Slashdot Mirror
Spy Sweeper, the Next Netscape?
GenieGenieGenie writes "AP is running a story about Webroot's Spy Sweeper, specifically about the competition it's facing from Vista's bundled anti-spyware. Webroot's CEO David Moll maintains that 'The taking of a second-best product in this space [i.e. Vista's Defender, f.k.a. AntiSpyware] is akin to locking half the doors in your house,' but others seem to think that if Moll doesn't want his company to become a second Netscape, it would 'ultimately [...] need to offer more than just an anti-spyware package.' The interesting issue here is whether this need for broadening the offer would be the case also for other leading companies subject to similar 'bundled-with' competition."
Netscape was a competitor to a product Microsoft sold. Anti-spyware software is little more than a fix for Microsoft's crappy security model that's included in its OS and default browser. There's a big difference here.
Microsoft bundled IE and bullied PC makers into not putting Netscape on the desktop because it wanted to put Netscape out of business. That's a bad thing. On the other hand, Microsoft is bundling anti-spyware software into its new OS to protect its users from a) their own ineptidude, and b)the afore-mentioned crappy software that Microsoft themselves put in place.
Where Microsoft wanted to get into a new market (the browser application) by crushing Netscape, in this case they're just trying to band-aid their operating system's vulnerabilities to (hopefully) lower the amount of user frustration in the future.
I've been an IT guy for nine years, and I've always thanked Microsoft for releasing bad, buggy code. The anti-spyware folks should do the same, instead of being angry that Microsoft is finally trying to fix the problem.
You can't simply compare the anti-malware market to others.
With browsers, you want to be compatible. You have a self perpetuating cycle where your browser wants to be compatible to the pages where the page creators want to be compatible with your browser. Thus the widest used browser is the most compatible, and thus "the best" if you want to be able to view everything "well".
The same applies to media players, MP3 players and everything else where all sides involved want to be as compatible as possible.
In the anti-malware biz, it's exactly the other way. You do NOT want to be "compatible" with the malware.
Take a look at antivirus soft and the corresponding trojans, viruses etc. There is almost no trojan today that does NOT try to disable Kaspersky, McAffee, NOD etc. Trying to tear down the WinXP firewall is a given.
I bet my computer against an old ice cone that the FIRST thing that happens as soon as the Windows "Anti-Malware" comes out is that every trojan that could be disabled by it comes with some Anti-Anti-MS-Malware functions, just like they do now with Anti-WinXP Firewall functions.
In other words, there will always be a market for "small" Anti-Malware businesses. For the simple reason that, as odd as it may sound, they will have a higher chance to succeed. Simply by being neglected by the trojan writers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, come on. I hate it when people make me defend Microsoft, but the fact is a lot of spyware is installed manually by users, via a bundle with some other product, and there is no way Microsofts OS can differentiate between user-installed spyware and legitimate apps.
So yeah, Microsoft is at fault for the security holes that allow spyware to be automatically installed, but factor those out and there's still a need for anti-spyware for the computer-illiterate masses.
Oh no... it's the future.
No. The demise of Netscape led directly to Mozilla.org pissing about for over four years without a stable release while Internet Explorer simply soaked up all the marketshare.
We might have better browsers now, but imagine where we'd be if a) Netscape continued to be a organisation that actually shipped software and b) Microsoft actually had to compete against another browser. We might have a decent Internet Explorer, for one thing, as things stand, Internet Explorer really has retarded web development for years.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Anti-spyware (and antivirus) software isn't protecting from defects in the code, it's protecting from defects in the user.
Not only "wouldn't" I, but I don't.
I do, occasionally (maybe once every 6 months) run the online scanners over my PC. Thus far, no infection has ever been detected.
You would rely solely on your personal computing prowess to prevent and/or remove all infections?
I rely on common sense and the security facilities of my OS to avoid infection in the first place. In particular, I don't execute code I can't verify the source of, I don't run as a high-privilege user for day to day tasks and I filter inbound network connections to my computers.
I will also point out that these are the exact same procedures I follow on *all* the OSes I use.
If you say yes, first I'll call bullshit.
I don't really care what you "call". Ten years of Windows use without a single exploit from malicious code is enough evidence for me that my methods work the majority of the time.
Then I'll ask how you can expect this kind of tech savvy from your average user.
Most malware - or, more accurately, the vector it uses - doesn't require even the slightest level of "tech savviness" to identify. How many people, if someone knocked on their door and said they were from their bank, would hand over a blank cheque and signature specimen for "verification purposes" ? Compare that to how many are happy to hand over their banking usernames and passwords to email and web based banking scams.
One of the fundamental problem, IMHO, is many people are still working under the impression that stuff on the "internet" isn't "real", and that actions online can have genuine consequences out in the real world. My guess is they figure that since Word has an undo button, then everything else they do with the computer can be similarly easily "undone". Malware is going a long way towards rectifying this attitude (one of its few upsides).
Now, with all that said I certainly wouldn't recommend most people go without anti-virus and anti-spyware tools. Particularly since most "normal users", IME, are primarily using the internet for inherently high-risk behaviour (swapping software, documents and other data). However, the simple fact is that neither anti-spyware, nor anti-virus software, is there to protect the user from flaws in the OS (although it may do this as a side effect). It's there to protect the user from flaws in their behaviour. No level of OS security known can protect from the user deliberately executing malicious code.
(I use the word "flaws" here in the context of safe computing practices, not behaviour in general. I don't think for a second people *shouldn't* be doing the things they do with computers that typically lead to malware infection.)