Slashdot Mirror
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. "
I thought the software title Defender was already taken.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
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...
I don't read replies by ACs.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
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?
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.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
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
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?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"