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."

Comments

...well...

[BewireNomali]

didn't msft put anti-spyware companies into business in the first place?

msft giveth, msft taketh away.

Re:...well...

[Xymor]

Funny, maybe this could be the new MS motto.
Microsoft, cleaning after itself. or Microsoft, fixing the problems you didn't have.

Re:...well...

[Pneuma ROCKS]

I don't think spyware is going anywhere. Just as spam, it's here to stay. Many promises have been made by Microsoft in the past and they've been broken like little dry twigs. Giving them lots of credit, one might think they can eliminate and prevent all current forms of spyware, but there are always new ways, and they are always found. I hope Vista is more secure, but infalible? Not even close.

Re:...well...

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Don't stop wars because peace puts the military out of business... Don't use alternative energy resources because it puts oil companies out of business... Don't use alternative healing methods because it puts pharmaceutical companies out of business... Don't drop any laws because it could put lawyers out of business... Hey, none of them could have ever anticipated that things could change for the better... Better let millions suffer than let a few become less rich... NOT!

Re:...well...

[mrchaotica]

But MS made the crap code that allowed spyware to work in the first place. It's all rather Mafia-esque, really:

1. Write crap code that people buy anyway because you're a monopoly
2. PROFIT!!
3. Wait for spyware makers to exploit your crap code
4. Write anti-spyware software, and sell it at extra cost
5. Use your monopoly to give your anti-spyware program an unfair marketing advantage over 3rd-party equivalents (again)
6. PROFIT AGAIN, because the users more-or-less have to fork out the "protection money."

And there is no "???" step.

Re:...well...

[rtb61]

What promises, each version of windows, was more stable and more reliable and more secure than the last one (of course it always has been the just than teensiest bit more, except of course for millenium edition but that had an alternate design goal).

The only time microsoft software has shown any signs of security it when you run others companies software on top of it, to try and make it more secure.

Re:...well...

[Pneuma ROCKS]

This is a sample of what I meant (first result from Google): http://www.esecurityplanet.com/views/article.php/3 586511. More specifically the promise of spam disappearing entirely.

each version of windows, was more stable and more reliable and more secure than the last one

I agree with you, in general. As I said, I know (hope?) Vista will be more stable than XP, which is already very stable and secure. But it is very unlikely, probably unfeasible for a Windows release to be spyware-free, even with (or despite having) Microsoft security tools being part of the OS. Never underestimate opportunists looking for money and human ignorance.

Hope this clears things up.

Re:...well...

[InsaneLampshade]

"except of course for millenium edition but that had an alternate design goal"

So what was the design goal for WindowsME? Give the source code to 1000 monkeys, wait a year, then see what they came up with? :/

Re:...well...

[frogstar_robot]

So what was the design goal for WindowsME? Give the source code to 1000 monkeys, wait a year, then see what they came up with? :/

Don't you think that is unfair to monkeys?

Re:...well...

[Tim C]

But it is very unlikely, probably unfeasible for a Windows release to be spyware-free, even with (or despite having) Microsoft security tools being part of the OS.

There's nothing that Windows (or Linux, or OS X, *BSD, Solaris, etc) can do to prevent me from installing stuff if I have the admin (or root) password. All it can do is try to prevent things from installing without my say so; if I choose to install CometBonziCursorBuddy, it can't stop me.

As long as people write crap, other people will install crap. All we can hope to do is educate people to stop installing crap.

Re:...well...

[zootm]

The bottom line is that there's no technical reason that Spyware is more prevalent on any platform other than Windows. It's just a bigger target. With viruses and so on there's at least a technological reason as well as this, but Spyware/Adware aren't something that can be effectively protect against, because in most cases the user agrees to the software.

Re:...well...

[ozmanjusri]

As long as people write crap, other people will install crap. All we can hope to do is educate people to stop installing crap.

No, that's crap. You can never educate enough people to make a difference. OS vendors need to write systems that;

• make it safe for users to install crap

• make it easy for users to remove crap

The reason crap happens to Windows is that it is easy to put persistent malware on people's computers. If the OS was designed so users could remove crap themselves, there wouldn't be the same motivation to make malware.

Re:...well...

[kimvette]

Well this would also be true if the majority of the market switched to OS/X, Linux, BSD, or other alternative operating systems instead. . . or even switched from MSIE to Firefox or Opera en masse.

Whatever the case, AntiVirus and AntiSpyware companies should not look at solving an insecure OS's problems as a permanent business - it is a very lucrative short-to-mid term business strategy, and the out should be something like video games or productivity apps in the long term. Diversification is the key to long-term survival, ESPECIALLY when the target market is Windows, and Microsoft has shown time and again that they stab partners in the back, and if it goes to court, Microsoft wins all too often, and when they do lose, they don't get much more than a token slap on the wrist. Wait, not a even a slap on the wrist, just a frownie sticker. Remember the Stacker fiasco where Microsoft misappropriated Stacker code, and stabbed Stac Electronics in the back?

Re:...well...

[killjoe]

"There's nothing that Windows (or Linux, or OS X, *BSD, Solaris, etc) can do to prevent me from installing stuff if I have the admin (or root) password."

Sure there is, it's called DRM. Granted it won't be used for this purpose but it would work.

Imagine this.

Your computer is set to only install programs that are signed by some authority. FOr the sake of argument let's assume the authority is the debian foundation. After this the OS will not install anything that hasn't been signed by the debian foundation for debian stable and presumably they have tested everything in their distribution. Voila, no more spyware.

Same could be done with MS, Apple, etc. Of course a programmer would be much more likely to trust debian then MS but those are political issues that need to be sorted out. Technically it's easy to prevent viruses and spyware.

Re:...well...

[Gorshkov]

msft giveth, msft taketh away

They're not taking a bloody thing away. All microsoft is doing with their "new" operating system's security measures is patching around the edges - they're still not adressing the central, root problem, which is flaws in the system archetecture.

There are ways to do things that are safe, and ways to do things that arn't ..... microsoft still hasn't figured that out, and untill they do, nothing is going to change.

Re:...well...

[ozmanjusri]

What you're saying is technically not possible.

Tell that to my Knoppix CD...

I think it IS possible if your OS and hardware are designed properly. You have your core OS on RO media, apps in their own hardware lockable (switch or key) area, strictly compartmentalised human readable config files, and a separate noexe area for data files.

A sandbox (chroot or VM) environment for trying dodgy stuff would be nice too...

Re:...well...

[im_thatoneguy]

Of course this setup I described will never be used in Vista...

...either that or you would never bother to check.

One of those statements is true, I leave it to the reader to decide which. http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security/

Re:...well...

[jinxidoru]

Realize that the article didn't say that Microsoft Vista was going to put spyware out of business. Rather, it will put anti-spyware software out of business. It's true that spyware will continue to take on new forms. But Vista will probably be updated to handle these new forms in the same way that the current anti-spyware software is constantly being updated. So the question is not whether Vista can beat the spyware companies; it's a question of whether Vista can beat the anti-spyware companies. It's kind of like the old saying that if you and a friend are being chased by a wolf, you only need to be faster than your friend.

Re:...well...

[Mistshadow2k4]

You're forgetting something here: there's a great deal of this kind of crap out there that installs itself in Windows without the user's say-so. No download, no click "OK" or anything. You're online and boom, you've got spyware. A router helps, a firewall helps, Peer Guardian and WinPatrol help a lot, but you never know when another thing might come along that can get through them and be on your system before you know it.

It's a common misconception that malware has to be installed on a Windows system with the user's permission - but it doesn't. People keep saying that the users need to be educated enough not to install crap on their systems, but a lot of people obviously need to be educated about the fact that not all spyware is installed with the user's permission. At least half of it is not. It's this kind of "it's all the foolish users installing crap" attitude that helps malware flourish; people think their system is safe if they don't download attachments and install stuff off the net, but they're not. Not at all.

Re:...well...

[Tim C]

You have your core OS on RO media

How do I update it? Do I have to buy/obtain a new CD/DVD/EEPROM? Do I have to boot off the CD/DVD all the time (*slow*)? If it's on an EEPROM, how do novice users update it? How do I add (or remove) my own features?

apps in their own hardware lockable (switch or key) area

Ok, so to install an app you have to physically flick a switch. How does that prevent me from intentionally installing an app that turns out to be a trojan, and adds my PC to a spam botnet?

a separate noexe area for data files

I'm a programmer, most of my data files either are executable or are compiled into executables. Where do they go? Do I have to install them every time I make a change I want to test (complete with physical switch flipping above)?

Your scheme, while a good idea in theory, fails to account for two things:

1) it seriously inconveniences people who wish to develop software, and those who wish to update their OS
2) it provides nothing more than an extra second or two's thought when installing an app, and does not prevent malicious software from being installed.

Re:...well...

[Gorshkov]

Not true ..... think of the sony root kit as an example.
Yes, I'm logged in as administrator
Yes, I clicked OK - install when asked
There's *still* no valid reason why the O/s Can't pop up a window and say "Hey! Something's trying to replace my CD-ROM driver! Are you sure you want to do this?"
Which, btw, is also the major flaw in unix type systems - the "I'm root and I can do anything" system of security. But microsoft has a very long way to go before that's their only flaw.

Re:...well...

[Saint Fnordius]

There are two problems with this:

1. This strategy puts open-source programmers at a disadvantage, as most authorisation companies would request a fee. After all, they have costs to maintain. Home users would balk at the costs, and think that if they don't "do stupid stuff", they'll be safe.

2. What you are suggesting is also vulnerable through blind trust. If phishers can get a security certificare, it's possible for an adware/spyware maker to get one just long enough to do damage.

No, the solution really is to lock down the way the OS lets programs hook into the OS itself. Programs shouldn't be able to hide from the user, neither in their operation nor in their storage on media. It shouldn't have to be a long and troublesome hunt to clean out every instance of that spyware.

You can't prevent spyware and keyloggers entirely; social engineering is all too pervasive, and the Sony rootkit fiasco shows that even "trusted" companies can cause lasting harm. Instead, it should be easy to recover from the damage done.

Just Fair

[Zo0ok]

If you are in business just because another company sells crappy products to lots of people you dont deserve to stay in business forever.

Re:Just Fair

[ZeroExistenZ]

It's called opportunism and demand for a service.

There's no "deserve" in doing business and trying to meet a demand in order to make money off of it.

Re:Just Fair

[TubeSteak]

There's no "deserve" in doing business and trying to meet a demand in order to make money off of it.

Tell that to the natural gas companies.

Their rates are regulated by the state, so they basically work out a rate that includes costs + profit.

If demand goes up, so do prices
If demand goes down, guess what happens.

Yep, prices go up. Why? Because they aren't making their agreed upon level of profit. It's a fairly cushy deal.

Be glad MS isn't truly a monopoly, cause if they were, they'd be regulated & their profit margin would be enshrined in law.

How dare they!

[NitsujTPU]

How dare Microsoft enhance the security of their product, putting poor companies that thrive on the shortcomings of Windows out of business?!?!

I, guess?

Re:How dare they!

[Voltageaav]

Yeah, Windows Defender will be so much better than all the other programs people use, just like their firewall for XP, right?

Re:How dare they!

[mrchaotica]

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?!"

Re:How dare they!

[jacksonj04]

Actually, OneCare is pretty good. And from what I've seen in the Vista CTPs the security model is actually a damn sight better than before. Stability is phenominal as well, it took a whole 12 seconds to make it fall over (Video driver issue if you must know, Safe Mode is solid as a rock).

Re:How dare they!

[Tim C]

The XP firewall works fine for blocking incoming connections and server processes, all it really lacks is egress filtering.

Besides, I thought that the argument was that if something is bundled with/in Windows, no-one will bother to seek out an alternative? That's got to be the case, right, I mean, IE is still the most commonly-used browser...

Re:How dare they!

[drsmithy]

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?!"

Almost all malware exploits shortcomings in the user, not the software.

Re:How dare they!

[Reverend528]

Oh, good. I can run all of my servers in safe mode!

Re:How dare they!

[drsmithy]

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.

erm

[BitterAndDrunk]

I thought it was still running Internet Explorer?

Analysis

[jaymzter]

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.

Re:Analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about *better*, given it is a subjective measure, but the NT line has generally improved in security with new releases. Win2000 was relatively indistinguishable from WinNT security-wise, but WinXP at least considered security in its design, and improved on it a little with SP1 and markedly with SP2.

I'm not saying it's all sunshine and rainbows; it's still not a fully locked down OS but they have been improving.

Re:Analysis

[nacturation]

How about we realize that, in this case, CNet is just a shill for the Microsoft PR department.

Re:Analysis

[aftermath09]

No, no. They really mean it this time! ;)

They'll find a way.

[bluemeep]

For every unstoppable wall of protection, some jackass'll find a way around it. It's only a matter of time.

Re:They'll find a way.

[richdun]

You sound like a bitter Frenchman...

But true. The only sure protection is to build something that cannot be circumvented because of some law of physics. Software-driven systems will probably never reach this point. We just have to educate people to be safe enough that only the most inventive criminals can get in (and make it so that people understand how to be safe, not just install X because it will "protect" me from Y). It's just like common sense in anything else - know where not to go, what not to do, and if you are unsure, don't do it.

Re:They'll find a way.

[Ilgaz]

It is a common misconception that Spyware/Adware programmers are "lamer", "script kiddie" types.

They are advanced programmers which reads slashdot, post to usenet etc too.

They are just "evil" or don't have/believe in ethics.

Re:They'll find a way.

[dadragon]

For every unstoppable wall of protection, some jackass'll find a way around it.

So true. Just ask the French.

Re:They'll find a way.

[the argonaut]

They are just "evil" or don't have/believe in ethics.

They're Republicans?

Re:They'll find a way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us just read slashdot for the humor value. Its hilarious seeing you dolts pretend you are all tech geniouses, when slashdot is in fact one of the largest collection of complete and utter morons on the internet.

And we're not evil, I just don't have a problem making money off of other people's stupidity. They could easily fix their stupidity, but they choose not to. Not my problem.

Re:They'll find a way.

[Fnkmaster]

If you think Slashdot is one of the largest collections of morons on the Internet, you haven't looked very hard.

Re:They'll find a way.

[lubricated]

maginot line

world's tinyiest violin

[JeffSh]

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.

Tough on spyware?

[linguizic]

The only thing microsoft is tough on is stains, though oh so gentle on carpet. Wait, that's Bissel. That's right MS is tough on network administrators.

slownewsday

[Janek Kozicki]

that's where slownewsday tag comes handy :)

Who broke my window?

[Realistic_Dragon]

This is known as the Browk Window theory in Economics - that is, by running around breaking windows I create work for glaziers.

In actual fact were the windows not being broken the resources could be put to better use elsewhere - the time of the labourer and the money spent could be used to grow the economy rather than in the mantainance of existing infrastructure which is an activity that adds zero to the bottom line.

In this case not needing spyware companies will allow the workers and the capital emplyed to go and do something more efficent, in economic terms... such as innovating new and better spyware, seeing as how well Microsoft's other security related announcements have worked out :)

Nah, don't think so

[KenDodd]

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.

flawed?

[Khashishi]

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).

Re:Still won't use it except for at work...

[zappepcs]

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

Re:One missed is still too many!

[dink353]

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?

fundamental flaw?

[Danathar]

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.

Of course it's an ad.

[khasim]

Any "article" that quotes this guy is nothing but marketing:

Every new version of Windows offers some security improvements, but Vista more so, said Rob Enderle, an analyst with the Enderle Group. "Vista, because it was pretty much conceived during the toughest times for Microsoft with regards to malicious software, has the most protection in it compared to any of their platforms," he said.

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.

Re:Other areas too

[jmorris42]

> 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.

In theory, it doesn't have to.

[khasim]

Vista will still be a major target for spyware makers though because it will have a large install base. I doubt MS will be able to continuously keep up with the spywares creators.

In theory, they could just fix the core problem and the spyware would vanish as the old Microsoft OS's were replaced by newer ones.

But, from TFA:

Microsoft is taking a multipronged approach to fight spyware. Unlike XP, Vista will run by default with fewer user privileges. People will have to invoke full, "administrator," privileges to perform tasks such as installing an application.

Also, Internet Explorer 7, included with Vista, will prevent silent installs of malicious code by stopping the browser from writing data anywhere except in a temporary files folder without first seeking permission. Lastly, Windows Defender will clean up any infections that do make it through.

"It is three layers of protection," Wilson said.

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.

Humor?

[jgclark123]

Yes, I agree that just repeating what the parent said merits a +3 Funny...
Look before you mod, people.

Webroot Software and Sunbelt Software...

[Aphrika]

...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...

About this kind of software competition

[Jugalator]

As for Windows security, I honestly think there should be exceptions of what Microsoft can bundle or not to maintain a good security. Yes, one can joke all day about security problems requiring tools like these in the first place, but Windows is a common OS, a huge hacker target, and now that this is the situation, I think MS should be allowed to include these kind of tools as an exception to software competition regulations.

I really don't mind if Microsoft would similarly put Windows antivirus companies "out of business" either. Yes, sucks to be them, but security is among the most important aspects of an operating system, and as important to me when I use an OS as basically the GUI itself.

Gartner is SO reliable

[symbolset]

Here's what Fortune magazine thinks:

Ditch the Experts: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc hive/2006/02/06/8367977/index.htm

Which is not to say that experts are no different from you and me. They're very different. For example, they're much more confident in their predictions than nonexperts are, though they obviously have no reason to be.

Pretty clear, eh?

Well, duh!

[Dracos]

Microsoft created the need for these companies to exist. The near destruction of that need is a side effect of MS finally learning that security is part of the development process.

But as long as there is Windows, there will be a need for 3rd party Windows security software.

doubtful

[kuyaedz]

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.

Re:Other areas too

[Nethead]

Boy! You old-time, low-numbered slashdot posters sure can get cranky!

I disagree

[Tezkah]

Yes, I agree that just repeating what the parent said merits a +3 Funny...
Look before you mod, people.

I'd rather MS put the SPYWARE companies out...

[Anonymous Freak]

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.

Re:Other areas too

[Nethead]

Flamebate? Do I have to spell out a joke? Look at my UID, wanker!

MS is spam pimpin

[mrmeval]

I don't think they need to worry one bit. I can't see MS as being competent to thwart spyware.

Re:Q: Why does anti-spyware exist?

[iminplaya]

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.

Familiar Strategy

[Greyfox]

Microsoft always announces that their next version of Windows will solve the hot problem of the day, and they always come up short and ship late. Back in the day Windows was going to have multitasking. Then Windows 95 was going to have preemptive multitasking and a spiffy user interface like OS/2. Then Windows 98 was really going to have preemptive multitasking and a spiffy interface like OS/2. Then Windows 2000 was really (And we mean it this time) going to have preemptive multitasking and a spiffy interface like OS/2. Then Windows XP was going to solve all the stability and security problems and have a spiffy interface like OS/2. Now Windows Vista will solve all the stability and security problems and have a spiffy interface like OS/2... I mean, OSX.

So yeah, Vista will solve all the spyware and virus problems, we promise, please don't buy a Mac in the mean time!

It's a New Definition.

[Stephen Samuel]

If it runs on Vista, it can't be spyware -- no matter what it does to your computer, you must have asked for it somehow or other.

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).

Rah! Rah! (Pffft!)

[QuestorTapes]

Gosh, it's great to live here in Pleasantville, where things are just so darn KEEN!

It's about time MS used their overwhelming security expertise to address this pressing problem!. Gosh knows, now that:

- NT 3.1 solved all the BSOD problems...
- Windows 2000 given us perfectly stable drivers that never fail...
- we have a flawless and simple system for authenticode verification to prevent all those darned pirates and their stolen copies of Windows...
- and a rock solid browser like IE 6 with none of those silly security defects found in (shudder) DOWNLEVEL browsers like FireFox and Opera...

All we've been waiting for is MS to put the last bricks in the wall of total user trust and security with flawless DRM and anti-spyware!

Kudos to the Bill G and the brave, fighting lads at MS for their continuous and unflagging dedication to providing a rock-solid security combo of Win95-compatible OS, ActiveX-enabled Browser, and integrated VBA-enabled Office applications, that makes third-party anti-virus, anti-trojan, firewall, backup, and other rip-offs completely unecessary!

Yeah! And now I'm off to meet the ghost of John Lennon on his magic Yellow Submarine for a late night trip to visit Narnia!

Just how F**KING STUPID are these reporters, anyway?

Re:How Could They?

[Kreigaffe]

Sorry, but I don't believe any company with both "Micro" and "soft" in their company name will be going anywhere near that particular market.. unless they open up a subdivision named "MacroHard"

Windows = Secure?

[Geminii]

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.

What about StarForce et. al.?

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

So what

[Vlastyn]

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.