Slashdot Mirror
Vista May Put Anti-Spyware Companies Out
Ant wrote to mention a C|Net article with an interesting premise: Windows Vista's tough approach to spyware may put anti-spyware companies out of business. From the article: "While this may be good news for buyers of Vista, it is not for anyone who makes a living from selling anti-spyware software. The worldwide market has boomed recently, reaching $97 million in revenue in 2004, up 240.4 percent from a year earlier, according to IDC. However, companies such as Webroot Software and Sunbelt Software are in for tough times, analysts said."
didn't msft put anti-spyware companies into business in the first place?
msft giveth, msft taketh away.
un burrito me trampeó.
If you are in business just because another company sells crappy products to lots of people you dont deserve to stay in business forever.
But will the program I write be able to?
Heck, will anything non-MS-approved be able to?
Every version of windows since Windows NT was supposed to be better and more secure. Unfortunately that wasn't the case as we all know. How about we hold off on the hyperbole until Vista ships one of these days and we see how it actually works, not how some marketdroid claims it will.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
For every unstoppable wall of protection, some jackass'll find a way around it. It's only a matter of time.
i don't care.
any company based on fixing something that shouldn't of happened in the first place has a fundamentally flawed business plan anyway.
if a company is founded based on the idea of eliminating something, then the business plan needs to take into account the chances of the company achieving its goal... eliminating things... or the need for it to eliminate anything becoming unnecessary.
im sorry, but i really don't care.
I don't see SpamAssassin fading away any time soon. So I wouldn't put any bets on on spyware companies (anti- or pro-) dying out.
Do they mean the same way that SQL Server put Oracle out? And Windows 200 killed Linux? Come, come - what utter twaddle. The "spyware/piss-you-off-ware" concocters will just shift paradigm.
Did you know my dad's dog died?
Just because it can't be expected to last, doesn't mean it's flawed. Businesses need to adapt, and if a market for fixing broken products opens, it's sensible to meet that market before it goes away (so long as they don't spend too much in NRE).
Parent has a good point.. what does it matter what MS does for spyware? The rest of their draconian practices will still ensure that it doesn't stop spyware because people won't use it, no matter how good it is. Upgrading to Vista is not just a software upgrade, for myself and many others, its a hardware upgrade too. EVEN if I did run MS products at home, I still wouldn't get any value from antispyware in Vista LOLOLOL Sounds like more PR spin to make it seem worth the extra hardware costs and giving away your first born to run the new version of MS Windows....
I'll just take my chances with Linux thank you
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
One piece of spyware missed is too many, I agree, but is there a software vendor out there that produces a Anti-Spyware product that DOES get it all?
The business plan may be wrong (unethical) but as to wrong, well they are STILL the dominant OS vendor. I have yet to see anything that MS has done wrong with windows SIGNIFICANTLY affect their market share.
As bad as windows has been and may continue to be, unless people can't play their games or surf the web I seriously doubt any problem in Vista will slow it's sales.
Every version of Windows has been "conceived during the toughest times for Microsoft with regards to malicious software".
I still remember booting Win3.1 boxes from a floppy to get rid of the boot sector viruses.
Enderle knows nothing of security. Just because someone wrote some code during a rash of exploits does not mean that their code is any more secure.
> This happens a lot in politics, for example. See the modern versions of NAACP, NOW, MADD...
With the same result. Long after the original problem is solved the organization lives on, never able to just claim victory and disolve. Does anyone thing lowering blood alchol levels yet again will further reduce drunk driving deaths? Nope, but the only things government action could do aren't politically possible and MADD can't just admit that and pick a new cause to crusade for. The NOW gang long ago won everything they can possibly get through the sort of organized action they do, except defending the sacrement of abortion against all reason. [flamebait] Well no, abortion is defensible from a certain p.o.v., more accurately it is Roe v. Wade that flies in the face of reason, but to a NOW gang lesbian the difference has long disappeared.[/flamebait] The NAACP continues decades past when they had a legitimate problem to solve, pushing quota policies that just have to have MLK spinning in his grave. (Unless someone would like to explain how his vision of a colorblind society is consistent with the current practice of making skin color THE most important thing about a person.)
But now back ontopic; Does anyone really believe Vista will actually stop spyware? Just spawn a new generation which the dedicated spyware vendors will have to clean up behind. Nobody to date has ever went broke betting on Microsoft's incompetence.
Democrat delenda est
But, from TFA:
Emphasis added. It's that line that tells me that they're not going to fix the core problem.
The "silent installs" in IE are a MAJOR source of spyware infections. But that's just because it is sooooooo easy. The "...without first seeking permission." bit tells me that the "silent installs" will be changed to "click here to continue" installs.
The browser should NEVER write anything, by default, to ANY directory other than TEMP and that should be set to non-execute.
But that would break all the ActiveX controls out there (many of which are used to distribute spyware).
They'd have done better just instituting a white list like NoScript does in FireFox.
...sorry to be an ignoramus, but who?
As far as I'm concerned, if M$ are closing holes that shouldn't really be there, that's a Good Thing (tm).
I mean, these same spyware companies don't make a mint off other OSes do they, so why should they piggy-back a specific one? Isn't that essentially making money from a weakness? And if the weakness is removed, well... game over I guess, until M$ falls at the next hurdle and people make cash out of it. I mean, Mr. Norton seems to have had it quite easy for a while now...
If you are in business just because another company sells crappy products to lots of people you dont deserve to stay in business forever.
...
(1) Microsoft makes junk
(2) Other companies compensate to "un-junk" Microsoft
(3) Microsoft finally gets its act together
(4)
(5) Bankrupt!
Perhaps this is expected, but I'd hardly call it "fair". There have been companies that have based their business model on the above (Quarterdeck is a good example) and while I understand they can't expect to stay in business forever, it isn't "fair" that they should be driven out of business by a recalcitrant monopoly that uses its market position to eclipse their efforts.
What would be "fair" is for Microsoft to be driven out of business for making crap in the first place.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Not quite. It's more like "how dare Microsoft charge extra for a workaround instead of fixing the shortcomings in the first place for free, like companies in every other industry (such as the auto industry) would be forced to do?!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
My prediction is that Vista is going to be just as shitty as all the rest of their releases. They wont put spyware-companies out of business.. they didn't with XP, and they wont with Vista. This is just another bloated "full of features!" release--more shit people dont need.
Come on. Really, if MS does something right and kills spyware/adawre, I'd consider it an acceptable loss to put Lavasoft et al out of business.
Heck, I'd love it if they made Norton, McAfee, etc AntiVirus obsolete, too.
But I know it's not going to happen.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Flamebate? Do I have to spell out a joke? Look at my UID, wanker!
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Almost all malware exploits shortcomings in the user, not the software.
I don't think they need to worry one bit. I can't see MS as being competent to thwart spyware.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Q: Why does spyware exist?
Well, Q is not here to answer the question, so I'll have to...
Becasue it is profitable. It creates cash flow. It doesn't matter what system you have. If there's money to be made, it will be comprimised.
What?
It looks like most spyware from larger companies is going to be replaced by DRM that you're not allowed to remove (under the EULA).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
This has been your comedy break for today. We now return you to your existence of scrubbing unending spyware off the PC of everyone who clicks on crap randomly.
StarForce installs special drivers that allow user-level code to jump to System level. (That's even higher than Administrator, BTW.) Why does anyone think they'd do anything different in Vista? Malware will just find these kind of holes, and exploit them. And those holes will exist because even semi-legit software companies want them to.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The way I look at it, these companies are making money off of spyware much in the same way that the makers of spyware are. I want to see spyware go away, I really hope it does. And yeah, I want it to go away even if some poor companies can't profit off of it anymore. Oh no.
So how was McDonalds responsible when the woman spilled the hot coffee in her lap, and M got sued for $1.0M. So now McDonalds have to put hot warnings on their coffee. Is is not reasonable to assume that unless someone is really "stupid", they would know that coffee is served hot.
This is OT, however, the reason McDonalds was found liable was because they were a) serving coffee at a far higher temperature than anyone would reasonably call "hot enough" and b) because they had received numerous complaints about the excessively high temperature their coffee was being served at - and other injuries it had caused - and done nothing about it.
The woman who has burned certainly shares some of the blame for clumsily opening the coffee in a rather inadvisable fashion, but what would have been a relatively minor burn and reminder that it was a silly thing to do, instead became a very serious and debilitating injury because the McDonald's coffee in question was so much hotter than expected.
There was clearly a valid case against McDonalds, in that instance. The problem was not that the coffee was hot, the problem that it was *unnecessarily* and *unexpectedly* hot, that McDonalds knew this and that they did nothing the remedy the situation.