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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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...

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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

[holy zarquon's singi]

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

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.

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 ?