Slashdot Mirror
Anti-malware Vendors Stare Down Microsoft Threat
Captain Rose writes "Matt Hines at eWEEK has stepped up to report the other side of the story CNET inked recently on the perceived death knell that Vista will deliver to independent anti-spyware vendors. There's definitely a fight in store (David v. Goliath), though who knows how long we'll have to wait to see it play out now that Vista's delayed yet again. Is this a bit of foreshadowing on how the new Microsoft OS will address the self-replicating, zero-day spyware threats?" From the article: "Most industry watchers concede that it will be hard for Microsoft to easily displace the enterprise security businesses of leading vendors such as Symantec, McAfee and Trend Micro, which market integrated packages of applications to companies wishing to solve long lists of problems. However, for firms that are focused on only one of those problem areas, analysts said, Vista and the other Microsoft security products could pose a significant threat."
Don't worry about that!
They told the same about anti virus, web browsers and office suite!
The more MS will try to accentrate, the worse the products! It's history!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
If Microsoft did its job correctly they wouldn't need anti-virus and anti-trojans protection in the first place...
If Microsoft stays true to form, their security tools will be full of security holes. They might even spawn a second tier industry similar to the anti-virus/worm/etc industry.
These vendors are just going to have to start writing their own malware that only their software can detect and fix.
if history serves as an indicator of future performance. I'm sure that Microsoft will stick to the first Tuesday of every month (or whenever it is) to release signature updates, security patches, etc., which will give third-party vendors the upper hand - or worst case should Microsoft totally blow it, potentially drive up the market share for OS/X and Linux migrations.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
As long as the OS permits users to turn down or turn off security measures- experienced users in order to do something they deem useful and noobs for just not knowing any better- followed by forgetting to turn them back on/up and then surfing to some-malicious-site.com or opening some-malicious-email then the liklihood of an unwanted installl/download > 0 yes?
Sounds like we will always need utilities to help out.
As technology evolves, so will the malware.
Compare this topic to that of graphics- in the beginning there was the
There will always be a market for some next-big-thing..
Cogito Ergo Sum
First M$ creates an entire industry focused around fixing holes in their OS. Now they are threatening to fix their own holes and that industry is mad at them?
It seems to me this is like horses being mad at cars for making them obsolete.
However, I am yet to be convinced that Vista will not require third party anti-malware support.
Isn't MS in big trouble with the EU now for this same type of thing?
If Vista is as secure as we are being told by MS, why would it need anti-virus code from any source?
Everyone knows that you have to run a couple of different programs to get most of the spyware and adware off your machines. And those who don't know won't be using MS's anyway.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Is the Vista functionality different from Windows Defender? I'm curious if the Microsoft software is already taking market share from the other players...
I'm guessing the biggest buyers of antivirus, firewall, and spyware detecting software will be knowledgeable users and corporations. Even if you're talking about AOL users with their default installs, AOL still had to make a deal with MacAfee.
My guess is that most corporations and users will turn off the bundled anti-whatever, and use what they trust. After all, should you trust the company that created the problem after they sat for years without doing much, to solve the problem?
I don't get it.
I understand M$'s desire to squash these guys. Every time some server custodian buys another Symantec/Trend/McAfee license, the thought in the back of that custodian's head has to be "I wonder how much less of Symantec/Trend/McAfee's shit I would have to deal with if we didn't have so many M$ platforms running around."
Since everyone will be running MS's anti-spyware program, the spyware folks will concentrate on defeating it, just like virus writers concentrate on beating Windows "security". So there will still be a market for other vendors, since they would hopefully be better at stopping spyware than MS' default option. And since there's lots of them, it's harder to defeat them all. Even now, it's pretty well accepted that you need at least two anti-spyware programs to catch everything.
I can't help but wonder why Microsoft bothered to buy Giant Company awhile back for their antispyware product. Guess it explains why they've put zero effort into improving it since they bought it though.
leading vendors such as Symantec, McAfee and Trend Micro,
AVG Free works quite well and has removed Trojans that Symantec couldn't.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Anti-virus companies, ironically, are very much like a parasite that only lives on a specific host. When the host disappears (pre-Vista versions of Windows), the parasite dies. Either they get lucky and they find a new host in the form of Vista with security problems, or they diversify in a hurry.
For once, you can't blame Microsoft for ruining an industry, and I can't say I'll feel sad if McAfee or Symantec dies...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Even if all the doom and gloom is true - it's along time off. It's 2006, yet most corporations still have a handful (or more) of W2Kpro workstations. So even if Vista ships later this year, it's not like the anti-malware businesses will go out of business the week after that. There's at least a window of 3-5 years before their market dries up, and that's plenty of time for the malware writers to find a work around to MS or for the anti-malware writers to change their business model.
All those products do is bog down computers. Give me a hardened version of Windows that is more resistant to attacks and doesn't require me to run heavy applications to keep my computer clean. Give me that and I'll be happy. Good Riddance to McAfee and Symantec.
Nihilism means nothing to the dancing peasants
Yeah, sure, they'll get rid of spyware. Just like they got rid of spam.
Arrrrrrr
Overall, I would like to be put out of business by a real end to the spam problem.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
However, there is a more interesting issue with things like virus signatures and so on (emerging threats.) IANAL but I do wonder if, assuming that continuous updates are required to identify new forms of phishing, Trojans etc., MS might be required by the EU to open its API so that updates could be bought from different suppliers, on exactly the same basis that you can buy tires and exhausts from sources other than the car maker.
Pining for the fjords
It frustrates me that Microsoft wants to charge people for flaws in their own operating system. Typically bug fixes are included with an OS for free, but Microsoft wants us to pay them to keep bad stuff off of our computer, when the OS should inherently do that. *sigh*
XP and its predecessors.
From early reports the odds are that they are right. Now they won't have to manufacture phoney Linux bugs in their lab in a vain attempt to generate revenue from Linux users.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
format.com
What?
The big names in anti-virus are just eating resources. Without them we wouldn't be upgrading our computers quite as often. I work on a 2000 box at work with only 256MB of RAM. It normally runs fast enough, but once there was a decision by scared execs Symantec was installed. Now I'm hitting the VRAM like a drunk hits the dollar tapps at happy hour.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
I would love to see ALL anti-virus vendors STOP supporting Windows.
....more screwed that is
Let MS handle it all on their own.
Windows users would be SCREWED
Then when Microsoft is overloaded with attacks, the vendors should return with their new versions. They'll be greeted as saviors.
Microsoft's Anti-Spyware package (Windows Defender) is really a nice base for anti-spyware movements, but it will never be enough. Once you start relying on a single point for all of your defense stuff is bound to start targetting that. I mean within a week of the Windows Anti-Spyware Beta being released spyware creators were already targetting it for deletion upon "infection." I do agree that corporations like Symantec and McAfee that offer bloated and underwhelming spyware/malware removal tools are in for a big threat. However, companies like Lavasoft and programs like Spybot will continue to thrive because they offer a diversity of scanning software.
I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
I am Microsoft's enemy. Can't be any more direct than that. Hate the company. Hate their products.
But all other things asside, these anti-malware people built a business from the failings, vulnerabilities and shortcomings of Microsoft technologies. It's a moving target, technically speaking. Furthermore, if my favorite OS or any OS had a kind of "black list" of programs not allowed to run here, then I'm in favor of it. Essentially, that's what the anti-malware is.
I wouldn't consider it to be anti-competitive for Microsoft to shore up their own OS products for a better user experience and/or better security... unless they were charging money for it, and then I consider it more along the lines of extortion. "We don't know WHAT you might be infected with if you don't buy our product."
If you were an established anti-virus, or anti-spyware company, would you honestly be worried?
Sure Microsoft have the funds. However, Microsoft don't even have a track record as far as AV goes, and their anti-spyware offering left much to be desired as far as I read. Never used it myself.
I'm tired of going into offices or homes to clean up Windows machines, and finding one or two (or more) of these "Spyware Cleaners" running in the system tray simultaneously. Most of them don't do jack squat. Half of them even contain spyware.
Good riddance. I'm really looking forward to Vista.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Microsoft has put thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands of software companies out of business in the last two decades. As much as they do have a track record of destroying competition in various segments, somehow, I just don't see "computer security" being one of them.
Actually, the worst thing that could happen to the anti-mailware vendors is if companies end up rejecting Vista and move to *nix platforms instead.
Linux Fanboy: See how insecure Microsoft is. How could any REAL OS allow malware to be installed so easily? They should really beef up security so this doesn't happen, or stop producing Windows and let Linux take their market share. LINUX ROCKS!!!
Microsoft: You are correct. In the next version on Windows we will be focusing more on security, and we will not allow malware to be so easily installed, and for the stuff that does get installed, we will also provide you a way to remove it and save you money from having to buy another product.
Linux Fanboy: See!!! Microsoft is a monopoly! They are improving security of their product, and as a result these companies that produce anti-malware software will be suffering! Microsoft is crippling the software industry! This would never happen with Linux!
What exactly is a "self-replicating zero-day spyware threat?"
1. The defender product integrated into Vista is based on Giant's antispyware product, which I recognized upon learning about it as an excellent anti-spyware product. I remove a lot of spyware and adware from clients' PCs and it's been a valuable tool in my arsenal. 2. That having been said, I also recognize that no product catches every last bit of malware out there. That's why in addition to Defender, I also use Spybot, AdAware, HiJack This and occasionally Ewido. I also check the usual suspect places such as c:\windows\system32 and the various temp directories and clean those out. I really don't see how the inclusion of Defender is going to make people stop using the "multipronged" anti-malware approach.
If MS does this thing right and prevents gaping holes and security breaches, has reasonably fast definition updates, and sets and affordable price, there may be reason to fear on the part of the Anti-Malware vendors.
Therefore, it logically follows that there is no reason to fear on the part of the Anti-Malware vendors.
we're supposed to feel sorry for companies that hooked their wagon to an unsecure ship? their buisness model is dependent upon MS writing bad software. well, not that that's a bad gamble, but...
maybe it's about time MS writes more secure software. besides, given the hardware req's for vista, there'll be millions who sill still run xp/me/98 for the forseeable future.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
If there's an issue over whether Vista will put the big antivirus companies out of business, I don't see it as consequential. IMO, the software companies themselves will be responsible for their own demise, regardless of whether Microsoft enters the market. Programs like Norton Utilities used to be valuable, but now these once-critical utilities have morphed into bloaded virus-like software incarnations that are best not installed in the first place.
Furthermore, both McAffee and Symantec products have been hosts to numerous flaws, security holes and vulnerabilities themselves.
If Microsoft wanted to do it right, they could merely have Vista identify both programs as "malware" right off the bat, remove them from the system, and most users would be better off.
Isn't Microsoft using its monopoly power to (Windows platform) to introduce a new product that competes with existing products? Anti-virus companies are already making products to handle security, then Microsoft includes that functionality in the OS itself.
This is quite similar to the inclusion of Internet Explorer. And OS level disk defragmentation (remember PC Tools anyone?).
Now if Microsoft were to include preventatives/prophylactics in the OS, that's one thing, but including AV software, even if integrated into the OS, seems to be stretching things a bit.
Of course, this is the company that said it was cheaper to break the law and fight it in court than it was to follow the law.
Isaiah 43:19 (NCV)
Look at the new thing I am going to do. It is already happening. Don't you see it?
Many of you keep talking about how these companies are parasites or whatever for basing themselves off of MS's errors. Well... sorta
They didn't so much base it off of a faulty OS, but the internal paranoia of consumers. To beat them, MS will have to defeat that before the actual bugs. Not to say that it isn't warranted, but the point being... While these companies may take a big hit, they will not die off. The one thing about parasites is... they can be very adaptive. These companies will live off of people who were pleased with their software the first time around, purchasing it again. That, and contract agreements with coprorations anyways. Also... Vista will still have its own problems. I don't think people will ever trust something to self-clean, people feel good about buying a utility...
...
Remember that longhorn(now scrapped) was MS's first attempt at an OS since DOS. They hired a team from digital to produce the NT/2k/XP codebase and OS architecture, and gave that group a significant degree of insulation from the MS management structure, including billg. MS is very likely going to have to do the same thing again to deliver Vista in any decent form, or whatever it will be called by then. After all, if they scrapped longhorn, whose to say they won't have to scrap vista.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Well an interesting read even if I don't agree with some of the opinions expressed:
"Other security vendors are taking a similar approach. Steve Orenberg, president of anti-virus specialists Kaspersky Labs, in Woburn, Mass., said that for every problem Microsoft addresses with Vista and its other security products, there are likely to be new issues that will demand attention from companies such as his.
Vista might do a good job of blocking the types of spam e-mail that people have been deluged by over the last several years, Orenberg said, but the rapid maturation of viruses and other threats will require more attention than Microsoft is capable of giving them."
What makes Steve think that Microsoft, a company with billions of dollars in the bank, will be unable to afford to hire all the people needed to give the problem adequate attention?
Microsoft has in the past been incapable of securing its software but that's a different topic; closely related perhaps but different.
If I know Microsoft they smell money and they'll be bundling some sort of "protection software" in with Vista. A lite version just to get people going on their products perhaps? Once they leverage their monopoly OS to extend their business into a different area it'll be game over for companies like McAfee and other vendors selling similar services.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
classic line..
I mean realistically the reason we have all these 3rd party tools is because of the rather piss poor job m$ did on security to start with.
i could be suprised i guess.... but it's all hype till it ships.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
As a person that manages several hundred systems in an enterprise, I am very aware of the what does and does not work on our company's computers. In almost every case, NONE of the large commercial offerings for spyware/malware work for SH**. And typically, it takes more than one product to do a throrough cleaning. In nearly every product "shoot-out" I have ever read the freebie or independent software is as good as, or outperforms, the major players. MS does an okay job, but still misses the mark on a lot of "infections". Why? The flaw is leaving the definition of spyware up to a company like Microsoft, or Symantec, etc. Their own business practices, marketing agreements, licensing, and distribution methods are suspect to begin with. It would be the pot calling the kettle black. It is only from independent 3rd party developers that we can expect detection and removal of *everything* that you and I would consider spyware.
If they play their marketing cards right, this could really be a boon for the independent anti-malware guys.
There is a definite trait in the human personality that feels that a bone-stock mechanism isn't good enough. Evidence the number of after-market mufflers, 3rd party ringtones, Windows defragmentation utilities, et cetera that are sold every single day.
By making anti-malware 'standard', Microsoft is actually enlarging the population of people interested in the product. As it stands now, there are a lot of people who still feel anti-malware is optional or haven't even a concept of what it is. Once it's standard in the OS, it not only won't be optional but there will be a huge market of people exposed to anti-malware that haven't been. And guess what? A goodly portion can be convinced that MS's offering isn't good-enough, and why don't you 'upgrade' to the Norton Super-Whiz Bang Mega Suite while you're at it?
This is a big win for the 3rd party developers if they manage the opportunity correctly.
-JT
The anti-malware/anti-spyware/anti-virus/anti-badstuff war is extremely similar to insurgencies against governments (even historically, not just now).
There are two aspects to this situation:
1) How can these companies staunch the ever-widening, ever-innovative flow of assaults on the Internet?
2) What will Microsoft's product do to the businesses who make much of their living from anti-badstuff software?
For the first item, one can only hope to lessen the impact and severity of assaults. One cannot hope that massive counter-counter assaults and all-comprehensive-in-one approaches will work - as they do not when used against governmental insurgents. The more flailing and posturing on the part of the defender, the harder the black hats fight back. It (IMHO) is better to do your best, stay on top of things, and keep the users/public educated and intelligent about their computer use.
For the second item, It is my sincere hope that Vista (or whatever it becomes) will not stamp out the small-and-medium size after-marketeers. Innovation is often fueled by people who are not working in a cubicle box for a giant company - but by a small- or medium-sized company that has its focus razor sharp.
A similar thing was that IE did crush most competition for browsers for many years (and is still a huge installed base), but other companies and browsers have slowly crept back - perhaps because the shiny ball got dropped at Goliath's shop and picked up by an interested David's shop. I get the feeling that the anti-badstuff software market will probably cycle in a very similar fashion.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Not sure where you are going with the anti-virus, since Microsoft has never released one.
They have. There was a utility called MSAV in MS-DOS 6.
Mainly because many businesses will start asking the uncomfortable question about why they have to pay for an insecure software product then pay more for security software. I realize many companies are doing it now, but when the checks are going to different companies one can pretend you're buying network security. When both checks go to the same company it becomes glaringly apparent that you're paying for something many companies think should be included in the price.
I realize it must seem strange but I really think this will do more to highlight MSFT's insecurity than boost revenue. Because it's sort of like rubbing a customer's nose in the fact that the product they're buying is basically not secure. I'm guessing MSFT will end up bundling the package at a price not far above where they are now, especially for big buyers. The little people will, of course, get the corporate shaft but most of them are used to it by now anyway. After the XP Activation Follies paying for security updates won't seem like much of a big deal.
Not seeing a win here.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The next time I have to clean a nasty piece of spyware off one of my non-geek friends computers, I will thank my lucky stars that we have these third-party "security" companies to discourage Microsoft from writing a secure OS.
Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
Every time Microsoft releasesa a new version of it's operating system, going all the way back to the days of DOS, they have bundeled more and more utilities with the OS and various "experts" have proclaimed that Microsoft is going to put 3rd party vendors out of business.
But it never happens.
Windows comes with all sorts of programs -- web browser, media player, text editor, CD burning, disk defragger, paint program, etc., etc. and yet there is no shortage of people producing their own competing products. In fact there are probably more good quality choices available today than 10 years ago.
I doubt that Vista will put a serious dent in the anti-malware business.
This would not be an issue of the scope that it is if M$ had built the OS well in the first place. The anit-malware industry would not exist at the level it does were it not for this. If Vista truly eliminates the vast array of Windows fundamental problems, the anit-malware and security vendors will likely provide much better products that would be more cost effective and far less intrusive to the user. There was a time, for example, when 'Norton' utilities and anti-virus were well respected products, but the mess allowed by M$ poor design and decision making created an environment where the average Joe Consumer is compelled to buy suites of 'Internet Security' products that are resource hogs and UI nightmares. M$ history of patching then patching the patches has done little to ultimately make things better for the average consumer, and keeps anit-malware vendors distracted from innovating better tools.
Maybe someone could fill me in... Microsoft being a developer, vendor..... By bundling Products they Developed (through acquisitions or what ever) Whats the Harm? Why isnt everyone chasing Apple for "bundling" Safari? No one said you HAVE to use Safari Or IE. Same applies to the ANTI(fill in the blank). IF someone has a product that is superior bring it on. Maybe a total solution to his bundling is - "We've installed Product X - But here are links to some other Products You might need/enjoy etc" Isnt that what Microsoft was doing when you clicked the original "Connect to the internet" icon? - Partnered with various isps. Maybe I'm missing the point, and im sure someone will Flame me all to hell for it.
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
Windows includes a built-in defrag. I bought PerfectDisk when I found out it worked better.
Windows includes a built-in "remote desktop" capability. I use vnc for my remote-desktopping needs, because I prefer something multi-platform.
Windows includes a built-in terminal program. Back in the day when such things mattered, I used SecureCRT, because it worked better.
For those for whom the minimum is enough, because they don't have a critical business need for something better which justifies ante'ing up $$$, the MS-provided anti-malware solution will be better than nothing. The rest of us will just keep doing what we're doing, supporting the products we trust.
This really is a DIFFERENT case from the Office situation, because much of what drove the takeover by Office was a combination of "it has to read and write Office documents because that's what our customers use" and "most of the clerks we hire are familiar with Office, so let's standardize on that". Anti-malware UI and file exchangeability aren't issues, so this is much less of a threat. It *IS* somewhat similar to the browser case. I think enough folks have learned "the browser stagnancy lesson" and moved on to alternatives, that they know better than to espouse the MS solution in this situation.
I hate to say it... but I hope so. I do... That the OS will be secure and stable and fast and such things as spyware, viruses, and popup ads will all be a thing of the past. I also hope one day we will have world peace. I hope to also win the lottery even though I don't play it. I also hope to have a night of wild sex with Jennifer Anniston and Salma Hyak. And I want to be the emporer of the moon too...
MadOgre.com
Of course, if they charge extra for Anti-virus software, that would be a bigger deal- it means that Microsoft is charging you more to deal with bugs they left in Windows. It doesn't take much brainpower to see a potential conflict of interest there.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Why...what's that strange rash on my server? ;-)
run linux
01/20/09
if anyone is dumb enough to keep using microsoft after all this, they deserve the endless stream of exploits and viruses that are sure to plague their systems even worse than they already do
:)
microsoft has got it all figured out:
1. sell insecure buggy unreliable software (windows, office, etc)
2. wait for (or help?) hackers to exploit or infect the software your customers were dumb enough to buy
3. SELL them fixes and protection and removal tools
4. after a couple years start selling NEW versions of software, patch the old versions to not work or stop supporting them
theyve actually been doing most of this for over a decade, step3 is new though and means more money the more unstable your software is!
or you can use opensource and:
1. get FREE software (os, office, multimedia.. all free)
2. any issues discovered are easily patched quickly and freely (and can be by anyone)
3. free malware protection (as if you even needed it)
4. upgrade when you feel like it, if you feel like it. On your schedule, not microsofts
can you afford not to switch?
The gist of the article is that the Big 3 provide a suite of solutions, not just A/V. Yes, there are people out there who prefer putting together their own suite and maintaining it all by themselves. And that's perfectly ok.
However, there is a larger group of people out there who would rather throw money at the problem and make it go away (or at least make somebody else try and make it go away on their behalf). That's the solution the Big 3 offer.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Remember? WinXP comes with its own firewall (a pathetic excuse for a firewall, but there is one). Did ZoneLabs go out of business? Or Kerio?
No. For a simple and very logic reason: The VERY FIRST thing any given malware today has in its code is some piece of code to turn the WinXP "firewall" off or grant itself permission to pass through it. It's Registry configured, a well placed call to RegCreateKey fixes this "problem" easily.
Why should we expect it to be different with an MS-antivirus tool?
Yes, the overhead grows for malware writers, since they'll then have to disable another thing in the windows security service. Since many Windows users surf as admins (or at least don't mind logging in some admin account if asked by ANY kind of program), it's far from a problem to disable anything.
But anyone who tries to secure his computer sensibly will not rely on a MS-Antivirus but try to get a third party tool, just like they now rely on third party firewall systems. Because EVERY piece of malware written WILL be tested if it "works" with MS-Antivirus on the system, or try to kick the MS-Antivir suit from the tasklist.
I even predict malware packages that come with a bogus MS-Antivirus, so they can run in plain view of the User. After all, the User EXPECTS the MS-AV to run (while you can't so easily spoof being Kaspersky or McAfee, not knowing whether the user actually uses those programs).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since they have an effective monopoly on the desktop OS segment, they can't move into the other segments using the same.
They, because of their relative size in the market, can't just be putting anything and everything into their products as a bundled deal. It's the same story with the media player and browser software they're already in trouble (though with the browser, they got a slap on the wrist over it- it remains to be seen on the media player software, but it's not looking as good for Microsoft on that front...).
Once you become an effective or complete monopoly, the rules for business change for you.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
These computers will be operated by humans. That is one security hole no one can fix. To us, it seems easy. We're programmers, pen-testers, geek squad members. We're basically lucky enough to have a hoppy that pays well. Not everyone thinks like a geek. Joe Sixpack doesn't give a damn how his computer works, and doesn't want to learn how it works. He just wants to browse the net, send e-mail, and maybe if he's feeling frisky put up a new desktop wallpaper. These people don't know what a "root password" is. They don't know what an "address bar" is. They don't know or CARE. Look, if a phisher just has to ask nicely for Aunt Sally's debit card PIN, what makes you think she'll think twice when we change "pin" to "root password", "firewall password" or anything else? Hell even biometric security won't work because she'll just slide her thumb right in there so she can get the latest hot ring tones.
Let's see, the average Slashdotter will probably revile Microsoft for not making their OS secure enough.
Will the average Slashdotter come down against these companies for opposing Microsoft taking the neccessary steps to protect their OS? Not even the arguments about Microsoft being a monopoly are enough to sway me.
It'd be like saying GM or Ford can't make their cars safer and easier to drive because that reduces the business of emergency rooms.
I just don't get it.
Oh wait, I do. It's hypocrisy.
Sorry, but I support Microsoft's efforts to secure their computing environment, and as long as they do not actively create constraints that impair the operations of third-party software, I'm afraid I'm unconcerned. So as long as people can install Mcaffee or Norton AV on their systems if the respective companies make the software, I don't care. If those companies can't convince people to buy their products, oh well.
I find it hard to understand that companies such as Symantec and McAfee apparently haven't had a strategy prepared for this eventuality. If you've built a business on Microsoft's incompetence, then surely you'd have to expect that sooner or later Microsoft's competence would either improve, or Microsoft would go out of business, taking with it any businesses that leech off its existance.
If they truly haven't been prepared for this, they deserve to become obsolete.
Antivirus and antispyware companies will have a customer base for another decade at least because not everyone will make the jump to Vista at once. Many people still run Windows 98 and even *gasp* Windows 95. The many W95,W98, and XP users will provide income for antivirus companies for a long time ahead.
Your first offense argument is ignorant of the facts.
The DOJ signed an agreement saying that they would never again prosecute MS for bundling ANYTHING. Ever.
Ignorant consumers would be lining up around the block to upgrade their antivirus and antispyware software... and that folks, is a very large market.
Not sure where you are going with the anti-virus, since Microsoft has never released one. But when they do, I'm pretty confident it'll steal the market share too.
MS put out an antivirus way back in the early 1990's with MSDOS ver 6.0 based upon the Central Point Anti-Virus product which was later incorporated into Symantec/Norton Antivirus.
My oh my, how quickly we forget history.
"Not sure where you are going with the anti-virus, since Microsoft has never released one."
Well, technically they *did* -- it was MSAV.EXE for DOS 6.x/Win3.x before they unleashed the monster that was Win9x....
Problem was, MSAV was such a worthless piece of shit that you would have to be insane to rely on it for protection against viruses. Not a good omen for WinVistaAV (or whatever the hell they're going to call the Brave New Anti-Virus) -- but then again it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Every time M$ jumps into some new category of application they almost invariably manage to fuck it up for everyone.
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
It is not so much the two being installed on the system, but most I've seen run all the time in the background scanning files. Two programs scanning files you are opening ("On Access" protection!)for teh virus!!!1! is a Bad Idea.
But with the new Intel Core Duo, you could do that easily!
>Not sure where you are going with the anti-virus, since Microsoft has never
:-)
>released one.
MS used to bundle an antivirus tool with DOS. They used to call it MSAV.
IIRC, there was one called MWAV too.
http://www.computerhope.com/msavhlp.htm
From the link,
"the Windows 3.x version may think Windows 95 is a Virus."!!!