No Anti-Virus in Vista

truthsearch writes "Microsoft will omit anti-virus protection in Vista, the next version of Windows. Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software. For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service."

Comments

So first virus in?

[luvirini]

So I am wondering... how many seconds after Vista launch until we have first virus for it?

Re:So first virus in?

[Avohir]

about 4 months ago...

Re:So first virus in?

[luvirini]

Have not heard about that in the wild... proof of concepts do not count.

Re:So first virus in?

[saskboy]

If Vista is susceptible to 99% of known viruses today, it's got a big problematic future ahead of it.

They hopefully told their designers: "Throw Blaster, and Melissa, and Norvag at this new system, and if it dies or allows itself to be infected, FIX IT!"
"Anything related to fix compression/decompression, image file interpretation, or anything that opens a port, must be reviewed against all known viruses attacking those vectors."

Will they, or have they done that? No, but we'll see.

Re:So first virus in?

[camperslo]

So I am wondering... how many seconds after Vista launch until we have first virus for it?

That's a leading question. I think it more likely it'll happen before the official launch.
There has already been a patch.

Re:So first virus in?

[dotgain]

No, of course not. It's inconceivable that a proof-of-concept could translate or be adapated into a real-world virus, isn't it!?

Sheesh

Re:So first virus in?

[SenseOfHumor]

If you ask me - that's what you are launching to begin with :-)

Re:So first virus in?

[ToasterofDOOM]

Good question, but honestly MS, if there is a problem or a vulnerability in your OS, is it not your responsibility tom fix it? Or are you going to make me pay extra just so that my computers will work properly without having to be reformatted every weekend? That sounds like a hell of a customer relationship you've got going there.

Re:So first virus in?

[nuckin futs]

how can it be in the wild if vista isn't even available to the general public.
The fact that it isn't even out yet and there's already a proof of concept is a bit concerning.

Re:So first virus in?

[Da_Weasel]

Don't you mean _before_?

Re:So first virus in?

[slashdotwannabe]

The smartass in me wants to say "who cares... I won't be using it anyway"... but then I'm sure M$ is going to regression test all known attack vectors against Vista even if they don't actually add active protection against viri to it. So, forget about past viri infecting it.

Re:So first virus in?

[Admiral Kirk]

The Sony Rootkit is reported to work on Vista.
Not only as the malware it is, but it seems to crash a Vista install quite bad.

So, yes, it is vulnerable and exploits are in the wild.

I think Vista also had the WMF flaw, but I'm not sure about this one.

Two possible reasons

[RandoX]

1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

Re:Two possible reasons

[zaxus]

Definitely reason number 2. Nothing like making money off of someone else's misfortune. God forbid Windows users are protected out of the box.

Re:Two possible reasons

[jurt1235]

3) Bigger profits!

Re:Two possible reasons

[luvirini]

Yes, those are the reasons likely, as they are allready in hot water for including things in the operating system and making more money with subscriptions is allways nice...

The real question is however: How long until that thing bites them hard like the security problems they had with XP?

Re:Two possible reasons

[imoou]

I wonder if MS is still considered anti-competition if it offers its anti-virus software as a free/share/postcard-ware on the internet?

Re:Two possible reasons

[nbert]

4) Since everybody would have this software pre-installed only a virus being able to circumvent the protection would have any impact, resulting in even bigger problems if there is a bug in the antivirus software (no doubt about that IMO), because most of the users would rely on the protection coming with Vista, so it would spread even faster/further than anything we have seen before.

Re:Two possible reasons

[muszek]

5) Vista will be a secure OS, thus it will not need any protection ;)

Re:Two possible reasons

[AKAImBatman]

Definitely reason number 2. Nothing like making money off of someone else's misfortune.

More like the ol' bait and switch.

Step 1. "Buy Windows Vista! It's so much more secure, we didn't bother including a virus checker!"
Step 2. Dumb consumers purchase Vista. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.)
Step 3. "Having virus problems? Subscribe to Microsoft's monthly virus protection at the low, low rate of your first-born son!"
Step 4. Dumb consumers fork over more dough. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.)
Step 5. Profit!!!

Re:Two possible reasons

[cli_man]

I have always said that I would rather have a virus on my machine than an anti-virus.

I may get a virus that causes some troubles once every couple of years but most of them are pretty easy to remove and if they are not then I just re-install my machine and go happily along again.

However it seems with almost all of the anti-virus products your computer runs slow all the time and you get some nice random lockups when the anti-virus is scanning stupid stuff like a print job and then crashes your printer subsystem, or a new virus signiture that keeps your computer from shutting off correctly, or a new update that just hoses your install.

My advice for most people:

1. Use a computer with a private IP address behind a firewall, dsl router, etc.
2. Keep your updates/patches done
3. Only use an email service that does good server side virus scanning
4. Don't do stupid stuff, a little common sense goes a long way

Re:Two possible reasons

[Kalecomm]

I spend, unfortunately a large amount of my time in DimWoes because of school, however, I have gotten Broadcom Wireless to work with the ndiswrapper and it seems to work very well. You should check the Ubuntu forums for specifics: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=31926 Best Regards, Kalecomm

Re:Two possible reasons

[nbert]

Whoever modded this funny doesn't run Windows for sure. On the other hand I wouldn't believe that "dumb consumers" will subscribe to Microsoft after realising that MS' security claims regarding Vista were bogus (if you haven't noticed, I still don't buy MS new focus on security).

On a related note there are some antivirus solutions available for free if the computer is only used for personal matters. I've deployed it on various occasions and it works quite reliably. The only drawback is that there's no automatic update process I know of, but users are reminded by some fancy balloon if they haven't updated since 2 weeks.

Re:Two possible reasons

[nbert]

sorry, forgot to mention that I was talking about Antivir Personal Edition in the second paragraph. There's an English version available btw. I should pay more attention to the preview button I guess...

Re:Two possible reasons

[shokk]

I believe they will be selling a service. Glad to hear that they are not thinking of the customer's safety first. *sigh* So much for Trusted Computing.

Re:Two possible reasons

[Blazeix]

how the heck did this get an insightful score? wasn't it supposed to be funny?

Re:Two possible reasons

[Jaknet]

AVG free anti virus "find on google" works very well updates daily or more if required and they are working on the Vista version at the moment. I emailed them a couple of weeks ago to try to get anti virus for my vista beta

Re:Two possible reasons

[ABoerma]

Maybe whoever modded it insightful was trying to be funny.

Re:Two possible reasons

[Firehed]

Oh don't tell me you thought TC would actually work as anything more than hardware DRE... I suppose that could be a benefit, but you know how those things go.

They really would be screwed either way, but I think they're definately better off (legally and consumer satisfaction) by including no AV and trying to make the OS slightly less full of holes than swiss cheese or be more difficult to break into than... well... a window.

Re:Two possible reasons

[peterfa]

Dude, I've downloaded all kinds of stuff, never once have I gotten a virus, except for those java virii you get in IE. I was always behind a firewalled router, and I'm refering to the time I wasn't. I do find it funny when my friends complain of like a virus or something...never hapened to me.

Re:Two possible reasons

[Jozer99]

I was wondering how they were not getting sued by Symantec, McCaffe, ect... For including anti-virus software.

Re:Two possible reasons

[odourpreventer]

My question is: with ZoneAlarm, Avast, AVG et al just waiting to be downloaded, is there a reason to care anymore?

Re:Two possible reasons

[Feanturi]

My machine will be very secure when Vista comes out. The installer disc will remain in the shrinkwrap, still on the shelf of some store, till some other sucker buys it instead. Now that's some good security. :)

Re:Two possible reasons

[dmdb]

There is unfortunatly reason to care, while you, I and most of /. will run antivirus and not download stupid things on our computers most users won't. While Microsoft will have anti-competition issues if they bundle antivirus software it would at least move some way to making the internet a safer place. Microsoft must do a real campaign around the launch of Vista to pursuade users to install and keep up to date antivirus definitions and windows updates. Time and time again I see people on laptops clicking cancel on updates on their computers beacuse they either a) don't know what the window is asking them for and just instinctively went for the cancel button b) don't see the issue and so can't be bothered with it. I actually keep a credit card CD in my wallet to install McAfee with beacuse I have to deal with peoples lack of understanding so often.

Re:Two possible reasons

[pjbgravely]

Avast is free, has daily automatic updates, and reportably runs on Vista beta
Almost makes me want to run Microsoft Windows again.

Re:Two possible reasons

[lseltzer]

Obviously #1 (Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit) is true and #2 (To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis) is irrelevant to the decision whether to include it with Vista. Even if you got the software, and perhaps a short-term subscription, with Vista they would still have the option of selling the service thereafter.

But like I said, includng it with Vista would be a slam-dunk violation of their agreement with DOJ.

And leave it to /. to comdemn them either way they went about it.

Re:Two possible reasons

[TubeSteak]

That isn't shrinkwrap.

In the retail world, we like to call it a "software condom"

That nickname is one of the ways we convince relegious types to buy a new computer instead of the retail software.

Example: Oh that? It comes with a software condom. You're better off buying a new computer. It cames with the program pre-loaded and there's no software condoms to worry about.

We don't try to understand irrational fear of the software condom, we just try to work it for all it's worth.

Re:Two possible reasons

[Mozk]

Well it's going to need protection against that obesity virus, or else it will get pretty bloated pretty soon, and it also better watch out for that practical mono.

Re:Two possible reasons

[patdabiker]

It's interesting that Microsoft created a problem (susceptibility to viruses) and is prevented from fixing it (anti-virus) because it would be anti-competitive against people already serving the need.

Re:Two possible reasons

[NATIK]

Heh same here, never had virus or spyware (except tracking cookies), run without any kind of protection. I just got my first spammails a few weeks back on my gmail account and they get filtered... The funny thing is i download everything i think might be fun or usefull, dont have problems with installing "untrused" stuff or anything like that, and i give the same mail to every site i visit. I scan my comp for virus and spyware every 1-2 months so it isnt because i havent noticed something hiding on here...

Re:Two possible reasons

[towsonu2003]

4) Promote Windows Arda as virus-free in 2010...

Re:Two possible reasons

[pablodiazgutierrez]

The fact that the parent has been modded funny is a deeply sad statement about the general conception of MS security. And yet so hilarious.

Re:Two possible reasons

[towsonu2003]

You have the EU to thank for this one folks.

Thank you dear European Union for not having my mom deal with Microsoft made "anti-"virus tools.

Re:Two possible reasons

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I actually run Windows XP 64 and am fairly protected. It is like my other boxes, behind an OpenBSD firewall, and it isn't the computer I generally use for browsing, but 99% of the time, new vulnerabilities don't effect it. I believe the plan is for Vista to benefit from the improvements as well.

But lets face it. The OS is no longer the primary threat vector. The user is primary, (opening attachments, downloading things, and agreeing to install browser helpers). Widely deployed 3rd party software is a close second. All those extremely common servers out there get more of a focus every day.

The only time the OS is the threat vector is when you have other policies, (CM etc), that prevent you from taking care of the OS.

Re:Two possible reasons

[jurt1235]

Grin, you just gave me an idea: Windows naming competition. What possible can Microsoft come up with next (and then quicly start a linux distro with that possible name (-: )

Re:Two possible reasons

[jseale]

4) giving users their choice of anti-virus software as opposed to requiring they use whatever would be built into the OS.

Just a thought. :D

Re:Two possible reasons

[robgamble]

You are right about #1, although not many readers here can see it.

MS licensed and distributed a stripped down copy of Hyper Terminal with Windows, from HilGraeve. They licensed and released a stripped down version of DiskKeeper in Windows 2000/XP/2003 from Executive. They also released a barely functional file zipping and unzipping tool with Windows. The list goes on.

It's common practice for Microsoft to release small, barely functional versions of add-on software with Windows... even *other* people's software. They do this in order to have Windows feel "complete" without making it impossible for other software companies to make a profit in that space. This has been happening for a long time.

Re:Two possible reasons

[shokk]

Security holes aside, there is still the unsolvable problem between chair and keyboard. As long as there is a human at the controls, computers will get Fubar'd. I think once Macs hit 10-15% market share we'll see more of this on their side of the computing world. Until then, they're probably dealing with a higher class of user. Same tends to be true for Linuxes, but look for more "problems" as their popularity rises.

Re:Two possible reasons

[MrTufty]

Try option 1 for sure. You'd be able to hear the dollar signs lighting up in the lawyers' eyes if MS did try to package an anti-virus solution with Vista. There'd be a stampede down to the courthouse to file suit, even though most people would probably choose to install their own anyway. So basically, just like they do with Media Player, Windows Firewall, and half the other tools that MS package in.

For the record I actually believe that MS software is pretty good. I certainly trust it a lot more than I trust most open-source software, simply because I've seen so much open-source software that, while good, needs some serious polishing to be able to be classed as a professional package. Nice UIs aren't just for Mac users, you know....

Re:Two possible reasons

[nbert]

depends on how you define "worse". There is no doubt that such a software will prevent a lot of harm. On the other hand there's no antivirus solution on the market which doesn't fail in some scenarios. Just to give a simple example: NTFS features the ability to save several files under the same name (aka alternate data streams). Some products just scan the main stream, so every virus hiding in an alternate is safe. Microsoft is more than aware about such problems compared to other vendors, because they naturally know more than their competitors about the OS. Nevertheless I'm quite sure that there will be some bug allowing a virus to spread on Vista without being hindered by some product MS might provide for security. So if that would happen the vast majority of Vista users would be screwed, because they wouldn't spend money on a product which comes with Vista anyways. Afterall every MS product or patch concerning security was a joke. Just think about their spyware removal tool or NX-protection, which haven't archieved anything. It's not like I'm trusting other vendors much more, but I believe that diversity is the only key to preventing problems like sasser and alike...

Re:Two possible reasons

[towsonu2003]

Windows Arda

What possible [name] can Microsoft come up with next

I used wikipedia entry for Vista (middle earth or something) to come up the word. It is part of the "king of the rings" or "world of the rings" or something like that...

Sure

[jawtheshark]

We wouldn't like Norton to go broke, would we?
It at least looks like competition. ;-)

Re:Sure

[utlemming]

Actually, after playing with the OneCare beta, I went right back to Norton. Quickly. It doesn't hold a candle in terms of what it does. Sure OneCare does download patches, defrags your hard drive, and all that, but slows your computer down something fierce. Sure it might do all that, but at what cost, not being able to use your computer? If Norton could offer something like OneCare, but without the performanc hit, then Norton could really make some cash.

Re:Sure

[durdur]

I liked Norton just fine until it came time to renew
my subcription, and they needed the subscription key
to renew, which is in some email they sent me a year
ago. Heck, I installed it with the subscription key,
why doesn't the software keep track of it? Then after
some email traffic they also explained to me that I'd
have to buy 3 renewal subscriptions because my 3-user
license wasn't renewable as is. Next day I had McAfee
installed.

Re:Sure

[Psiren]

Next day I had McAfee installed.

Well, we all make mistakes. Seriously, do yourself a favour and get away from McAfee as soon as you possibly can. It's a terrible piece of software, letting through numerous viruses that our other software picks up. I'd recommend using Panda personally.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, after playing with Norton for a little while, I tried to go back to *anything* else, but failed, because Norton has so thorougly infected my system that my only respite was wipe and reinstall.

Re:Sure

[Malc]

I think they'll find other things to scare users in to buying.

So many people seem to think they need crap like Norton SystemWorks to be safe. I think they product name is an oxymoron. I cringe when I hear that people have that on their system - I *know* at that point they'll be having problems with their computer. Symantec's marketing has done a very good job.

Re:Sure

[LouisZepher]

I have Norton2006 on my system (true, not the whole SystemWorks package, but it does what I need), and the only problem I have with it, is that I cannot for the life of me get it to recognize my wireless connection for LiveUpdate to work *at all*. It claims to use the "same settings as IE and Outlook", but these (and all my other programs that connect to the 'net) work fine w/o a "traditional" internet connection. I swear, I spent a full day toying with InternetConnections in the control panel and nothing seems to trick Norton into thinking that my working network connection is how to connect to the net to no avail. Other than this "feature", it works well enough for me.

Re:Sure

[Cro Magnon]

Yikes! I didn't think anything could be worse than Norton, but I suppose if anyone could manage that, Microsoft could.

Re:Sure

[utlemming]

I should have stated that I am using Norton Corp. Edition -- which is far different than the version that ships for the home user. I WON'T even use the home version of Norton.

Unspecified reasons?

[Rombuu]

Unspecified Reasons? Like not wanting to get sued for bundling again? So the EU doesn't make them release a "Vista Version V without Antivirus Protection" that nobody really wants to buy anyway?

Re:Unspecified reasons?

[dasil003]

Unspecified Reasons? Like not wanting to get sued for bundling again? So the EU doesn't make them release a "Vista Version V without Antivirus Protection" that nobody really wants to buy anyway?

What a noble and altruistic reason for not bundling! Unfortunately it's obvious that the reason they're not bundling virus protection is because viruses are one of the top marketing tools for the Windows industry. As the average networked computer gets slower over time the consumer believes it's only comparitively slower next to new machines, thus fueling the upgrade cycle without which MS would die a cold wall street death.

Any /. reader should see immediately and without doubt that this can be the only possible reason for Microsoft doing something like this.

Re:Unspecified reasons?

[Bohiti]

"obvious"? "see immediately and without doubt"? "only possible reason"?

I disagree, and this "obviously" makes me a "completely worthless" /. reader. Ridiculous ultimatums aside, I personally think their motives are elsewhere: potential profit and avoiding legal battles.

Re:Unspecified reasons?

[dasil003]

Obviously the uber-dorky tag is now required in order to make a joke around here.

Really...

[VikingThunder]

I don't even know why people even thought Microsoft could even integrate an antivirus without the anti-trust folks raiding the Redmond campus within 30 seconds of the annoucement.

Antitrust

[dslauson]

It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.

Re:Antitrust

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

God forbid they should just write a better OS so we didn't NEED to spend money on anti-virus software.

I don't have a big axe to grind with Microsoft. I use some of their products because the business reality is that I must if I want other people I work with to be able to use my files. Fine, I can live with that. What I'm having difficulty with is that one needs to spend money on anti-spyware and anti-virus software at a bare minimum if they want to have any hope of keeping their net-connected Windows machine from being exploited.

I suspect that as more people get fed up and beging to explore other OSes, like OSX or (gasp) Linux, Microsoft's OS market share will begin to erode at more than the snail's pace it is now. So they're just getting ready for the time that they glom their revenue from these "value added services". I suspect THAT is a much more powerful motivator for them than the prospect of being sued (which they can stave off for many years through legal foot shuffling).

Re:Antitrust

[Aqua OS X]

Wouldn't that be like forcing a car company to produce crappy cars so 3rd party mechanics wouldn't go out of business?

Re:Antitrust

[dslauson]

"Wouldn't that be like forcing a car company to produce crappy cars so 3rd party mechanics wouldn't go out of business?"

If you want to use a metaphor like that, I'd say it's more like forcing a car company to allow customers to choose their own mechanic rather than forcing the company's favorite mechanic upon them.

Re:Antitrust

[holt]

I'd say it's more like letting customers choose their own mechanics, but also providing a mechanic that rides in the back seat, ready to fix any problems that might come along. The customer is welcome to use another mechanic, but why would they?

Of course, if the customer wants, they should be able to ask the mechanic to get out of the back seat and go back to the dealership. In other words, the customer should be able to uninstall Microsoft's built-in antivirus software if they so choose.

Re:Antitrust

[poot_rootbeer]

It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.

More likely, they're trying to avoid the cost of either licensing Reputable AntiVirus SE Lite Useless Edition Minus Minus for bundling with the OS, or the cost of buying a reputable AV software company outright.

Re:Antitrust

[drsmithy]

God forbid they should just write a better OS so we didn't NEED to spend money on anti-virus software.

No level of OS technology can protect you against most viruses.

So OneCare = .Mac ?

[tpconcannon]

Looks like this will be a .Mac clone for Windows. How original.

Re:So OneCare = .Mac ?

[trogdor8667]

A free web-based backup service being included with Windows would honestly be good selling point for me, assuming the connection speeds were decent. All MS hating aside, I would enjoy that feature. I know that there are plenty of ways to do this, but something integrated is a plus in my book.

Re:So OneCare = .Mac ?

[johkir]

Actually, I just checked out the OneCare info page, and I don't see anything about online back-up. Just automatically backs up to CD or DVD, and lauches a virus scan. But I imagane if you can't schedule a virus check with any of the popular antivirus apps, you won't figure out OneCare either.

Re:So OneCare = .Mac ?

[suwain_2]

Looks like this will be a .Mac clone for Windows. How original.

Actually, I believe Microsoft will be the first OS vendor to implement a .Mac clone into is product.

Re:So OneCare = .Mac ?

[Rickler]

Damn I forgot what I was going to say and it was incredibly witty; oh well, just enter your own sarcastic remark against a mac bigot.

Anti-Trust Concerns?

[geoffrobinson]

I would assume that packaging that software would hurt many anti-virus companies. They are probably doing this for legal reasons. Why cause more anti-trust headaches when you don't have to?

Way to spin it

[grasshoppa]

Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.

Way to put a spin on that one. However, let's not forget MS is getting it's butt chewed off for monopolistic behavior in a few countries ( not that they have any danger of that in their home country ). If they were to include an AV as part of the base OS, AV companies would be lining up to take shots at MS.

Re:Way to spin it

[slackmaster2000]

I agree. While I do think that certain basic applications such as a web browser and media player should be bundled with any typical "PC" operating system these days, I think that adding antivirus would be going a little too far. Perhaps if there was more competition in the OS market it would be ok, but in this case it would just hinder antivirus competition.

Selling an cantivirus application as an add-on is the way to go, and it looks like that's what they're doing. I still expect to see the other big antivirus companies complaining, especially if MS pimps their product in the OS install/setup procedure or in the help service, which I'm sure they will.

I use the free version of AVG on my PCs. It works well and doesn't dig its heels into places that it shouldn't, like a few of the big brand applications that I won't bother to name do. I'm suprised that there aren't any OSS solutions for antivirus and anti-malware on the PC. They would be very welcome. If there are some, please let me know.

Re:Way to spin it

[SpaceLifeForm]

They don't seem to worry about pissing anyone off, do they?

Perhaps they are leaving this anti-vir stuff out because that allows them to continue having holes with which to spy on the user.

Re:Way to spin it

[KarmaMB84]

There is plenty of malicious software that users download and run not knowing that it is malicious.

Re:Way to spin it

[slackmaster2000]

Yes, I can see that being an issue, but only in that it could reduce the amount of time they spend on trying to write secure code. I don't think that Microsoft, regardless of how sleazy they might be, would intentionally create security risks in order to bolster antivirus sales. Maybe if viruses were a new thing and there was no competition in the marketplace already.

Viruses have been a part of personal computing for a very long time, and they will continue to be a problem for a very long time.

I simply don't think that Microsoft would gain as much by writing bad code to profit from sales of its anti-virus program as they would by simply trying to write more secure code. With all of the media pressure over the years and market pressures from competitve products I do think that they might just step up to the plate and try to do the "right" thing. Could be wrong of course. (we could of course argue that there isn't enough competition, and while that's true overall, I do believe that solutions that can tout "better security" like Linux+Apache, Firefox & Thunderbird, etc will have an impact on Microsoft's plan of attack)

This only makes sense

[CohibaVancouver]

Symantec, McAfee et al would scream bloody murder if MS starting shipping AV software bundled into their OS. They're probably only able to ship an anti-spyware tool because the other primary Windows anti-spyware tools are "free."

Re:This only makes sense

[qmVSE*w!7e,QF(,]

They're probably only able to ship an anti-spyware tool because the other primary Windows anti-spyware tools are "free."

I wish. The best-reviewed anti-spyware applications are Webroot's Spy Sweeper and PCTools's Spyware Doctor. Neither one of which are free.

Yet another reason to keep important or sensitive information on a non MS-OS.

Re:unspecified business reasons eh...

[luvirini]

In short, yes. Though there are also other reasons likely, like anti-competition issues they had with mediaplayer.

EU reasons?

[cnettel]

Ok, it's probably a bit stupid to connect the dots just because they occur together in time, but might this be a preventive move to avoid further troubles with the EU commission (and possibly the U.S. DoJ) for leveraging the existing semi-monopoly into related markets?

Firewalls, media players and other stuff is generally included in distros and the other commercial desktop OS (MacOS X) now. AV isn't. Therefore, it could seem intrusive by MS to include it. (On the other hand, we are all quite aware why noone else NEEDS to bundle that.)

Re:EU reasons?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

but might this be a preventive move to avoid further troubles with the EU commission (and possibly the U.S. DoJ) for leveraging the existing semi-monopoly into related markets?

You don't think having the source code to Windows, access to the hidden APIs, and being the source of the security holes being plugged in the first place is not just another way of leveraging that monopoly? This market has an inherent conflict of interest with their existing monopoly. Legally, they should not be moving into the AV market at all.

Firewalls, media players and other stuff is generally included in distros and the other commercial desktop OS (MacOS X) now. AV isn't. Therefore, it could seem intrusive by MS to include it.

What other people include has nothing to do with what makes bundling illegal. Monopolies are defined by markets. Apple sells into the home computer market (where they do not have a monopoly) and can bundle AV, firewalls, bananas, and enriched uranium. It has no affect upon what is legal for MS to bundle. There is an existing market for AV software. People pay money for it. MS cannot move into that market by leveraging their current monopoly. They can't move into the orange juice market by leveraging their existing monopoly either. Bundling is one important way of leveraging a monopoly, but is certainly not the only way. For example, MS is being asked to document their interface between their server and desktop OS, because they were using a secret interaction between them to leverage their desktop OS monopoly in the server OS market. They were not bundling them, just using one to give themselves an unfair advantage in the other.

So? What's the big deal?

[BigBuckHunter]

I'm not certain what the big deal is. Most OS vendors do not ship with an AV solution. I'm not certain I would want to have an AV solution integrated into the OS. Can anyone comment as to why MS 'would' integrate an AV solution?

BBH

Am I the only one...

[YA_Python_dev]

... thinking that the necessity for an Anti-Virus is the sign that an OS is not secure?
I know that no OS is 100% secure, but if virii can find their way in on a regular basis...

Re:Am I the only one...

[SnarfQuest]

300,000+ virus can't be wrong...

Re:Am I the only one...

[YA_Python_dev]

Well, if a virus want to modify executable or configuration files on my OS, it has to ask the root password to me, so maybe even with virii the OS matters.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Zerbs]

The issue of viruses and Anti-Virus software is bigger than disallowing overwritting executable files. It is neither necessary or sufficient to say that the need for AV software means an OS is not secure. And no matter what security measures are in place, there's still the temptation that unknowing users have to open those e-mails that have the viruses and trojan horses in them.

So let me get this straight...

[inphinity]

... No anti-virus
... No new graphics engine
... No new filesystem architecture

What, exactly are they upgrading??

Re:So let me get this straight...

[luvirini]

Pricing and DRM.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, exactly are they upgrading??

Vista: now with shinier and rounder icons.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[AdamThirteenth]

Their bank account balances? Stock price?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

First of all, I don't know how you can call WVDDM + WPF + DCE 'not a new graphics engine'. New driver model, new GUI system, and a new window manager - seems new enough to me.

Second, Vista has a number of big new features:
- Brand new networking stack that is 100% IPv6 internally
- New ACPI subsystem including a hybrid STR/STD support, faster suspend/resume, and a more robust mechanism for dealing with bad drivers
- New audio subsystem with per-application mixing
- UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access
- Major memory manager tweaks
- Kernel tweaks to improve streaming performance
- New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies
- 3D accelerated UI / window manager
- New Media Center and Tablet PC features
- Fast User Switching on AD Domains
- Integrated AntiSpyware
- Integrated indexing / search (ala Spotlight) including extensive metadata and tagging support
- New Windows Media Player
- New version of IE with CSS fixes, phishing filter, tabbed browsing, native XMLHTTP, freform resize (ala Opera), and many security enhancements
- Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)
- New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
- New Windows Installer version
- New printing system / PDF alternative (Metro)

So, in response to your question, basically everything.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[mblase]

New Windows Installer version

With all the other changes/improvements you listed, I think you could have left this one out as too trivial to mention.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[geobeck]

- Fast User Switching on AD Domains

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! [/AnakinVader]

So I can look forward to another variation on the theme of "Why is my computer running so slowly?"

Because $Salesnugget logged on when you were at lunch to show $Manager his new Power Point with four simultaneous video streams, then left it running to FUS back to your account!

Time for a pre-emptive Group Policy object, methinks.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the funny thing is that Mac OS X has implemented all of these things and more... back in 2003... Except the DRMed Windows Media Player... And closed standards for its "PDF alternative-Metro" printing subsystem (OSX went with PDF/postscript instead).

Seriously though, since you might not know much about Mac OS X, and may doubt my words that MacOS X has already implemented all these, just ask me which feature you need more info on, and I (and others) will try to help.

A few words about this " PDF alternative (Metro)". There is absolutely nothing wrong with postscript as it is already universal, versatile, and powerful enough. The only reason I see MS trying to re-invent the gravity is so they can then sell that "new and improved" gravity(tm) to suckers like me.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Overly Critical Guy]

A large part of that list was updates to system applications, like Windows Media Player, and it's not like the public is excited to get WMP10 or IE7. Others are lame like "kernel tweaks," which every OS release gets. The rest, like WinFX and its "whole host of other technologies" are managed code wrappers for Win32--the same Win32 calls that Windows has always been using. Vista isn't a rewrite; it's more layers on top of the Windows 2003 codebase. That's why the APIs are also being made available for Windows XP.

Vista just might catch up to April 2005, the month OS X Tiger came out. Then again, OS X doesn't have "Integrated AntiSpyware." :) Vista is like a big diaper on the shitty ass of Windows to protect it from the Intarnets.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

There are a lot of changes coming along with Vista, but they aren't as startling as you imply. Many of the big features that MS is publisizing aren't a big thing, and many of the remaining will be made available to previous versions of Windows. After you take out all of that, there isn't a tremendous amount left. Worse yet, some of what is left won't see the types of benefit that MS is proposing (ie: account privs).

- Brand new networking stack that is 100% IPv6 internally
Might be useful, if people were using IPv6, or likely to do so any time soon.

- New audio subsystem with per-application mixing
Applications could do this today, but most just set the system mixers.

- UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access
Could be nice, but users will just get used to typing in the password, so offers no real security. Doesn't fix all the broken apps out there that depend on improper permissions. Not useful in a corporate setting, and not used in a home setting.

- Major memory manager tweaks
This is an update, not a new feature

- Kernel tweaks to improve streaming performance
This is an update, not a new feature

- New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies
Whee, *another* new framework. It will also be available on WinXP.

- 3D accelerated UI / window manager
Resource wasting

- New Media Center and Tablet PC features
Useless to a majority of users

- Fast User Switching on AD Domains
Useless to a majority of users

- Integrated indexing / search (ala Spotlight) including extensive metadata and tagging support
Available today, will be backported to WinXP

- New Windows Media Player
This does not need to be locked to the OS revision.

- New version of IE with CSS fixes, phishing filter, tabbed browsing, native XMLHTTP, freform resize (ala Opera), and many security enhancements
This does not need to be locked to the OS revision.

- Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)
Whee.

- New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
Again, whee.

- New Windows Installer version
Will be available on other revisions of Windows

- New printing system / PDF alternative (Metro)
Whee some more.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[GmAz]

- 3D accelerated UI / window manager Resource wasting

Not really wasting. Let the GPU take some of the work off the CPU. It just sits there using electricity, may as well use it.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[PCM2]

- New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies
Whee, *another* new framework. It will also be available on WinXP.

Actually no. It will be partially backported to XP. The full WinFX API will only be available on Vista (per Jim Allchin).

Overall summary of your post: You don't care about the new features in Vista, even though lots and lots of the customers who count will.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

It still takes memory to keep the structures describing your models. Also, like most processors, the more load you put on the 3d accelerator, the more energy it uses.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Seriously though, since you might not know much about Mac OS X, and may doubt my words that MacOS X has already implemented all these, just ask me which feature you need more info on, and I (and others) will try to help.

OK, so what's OS X's implementation of a fully vector-based, 3D graphical UI that is DPI independant?

And is the UI layout an XML file?

And does OS X support LCD displays externally (e.g. on notebooks) even while the notebook is sleeping?

How about suspend to disk?

Does Apple even plan support for tablets?

Media Center recorded TV in 2002. When will Front Row be able to?

Saying that Vista is "catching up to OS X" completely misses what Windows really is. Microsoft has the challenge of bringing 600 million users and years of legacy hardware, software, and drivers with them - and there are a lot of new features in Vista that aren't in OS X. Certainly, things like UAP and desktop search are "catch up" to OS X, but it is misleading to label Vista as a "spiritual clone" of Tiger - or any other Mac OS release, for that matter.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

Think of it slightly differently and you'll probably see my point. Home users won't care one way or the other; they certainly don't know anything about APIs. Business users won't be using Vista any time soon, and most of them don't care about APIs, just about applications. As a result of this, a lot of applications won't use the Vista specific functionality of WinFX, since most of the users won't have a copy for quite some time.

You're right that I don't care about a lot of the features. As an occasional Windows user at home, and someone who does MIS for work, most of these features are ones that will not be useful to me or my users. I approached my response not from a personal preference stance, anyway, but from a more objective analysis. A lot of these things really aren't a big deal, and don't require an OS revision, by any means. Many of them are already available, and certainly do not require hardware or software upgrades, and the very large associated cost of doing so. It will be many years after the release of Vista before businesses are going to be using it.

The volume control thing is nice, but by no means important enough to be major feature. It's also something that could be done by a third-party application by intercepting DirectSound for each app accessing the API. The priv-escalation would be nice for me, but not something that I could deploy across the enterprise. Tweaks that enhance performance are always nice, so I can't complain about them. IE use is already discouraged, and IE7 isn't going to change that. The IE design is broken, and IE7 isn't going to be fixing it. The existing printing system works, and is also of no concern to the vast majority of users. Also, PDF is ubiquious, and a MS-only alternative is not desireable nor welcome in most places. Fast user switching in domains is useful in very isolated cases, but not for the general business case. It is useless at home, since you don't have a domain at home.

The decision to not backport the full WinFX API kind of dooms the API. WinFX is not cross-platform, and won't be available on Win2K, which immediately means that I can't and won't use any apps that require it in the enterprise. The same is true of most businesses, since most have Win2K in wide deployment. Any applications targetted at business users will not be able to touch it.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[ubergamer1337]

Hey I like linux too, oh whats that, we're discussing windows

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Werrismys]

- Brand new networking stack that is 100% IPv6 internally

Remains to be seen how well it performs in reality. Most competing OSes have had IPv6 for years.

- New ACPI subsystem including a hybrid STR/STD support, faster suspend/resume, and a more robust mechanism for dealing with bad drivers

OS X already has extremely fast suspend/resume. I bet the "dealing with bad drivers"-feature is more kludgework that relies on keeping snapshots of older drivers Just In Case.

- New audio subsystem with per-application mixing

Just what is this? Something like the sound servers that are part of gnome and KDE? Or a sound mixer on OS level that remembers per-application settings?

- UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access

Sounds like the UNIX metaphor + desktop tweaks on top of that. We have that in KDE/Gnome.

- Major memory manager tweaks
- Kernel tweaks to improve streaming performance

Windows scheduler blows chunks right now, and it swaps when it should not. Fixed bugs are not features.

- New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies

More crud on top of obsoleted APIs. Has MS officially abandoned any old API yet? Have they promised old programs using old APIs CANNOT touch the wonder that is the new secure Vista?

- 3D accelerated UI / window manager

Mac already did this, years ago, with style. MS is notorious for its lack of style. Will MS now start forcing Nvidia and ATI to make drivers that sacrifice 1% speed increase for 15% stability increase?

- New Media Center and Tablet PC features

Null statement, could mean anything.

- Fast User Switching on AD Domains

Does this mean .. switching from one user to another on a box that has a session open? Or something? Unixes, OS X included, already do this.

- Integrated AntiSpyware

Retroactive "solution" for a problem that only exists on Windows.

- Integrated indexing / search (ala Spotlight) including extensive metadata and tagging support

Re-invented feature.

- New Windows Media Player
- New version of IE with CSS fixes, phishing filter, tabbed browsing, native XMLHTTP, freform resize (ala Opera), and many security enhancements

So, new versions of old crud again. Something concrete, please!

- Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)

Multiple display support is in Windows (and all virtually all competitors) already. For those nice little gadgets like Logitech G-15 LCD, there is no common API yet. If Vista pulls this one off, we all HAVE to upgrade to see inky, blinky and twinky get eaten by Pacman on our keyboard LCD. Killer feature.

- New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
- New Windows Installer version

But decent package management? Need of user-intervention when installing? Way to check what the install will DO? Way to completely remove installed software, registry entries included? Way to check, afterhand, accurately, what the installer did?

- New printing system / PDF alternative (Metro)

This we do not need. Existing solutions (except SMB) work fine, thanks.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[DocLandolt]

- Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)
Whee.

You jest, but I've been dreaming of something like this for an eternity...many of us have those small but constant apps that are pretty much always up, just cluttering the desktop, but you like to keep them visible...

Gaim buddy list
Winamp + playlist
Outlook...

* ducks *

But how great would it be to be able to pick up a few small, conveniently sized displays on ebay on the cheap and be able to keep all of your windows open without cluttering your screen (cluttering your actual desk is another matter entirely)? Of course, they could always borrow Linux's multiple desktop approach -- but I'm not holding my breath...

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

Not sure how much you're kidding, but on the chance that you aren't:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/power toys/xppowertoys.mspx

Those are the WinXP powertoys from Microsoft. One of them is called "Virtual Desktop Manager", which gives you control over four virtual desktops. There are a ton of shareware and freeware apps that give you desktop pagers, too.

As for keeping apps visible, that's what multiple monitor support is for. :) I use this all the time so that I can have reference open on one screen, and work on the other. I don't really want my PIM/Email app taking up screen, since it tells me when I get mail as a notification. Pretty much every OS out there will let you do multiple screen spanned desktops.

The LCD thing is more for cute external displays so you could close a laptop, or have an LCD mounted on your case, and get all sorts of info. It's a cute feature, but by no means needing of an OS upgrade. MS could add a common driver API to do this, and make it available as a DirectX upgrade or something.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[luchaugh]

lmao at your counter-point. Nicely done.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Bluesman]

>- New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
>Again, whee.

Whee? WHEE? This is the most promising feature! I spend at least %30 of my time in Windows reinstalling it. Hopefully we can get that down to about %20 with Vista.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[jred]

- UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access
Could be nice, but users will just get used to typing in the password, so offers no real security. Doesn't fix all the broken apps out there that depend on improper permissions. Not useful in a corporate setting, and not used in a home setting.

I disagree with you here. This is almost exactly what everyone has been clamoring about. Assuming, of course, they implement it halfway properly. It should be no different that using sudo, and I know plenty of people who use sudo w/o a moment's thought.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

I'd agree that it will depend on whether MS impements this perfectly. Unfortunately, this will mean implementing it far better than sudo. As a result of the way that many Windows apps work, if you allow a normal user to run an app with administrative privs, you are basically giving that user administrator.

Here's an example... I have an appraisal application. The user runs this, gets elevated to admin rights, and can now pop up an open file common dialog and start any other program they would like. Perhaps they were only elevated to local admin, so they at least can't access the entire network as admin. Of course, this means that they can't access content on the file server. The sudo approach doesn't work well because of this. I *could* go through tremendous pains creating a second set of users for all of my normal users, just that have local admin privs to the machine they are working on. This would be a nightmare.

From everything that I've heard about this, it looks great for a knowledgable user that is trying to run their machine well, but it won't really work in a corporate setup, and normal home users would never know how to take advantage, nor would they want the inconvenience of doing it properly.

And at Ford...

[rumblin'rabbit]

The new Taurus will have seat belts only as part of the optional FE (Family Edition).

I know we hate M$ here...

[the computer guy nex]

...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[eosp]

Optional? Every time you boot, it nags me with the "please install the firewall for connection X" message. Doesn't sound optional to me.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[oGMo]

...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.

Not when the company that rightly disgusts us is a convicted monopolist. Convicted of abusing the monopoly by bundling software.

Furthermore, any notion of "cannot ship their own anti-virus solution" being ridiculous is far outweighed by the ridiculousness of shipping a product that needs it so badly out of the box.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[Whafro]

If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place? I, for one, would be up in arms if a company took such an overtly-passive approach to the security of their software.

It would be like parachute makers/packers offering body padding in case their parachutes malfunction. Yeah, maybe it'd work (), but it displays a distinct lack of confidence and effort with regards to the quality and reliability of their product.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[argent]

If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place? I, for one, would be up in arms if a company took such an overtly-passive approach to the security of their software.

So, are you up in arms yet?

This crap has been going on since 1997.

The best thing Microsoft could do in Vista would be to back out ALL the dependencies on the HTML control from any system applications, starting with Windows Explorer, and remove the ability to run ActiveX components inside it except by setting an administrator-only option to turn it back on ONLY for a version of Internet Explorer that's run inside a virtual machine and firewalled from any servers that aren't authenticated by Active Directory as being domain members.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[Whafro]

This crap has been going on since 1997.

Obviously that's true, but they haven't been as overt about all of it as would be the case if they started offering a scanner for a fee.

If you get hit by a car, and need to take a cab to the hospital to get checked out, you're not going to think twice about paying. But if the cab driver who hit you charged you, you'd be outraged. Charging for a virus scanner would be Microsoft hitting you with a car, and then charging you for the trip to the hospital.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[skiman1979]

Optional? Every time you boot, it nags me with the "please install the firewall for connection X" message. Doesn't sound optional to me.

Yeah, unless you click the checkbox for "I have my own firewall solution that I will monitor myself" (or similar wording). Then XP will not alert you that the firewall is offline.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[argent]

Charging for a virus scanner would be Microsoft hitting you with a car, and then charging you for the trip to the hospital.

That sounds like what happened when I called up Microsoft tech support on our first NT server install, back in the '90s. They gave me some bad advise on licensing that ended up taking my whole network down over the next day or so. When I called back, I was told that I'd exceeded the free support period, and they wouldn't talk to me unless I gave them a credit card number.

I'm afraid I was rather cross with them, and let them know about it, and after I hung up I got some good info from Usenet that fixed the problem. A week later, I got a call from some bloke at Microsoft who said they'd extended my free support. I seem to recall getting just a wee bit sarcastic about that.

What's the point? Hmm... I guess the point is you've got a good point there.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[drsmithy]

If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place?

Because the "issue" is typically the person using the computer.

I, for one, would be up in arms if a company took such an overtly-passive approach to the security of their software.

How do you secure against a user deliberately (even if inadvertently) executing malicious code ?

Virus scanners are not there to protect against OS flaws or exploits, they're protect against malicious code being executed.

better security in vista?

[DragonTHC]

I'm not sure that obscurity makes is much more secure than XPsp2.

once the hackers get to work, there will be new flaws found at the rate of 6 a week.

Vista won't work

[boxlight]

I've working for computer security companies, and my experience is people don't buy security unless they *have* to.

Vista will sell, sure, but only because it'll come with every new PC. But I can't believe Joe User running XP will spend the money to upgrade to a new version of windows for "security" purposes. Not a chance.

Now, Joe Pointy-Haired-Boss may want to upgrade -- but his network admin will probably insist on sticking with the Win2k/ActiveDirectory system that is "good enough" right now.

Bottom line, Vista will be Microsoft's biggest flop since BOB.

boxlight

Re:Vista won't work

[luvirini]

And yet.. in time as all new branded computers come with Vista... you will also most likely be running it unless you go for Mac or one of the Linux/Unix variants.

Re:Vista won't work

[kerplunk1984]

You yourself just said that vista will come with every new pc...doesn't that account for a significant proportion of the market? Also, considering the rate at which "Joe user" is convinced by PC world (or whoever) that he needs an upgrade, dont you think its just as prudent to assume this "update" will be just as successful as other "updates"? (See also Windows ME) Dont get me wrong, i dont think Vista deserves success, but lets not kid ourselves - compared to the sales of open source OS's up until now (assuming as this comment does that sales are the defining factor), it will be a 'hit'.

Re:Vista won't work

[PFI_Optix]

Bottom line, Vista will be Microsoft's biggest flop since BOB.

Kind of like XP was, right?

Vista won't be instantly adopted. Neither was XP. It was six months before I had a copy of it, and a lot of large organizations waited two years to migrate from 2000 to XP. I migrated one company in late 2004.

Microsoft knows that companies will eventually migrate as their budgets and systems are able. They know that more technical users will want to upgrade for the new features and (supposed) security. And they know that the average user will make the switch whenever they start running into software that requires it or they buy a new computer.

When it's all said and done, if Vista lasts as long as XP (5+ years) then the vast majority of Microsoft PCs will be running it by the end of its life.

Re:Vista won't work

[Denyer]

a lot of large organizations waited two years to migrate from 2000 to XP

From Microsoft's point of view, a worryingly number still haven't. Which is why updates are still appearing regularly for 2000 -- leaving big customers vulnerable is admitting to the elephant in the room; having produced an insecure product in the first place.

Re:Vista won't work

[level_headed_midwest]

My experience with large organizations (schools, companies) is that they are really slow to upgrade computers and OSes. My university used W2K until the fall of 2005, and my father's company still uses the same W2K/Office 2K that they have been since they upgraded from W95 in 2001. The school district that I attended *still* uses W98 on ancient P2s and AMD Durons. The key word is "ROI"- the longer the upgrade cycle, the more use you can milk out of your computer dollars.

security != virus protection

[ChrisGilliard]

Security does not have to come in the form of virus protection as the post has implied. This is a common misconception. BSD is considered a very secure OS, but it's not because it has a lot of virus protection software.

Re:security != virus protection

[gstoddart]

Security does not have to come in the form of virus protection as the post has implied. This is a common misconception. BSD is considered a very secure OS, but it's not because it has a lot of virus protection software.

That is completely true.

But do you really think that between the last version of an OS that Microsoft released (ie. subject to viruses) and Vista, that they've suddenly designed an operating system which is safe from such stuff??

Microsoft has been demonstrating for 15+ years that their OS design has a lot of inherent security flaws. In the last six months I seriously doubt Vista can be that much more hardened.

While I agree they'd probbaly get pilloried if they bundled it with an antivirus package, it's probably going to take the vendors longer than the hackers to come out with fixes for exploits (since the vendors have to react to the hackers and all).

Re:security != virus protection

[ChrisGilliard]

But do you really think that between the last version of an OS that Microsoft released (ie. subject to viruses) and Vista, that they've suddenly designed an operating system which is safe from such stuff??

I not and would not make such a claim!!!!! :)

You mean to tell me...

[rdavis542]

that the visual upgrade from fisher price to MacOSX isn't enough for you? Cause I'm sure MS is going to charge about $300 for the desktop clock upgrade.

And I'll buy a car next week...

[Ripping Silk]

where I will have to rent out the seatbelts on a subscription basis :-\

Re:Third possible reasons

[darkonc]

If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.

Keep it up, Microsoft!

[RyoShin]

Microsoft never fails... To give me reasons to stick with XP.

I have yet to read or see anything to make me want to jump ship to Vista when it comes out.

Re:Keep it up, Microsoft!

[Warlock7]

Funny that's what we're still saying about 2000...

Re:Keep it up, Microsoft!

[satcomdaddy1]

How about: "Buy Vista because we won't support XP?"

Redundancy and Anti-Monopoly?

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

I don't see whats the problems. An anti virus is like rust-proofing your car. Its needed and its your own damn fault if you never had it made. And you can't accuse the manufacturer of not doing it for you either
Microsoft claim that Vista is so secure, wouldn't it seem redundant to include an antivirus? You know, just like people (some of them, no one on /. of course) laugh at the built-in firewall?
And beside, wouldn't they expose themselve to Anti-Monopoly law if they were to include an antivirus?

(not that it dether MS usually but still...)

Re:Redundancy and Anti-Monopoly?

[AeroIllini]

I don't see whats the problems. An anti virus is like rust-proofing your car. Its needed and its your own damn fault if you never had it made. And you can't accuse the manufacturer of not doing it for you either [sic]

A flawed analogy. With the prevelence of networking in computing today, not having anti-virus is more like the manufacturer not including brakes on the car. Sure, you don't need them to drive in a wide-open dry lake bed, but if you plan on doing any driving on other roads with other cars they may come in handy.

However, Microsoft in this situation is not really the manufacturer of the car. Someone like Dell or Gateway would be, and to have them not include anti-virus would be more parallel to the above analogy. Truthfully, Microsoft Windows is just a component that the computer manufacturer purchases to use in the product. Those of you buying it on your own can be compared with people installing aftermarket auto parts, and if you bought a suspension and forgot to put the brakes back on, you'd be in big trouble -- but the suspension is not required to come with new brakes included.

No Antivirus

[db32]

Why would they ship a product that is likely to erase their own .dlls? What if it removed IE?!

Re:No Antivirus

[darkmeridian]

IE is not a virus, silly. It's a vector.

So, what does that leave in VISTA?!?!

[Warlock7]

It seems that virtually every new feature has been removed. So, what's Vista going to have in it?

Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[R3d M3rcury]

This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.

Personally, I think it's good that they don't include it. If I decided I needed antivirus services--something that is generally in need of constant updates--I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this protection.

As long as Microsoft doesn't start strong-arming these other companies ("Nice Windows license you have--it'd be a shame if something happened to it."), I don't have a problem with it. But it definitely should give our anti-trust monitors something to keep an eye on...

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

There's an option three.

They could implement a sane security model where file permissions disallow non administrative users from modifying executable code on disk, thus making 90% of what virus scanning programs do obsolete.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[kfg]

Microsoft is damned

Well, D'oh!

That's what happens when you're . . . evil.

KFG

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[jacksonj04]

Umm... used Windows lately? As in a properly configured Windows?

The security model does that one already.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[zippthorne]

It isn't enough just to sandbox the viruses. It must also run the programs you DO want to run. A "properly" configured Windows box won't do that. There is plenty of blame to go around for that little feature.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

You're going to have to explain to me what you mean by 'properly configured'.

You certainly can't mean anything that is close to the default settings.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[MP3Chuck]

Good luck finding that outside a corporate environment. Most average users I know aren't even aware of privilege levels... plus, AFAIK the security model isn't present (or isn't fully present) in WinXP Home, which is what comes with your typical Dell/Gateway/Whatever.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[cronot]

They could implement a sane security model where file permissions disallow non administrative users from modifying executable code on disk, thus making 90% of what virus scanning programs do obsolete.

Well, not quite, I think you phrased it wrong. Virus Scanners hardly have to modify executable code, except when they're infected. I think you meant the Virus themselves, not the scanners.

Anyway, I don't think this will help that much. As another user noted, Windows already have a good security model, it just isn't "enabled" by default. In a "sane" security model, the first created user, or the default user, should never be privileged. That really is the root of all problems - if the user was unprivilegded, many or most viruses wouldn't even install. Sane file permissions would help, but has I said, not that much.

However, implementing that sane security model, as in not having privileged users by default, and only switching to administrative privilege as necessary, creates more complexity for the average user. If you want to install some new hardware, for example, you'd need to type the admin password, and I believe that would be an annoyance to the average joe. So you have a chicken and egg problem. In the end, really, the problem lies with clueless users who don't really understand how a computer works (or rather, how it is supposed to work) to have a smooth running system.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Dhalka226]

If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.

I see somebody already beat me to an option three, so how about option four:

Give it away as a free download.

If they were really concerned about AV protection for their users and really wanted to bundle it, but they just didn't want to get in legal or PR trouble for bundling it, then it seems the alternative is to give it away, not sell it.

Selling something you're saying you wanted to give away is trying to have it both ways.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[RESPAWN]

Ahh... XP Home, where resetting a user account's password is only a reboot into safe mode away. The absolute pinnacle of security.

I think I'm the only person I know who actually bothered to set the administrator account on his XP Home box.

That said, you are correct regarding the privelege levels not being fully implemented into XP. They're barely implemented at all.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[aj50]

That's just the problem. A properly configured box may be fine, but a default box (which is what almost all home users run) is in trouble. Normal users aren't going to "properly configure" their boxes and probably don't know how to.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[jalet]

> I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also
> gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg
> Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this
> protection.

You forgot Sony !

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Peter Bell]

For Windows to have a lack of virii like Unix systems they would have to shrink their market share to a small, Unix-like niche, so nobody would write virii for them.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[flynt]

All versions of Windows since NT have had this "real security model" you talk about. There are scores of objects in Windows that can have permissions, not just files, but also devices, registry entries, etc. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Every corporation in the world that uses Windows probably makes extensive use of file permissions and group policy.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Tim C]

They could implement a sane security model where file permissions disallow non administrative users from modifying executable code on disk

So in your scheme, every developer has to run as an administrative user?

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Kenshin]

I tried locking-down a machine at the office for one of our workers who didn't really do much.

The trouble is that McAfee, which likes to update itself sometimes twice a day, would demand to be updated in Admin mode *only*. (It wasn't an option to turn-off McAfee's auto-updates.)

Pain in the ass, it all is.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[m-wielgo]

Why not just make Anti-Virus a part of the installation? Then you'll keep everyone happy in my opinion. "Would you like to install Microsoft Anti-Virus to help keep your computer secure?" - Yes, automatically keep virus definitions up to date - Yes, but let me choose when to update definitions - Yes, but let me configure it later - No, thanks

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[777film]

"In the end, really, the problem lies with clueless users who don't really understand how a computer works (or rather, how it is supposed to work) to have a smooth running system."

I disagree. Consumers will do exactly what they are told to do, as long as it's relatively simple and as long as it works. It's not because they are morons, it's because just about every other consumer appliance is designed to be "plug and play", and a Windows computer seems to be so too when you pull it out of the box. Unfortunately it isn't, and the means to make the operating system safe aren't particularly clear (i.e. no documentation is provided, and while the information is available online you have to dig through a pile of contradictions, technical discussions and ads for services that may do more harm than good to find it.)

At this point setting up a secure Windows machine is purely a word-of-mouth process, as in if you don't have a friend or relative who can show you how to do it the right way you're pretty much fucked. How is this acceptable, and how can we blame the consumer for that?

It would be simple to train users to operate as user instead of admin. Make it default, and explain why it is so in the setup screen. Make them get used to entering their password when installing new software and explain why in the warning window. (It's not like we're not used to typing passwords dozens of times a day already-- I mean how many times do you check your voice mail?)

A little hand-holding would go a long way.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

I think you phrased it wrong. Virus Scanners hardly have to modify executable code, except when they're infected. I think you meant the Virus themselves, not the scanners.


What I meant was that if what 90% of viruses do was stopped, 90% of what virus scanners do (scan the same executable for viruses over and over) could be stopped too.

Windows already have a good security model, it just isn't "enabled" by default. In a "sane" security model, the first created user, or the default user, should never be privileged.

This depends on what you mean by "Windows". If you just mean the OS, I agree, the permissions semantics are well defined. If by "Windows" you mean the OS and development platform, it's just not there. Developers need to be encourages, and failing that just plain forced, to deal with the security model of the OS in a sane fashion. If Windows was made in such a way that running with Administrative privlidges on a day-to-day basis was stigmatized, and users didn't want to do that, applications that don't work properly unless you are 'Administrator' would fail in the marketplace and the problem would be solved by good-old capitalism.

I think making Windows machines that are logged in as Administrator unable to participate in a Windows network in any meaningful way would be a great start to solving the problem.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

it's because just about every other consumer appliance is designed to be "plug and play"

Most other consumer appliances are designed to do only one thing.

Making the interface to a general purpose computer a simple task oriented thing is a fundamental design flaw. It's a square peg for a round hole. If you're going to do that, you need to go all the way. Either make it an appliance that does one of the things that is a button on the desktop, and that's it, or make it a general purpose machine that becomes easy to use only through understanding. Don't do both. Both only leads to problems where your simple task based buttons stop working, and your general purpose interactions are severely limited.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Bill Hayden]

Unfortunately, the number of programs that won't run in non-Administrator mode is staggering. They are not the exception, they're the rule. In fact, one of the items in my queue at my "real job" is make our product (which has been out for six years or so) run correctly under a non-Administrator mode. Another example is Adobe, almost none of whose products run under anything but Administrator.

IT staff can't reasonably force users to run in non-Admin mode if the software they use can't function.

Another problem is that the security levels on Windows are so nebulous. Off the top of your head, what does a Windows "Power User" have permission to do versus Admin? Who knows! At best you can look it up somewhere, at worst it's been custom-defined.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

XP Home may have these things but they are hidden. (You know, the OS MOST home users have.) Group Policy? HA!, file permissions? Double HA!. you have to import a DLL from an NT something or other. Did it once. but lost interest.
The problem lies solely in the hands of the software developers. Why do I have to run some programs as Administrator (QuickBooks) and some not? If all programs ran as a user, then MS could change the default to user. until then, Windows will ALWAYS have this problem.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

So in your scheme, every developer has to run as an administrative user?

I suppose if you take it to the extreme... There's nothing wrong with developers running as root on a development workstation.

More realistically though, there would be a development sandbox, or a provision that you could write executable data to the disk as a user, with the understanding that said code isn't protected because it isn't 'installed' to the system.

You know, like it works on just about every operating system out there? So you *could* develop as root, but you wouldn't *have* to develop as root.

I had a big long decussion about this in an Ask Slashdot a few weeks back that is mildly applicable.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[value_added]

Umm... used Windows lately? As in a properly configured Windows?

The security model does that one already.

Ever administered a Windows system? It's as easy as setting a umask of 022 and using chmod where needed, isn't it? And no issues with file ownership, right? By the time you've set group policies, right-clicked your way through the file system and mucked about in the registry, do find time to tell us more about this security model.

Or are you suggesting that a Windows user needs a security expert to reconfigure the default installation on their new Dell box to make it properly configured?

Sorry, but the parent comment about a sane security model is perfectly valid. My guess is that it'll take a few more tries for Windows to reinvent itself and resolve the tortured directory system with the concept of a path and give up on inventing new models. Chances are it'll resemble Unix.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Fujisawa Sensei]

You may be the only person here who actually uses an XP Home.

:-)

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Cro Magnon]

Normal users don't even know anything's wrong. They buy their XP Home box, set it up, and it just boots into a password-less Admin account.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[jacksonj04]

Much as I hate to respond to the trolls, yes I have administered a Windows system. I happened to find the Windos group policies, file ownership, file permissions (execute, read, write, modify etc) over Active Directory a fairly efficient way of controlling the permissions of around 1300 users with hugely varied needs over some 200 terminals across two sites.

However, I agree with your point about stock Dell boxes not being bulletproof. <sarcastic_tone> Of course, the Ubuntu CD managed to install a completely secure and totally configured environment on my machine without requiring me to know anything about what it was asking me. </sarcastic_tone> Yes, Windows has issues but Linux or Unix is not a mystically secure-by-default solution.

Both security models are fairly sane as far as I am concerned, but I'm afraid Windows wins hands-down for me in terms of networked permissions.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[brian.reading]

Yes, but a lot of users, especially the clueless ones are using a pre-installed version of Windows XP from a hardware vendor. Considering this, most users aren't even installing Windows on their own.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ConceptJunkie]

I don't know either, but I wish /. could let you give a -5 score to any posting with "virii" in it.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[DogDude]

Most of that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of application developers that require their programs to be run as "admin". Similarly, app developers are also the ones who create "DLL hell" by making bad install packages.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[baldass_newbie]

but I'm afraid Windows wins hands-down for me in terms of networked permissions.

BBBBWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA.
*wipes tear*

Oh, you're serious. Nevermind

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[colinrichardday]

Disallow non-administrative uses from modifying *system* executable code on disk?

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[gcauthon]

If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status.

You're generalizing the lawsuit and trying to make it look like Microsoft was sued simply for including IE with Windows. That is definitely not the case. Microsoft was sued for not allowing anyone to uninstall IE or replace it with a competitor's browser. As long as MS allows you to uninstall their software and install your own, then I can imagine anyone having any legitimate complaints.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Mancat]

They are fully present. Limited privelege users, runas, the whole works as far as Windows is concerned. You can keep telling yourself that, though.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Mancat]

Make a shortcut for McAffee that starts all of its required processes as an alternate user. You can do this by either A) putting "runas [command] /savecred" in the shortcut, or B) click the Advanced button in the shortcut properties, and check "Run with alternate credentials." The disadvantage to option B is that you can not save the password. Option A with "/savecred" will save it so that the user doesn't have to enter a password.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[mspohr]

Every corporation that I've ever worked for (as a consultant, quite a few) implements file permissions and logins on their networks but all of them run Windows on the desktop wide open because they can't get their applications to run otherwise.

Until Windows gets all of the clueless application developers to follow their "security model" and rewrites all of their legacy code (.wmf file processing anyone) to also follow their security model, Windows will be hopelessly insecure.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Kenshin]

If it was only so easy.

McAfee starts several processes using registry entries. None using shortcuts.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Mancat]

But the registry entries are in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\CurrentVersion\Run, right? If so, you can point these entries to the appropriate shortcuts. If not then maybe you are out of luck :)

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Zordak]

You can't totally absolve Microsoft for two reasons.

1. The reason app vendors do this is because that's the way Windows worked for years. Imagine a Unix program that required you to be root to run it. It wouldn't be very well received.

2. Microsoft provides no straightforward way to perform occasional administrative tasks when you are logged in as a normal user (like 'su' or 'sudo'). I never login as root on my linux machine because there is absolutely no reason to. If I need to do something administrative, I su.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[drsmithy]

They could implement a sane security model where file permissions disallow non administrative users from modifying executable code on disk, thus making 90% of what virus scanning programs do obsolete.

They do that now.

No amount of OS security can protect against deliberately (or ignorantly) executed malicious code. That's why anti-virus programs are important.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[drsmithy]

The reason app vendors do this is because that's the way Windows worked for years.

This is not an excuse for bad coding. Writing software to not require admin-level access is just common sense.

Microsoft provides no straightforward way to perform occasional administrative tasks when you are logged in as a normal user (like 'su' or 'sudo').

Run As.

(I'll agree the UI around temporary privilege escalation in Windows needs some work, however.)

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[drsmithy]

Ahh... XP Home, where resetting a user account's password is only a reboot into safe mode away. The absolute pinnacle of security.

Just like resetting the password on the typical Linux install is only a boot to single user away ?

I think I'm the only person I know who actually bothered to set the administrator account on his XP Home box.

For most people, it's probably safer _not_ to have it set, since password-less accounts can't be used to access network resources.

That said, you are correct regarding the privelege levels not being fully implemented into XP. They're barely implemented at all.

You are wrong.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[TubeSteak]

Just add this guy to your foes list
http://it.slashdot.org/~virii

then set foes to -5 in your user prefs

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[R3d M3rcury]

"Give it away as a free download."

Gee, like Internet Explorer? They didn't get into any problems with that.

So let me get this straight: Microsoft gives away virus "subscriptions" and pays for this by selling operating systems? And this wouldn't have anti-trust implications...why?

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Zordak]

The only thing I've ever managed to do with "Run As" is install a program. If there is any capability to do anything else, it's managed to hide itself from me. Which is why I blame Microsoft for basically forcing every user who sometimes must perform administrative tasks to be root all the time.

I agree that legacy software is not an outright excuse for bad code. That's why I say I wouldn't totally absolve Microsoft of responsibility. I'm just saying they're the ones who built their legacy. I think that along with the other issue means they need to share responsibility for this continuing problem.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[fodi]

Ever try 'runas' ??

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[NuclearDog]

Just like resetting the password on the typical Linux install is only a boot to single user away ?

If you try and boot one of my FreeBSD boxes into single user it's going to ask you for the root password, and as far as I know this is the default behaviour for at least Debian/Ubuntu under linux.

ND

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[towsonu2003]

Umm... used Windows lately? As in a properly configured Windows? The security model does that one already.

And my dad knows how to edit the registry so that Windows becomes Linux ;)

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I tried running non-admin on my windows box for a while. That ended quickly. I just couldn't function.

On my linux box I never run as root. I change to root a bit to do this and that but nothing else.

Now my work laptop I have no problem not running as root. But lets face it, there is only a very specific subset of the functionality of my computer I can use on my work laptop. (I actually carry 2 company owned laptops. 1 is the IO laptop that I can plug into the corporate network, the other I admin myself and I can do whatever I want with.)

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[imroy]

I happened to find the Windos group policies, file ownership, file permissions (execute, read, write, modify etc) over Active Directory a fairly efficient way of controlling the permissions of around 1300 users with hugely varied needs over some 200 terminals across two sites.

Well it's nice to hear that corporate adminstrators are able to 'properly configure' their Windows deployments. But what about the millions of home users? You know, the ones that run as administrator (or administrator privileges) and are infected with trojans and worms. The ones that spew out spam, propagate themselves, and make the internet generally less pleasant and useful. What about all of those Windows machines?

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Jerry Smith]

But the registry entries are in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\CurrentVersion\Run, right? If so, you can point these entries to the appropriate shortcuts. If not then maybe you are out of luck :)

Good grief, have you got any idea what an average user is capable of? Yes, most /.-ers know what you mean, or can imagine what you mean, but most botnet-participants don't. They just don't have a frakking clue, all they need to know is how to use the applications that they enjoy or need for their work/business.
Few plain users I know enjoy digging in the registry.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Tim C]

There's nothing wrong with developers running as root on a development workstation.

Yes and no; developers can still be clueless about trojans, etc, although they do tend to be rather more savvy than average, I'll agree.

You know, like it works on just about every operating system out there?

Actually that's how it works on Windows, too - accounts without sufficient privileges can't modify files they don't have access to. However, that's not what the GP said - he put forward the idea of only Administrator being allowed "to modify executables on disk" (paraphrased from memory). That's not how it works on any OS I've ever used, as it implies that all exes are protected, regardless of permissions.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[chthon]

Pity I do not have mod points any more.

You are the first one to clearly state what I have known for some time intuitively, but could not state myself.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[noidentity]

"You're going to have to explain to me what you mean by 'properly configured'."

Properly configured (adj.) - Has Linux installed.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[JohnFluxx]

MS should put pressure on such stupid programs. Ones like, say, MS MSN which breaks every few months and you have to upgrade to log in, but the upgrade requires the admin password.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[aug24]

What's the problem? Virus is Latin, right? So two = virii, three = viriii, four = viriv, five = virv, six = virvi, etc etc.

J.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[RESPAWN]

You are wrong.

How so? There's no ability to assign individual user permissions to individual directories in XP Home. Therefore if I create one of XP's "limited" user accounts, I cannot assign the account elevated priveleges to specific directories because the software being run from the account requires it. Unfortunately, there is still some software that I run which requires it, and although it's an easy fix under Pro, in Home the only fix is to give the entire account Administrator level access.

Furthermore, there's no ability to create user accounts from the MMC in Home. You have to use the stupid, dumbed down XP home user creation screen. Not to mention (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you are unable to change the log on method to the three finger salute in Home -- you have to use the welcome screen. Lastly, network shares: when sharing a directory in Home, you have two choices for access: 1) Read Only or 2) everyone gets full control. Maybe it would be more fair to say that the security is there, but you cannot manage it. But I'm not going to be fair. It's damn frustrating being unable to manage it properly becuase the lack of the that ability eventually leads to insecurity.

Lastly, wasn't there a virus a couple of years ago that took advantage of XP administrator accounts that did not have a password set? Or did this only affect XP Pro and 2K boxes?

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ConceptJunkie]

Man, that's the best version of the Latin plural rule I've ever seen.

+1 Funny

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[jc42]

Imagine a Unix program that required you to be root to run it. It wouldn't be very well received.

Hmmm ... I seem to recall this command called "passwd" that has always required root permission, and users seem to accept it without complaint.

Of course, this just leads into a discussion of the confused nature of the phrasing "a Unix program that required you to be root to run it". Strictly speaking, passwd doesn't require that I "be root", since that's a nonsensical phrase. I'm not a computer login; I'm a human typing at a keyboard. I can't "be root" in the usual English meanings of that phrase. And passwd can't actually know that I'm a human; it can only know a few bits of information about how I'm logged in.

If "be root" was intended to mean that I must be logged in as root, of course passwd doesn't require that - but neither does any other program. The only requirement is that passwd somehow have root permissions when it runs. To be more precise, it doesn't check my login id (though it could); it checks that its euid is zero. There are several ways this can happen. The most common uses the setuid mechanism, which doesn't require that the user know the root password. For other uses of passwd, such as changing a different user's password, you do need to type the root password, but you still aren't required to "be root", i.e., you need not be logged in as root.

Anyway, the phrase "required you to be root" is a bit vague and fuzzy, and hints at poor understanding of how elevated permissions are usually handled on unix systems. Whatever did you mean by it?

There's an old observation that you can tell a unix user's expertise by how often they use root permissions. Unix expertise and use of root permissions are inversely related. Only novices log in as root; experts almost never do so. They've arranged things so that they don't need to. And vendors have been figuring out how to extend this down to novice levels, with proper initial setup and better install schemes.

Although Windows has adopted some more effective security measures, a major difference with unixoid systems remains: novice Windows users still learn that they have to run with admin privileges for things to work right. Unix/linux systems mostly come configured now so that this is rarely necessary, and new users learn to use elevated privilege only when something complains about permissions. Thus, there are now lots of Mac users who are accustomed to unix, and you don't see them running routinely with root permission. Nearly everything works fine without any special privileges.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[jc42]

Until Windows gets all of the clueless application developers to follow their "security model" and rewrites all of their legacy code (.wmf file processing anyone) to also follow their security model, Windows will be hopelessly insecure.

Heh. Good luck with that.

The problem is really deeper that just "clueless application developers". The more basic problem is that this is the usual way of approaching the problem: Insult the developers and users, and while insulting them, don't give any clues that might educate them.

Way back when I first ran across unix, one of the very first things I read was a clear, detailed explanation of how the security worked. It made sense with only a few minutes of reading, and it has made sense ever since. In most computer fora (including this one), when questions come up, you tend to see simple "here's how you do it" replies.

With Windows, this isn't at all true. Thus, my wife uses Windows at work, mostly NT now, and has a home Windows box for that reason. (She hates it. And she loves her Mac, but that's a different topic. ;-) She has years of experience with Windows, and although I'm professionally a unix/linux geek, I've ported things to DOS/Windows over the years. Neither of us has a clue about how Windows security works. I've asked her about it; she really doesn't know anything at all. There's this mysterious "admin" stuff that she has to use occasionally. But when NT was introduced at work, she never read anything at all about its security. She can't tell me where to find documentation on the topic. It's clear that nobody at work sees such education as anything important.

If you look through the comments here, you'll see a lot of the problem: There are many comments along the lines of "You're a clueless idiot; if you did it right, you wouldn't have problems." Note that that sentence contains no clues. There's nothing there, or in any of the replies that I've read here, that gives a clueless Windows user or developer any information about how to do Windows security right. There aren't even any hyperlinks to documents on the topic.

This seems to be the usual story. The impression is that either people are pretending to Windows security expertise, but can't explain it, or (more likely) they see no reason that the rest of us should bother our pretty little heads with such arcanae. We should be content with insults and exhortations to Do It Right, but we don't need any detailed information on the topic. We should just use the apps that are handed to us, and not waste valuable time worrying about things that aren't part of our job description.

So we shouldn't be surprised that Windows users remain clueless. They aren't being presented with the needed clues. Just with the usual insults. We can expect this situation to continue, because, as at my wife's place of work, educating users about their computers' inner workings just isn't part of the Windows culture. (But insulting them for their cluelessness is. ;-)

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[aug24]

Shamelessly stolen from a mate whose name I have forgotten. Tut tut /me.

J.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[phlinn]

Well, in many ways the runtime version of 'runas' is more useful than the right-click version. Personally, I often use 'runas /user:\ cmd' to get a command prompt where every command issued get the same access. Makes it possible to use 'cacls' or 'net user' when non admin for instance.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[phlinn]

Sigh... replace runtime with command line.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

Yes and no; developers can still be clueless about trojans, etc, although they do tend to be rather more savvy than average, I'll agree.

Developers aren't really even close to the bulk of the population though. There would be no such thing as a 'huge outbreak' if only developers got infected, and it would certainly be more economical to on have to protect that small subset of machines.

That's not how it works on any OS I've ever used, as it implies that all exes are protected, regardless of permissions.

True, I over simplified because I only had about 30 seconds to write that comment before I had to run off to somewhere else. And you're also right that it also can work that way on Windows already. This same discussion exists elsewhere in this thread, so I'll spare you the repost.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Dhalka226]

Gee, like Internet Explorer? They didn't get into any problems with that.

Maybe my recollection sucks, but I don't think they did.

They got into trouble for bundling it with Windows; ie, you don't get Windows without IE. And they got into more trouble because you couldn't even get RID of IE on a Windows system if you wanted to, because it was integrated too tightly with the operating system.

And this wouldn't have anti-trust implications...why?

Because you make the CHOICE to download the application and install it based on whatever criteria you want. Microsoft isn't making the choice for you by installing it by default.

I think we can both agree that Microsoft, as an OS maker, is a monopoly--but people don't seem entirely interested in that. What does interest some people (much less than it should, in my opinion), and what is going on in the EU for example, is what Microsoft is using the operating system to get you to install, and whose businesses you are unfairly crushing by it. (Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc.) I remember during the anti-trust stuff against Microsoft a while back there was a debate over what exactly constituted an operating system -- was a web browser a part of that?

Governments aren't saying "you are not allowed to install Internet Explorer [or Media Player or this new AV product] because it will make Microsoft a bigger monopoly!" They're saying "Microsoft, you don't get to use your monopoly status with OSs to create a monopoly in browsers [and media players and AV]."

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Dhalka226]

I'd be okay with that, but I can still see where people would consider that an abuse of a monopoly. They would still be using the fact that you are installing Windows to get you to install products that are not (or shouldn't be, depending on your position,) a part of the operating system. It's extremely easy for a person to say "yeah, go ahead"--particularly if the product is free to them--without even giving any consideration to other products, just because this one is in front of them.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[jc42]

Sure, you can say the same thing about unix (at least in the US, where we have a First Ammendment that says you can ;-). But one of my points was that in public fora like mailing lists, newsgroups, etc, the unix crowd may also use the "Clueless n00b!" taunts, but they also tend to include actual clues, such as the commands to type to get things done. I've skimmed over many explanations of what those cryptic strings at the start of "ls -l"'s output means, and how to use the chmod command to change the permissions. I've never seen this with Windows.

Also, I just walked over to my wife's NT box to check out the permissions. I fired up the My Computer tool, and looked around in a few folders. No sign anywhere of anything that looked like permissions. I thought that maybe they were being suppressed, so I opened the Folder Options window. Under View there's an Advanced Settings panel that contains a list of file proerties, with checkboxes next to them. Sure, enough, some were checked, and others weren't. So I looked for something that sounded like permissions. Nothing. Not a clue that there's such a thing as file permissions. There's an entry dealing with "protected operating system files", but that's all.

I did a bit of exploring of other tools oon the desktop and under the Start menu. Nowhere could I find anything that even mentioned file permissions, or any similar phrase. As far as I can tell, NT doesn't have file permissions, other than some sort of protection for "system" files.

When I do a similar bit of exploring on her Mac, within 30 seconds I had a Finder window showing a detailed listing of a directory. Clicking CMD-I ("Information") on a file popped up a window with "Ownership & Permissions" at the bottom, and it was obvious how to make changes. I'd prefer to do it with chmod, but it was trivial to find a way to do it with the GUI.

Maybe such things exist in Windows. But, unlike unix, linux, and Mac systems, with Windows there seems to be a concerted attempt in both the UI and in discussion fora to keep the users uninformed on the topic. I don't consider myself more than minimally knowledgeable about Windows. But I know it better than most Windows users that I know, and I understand why they're as ignorant about its security as I am.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ckaminski]

I think you've hit on something here, but not quite. I do not think it is the computer that is at issue here, it's the applications and yes, the OS they are layered atop. We have a plethora of applications at hand that try to be more than single-purpose devices. We have word processor suites that attempt to be programming languages, databases that are application development platforms, email tools with built in instant messenging and scripting, browsers with plugins for everything under the sun.

The beauty of the GNU framework, and why it has become the toolchain of choice among nearly all Unix vendors, is it's simplicity. Each application attempts to do one thing, and one thing overly well (with a few missteps along the way, sure sed->awk->perl comes to mind). For over a decade that has served the Unix world well. The problem is that this simplicity of design never made it into a pluggable GUI world. In most cases the abstraction breaks down. Perhaps that is just a fundamental flaw of our OS design. Perhaps it's

There has to be a middle ground. Humans have great capacity to manage lots of simplistic tasks, and yet capable enough to break complex tasks into much smaller ones. Why can we not deal with this abstraction with our software?

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Max Nugget]

This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

No, it's not.

I'm not sure that MS integrating AV software into Windows is the best move for a variety of reasons (both for MS and for users), but all this talk of such a move being anticompetitive is unfounded, and suggests that some people were not paying enough attention during the Internet Explorer antitrust trial.

Recall one of the principle arguments:

US DOJ: Internet Explorer is a bundled product, NOT a necessary component of the operating system, and is being bundled to leverage the Windows monopoly against Netscape et. al.

MS: Internet Explorer is a necessary component of the operating system, and cannot be removed without crippling it.

Now, any computer veteran knows that a web browser is not a necessary component of an operating system. MS' claim was only true in the sense that they had supposedly (intentionally, it is argued) tied IE into the OS in such a way that they were one and the same, making removal of IE impossible.

More to the point, the inverse of the DOJ's argument was, essentially, "Bundling IE with Windows gives MS an unfair advantage over Netscape in the web browser market. Such a bundling might be justifiable if web browsers were integral to the functionality of the operating system, but this is not the case."

Flash forward to now.

Were MS to go ahead with integrating AV with Windows and find themselves in an "unfair product bundling" court case, they should easily succeed with AV where they failed with Internet Explorer. Why?

Show me one security expert who would recommend NOT running Windows with antivirus software.

If security is an important goal of the operating system, antivirus software is quite obviously a *necessary* component in today's virus-wild world. The proof of that is in the pudding: any "well-configured" Windows PC has antivirus software installed on it as an integral part of that configuration. And since antivirus software is a necessary component, it is, by definition, NOT a "bundled product" but rather a single product, which invalidates the basis of the antitrust argument.

It doesn't matter that other companies want to sell their own AV software. Other companies sell software packages for add-on mouse cursors. That doesn't change the fact that a mouse-oriented operating system like Windows NEEDS some mouse cursors to be built in so the user can see what the hell they're doing. And yes, MS does hold an unfair advantage in the market for mouse cursors.

And the argument that "MS should fix the flaws in the OS rather than integrate AV software" misses the point entirely. Yes, they should fix the flaws, but AV software is like another layer of defense, it attacks the problem from a different angle, bringing advantages that improve the overall "security" of the operating system. I think most people understand this point and are simply looking to take cheap shots at Windows even though they're well aware that AV software is more than simply a "dynamic OS flaw patcher." Is it sometimes used that way? Yes. But that's not the sole premise of AV software. Especially in Windows, where everything often runs with Administrator privileges, many viruses don't exploit holes in the operating system, they exploit the fact that the user was silly enough to open and run an EXE attached to an email message.

Might integrated AV cause MS to slack on patching the operatings system? Sure. Might it create problems (or conflicts of interest) if MS "patches" their OS via their AV software, leaving the OS flaws exposed if the customer switches to someone else's AV software? Sure.

There are lots of hurdles MS will have to deal with if they decide to go forward with integrated AV. All I'm saying is that antitrust concerns shouldn't be one of them.

This argument is like saying that Ford can't bundle seatbelts with their cars, because it's unfair to third-party seatbelt makers. It's a necessary compon

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[ivan256]

Humans have great capacity to manage lots of simplistic tasks, and yet capable enough to break complex tasks into much smaller ones. Why can we not deal with this abstraction with our software?

I think we can, but I think it is an unresonable expectation to acomplish that with no understanding on the part of the user. The same goes for any complex system. You will never be able to use a complex system to its fullest if you learn to use it by rote, because you will be unable to memorize the infinite possibilities.

I have great faith in humans ability to learn, and I think just about anybody is capable of understanding a system well enough to take full advantage. As long as we dumb things down for users, and give them the impression that they can't understand (the 'appliance' attitude), they won't bother to, and they will get themselves in trouble.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[drsmithy]

The only thing I've ever managed to do with "Run As" is install a program.

That just says you've not tried to use it much at all.

If there is any capability to do anything else, it's managed to hide itself from me.

Just about every executable file type will have a "Run As" option in its context menu. Those that don't (most notably, Control Panel applets) display it with a shift-right click.

However, if developers write their software properly, you shouldn't _need_ to manually right click, the program itself will prompt for credentials whenever a higher privilege level is needed.

Which is why I blame Microsoft for basically forcing every user who sometimes must perform administrative tasks to be root all the time.

Your blame is misplaced. I have used all my Windows NT machines with a non-admin login since 1996.

I agree that legacy software is not an outright excuse for bad code. That's why I say I wouldn't totally absolve Microsoft of responsibility. I'm just saying they're the ones who built their legacy. I think that along with the other issue means they need to share responsibility for this continuing problem.

Since about 1997, software developers have had no excuse for writing software that needlessly requires administrator privileges (before then, DOS-based Windows lacked the per-user profiles and registries of NT-based Windows, so developers could feasibly say that the maintenance costs of two slightly different versions of their software were a problem). Microsoft deserve no blame for any remotely current piece of software that needlessly requires an Administrator account to run.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[Mancat]

OP was talking about locking down an office machine. I wouldn't expect an average user to ever have to do this kind of thing.

Been running without protection for 10 years now

[defile]

and I've never once contracted a disease. I find that they spoil the experience too much.

Windows Vista - Titanic Edition

[RealGrouchy]

Windows Vista won't need any antivirus software, it's practically unsinkable!

- RG>

Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[JTorres176]

I know no OS is perfect, but why charge for a solution to end a problem that your OS causes in the first place? Hell, you have to be a "root" user to install anything on windows giving everything you install full permissions over the OS during installation of anything.

• Make users able to install something in the C:\Documents and Settings\Foobar\ directory without affecting the entire system.
• Take away user ability to affect the entire system. (such as connectivity/interfaces)
• Allow a sudo type system to stop forcing people to sign in the system as admin every day.
• Force the creation of at least one non-admin account for every day use during install.

I know viruses/adware/spyware will still be able to be installed, but why not make it just a little bit harder. Hell, if a burglar wants to get in my house, he can kick the door in... that doesn't stop me from locking and bolting the door every night just to make it a little more inconvenient for Johnny Break-in to steal my stuff.

Re:Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[Keeper]

Read up on LUA in Vista. I think you'll be pleasantly suprirsed.

Re:Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[robertjw]

I know no OS is perfect, but why charge for a solution to end a problem that your OS causes in the first place?

Because you can.

Re:Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[argent]

Hell, you have to be a "root" user to install anything on windows giving everything you install full permissions over the OS during installation of anything.

While having some real dividion between power users and administrators would be good, all that will do is force viruses to hide in the user's profile or in the directories elsewhere in the system that have to be writable. Finding hiding places is not a hard problem.

You're not locking and bolting the doors from Johnny Burglar, you're locking and bolting the thermostat, cable box, telephone, and central heating system from Johnny Private Investigator, which just means he'll stick his bugs under your couch instead.

Re:Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[mpeg4codec]

Allow a sudo type system to stop forcing people to sign in the system as admin every day.

For what it's worth, Windows has supported something like this since at least 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in NT 4.0 or earlier, I just don't know off the top of my head.

The runas command provides a command-line interface to running applications as alternative users on a Windows system. It works surprisingly well, integrating fully and gracefully with the graphical desktop. If you use runas to run something like Microsoft Word as Administrator [not sure why you would want to], it'd be running just as though you launched it normally. The titlebar would say ``Microsoft Word (running as Administrator)''.

I have no idea why this thing hasn't gotten much attention. Probably because it's command line and the whole natural Windows aversion to all things non-graphical. Still, it's a pretty useful tool.

This is all about money

[size1one]

Sure there might be good reasoning behind not wanting pottential antitrust charges but they could easily give the product away for free. There is a serious conflict of interest when the same company is selling both the OS and applications to protect the OS. What they should be doing is ensuring that the OS is safe from virii in the first place, you shouldn't have to pay extra for that.

Whats worse is M$ actually has the incentive to create and allow virii. Everytime a virus gets a headline people have a reason to go buy thier product.

Anti-Virus industry

[ShibaInu]

MS makes a product that due to its nature, has led to a huge industry. There are ant-virus companies, but also admins, security experts, network gear - all produced and sold on the premise of keeping Windows secure. If MS produced a much more secure version of the OS, all these folks would have to work harder or find other sources of income.

It is like Income Tax reform in the US - we all want it, but if it were to happen, accountants, lawyers, software companies and IRS agents would suddenly be out of work...

Re:Anti-Virus industry

[jaaronc]

AOL's already driving "Computer Docs -- when your computer's ill we're the pill" out of business...

Thank GOODNESS!

[mistergin.net]

Not that I don't have that much faith in MS *snicker*, but seriously, who wants another thing to un-install when dealing with Windows? I have a CD full of up-to-date programs to help do my work when needed, don't make me work around one you put on the system, especially if it sucks...

So lets see

[GmAz]

I wonder if its even worth upgrading to. I mean, WinFS will be available for WinXP and I already like my antivirus http:%5C%5Cwww.ca.com%5C

Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

This, of course, is the conspiracy theory de jur. But it seems more likely, in light of legal issues both at home and abroad, it's actually to avoid messy legal bullshit that would end up eating time and money. That they can also sell the same functionality as an additional service is just an added benefit.

But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.

Re:Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Dman, I've been made. It's true, I don't even know what it means, but it implies credibility to my argument... ;)

Re:Religion is blind.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with criminals engaging in dubious business practices. MS has been convicted of criminally abusing their monopoly on desktop OS's. Then they intentionally enter into a market (anti-virus) that has a inherent conflict of interest. Whether they bundle the software or they sell it as a separate service, they are breaking anti-trust laws. MS should not be in the anti-virus market, because the industry is built upon flaws in a product for which they have a monopoly.

If MS wants to do something about the security of Windows systems then they should fix their flawed architecture, their insecure default settings, their additional software, and their permissions. Then they should fix their UI and add jails for untrusted programs.

If, however, they are interested in gouging their customers yet again by leveraging their illegal monopoly and if they don't care that they are breaking the law, they should move into the anti-virus market; which is, of course, what they are doing.

Re:Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

MS has been convicted of criminally abusing their monopoly on desktop OS's.

It was a criminal case? I don't think so...

Re:Religion is blind.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It was a criminal case? I don't think so...

You're thinking of the U.S. case only. MS has been convicted in multiple jurisdictions including the European Union, two member states, and several Asian countries. As an aside, Bush signed into law an act criminalizing some antitrust actions in 2004, although I don't have any idea as to whether it will apply to new charges brought against MS.

Re:Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

But they where not criminal cases. In all of them, EU and Korea, they where civil cases. Not criminal. You weaken your case by misrepresenting the facts.

Re:Religion is blind.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But they where not criminal cases. In all of them, EU and Korea, they where civil cases.

I believe you are mistaken. I read that the Korean case was a criminal, not civil case, and I believe the Japanese case is also criminal, insomuch as that term applies. It is always difficult trying to apply US standards of law overseas, and the translations I have read are always suspect. If you have any references to support your position I'd be quite interested to see them.

Re:Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Eh. You're prob right. If they are not criminal, they should be...

Hold on bucko!

[mistergin.net]

You're moving too fast here...

You're just yelling slower and louder to someone who already has no idea what you're truly trying to say...

What about obesity viruses?

[muellerr1]

According to the previous story on /., Vista will be vulnerable to bloat.

Re:What about obesity viruses?

[Cro Magnon]

Windows was fat before I was. Obviously, I caught the obesity virus from my PC!

This Roffles My Waffles.

[RoffleTheWaffle]

Okay, so first I'm going to have to choose between some seven versions of what amounts to a Mac-skinned Windows Server 2003... and then I'm going to have to pay to keep other people from screwing it up, when I can get FREE virus protection on my current XP box? Yeah, just keep piling on the upgrade costs. I LOVE IT.

I don't think I'm going to be switching to Vista any time soon, that's for fucking sure.

Re:This Roffles My Waffles.

[mobby_6kl]

>... and then I'm going to have to pay to keep other people from screwing it up, when I can get FREE virus protection on my current XP box?

You're not getting any anti-virus software in Vista from MS. You didn't get any anti-virus software from MS in XP. So, what's the difference? If you're using free Avast (or whatever) AV for XP, you can use it with Vista (after an update probably).

Too close terms

[gmuslera]

Saying at the same time that will not bundle antivirus and that is more secure could imply people that will not need antivirus, or that be far safer than before to virus threats. While i'm not opposed to MS not bundling its own antivirus with it, i dont think the "improved security" will make Vista safe to virus, even maybe to old ones (think in the amount that is application related, even if that application if outlook or the user behind). Antivirus is still needed, and there are very good ones around, even if they are not from Microsoft itself.

Re:Three possible reasons?

[vertinox]

1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

3) Be like OS X and be secure enough not to need anti-virus software.

I'm not getting my hopes up though.

But it's already there in most cases

[ezratrumpet]

Another reason may be that Microsoft's hardware partners - Dell, HP, and so forth - already have contracts with existing AV software providers to issue "six month protection" with every new computer purchase. If those contracts are long-term, it doesn't make sense for MS to add a component to Vista that their hardware partners can't contractually let them load on the machines.

As for me, I'll stick with AVG, thanks. http://www.grisoft.com/

At this rate....

[canning]

Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.

I wonder if their anti-virus software will come with anti-virus software?

Correction for /. title:

[reaktor]

IT: No Anti-Virus in Vista

IT: Viruses in Vista

Re:Correction for /. title:

[dotgain]

It's probably got more to do with upsetting the viruses / virii crowd...;)

Re:Correction for /. title:

[Funkmaster_G]

Virii is not correct and I don't know why so many people seem to think it is. Also, it sounds stupid.

Re:Correction for /. title:

[dotgain]

I never said it was, and you just drove my point home without even realising it! ;)

I don't care, or feel stronly either way. I spoke in jest, and brought it back to seriousness again.

Re:Correction for /. title:

[BLAMM!]

Cactus, Cacti.
Octopus, Octopi.
Hippopotamus, Hippopotami.

See a pattern? Most people do and apply it even if its wrong. As a bonus, they get to watch people stumble all over themselves to be the first to show off how smart they are by pointing out the mistake.

Re:Correction for /. title:

[dotgain]

Whoops, I mean "strongly", and YOU brought it back to seriousness.

Re:Correction for /. title:

[Funkmaster_G]

All those examples drop the -us and add an -i. So why would you drop the -us and add two i's? Virii doesn't make sense, no matter what convention you're used to.

Re:Correction for /. title:

[Funkmaster_G]

Sorry, I wasn't responding specifically to you. I was just continuing on my crusade to stamp out virii wherever it may appear :)

Re:Correction for /. title:

[dotgain]

Fair enough, but I'd give it up if I were you. I doesn't tend to make one very popular.

Right decision

[tsa]

I think MS has made the right decision here. TGhere are several reasons for that. One is to avoid those pesky Europeans that keep an eye on the monopolistic practices MS keeps. Another reason is that some people don't need virus protection. Yes, there are people like that, although not many I'll admit. The third reason is the fact that it may be handy for MS to make a separate antivirus program. What if their OS-tied antivirus program is compromised by a virus? That may be hard to correct without breaking other things. Better to keep a separate program that's easy to upgrade.

Re:Right decision

[Zphbeeblbrox]

What if their OS-tied antivirus program is compromised by a virus? That may be hard to correct without breaking other things. Better to keep a separate program that's easy to upgrade.

This would indicate a complete reversal of all previouse design decisions. Pardon me if I have trouble believing it. They never cared before why would they care now.

Not that it's a bad thing if they did this. It's just historically they've demonstrated that architecture design plays less of a part in these decisions than marketing and business plans do.

It's really quite simple

[Kookus]

Microsoft can't justify selling an operating system AND requiring a monthly service fee (yet). It'll just take clamAV to really take off before they go down that path.

Ya sure...

[canning]

Symantec, though its assisted enquiries from investigators, has said it would rather take on Microsoft in the marketplace than cry foul to regulators over Microsoft's entry into the consumer anti-virus marketplace. McAfee has made no suggestion it's about to object to Redmond's encroachment on it traditional turf, either.

We promise that we won't object to you bundling your anti-virus software with Vista, go ahead and launch it. ***fingers crossed***

We will however have a problem with it when you have tens of millions of copies released.

What's the difference?

[Cro Magnon]

M$ doesn't include anti-virus NOW. As long as avast works for Vista/Longhorn, I'll still have my free anti-virus. And it's probably better than anything MS would write anyway.

GOOD!!! With every new release...

[Slashdot Junky]

Good! With every new release, more junk is thrown into the kitchen sink. I'd very much like to seem Windows thoroughly streamlined with all as much of the truly non-OS components as possible tossed out.

Microsoft, charge for AV if you'd like. Just keep your tool optional and not packaged with the OS by default.

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

Is this...

[johkir]

XP SP3 with IE7 bundled? Or are we still calling it a new OS?

Anti-Trust

[wrcromagnum]

Wouldn't this probably have something to do with the Anti-trust rulings against MS, I'm sure it could be ruled as unfair to pre-package all operating systems with Anti-Virus in place. This would obviously have a negative impact on software companies like Symantec.

Good news

[buddyglass]

I'm a big fan of maintaining a dividing line between operating system and applications. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft should be free to bundle their apps with their OS, but those apps shouldn't be integrated with the OS in such a way that they can't be easily removed (and replaced by competing products). That principle should apply to media players, mail clients, web browsers, anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. I would love to see Microsoft ship Microsoft-brand anti-spyware and anti-virus tools with Vista. I would hate to see them be as tightly integrated with the operating system as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player currently are.

Re:Good news

[Edmund Blackadder]

I agree with this. I have no problem with MS not bundling their anti-virus software.

But I am not sure they should even be selling any. I mean, the goal of windows should be to be resistant from viruses by itself without needing any additional protection. When they start selling antivirus software they will obviously have a conflict of interst... making vista secure from the ground up would greatly decrease the need for virus protection and therefore cut off an MS stream of revenue.

MS would make a much stronger statement (and would greatly benefit their reputation) if they simply told the anti-virus companies "we will not compete against you but we will drive you out of business by making an OS so secure that only few critical systems would need additional antivirus software."

Lets face it anti-virus software has always been an mperfect solution. The way it works, is that it must wait for a virus to spread out in the wild sufficiently and then in order to reach the computers of the AV company, and only then the AV company will ectract a signature from it and update their definitions so that the anti-virus program can remove it. In otherwords a virus must be sufficiently spread out in the wild in order to be controlled by AV software.

Re:Good news

[buddyglass]

No operating system can be virus-proof that gives users root access and lets them execute arbitrary code. There will always be some user with root, even if it's a tech-savvy system administrator, and that person can always do something stupid. I don't consider a MS AV program to be a conflict of interest. Whatever the MS AV revenue stream stands to gain from an insecure OS, the OS revenue stream (and those of all MS apps) stand to lose much, much more. The existence of a MS AV app in no way dampens MS's motivation to produce a more secure product.

Re:Good news

[R3d M3rcury]

Well...yes. And no.

I have no problem with Microsoft selling me Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Media Player, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and their anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. It's their box and they can do with it as they will. I do have a problem with Microsoft strong-arming Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. to also include these products by forcing "sweetheart deals" with those who do and charging extra for those who don't.

For example, if Dell includes all these other things, they get Windows for $70. If they don't, they pay $100 for Windows. Since you have to have Windows, this gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over, say, Eudora, QuickTime, Opera, and Symantec products.

Again, we'll make Dell the bad guy. Let's say Dell does this. They don't have to bundle them, they just have to sell them exclusively to get the discount. So now Dell saves $30 on each Windows license they sell with their computers and Microsoft's competitors are shut out.

Re:Good news

[buddyglass]

Meh. If the apps are easily uninstalled then this isn't so much of a problem. I buy the Dell, get the discount, then take them off and put on whatever I want. If the competing apps offer comparable quality at a comparable price, then they'll get their market share. If they're not good enough for me to bother uninstalling the default stuff then, imho, they don't deserve that market share.

Nothing says Microsoft has to offer Dell any sort of bulk discount or that Dell has to make concessions to Microsoft in order to get such a discount.

Re:Good news

[R3d M3rcury]

"I buy the Dell, get the discount, then take them off and put on whatever I want."

But that's not what I said. Dell can sell you the apps as long as they do so exclusively (ie, they don't sell competitors software).

Let's say Dell sells a PC with Windows installed for $300. No "extra" software comes for free. Let's say HP also sells a PC with Windows installed for $300. Basically the same PC, right? Not a heck of a lot of difference.

But if Dell refuses to sell Eudora and will only sell Microsoft Outlook, they can shave $30 off their price. Basically the same PC, but $30 cheaper. All they have to do is not sell any Microsoft application software competitors if they want to sell Windows cheaper.

Most people buy their applications when they buy the computer--you've got your wallet out to give Dell some money, it's a good time to hit them up for more. So controlling that distribution channel is a great way to make some big money and cut off your opponents at the pass.

"If they're not good enough for me to bother uninstalling the default stuff then, imho, they don't deserve that market share."

The problem is that Dell's decision to carry Microsoft application software has nothing to do with them being better/worse than Microsoft's competitors. It has to do with the fact that Dell gets a benefit on a product that they must have--Windows--if they exclusively carry other products.

Re:Good news

[buddyglass]

"But if Dell refuses to sell Eudora and will only sell Microsoft Outlook, they can shave $30 off their price. Basically the same PC, but $30 cheaper."

Great. I'll buy the Dell. If Microsoft wants to cut their profit margin on Windows in order to get their other apps shipped by default, I'm not too upset about that.

"The problem is that Dell's decision to carry Microsoft application software has nothing to do with them being better/worse than Microsoft's competitors."

I know. It has to do with the fact that shipping Microsoft's apps lets them offer their "package" to their customers at a $30 discount. Apparently, someone at Dell crunched the numbers and determined that Dell customers would rather save $30 and have a bunch of Microsoft apps installed than have Eudora installed and pay $30 more.

Re:Good news

[bertvv]

Indeed, this announcement is not necessarily bad news, but I don't agree with your arguments. You can't compare anti-virus software with any other user application (like media players, mail or web browsers). An anti-virus strategy should not be an application, but built-in to the operating system.

You know that someone will try to install malicious code onto your computer, so build the OS so this can be prevented.

The whole anti-virus industry is based on a flawed design of the Windows OS. Any application is allowed to run, unless some other application (anti-virus/-malware software) prevents it. This is rather silly, if you think about it.

The legitimate applications that are running on your computer are limited and well-known. The number of viruses and malware increases every day, and is impossible to keep track of. Anti-virus software tries it anyway, but is always running behind the facts.

It would be better that *no* application is allowed to run, ever, unless the system administrator or -on home systems- the user gives his express permission (either temporarily or permanently). If this would be built into the OS, you wouldn't need any anti-virus software at all.

No, this is not the final solution to viruses or malware, but at least it's a strategy that gives the administrator (or the user) the advantage...

This Just In...

[BeatdownGeek]

In other news, MS announced that the new operating system will now be renamed to Windows Vista Millenium Edition.

Re:This Just In...

[SpacePirate20X6]

In other news, MS announced that the new operating system will now be renamed to Windows Vista Millenium Edition.

Because it won't come out until the year 3000, of course!

Its the least they could do

[illuminix]

After all of the security headaches to date, and as soiled their security reputation has become (especially in the last couple of years), Including anti-virus would really be a nice gesture to customers. And it would maybe score a few points at a time which they could really use them. They're so used to being the only dog on the block, it probably never even occurred to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to watch them continue shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Its the least they could do

[frankm_slashdot]

yeah, but if they include it everyone from mike tyson to joe momma will complain about how they're monopolizing the anti-virus market.

im a mac os person my self but i can see how its a loose loose situation for microsoft.

whats funny is that i have to include this disclaimer to shut up the zealots:
i use a mac for video editing and graphics design... and everyday personal use...
i use windows for autocad, solid works and a host of other solid modeling and drafting programs...
my backup & media server runs linux...
my firewall runs openbsd.

im not a fanboy of anything except using the right tool for the job.

No graphics engine?

[hao2lian]

When did Avalon/WPF get removed? Isn't the Vista demo with the Alt-Tab 3D windows flipping thing a sign of it being in Vista? Isn't Aero Glass another sign?

Re:No graphics engine?

[amliebsch]

When did Avalon/WPF get removed?

It didn't, obviously. Parent is a clueless troll.

AFTER Launch

[Ahnteis]

I'm fairly certain the question was how long AFTER launch--as in after the product is actually finished.

Re:AFTER Launch

[Avohir]

did you read the linked article... they were just malicious scripts that got badly labeled as viruses. I got modded insightful, I was shooting for funny :-/

One Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh. One Care is awful. I installed the public beta for a bit, but it basically turns your computer from a useful, productive tool into a dedicated One Care Updating Device. Constant interruptions and slowdowns, updates, and restarts. I had to remove it, it was such a burdensome application.

Except for the OneCare experiment I've gone without virus protection of any kind for more than two years now, no problems. I think a hardware firewall, exclusive use of web-based email (that scans attachments) and common sense is probably as good a defense against viruses and malware as any subscription "service".

Of course, come Feb. 3, Nyxem will probably delete these famous last words.

New soundtrack

[this great guy]

You should read /. more often, Vista will have a new soundtrack from Robert Fripp !!

No AntiVirus in Vista? GREAT!

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
          I think this is a good thing, as I think that MS needs to get back to the basics and produce an OS that is solid, secure and inexpensive. Let other divisions create Antivirus software, and, compete in the open market with Norton, McAffee, AVG, etc. If they can produce a tool that is more secure, better at finding viruses, and, cheaper than the competition, then, more power to them.
        Regards
        Dave Mundt

Microsoft Anti Virus for Windows? Already done!

[BancBoy]

Amusingly enough, the old Microsoft AntiVirus for DOS and later for Windows was just a repackaged underpowered version of Central Point's CPAV software. Who bought CPAV? Symantec... http://www.answers.com/topic/microsoft-anti-virus/

Re:Third possible reasons

[Denyer]

If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.

It'll be interesting to watch... if there are periods during which their anti-virus defends against it, but patches don't, they'll be found to have acted in very bad faith.

Vista won't be a flop any more than XP was

[jocknerd]

Simple reason is Vista doesn't need to sell a single retail copy for it to succeed. It will come pre-installed on 90% of machines sold, therefore it will be a success. And eventually, it will be the most widely used OS around. Give it about two or three years.

It will still suck though.

no antivirus in vista

[Little Neddy]

why don't they make vista virus free? Others (unix/linux) have made a fair fist of it without the billions of dollars behind it that vista has

Re:no antivirus in vista

[Feanturi]

why don't they make vista virus free?

No, you have to pay to get the Vista Virus, just like you had to pay to get the XP Virus. They throw in the IE Virus for free though, so it makes up for it.

Another reason

[jalet]

Maybe they want their product's performance to not look too bad...

Once an antivirus is bundled, chances are that the overall performance will fall.

Probably for the best...

[_Pablo]

It's probably for the best for users that MS do not include their own AV for few reasons:

o A diverse population of AV is better for stopping virus epidemics
o MS need to concentrate on securing the OS itself and not rely on AV to cure the cold
o Some AV vendors manage to write exploitable AV and MS could too

It's probably for the best for MS if they do not include their own AV for a few reasons:

o Bundling & Anti-Trust
o Selling AV subscriptions

So this news is only really negative for Viruses.

The difference is..

[Viewsonic]

Let me put on my tinfoil hat for a minute..

Most OS vendors dont make their own Anti-Virus software to begin with. How do we honestly know Microsoft wont put backdoors in their own operating system for the sole purpose to sell their own anti-virus software? Unless we have people auditing them and their source code, I really dont see how this is anything but a conflict of interest by selling this. It should be integrated into the OS, and I have a feeling they might be forced to do just that after a few large mistakes take advantage of Vista that only Microsoft seems to know how to fix.

Re:So? What's the big deal?

[truthsearch]

Name another OS with 60,000 viruses in the wild. (All time aggregate count, not current.) Macs have so few it's just not worth it. Unix servers have bigger issues with individual break-ins. But Microsoft servers are succeptable to the same viruses as the desktops thanks to a mandatory graphical UI, IE and Outlook Express integration, among other things.

They shouldn't even be providing AV as a service

[DocSavage64109]

I agree that the OS should be secure enough that an AV isn't necessary. MS bothering to write a separate AV software that they will then charge an additional fee sounds like a conflict of interest as far as making the OS as solid as possible is concerned.

Great

[dtfinch]

Now, if Windows Vista runs slow all the time, it'll be because of viruses/malware, not because of virus protection.

HAH!

[Moofie]

And they told us there wasn't going to be an XP Service Pack 3. They just changed the name! Oh yeah, and jacked up the price a couple hundred bucks.

Re:Been running without protection for 10 years no

[kiddailey]

Many diseases have no obvious immediate symptoms, so how do you really know that you've never contracted one? ;)

Re:So? What's the big deal?

[BigBuckHunter]

Careful with the 60K virus comment. It's more like 4K when you consider that butPlug.a is the same virus as butPlug.b through butPlug.z. Heck, I could make 60K linux in the same amount of time that it takes me to write one. I honestly have little problem with the graphic UI of windows. It's no worse then FBDev. I do have a problem with MShtml being in the dependancy tree of "everything" though. I think ActiveX is an abortion. I think that the win32 API could use a ton of improvment.

At this point in time, I have largely forgotten about MS and their software. I gave up on them 2 years. It had nothing to do with security, it was simply that their software would not fuction in the enterprise for any respectable duration. I do have an old laptop with win98 on it. Latest updates, no AV (no need for one since I only use it for TS and am behind a firewall).

BBH

What am I missing?

[brother bloat]

Does any version of windows come with anti-virus software? If they are talking about promoting the idea that windows anti-virus is not needed, they are making a big mistake. For any platform as popular as windows (which means a lot of stupid, gullible, banner-clicking, adware-installing people will be using it), anti-virus and anti-spyware software is needed, no matter how secure the operating system may be. Even if Vista will no longer allow malware to install itself without explicit user consent, the masses will find a way!

Like paying extra to fix leaks in brand new roof

[Retired Replicant]

How much incentive would your roofer have to build you a solid leak-proof roof, if he new he could get you to pay extra to fix leaks in your new roof?

Re:So? What's the big deal?

[truthsearch]

From my anti-Microsoft site: "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory. (Granneman, Scott. "Linux vs. Windows Viruses." The Register 6 Oct 2003)

That's OK. I already have Microsoft Anti-Virus now

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no worries anymore. I now have Microsoft Anti-Virus that came with MS-DOS 6.22. See? I have nothing to fear.

Given that it has so many options, I think that virus writers will have a pretty tough time getting into my system!

ehh

[akhomerun]

yeah...not really much of a surprise.

no other OS comes with antivirus. all the other comments around here explain why it would be better for us if MS stayed out of the anti-virus business.

Ironically enough...

[DrSbaitso]

If your statement that no one wants a version of Windows without virus protection is true, then there is no reason to disallow the bundle. Chicago-school economists don't really believe that one can leverage marker power for a bundling good (Windows) to the market for the tied good (browsers/AV software/etc). The only reason bundling is bad is that it forces people who prefer antivirus software from Symantec to subsidize MS' crappy software, which is included in the cost of Vista. If everyone would choose the bundle even when presented with an alternative, then consumers must see value in the bundle.

Of course, I have no idea what the EU said MS should charge for the other version (media playerless, i guess?) of XP. If they cost the same, then the EU has missed the point entirely and of course no one would choose the other version.

Re:Ironically enough...

[BootNinja]

I would. If I could get a copy of windows that doesn't come preloaded with MSIE and media player tied into the operating system so that I can't remove them and use the program of my own choice, then I might actually be convinced to spend some of my hard earned cash on such a product. as I cannot, that is one of the reasons that I use linux.

Re:Ironically enough...

[DrSbaitso]

i don't believe you - in the latest version of xp, you can fairly trivially uninstall media player and ie. however, you still have to pay for them (there is no ie-free version that i know of).

Re:Ironically enough...

[BootNinja]

So I can uninstall explorer, and use another file manager and firefox instead?

This is taking the piss

[99luftballon]

Sooner or later Microsoft is going to have to admit that it isn't interested in doing antivirus. It deals in boxed product and proto-web services within a rigid framework. Antivirus is primarily a signature service system with a dollop of heuristic programming. It looks like it has bought a few companies, looked at the depth of the problem and decided not to bother. Vista is looking increasingly toothless.

Re:So? What's the big deal?

[brian.reading]

That source also is from 2003. Macs now have less viruses than other Unix clones, since Mac OS has become a Unix-like OS.

Re:So? What's the big deal?

[skiman1979]

I have to agree here. Since Microsoft is marketing this as a much more secure operating system (or however they are wording it) integrating an AV solution into it would just be admitting it has flaws. They are claiming Vista is so much better security wise than any other previous version of Windows. Of course any piece of software will have flaws, but integrating protection for those flaws will just make them more apparent. Then people will ask "how is this any better than ?" Then there's the whole anti-trust thing too...

They should just include it and sell subscriptions

[TheGuano]

Why not just one-up Symmantec? Include the antivirus, and every copy of Vista comes with a free 3-month subscription to Microsoft Antivirus. Afterwards, constantly annoy the user by popping up a screen to renew the subscription for $9/mo or $59 for the year. That should result in way more subscribers (low hanging fruit) than selling a separate package or .net/live offering.

Does Ford explicitly charge you for brakes?

[gelfling]

Let me see if I get this right. Implement a bad design that's vulnerable. Force people (more or less) to upgrade to it. Toss normal ecnomic efficiencies out the window so that price never goes down. Then charge folks a premium for a bunch of extra tools meant to overcome the badly flawed design vulnerabilities?

This is like car companies charging you for brakes or airlines charging a premium for not crashing.

Re:Does Ford explicitly charge you for brakes?

[wadetemp]

Even though a product may be flawed, or incomplete without certain features, what logic says a product must be complete or without flaws? It is what it is.

I'd argue a modern PC without a media player is flawed, but people still rant when it's included with Windows. Maybe Microsoft's doing the right thing here in giving people a choice. (And there may well be a better choice than whatever POS virus scanning they aquired.)

Re:Does Ford explicitly charge you for brakes?

[gelfling]

That's fine but here's the rub. If MS wants to charge a premium for their own AV then it has to deliver some function that you can't get any other way. Which means that it will exploit undocumented fetures, or, if it doesn't exploit undocumented features then it has to be some feature set or API that they have to licence. If MS wantsw to licence APIs then we're in a whole new world.

Possible reasons:

[guruevi]

1) Vista doesn't come with Internet Exploder, Outlook nor ActiveX so it is as safe an os as RedHat Linux 5. 2) Their online "backup" will make sure that you can restore all your data every week (since you need to reinstall it) 3) All your data is belong to them and stored online (in their so-called backup system). Because of that you can leave the Operating System Suite with Browser, E-Mail and other crap (tm) read-only so those pesky virusses and teenage crackers are out every time you reboot!!

Re:Wow

[JTorres176]

For example...

I don't like debian's 1.0.5 version of Thunderbird on my system, so I can download the binary, decompress it, and place it in my /home/user/programs/ directory with a link to my /home/user/bin/ directory. I have full control over this, can use my own version of thunderbird 1.5, and it has no effect over the entire system. This really isn't too much to ask since there are multiple files on the system which I can read, however have no reason to overwrite. In this same directory, I keep America's Army, Castle Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, Firefox, RealPlayer (helix), and Adobe Reader.

With the exception of running "sudo wajig daily-upgrade" every once in a while, I rarely have to use any root commands. None of the software I have on windows, everything from games to RealPlayer, could be installed in my standard user account. Each time I want to install anything, I have to log in as administrator (which I don't like) so that the install can write god knows what in my C:\Windows\ folder and C:\Program Files\ folder. What would be so terrible about having a full installation in C:\Documents and Settings\user\Program Files\ folder, or at least something that didn't have to affect the entire system?

I still have full control over my entire system, I just don't have to be logged in as Administrator 24/7 to use the system. You can keep control of your computer without having to be lord and master of the entire OS on a constant basis.

Re:Third possible reasons

[drsmithy]

It'll be interesting to watch... if there are periods during which their anti-virus defends against it, but patches don't, they'll be found to have acted in very bad faith.

In general, anti-virus software doesn't protect you against things that _can_ be patched.

If it's well designed...

[Werrismys]

They won't NEED it. Unix and OS X typically don't spend CPU time and waste electricity retroactively battling trojans.

The real reason

[Salsaman]

They tried to include an anti-virus program in Vista, but it just kept on removing Vista itself.

kerrr-ching !!!

Re:The real reason

[Funkmaster_G]

obvious joke = non-kerrr-ching!

Smells like...

[Mad Sprinkles]

I smell anti-trust!

Re:Three possible reasons?

[drsmithy]

Be like OS X and be secure enough not to need anti-virus software.

There is nothing inherent to OS X that makes it virus proof.

Remember kiddies

[Darth_brooks]

Remember; If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.

Of course they won't bundle anti-virus software...

[Eric Damron]

What would be the point. Vista will be so secure they won't need it...

"Dear, did the dog fart again? Something stinks in here..."

Um Linux and MacOSX

[Deliveranc3]

I know this will likely blow your mind (And I'll get modded troll) but linux and OSX don't have antivirus suits right?

Maybe Microsoft has fixed everything or at least enough to be confidant that they could release a cpu guzzling program later only if needed.

Re:Three possible reasons?

[vertinox]

There is nothing inherent to OS X that makes it virus proof.

Well the lack of Active X kind of helps... But seriously, the only way to get a virus on OS X is user interaction by a very unknowledgable computer. Not something in which you go to a web page and *bam* your infected with malware and a rootkit.

Any features that...

[shoptroll]

Sooo... WinFS is gone, their new Windowing system is out, built-in AV software gets the axe...

So what features are stilll left? If this is just going to add a bunch of DRM stuff to the OS it's looking like less of worthy upgrade by the day.

Re:Like paying extra to fix leaks in brand new roo

[burns210]

And if they had included Anti-virus software, you would be complaining about the anti-competitive actions that will push Norton and Symantec (and Grisoft, and, and, and...) out of business.

Introducing SpoonCare!

[CODiNE]

MS RowBoat (TM) Will NOT come with a bailing bucket as previously speculated, however their new SpoonCare service will send users a new BailingSpoon (TM) update every month. Those who decide not to subscribe to SpoonCare will still be provided with a free monthly CorkPlug Update.

But this is going to cause bloating

[Lionfire]

...because we all know that viruses cause obesity.

A New Name...

[nobodynoone]

Windows Vista: Suck Edition

Vista to include Emacs? Sweet!

[jonadab]

Straight from the horse's mouth...

> Allchin: Before you had to get RMS software for a client from someplace else. We're making it simpler.

That's really great to hear. I mean, after you go to the CFO for a PO to an OEM and UPS a batch of PCs from CWH to IT, it'd sure be nice if you didn't have to GET your RMS software from the FSF, roll it into an MSI for the ITW to do an SRO via GP.

On a side note, is it just me, or did anyone else notice that this article had more than its fair share of TLAs?

This isn't a surprise

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Built in AV would probably draw a lawsuit from the DoJ with the backing of McAfee, Symantec and Trend Micro.

Re:Three possible reasons?

[drsmithy]

But seriously, the only way to get a virus on OS X is user interaction by a very unknowledgable computer.

That would be most of them. Pretty much any user will happily run any piece of untrusted code (ie: just about anything they've downloaded) if it promises them money/porn/warez/etc.

Not something in which you go to a web page and *bam* your infected with malware and a rootkit.

I don't think there are any outstanding IE bugs that allow this.

If you think about it, it's a good thing...

[catdevnull]

Wouldn't you rather have a 3rd party checking up on windows rather than relying on Microsoft to provide a "security" solution?

I mean, that's like letting the "special" kid grade papers.

Windows Media DRM

[tepples]

The volume control thing is nice, but by no means important enough to be major feature. It's also something that could be done by a third-party application by intercepting DirectSound for each app accessing the API.

No it isn't. Applications that use the DRM API cannot be intercepted through DirectSound.

Re:Windows Media DRM

[aaronl]

OK, so there is a problem in a manufactured problem, and this is a partial "fix". DRM is broken by design. MS decided to release a new OS that breaks audio playback further, and then "fix" one of the problems they created in the first place.

Or they could just stop fucking all their users over and keep DRM in the trash, where it belongs. DRM was the very first reason that I was never going to touch Vista.

Not all multiple monitors are affordable

[tepples]

As for keeping apps visible, that's what multiple monitor support is for.

Point is that this new technology lets applications use less expensive additional monitors such as character-cell monitors designed for, say, MP3 players.

MS could add a common driver API to do this, and make it available as a DirectX upgrade or something.

That's what Microsoft is already planning to do: selling a DirectX upgrade called "Windows Vista".

Re:Not all multiple monitors are affordable

[aaronl]

You see, that's bullshit though. Manufacturers will just have to do hack add-ons for other Windows versions, and then (maybe) use this new API on Vista. Most users won't have Vista for years after release. If the vendor wants people to *buy* their product, they'll have to support more than just Vista.

The most useful place for these sorts of mini-displays are on laptops. Laptop manufacturers can just write drivers to interface to their mini-LCDs on other OS'. Kind of like they do today. By making it specific to Vista, they heavily limit where this can be taken advantage of.

I've summed it up nicely...

[rampant mac]

"Second, Vista has a number of big new features:"

- *BSD
- Mac OS X
- Mac OS X
- UNIX/Linux
- UNIX/Linux
- Linux/*BSD
- All Of The Above
- Mac OS X/X11
- Teh Suck
- Same As Above
- Not A Problem On Non-Windows Platforms
- Mac OS X
- Whoopie
- Weeelllllcccoooommmmmeee To The Ffffuuuttttuuuurrrreee!
- Mac OS X
- UNIX
- HOORAY!
- Mac OS X

I can't wait! On, I guess I can...

Social engineering

[tepples]

If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place?

Because viruses and trojans can still spread through social engineering. A program gains the user's trust by claiming to be an installer, gets RunAs'd, but then goes and infects all your existing programs, installs a spambot or other DDOS zombie, etc. Define "virus" and/or "trojan" and I'll try to explain how social engineering applies to each point of the definition.

By requiring developers to be licensed

[tepples]

How do you secure against a user deliberately (even if inadvertently) executing malicious code ?

We'll see in four years whether the Xbox 360 gets cracked.

I love you

[tepples]

I agree that the OS should be secure enough that an AV isn't necessary.

How would you go about designing this? What would prevent the user from 1. installing an application that allows documents to contain macros that can act on the file system and/or act on an e-mail server, and then 2. opening a malicious e-mail attachment?

Wanna know why?

[deblau]

Two words: professional courtesy.

Re:Of course...

[Zontar The Mindless]

I guess somebody's been watching some MST3K tapes...

Anybody else remember Johnny Longtorso, "The Action Figure Who Is Himself Sold Separately"...? ;)

Of course, Linux has always been this way - the difference being that you can choose from amongst about 90% of the Linux add-ons available for the price of an Internet connection.

(He's LONG!)

I wish it were technical

[briancnorton]

If they just made the damn OS so that it wasn't susceptible to Viruses, I wouldn't have a problem with the unfair competetion.

yep

[a.d.trick]

and 2006 is the year of the Linux Desktop :P

Re:Third possible reasons

[Crayon Kid]

Yeah, antivirus programs are like paying the protection tax. "Keep the signatures up to date or you get it." It's catch-up protection not real prevention.

Remember MSDOS Anti-Virus ?

[donak]

Way back when I used MSDOS 5 or 6, I remember installing the AntiVirus product that Micro$oft had so kindly included. No updates, uless you subscribed, but hey, it had a list of hundreds, even thousands of viruses. At which point in time there was news of roughly 50,000 viruses "in the wild".

The firewall included with Windows XP would be the first thing I turned off, if I actually ever bothered to buy it, because I'd be installing a 3rd party Internet Security suite before my PC got anywhere near the internet.

Who is going to believe an AV product included with "Vista" is worth the trouble?

Reasons should be obvious

[philntc]

Although Microsoft must bristle at the fact that companies like Symantec and others make many times more money from recurring AV fees than M$ does on their every-few-years license upgrade, offering AV directly would be just to obvious of an anti-trust target. Nothing to see here folks.

Re: What would I do?

[DocSavage64109]

Your comment is funny, because after thinking about what I would do, it appears that Vista is already including it. I would have a sandboxed environment for IE, limited user accounts that work with 3rd party apps, and a 2-way firewall.

I suppose the benefit of AV is that it can use a database of other peoples experience with downloaded apps or scripts to decide whether you can/should run it or not. That is not something that an OS can decide on without the data from other cases for support.

What kind of UI for the firewall?

[tepples]

I would have a sandboxed environment for IE

Agreed, but if you can use IE to download files to your Limited User desktop, you can use IE to download a trojan.

limited user accounts that work with 3rd party apps, and a 2-way firewall.

Whether a 2-way firewall would allow viruses and trojans to spread depends on the user interface for authorizing programs, including how easy that interface is to social engineer.

Obesity

[fabioaquotte]

They removed the anti-virus so that they can use this as an excuse for why Vista is so damn obese.