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?

[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?

[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.

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...

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Re:Rewrite

[holy zarquon's singi]

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