springing the odd rivet, the odd incendiary dropping on the deck. At the moment the Internet is a lot more like WW2 than a nice peaceful river.

Re:We get it. They should make the OS better.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's not necessarily true. MS got in trouble for bundling IE because they didn't offer a way to uninstall it and replace it, and they made it impossible for anyone to compete.

No they got in trouble because they were bundling a product for a new market with one for a market they had monopolized. The ability to uninstall and replace it was not a factor.

If you're saying that any form of bundling is illegal, then when you buy an OS, all you should recieve is the kernel. Adding in a window manager is bundling. Adding in a file explorer is bundling. Right?

No, not at all. Bundling is illegal when you are an already existing monopoly and when you use that bundling to move into a new market. If no one is selling stand-alone window managers or file explorers then you are not moving into a new market.

I got a remote control "bundled" with my DVD player. That doesn't stop me from going out and buying a universal remote, though.

That's not the point. You already had to pay for the first remote, thus the stereo manufacturer got paid for a product you don't want. If your stereo manufacturer was a monopoly it would be illegal to start bundling remotes if they did not already do so. Further, it would be normal practice to legally force the stereo manufacturer to un-bundle them if later cases of other abuse were found.

"Bundling" is not inherently anti-competitive, and it is not always illegal. It's all a matter of how you do it, and whether or not the end user has a choice. That's why MS is allowing you to swap out their software, if you want.

You completely miss the point of why bundling is illegal. It is because it forces consumers to buy things they don't want or need by abusing an existing monopoly. Right now any car company is free to bundle a lifetime supply of cheese with all the cars they sell. Even if they somehow build that cheese into the frame of the car so it cannot be easily removed or replaced it is no problem. If, however, a car company gained a monopoly, it would be illegal for them to give away a lifetime supply of cheese with each car. The reason for this is that they can raise the price of the car to cover the cheese and no one has an alternative. Thus everyone gets cheese whether they want it or not, or whether they prefer the car co's cheese of someone else's. As a result their cheese does not have to compete. Consumers suffer because they pay for products they don't want and they get potentially inferior products. They no longer choose the best cheese. The car company only has to make cheese good enough so that people are not willing to pay for both their cheese and a competitor's cheese in order to get a good product, and even if they do, the car company has already been paid.

Bundling is illegal when it is being applied by a monopoly to a new market (note, market not product). Whether or not you can subsequently buy a second product and use it interchangeably is immaterial.