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."
I think there's an opportunity here for someone to sell a spyware app, but to bundle a free operating system with it. That ought to hit MS where it hurts. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
...And Open-Source the program. Think of the possibilities.
At the time of the IE/Netscape war, Navigator wasn't the only product that Netscape made. They also had a variety of server software, which from what I've heard wasn't all that bad, especially compared to the competition at the time. So saying Webroot should make other products in order to avoid the same fate as Netscape may not be particularly good advice. Depends on what other areas they branch into, I guess.
This guy's the limit!
The taking of a second-best product in this space [i.e. Vista's Defender, f.k.a. AntiSpyware]
So, they're the bests and Vista Defender the 2? What about ad-aware, spybots...?
Also, who knew before about this "Spy Sweeper"?
I often see it the other way around...
If I'm looking for a good anti-spyware program, and it comes bundled with something that I'm _not_ looking for, then I might instead use something that's not necessarily quite as good but isn't loaded down with other software.
If their software is that much better than Microsoft's, then I'm sure they'll have no problem competing. Honestly most people install spyware without looking at what they're agreeing to, and the people who care about this will be willing to spend the time it takes to install a third party app.
Seriously.
Why can't MS just make an OS which isn't so prone to it?
If they somehow made Vista impervious (without a built in addon or tool) do you think people would be mad at them for killing the competition?
Microsoft steals the lucrative business of fixing Microsofts mistakes. Spyware manufacturers also make money off of Microsofts mistakes.
Just some food for thought.
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.
..wake up with fleas. If you develop for, around, close to, in addition to, anything that micrsoft makes, and THEY aren't making the cash from it..good luck, you are sleeping with the dogs and taking a big chance, and I would include such offerings as FF for windows, a thoroughly misguided and ill advised effort, albeit some of them are well meaning. They are still naieve from the long haul view of things and will one day seriously regret what they are doing to make MS "better". All you are doing is giving MS breathing room as they further consolidate and corrupt things, and they WILL screw you over in the long run somehow.
But if can include both better and different services to appeal to customers, they will have a chance. Having a better product alone will not be enough though. Look how dominate IE still is even though it is pretty well known that Firefox is much better. Users just do not bother to care because they just dont know better.
A chance only though, my money is on Vista to begin with - Who knows what problems Vista will open up for other companies to try to fix.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
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.
Okay, I haven't been following the spyware world closely lately -- and it changes fast -- but IIRC, when MS bought the rights to this program from Giant, most of the reviews I had read put it as the best antispyware program on the market. Now granted, that is a very disputable claim, and I obviously offer no evidence to support it. Still, it seems like Webroot came the close second here, so they have a little more to worry about than Mr. Moll seems to display.
Genius is the art of making everyone think you know what you're talking about.
I've been in the spyware removal (windows consulting) business basically since there was spyware to remove (restart computer into safe mode and clean out startups) and I've NEVER had a client who used spysweeper come back and tell me how great it was. Usually they'd say the program didn't do anything to prevent or remove their britney spears doggie porn popups/virus/adware melange. I'd install spybot S+D, spyware blaster, and have them run spybot weekly after I'd removed crap. The spybot/spyware blaster machines ALWAYS came back cleaner. Now I just make them get a copy of Symantec Antivirus 10.0.2 and after installing the innoculations from spybot and spyware blaster, setting the default actions for adware/trojans to delete, and making sure it updates everyday, I get machines from complete porn addicts who refuse to switch to firefox that only have 20 or so (very very minor) issues after 3-6 months as opposed to 20,000(literally) in one month. And for the record I normally HATE symantec products, but their pro (non norton) antivirus is the best I've used.
Simple. Include email functionality. It will happen anyway.
Trust MS for my net security? Not on their track record.
Maybe they could start writing software to protect against the flaws in MS' new anti-spyware software.
"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,'"
His product may lock all the doors in the house, but Windows is still wide-open. If you want a secure house, don't start with a modular home that fell off the truck a few times during transport.
Basically - MS acquired Giant and started offering free Spyware within XP SP2. I'm sure these guys would have liked to have been acquired by MS - they might even have been in the running. No chance of a trade sale now - they've taken too much funding to provide backers with an attractive exit, and now they're stuck with having to fight against a product which will not only be free, but be part of the operating system which really needs it. Other than Firefox (which is also free), how many pieces of software have ever beaten that combination in the mass market? Given that it's impossible for most people to determine which is the better anti spyware product, the CEO's claim that people will choose a superior solution is pretty weak. Their options now are pretty rapidly to widen the offering (in which case the CEO's claim is pointless) or to provide a niche service to businesses (which is fine). The lesson? You can occasionally make money by offering a single software solution, but if you're betting your shirt - back a company that has more than omne product.
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
It's a good thing to quote that "bundled-with" because the term is misleading. No one cares if M$ or anyone else gives away a text editor. What matters is if they make it so no other text editor will work. The Netscape complaint was that M$ strong armed vendors to gain a desktop software monopoly and then abused that monopoly in all sorts of ways to make it a huge pain in the neck to run Netscape on the desktop so that they could steal Netscapes' server market. The tactics included constantly changing the user's defaults back to IE and a combined smear and code breakage like they did with DRDOS.
It's all very nasty and they keep doing it, over and over. They have done it with Office Software to Lotus and Word Perfect, they have done it with backup software, browsers and just about anything you can think of. The people who want to own the worlds computers want to own every piece of it. The developers ran off a long time ago except for a few large companies and even they are looking for a way out. The current fights are over media and, yes, antivirus.
The most obvious result of all of these fights is a decidedly second rate user experience. So many second rate programs have been kludged together, they hardly work. All the hooks and barbs M$ made for others, they have to deal with themselves. Add a bit of DRM and remove the last of the companies trying to patch up your system and you get Vista, the five year development flop. It's kind of like watching an oil filled megatanker fall into the moon.
Information about the DRDOS example can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313031916/www.ki ckassgear.com/Articles/Microsoft.htm
Windoze performance information can be found anywhere Windoze is run. Just wait for them to curse.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Considering that Alexa is installed with IE 6 by default and it was known spyware even when IE6 came out, why trust Microsoft's anti-spyware? I'm really not trying to just troll here, but if they bundled IE with links to a known spyware provider in the first place, one has to wonder if a certain amount of spyware isn't deliberately overlooked by their program for business reasons.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Just like it's "easy" to be a heart surgeon but "extremely difficult" to be a brain surgeon...
Yes, in theory, a Linux system can be cleaned without reimaging it. Not practically though, and there's always the possibility you missed something. If a box is known to have been compromised, the only reasonable thing to do is reimage it to a known-good state.
Netscape fell victim if an aging code base and poorly implemented standards support (next to none...).
Instead of making a quick series of patch fixing the standards support, speed and so on, they decided to drop everything and spend few years rewriting everything from scratch. Their first releases (Netscape 6, 6.2x, 7.x) were bloated, slow to start, slow to render, buggy and damn, they were ugly.
The company's been sold, resold, split, merged, reorganised and what not, and after so many years we got Firefox, which was able to compete again with its 1.0 release.
Was the inclusion of IE Windows important in this development of history? Certainly! However the fact IE4 was a significantly better browser than NS4 and all the crap NS did to themselves was what made the crucial difference.
(yes IE4 was better than NS4, it's hard to comprehend it today, when IE6 is the worst browser of the bunch, but back then the situation was pretty different)
You are talking out of your ass. I am not a Windows user, but I would be capable of burying a trojan in your system such that you wouldn't likely find it by that method. Certainly not without spending *much* more time than reimaging, which is the standard practice after a box as been compromised in any professional enviroment, which you quite obviously are not familiar with.
/var...), nor would you be able to do so with intentionally changed files. (ie, config files, which often point to binaries to be executed) By your method, you'd have to go through every config file by hand, because if you're not keeping backup images, you're probably not keeping logs of what you've changed.
Your method will work most of the time cleaning up after some peon such as yourself who's just fucked things up, but is is not a wise course of action against a determined, experienced intruder.
You clearly do not understand how package managers work. While you would be able to track the base files installed, you wouldn't be able to do so with files generated files (take a look through