MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service

user24 writes "MSN reports that Microsoft 'is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better protection for the Windows operating system, which has been vulnerable to Internet attacks. Windows Live OneCare will protect up to three computers for about 50 dollars a year.' From the OneCare website: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'"

Comments

Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Drinking Bleach]

Try fixing your operating system first.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Anonymous Coward]

Another rolodex entry for the current crop of windows "sysadmins".

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[drsmithy]

Try fixing your operating system first.

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[flimflammer]

But you see if Microsoft fixed everything, they would be sued for unfair buisness practices by putting companies like Symantec out of buisness in the Windows world.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Anonymous Coward]

Try fixing your operating system first.

Microsoft excuses -

1: We can't, we just have too much legacy code to support.

2: Nobody understands that it's impossible to create a safe and secure operating system and retain the market share we do.

3: It's all the malware writers fault, why are people so evil?

4: We are making over a billion dollars a month in profit, why should we listen to you?

5: Where would all the IT support jobs and businesses go if we suddenly put out a OS as secure as Mac OS X? Do you think we want to end up with market share like Apple?

6: Windows insecurity was all part of a master plan to gain more control over your computers using EFI.

7: People need to suffer.

8: Windows insecurity is part of another master plan to turn X-Boxes into consumer PC's.

9: We are stupid, feel sorry for us.

10: Geeks complain online, but then when they get a call from the local business to fix their virus infected machines, they secretly praise us.

11: Too bad.

12: Get a fruit machine.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

There are Nicotine patches to stop smoking,
Birth Control patches for unwanted pregnancies,
so why not Microsoft patches to quit Windows?

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[elhedran]

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

There are Nicotine patches to stop smoking,
Birth Control patches for unwanted pregnancies,
so why not Microsoft patches to quit Windows?


What? you mean like a piece of blue card with a paperclip attached?

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Scudsucker]

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

Windows is a clusterfuck because of Microsoft's poor coding and design choices, not because of users.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Fred_A]

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

Actually Windows Live OneCare comes withe a trained MS Goon that whacks you on the top of the head whenever you do something stupid. That's the "live" part.

I didn't quite get the "allowing you to have fun" bit though.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[drsmithy]

Windows is a clusterfuck because of Microsoft's poor coding and design choices, not because of users.

Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[BorgDrone]

Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?

It's also possible to safely handle a gun, simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers. Doesn't mean guns aren't dangerous.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Mistshadow2k4]

[sarcasm] Oh, yeah, right it's ALL the user's fault. And *nix allows remote users to make changes to your system without your knowledge or permission whenever you're online too. And let's not forget that ton of Unix viruses that have made the internet nearly impossible to use because all the servers keep failing. And of course, *nix also requires a whole bunch of third-party software to secure it as well. Oh, and all OSes have browsers with Active X![/sarcasm]

Yes, a lot of users are stupid. But if the vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place there would be far fewer problems. If Windows was as secure as OS X -- and sorry, Apple fans, it's not as secure as some other *nix distros -- a virus would be a rare thing simply because it wouldn't have anything to work with. So, yeah, if they fixed it that would eliminate most viruses right there. Despite the stereotypes many would have you believe, there are a lot of Mac users who are just as clueless as the Windows user you're describing, but their systems haven't been compromised because the OS they're using isn't horribly insecure to begin with.

How to secure Windows by yours truly (hope this makes sense; I haven't had much coffee yet):
1. Firewall! Better still firewall + hardware router.
2. Anti-virus. I recommend Avast! for 2k and XP, AVG for 9x. If you want to pay for anti-virus, I've heard NOD32 is the best, with Kaspersky's coming in a close second.
3. Win Patrol prevents many changes fromt aking place without your permission; just scroll down the page for the link to download the free version.
4. If you're using Xp, get xpy which can disable a whole lot of Windows problems, such as the remote regsitry severice which allows remote users to change your registry whenever you're online -- yes, MS made it that on purpose and isn't going to fix it -- and Active X, Windows' most infamous security hole. You need to know what you're doing with this program though; if you don't, get someone who does to help you.
5. Be careful. Research *everything* you'd like to install. Check the program's ratings at download sites and do a search on the program's name with a good search engine.

Personally, though, I tend to think Winsdows is hopeless. Patches aren't enough, the system needs to be built from the ground up with much higher security. That means a lot of programs wouldn't even work after that. And would MS provide this as a free fix to all of their customers? Ha!

But speculation is useless. Microsoft is never going to try to really fix Windows; as successful as they've been already, why should they? Especially not when they can make money selling services to protect Windows! Never mind that they should've built a secure OS in the first place like practically everyone else did.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[zeropaper]

it's not the users who should be software-friendly, it's the software who should be users-friendly I guess MS, will keep some of their biggest security holes (they have a lot in stock) to made some monney for their next major security hole called Vista...

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also possible to safely handle a gun, simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers. Doesn't mean guns aren't dangerous.

And just because a gun is dangerous doesn't mean is it poorly designed.

I think you made the GP's point. A gun when handled correctly can be perfectly safe. Windows when used correctly can be perfectly stable.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[tajgenie]

Though it can't be denied that these problems exist predominantly on windows and not on OSX, I agree that users are much the reason. I have no AV enabled, no firewall, no security or automatic updates or whatever enabled (though I have it installed in case). I have not gotten a virus or a single piece of adware in over 2 years (except once when I connected to my school network with the firewall disabled, which I never did again). Now I've left my computer alone for 10 minutes while I went to get cookies from across the house (no the house is not large; the cookies were numerous). I come back and my brother is using my computer, which is fine, except I have spyware all of a sudden. True story. Since the vulnerability is there, it *requires* that the user be able to defeat it, which sadly no one is capable of doing. Most users have a hell of a time recognizing that they are being attacked by adware and spyware; about as hard of a time an autistic might have determining facial expressions.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[jacksonj04]

I've been using the Beta for months now, and it works out far cheaper than anything else. What else can you get for $17 per machine which does antivirus (fully automated updates), antispyware, automatic disk cleanup (including defrag), automated backup (with removable HDD, and a nice backup method if not), automated updates, automated firewall with regularly updated patterns and gives end users a simple red, yellow or green status?

This isn't about "Well it could be done for free" or "OMG *NIX ROX MIGRATE NOW LOL!!". This is a product for end users to just install and it makes the system just work.

OS X has this rolled into the cost of the OS/Hardware. *nix has this cost in the time spent to configure your system. Windows has this cost as an optional extra.

I know which one I prefer.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[JakusMinimus]

Most users have a hell of a time recognizing that they are being attacked by adware and spyware; about as hard of a time an autistic might have determining facial expressions.

Mod that +1 Profound

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Jesus_666]

How to secure Windows by yours truly (hope this makes sense; I haven't had much coffee yet): 1. Firewall! Better still firewall + hardware router.

Forget firewalls, at least for home networks. The only thing I rely on to make a Windows PC safe from incoming attacks is NAT. Put the box behind a NAT router and only forward ports when necessary. Bang, zero chance of anything getting in and it's relatively cheap, as well. It also makes firewalls (which sometimes tend to cause more harm than good) obsolete.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[LaughingCoder]

Never mind that they should've built a secure OS in the first place like practically everyone else did.

Perhaps they are successful because they didn't build a "secure" OS. Seriously, who among us hasn't been frustrated when trying to do something on a "locked down" machine and being prevented by security. Who among us doesn't insist on having the admin or root password on our boxes so we can get stuff done? Sure, we know we should only use those permissions in rare cases when we really, really need to, and should just be "ordinary users" most of the time, but for the general population, expecting people to a) realize that and b) tolerate flipping back-and-forth and c) knowing when to flip back-and-forth is completely unreasonable. I think that building a wide open, "flat" system is one of the keys to Microsoft's success ... of course they won't "fix it"! The very openness that causes all these problems is what has enabled the widely varying range of user-installable applications and hardware enhancements to exist.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Lord Ender]

A router and a NAT/PAT device are not necessarily the same. A simple "hardware router" does nothing for security.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[tonyray]

Microsoft is never going to try to really fix Windows

XP, which sits atop 2000, which sits atop NT, which sits atop Xenix (MS's attempt at Unix), can't be fixed. The relational diagrams look like spegetti. That is why Vista sits atop a whole new code base that looks like stacked blocks in a brick wall.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[harrkev]

A NAT is like a big locked door. Nobody can get in -- unless you OPEN the door first. NAT will not protect from people getting drive-by installs as they search for porn. Nor will it stop people from downloading a P2P app that loads them down with nasty spyware.

But, in the hands of an experienced user, a NAT is great protection, as long as the user is careful. Unfortunately, they are not fool-proof, as the world keeps on making better fools.

Oh well. I should not be too hard on people. Some guys who know nothing about avoiding mal-ware could rebuild an engine. I can change starters and alternaters, but that's about it. I guess we all have our priorities.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[operagost]

That's the first time I've seen someone claim that NT was build on Xenix. Usually, people claim Dave Cutler put VMS code in it (which is also untrue, although there are some solid VMS concepts being used).

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[mkw87]

Oh well. I should not be too hard on people. Some guys who know nothing about avoiding mal-ware could rebuild an engine. I can change starters and alternaters, but that's about it. I guess we all have our priorities.

Yes, true, but along with knowing how to avoid mal-ware, you know how to use google. Therefore, I'll bet you could figure out how to change an engine :P

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[lymond01]

Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?

Just had a fully patched, Windows Fire-walled, Sophos Antivirused, IPSec-filtered WinXP SP2 box get hacked (lots of free french films). User uses Thunderbird for email. I'm still scratching my head about that one.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[zonker]

Microsoft's New Credo:
"We'll fix that bug but you've got to slip us another $20..."

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Anonymous Coward]

This is their whole point... Take Symantec's lunch money in perpetuity.

they don't plan to fix their operating system.

Now, let's see if they can do this "security services" WITHOUT DRM updates silently being slipped in as a "security service"

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Barsteward]

And just because a gun is dangerous doesn't mean is it poorly designed. It does if it blows up in your face and blows your hand off

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[drsmithy]

XP, which sits atop 2000, which sits atop NT, which sits atop Xenix (MS's attempt at Unix), can't be fixed. The relational diagrams look like spegetti. That is why Vista sits atop a whole new code base that looks like stacked blocks in a brick wall.

Wow. I don't think you could fit more errors into three lines...

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[drsmithy]

Yes, a lot of users are stupid. But if the vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place there would be far fewer problems.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that most malware infections come from software vulnerabilities, when they in fact come from user error.

A user error and software vulnerability (assuming by which, you mean "bug") are pretty much mutually exclusive.

If Windows was as secure as OS X -- and sorry, Apple fans, it's not as secure as some other *nix distros -- a virus would be a rare thing simply because it wouldn't have anything to work with.

Right. So you're saying you can't download and run things on OS X ? Interesting claim...

Despite the stereotypes many would have you believe, there are a lot of Mac users who are just as clueless as the Windows user you're describing, but their systems haven't been compromised because the OS they're using isn't horribly insecure to begin with.

Their systems haven't been compromised because no-one is bothering to write viruses that only have a best-case scenario of infecting 1 in every 100 machines.

Patches aren't enough, the system needs to be built from the ground up with much higher security. [...] Never mind that they should've built a secure OS in the first place like practically everyone else did.

Windows has far more security in its design than OS X (and traditional unix). For a start, it doesn't have a superuser.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[drsmithy]

Just had a fully patched, Windows Fire-walled, Sophos Antivirused, IPSec-filtered WinXP SP2 box get hacked (lots of free french films). User uses Thunderbird for email. I'm still scratching my head about that one.

Does the user run in an Administrator account, or is able to execute code as an Administrator ?

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Scudsucker]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that most malware infections come from software vulnerabilities, when they in fact come from user error.

Merely using the Internet and getting your browser hijacked by visiting the "wrong" page is not user error.

Their systems haven't been compromised because no-one is bothering to write viruses that only have a best-case scenario of infecting 1 in every 100 machines.

Hogwash. If you were a 1337 script kiddie looking to get famous, would you rather write the 10,000th Windows virus that brings millions of PC's to a screeching hault, or be the first person in history to write a virus that brings millions of Macs to a hault?

Windows has far more security in its design than OS X (and traditional unix). For a start, it doesn't have a superuser.

Sure it does, only it's called Administrator, which most Windows users run as since Windows has piss poor priveldge escalation/separation. You should thing about checking into rehab for that cheap crack you've been smoking.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Scudsucker]

Perhaps they are successful because they didn't build a "secure" OS.

Nope, sorry.

Seriously, who among us hasn't been frustrated when trying to do something on a "locked down" machine and being prevented by security. Who among us doesn't insist on having the admin or root password on our boxes so we can get stuff done?

Um, you do know the solution to your problem has been around for over 25 years .

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Scudsucker]

Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?

If you have any common sense, it should be telling you that it's not your job to fix catastrophic flaws in other people's products. Problems that had no business being there in the first place, in products YOU paid for.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Jesapoo]

Although I agree that windows is far too buggy and is slow to be patched when a problem emerges, comments like "But if the vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place there would be far fewer problems" are BS - are you trying to tell me that no one has ever hacked a *nix box?

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[LaughingCoder]

Yeah right ... from your linked article:

Access to sudo is configured with the configuration file /etc/sudoers which lists each user who can run sudo, along with the programs they can run. Configurable defaults and options for the program also appear in /etc/sudoers. Be aware that sudo is very picky about correct syntax in its configuration file and will refuse to work if you make the slightest mistake. (Considering that sudo can grant root privileges, this is not an entirely bad idea, as user-unfriendly as it seems.) Therefore, you should use visudo tool to edit the file, rather than opening it directly. visudo will check your changes for correctness after saving them, and will inform you of any errors, in which case it will offer to reject the changes or re-edit the file.

That is a recipe for disaster in an everyday user's hands.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[Scudsucker]

It's the concept, not the implementation. Sudo let's a regular user re-enter their password to gain privledges in the OS. This way you aren't running all your apps as a superuser, without the hassle of having to use su or "run as" all the time. Nothing prevents you from doing this in a GUI; some X11 apps can do this, and of course Mac OS X is easy to use and has been doing it since day 1.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[LaughingCoder]

This only works if people already have accounts and passwords on their PCs. Of course today the vast majority don't; they turn on their PC and they begin using it. I suppose they have been conditioned now by email and various web sites into entering a password, so they will be more accepting of same when installing software. As I understand it, that is a big part of Vista's security improvements -- I guess we'll see how well accepted it is.

The point of my original post was to suggest that *maybe* one of the reasons Windows was so successful was because of the very lack of security that we now criticize it for. Finally a computer that didn't behave like a computer -- turn it on and use it -- no "accounts", no "passwords", no "privileges". It was simply less intimidating to the common user.

This is all an evolutionary process. I really doubt MS could have started with a locked down system before the internet, and before broadband, etc, and enjoyed the kind of acceptance they achieved. But, I think people now will be much more accepting of these minor inconveniences as a way to protect themselves and their privacy.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec,

[drsmithy]

Merely using the Internet and getting your browser hijacked by visiting the "wrong" page is not user error.

Which the majority of malware infections are *not* caused by.

Sorry, but the "install this to get cool cursors" and "run this attachment to see t3h b00bies" are still the most common vectors for malicious code.

If you were a 1337 script kiddie looking to get famous, would you rather write the 10,000th Windows virus that brings millions of PC's to a screeching hault, or be the first person in history to write a virus that brings millions of Macs to a hault?

You seem to be missing the point. When your uber-virus is only going to have a *best case* scenario of infecting 1% of machines, it's unlikely that it's going to spread particularly fast or far and get to that "million-mac" part before being stopped.

There's nothing in OS X that stops viruses (et al) being impossible or ineffective. There's simply no-one writing them. There's no-one writing them because the cost:benefit ratio is atrocious.

(Oh, how frequently I've been tempted to throw something together just so smug arseholes like you can get some egg on their faces).

Sure it does, only it's called Administrator, [...]

Administrator is not a superuser.

Do you understand what a 'superuser' actually is ?

[...]which most Windows users run as since Windows has piss poor priveldge escalation/separation.

Windows has more than adequate "privilege escalation/separation". The problem is developers writing bad software.

Obligatory

[MrNonchalant]

They've found the second step!

1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
2. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
3. Profit!

Re:Obligatory

[Duncan3]

Hrm...

1. Build an OS that's so hard to use only geeks can use it
2. Charge 50 dollars for documentation/support
3. Profit!

Oh wait, that's Redhat ;)

Re:Obligatory

[deadgoon42]

ah.. Just when my mod points went away. I hope Dapper hurries up and comes out today.

Re:Obligatory

[cyanyde]

I think, this isn't the move you all think it seems to be. It appears what this move is designed to do is move into the software as service industry. You lay the ground work with an old beat up OS, release vista to the masses after it's initial 2-3 year pay-for software. Then you just throw it out there, and start charging people for upkeep and all those other things that happen. Microsoft is trying to remove liability from the actual software, to the maintence of something akin to free ware. Thats where the monies at because once they give you the drug, they just have to charge you rent on your house. Plus, it gives them license to keep up the whole DRM schitick, because they'll have the always on connectivity required for this sort of crap, which means they can constantly become the software police of the IP age. So, once again, i think ya'll being a bit near sighted, and I have to be all conspiratorial with my foresight.

Re:Obligatory

[strider44]

"So you want this car? Well it's only $20 000, but we need $10 000 per year to install locks and alarm systems."

What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".

Perhaps that's too much to ask.

Re:Obligatory

[bishop186]

That seems like a bad analogy to me.

It's more like "you've got this car, and we have basic locks and alarms installed. It's 20k."

"Now, you can keep getting the latest in aftermarket locks and systems for 10k per year."

It still seems like an unfair price, but now it doesn't seem so unlike what happens in other industries, does it?

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the second step was already widely known.

1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
2. Profit!
3. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
4. Profit!

Re:Obligatory

[esmrg]

Hey I'm using the release candidiate of dapper right now and I haven't hit any major bugs. It is so pretty and fast - go ahead and get it now!

Re:Obligatory

[CaptnMArk]

Except that it's not just alarms and locks, it's also seatbelts, brakes, airbags and tyres that don't explode.

Re:Obligatory

[Wordsmith]

Except they're not aftermarket locks and systems for 10K per year. They're the replacements for the recalled parts for 10K per year.

Re:Obligatory

[femtoguy]

Actually, it's worse than that. What Microsoft has managed to do is to convince people that crappy software is the only kind. I am amazed at people's low expectation of computers. I mentioned the other day that I hadn't rebooted my PowerBook for 3 or 4 months, and the person I was talking to didn't believe me. I mean he considered it completely impossible that a computer could function for that long without a major crash. Worse Microsoft has conviced people that the computer, and the internet are the problems. To most people, Microsoft needs a security program, not because they write crappy software, but because the internet is a messy place, and the internet isn't a problem that Microsoft created. A good analogy may come from the auto world. People were quite happy to take their car to dealer every year to get the spark plugs replaced, because that was what you did to take care of cars. It wasn't GM or Ford's fault, it was just that spark plugs wore out. Then Toyota and Honds cam along with cars that could go 100,000 miles on a set of plugs. People realized that they had been duped, and voted with their pocketbooks. What we need is to show everybody we can that OS X and Linux just work better, raise their expectations from where they just assume crap (what an early computer writer called the Laverne and Shirlyification of the computer world) that doesn't work. Of course how to do this is a little tricky.

Re:Obligatory

[aussie_a]

Actually it's more like:

"you've got this car, and we have basic locks and alarms installed. It's 20k."

"Now if you want some windows on your car to stop people from climbing through, or the locks to actually work correctly instead of being able to be broken by this simple knife, then you'll have to pay 10k per year."

Doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.

Re:Obligatory

[aussie_a]

I haven't restarted Windows XP in 3-4 months. It looks like you're friend just has low expectations. Was he using Linux? Because if he was a XP user (or apparently a Powerbook user) he'd know that the whole system rarely crashes.

Re:Obligatory

[Old Thrashbarg]

Then you haven't been applying patches....

Re:Obligatory

[sendtwogrey]

WOW! Out of curiosity what software do you run on it and what's the hardware?

PS: do you have automatic updates turned on as I'm sure in the last 3-4 months there have been a few updates that required a restart to install.

Did you know that running Oracle on XP server is commonly known as running in prostitute mode (it's up and down more often than a prostitutes underwear).

Re:Obligatory

[femtoguy]

You're missing my major point. Microsoft has managed to convince users that security and stability problems are not Microsoft's fault. Thus they can get users to pay to get them fixed. It is the lowering of expectations that is at issue here. Windows users are happy to get 3-4 months, a feat that is dwarfed by LInux and Mac machines that stay up for years. The answer to your questions is that I am thinking of laptops, not desktops. My experience with laptops was that I dot a brand new Dell with XP, and it cannot go more than 10 or 20 cycles of sleep and resume before it starts to have problems. I called up Dell support, and they said that this was what to expect for XP on their hardware. Of course this is much better than my Dell laptop from 2001 where I called up to complain about sleep and resume problems, and the support person said that they do not suggest that people use sleep and resume on their laptops. Pretty bad.

Re:Obligatory

[rbarreira]

On the other, Apple does:

1. Build hardware which is not always as great as everyone says
2. Charge 200$ for replacing a stupid button
3. Profit!

Re:Obligatory

[shippo]

It's Slashdot - EVERY analogy is a bad analogy!

Re:Obligatory

[cerberus1949]

Or might MicroSoft develop newer, more invasive bugs that *only infest the machines of those who don't pay for this new "PROTECTION" service.*

Does this sound like a potential new market for the MicroSoft Corporation through hype, intimidation, and extortion? I'm sure we'd all be *SHOCKED* to hear of such a thing coming from Redmond, Washington.

Re:Obligatory

[Aqua OS X]

Seriously man.

Could you imagine if car companies did this?

$30k for the car... but it's -going- to break... so you'd better buy the $5k maintenance program.

Re:Obligatory

[stunt_penguin]

I think you're only halfway there, it's much worse than that and it goes against slashdot convention, which wouldn't be the first time MS have done that ......

1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
2. Charge up to $500 for OS
3. Profit!!
4. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
5. Profit again!!!!

Re:Obligatory

[HuguesT]

3-4 months without rebooting, on your laptop ? That's pretty hard to do unless your laptop is constantly on AC power and never put into any of the sleep modes.

Re:Obligatory

[Bass10]

Another of apple's second steps

1. Find an item of black goods that geeks have used for years.
2. Paint it white, polish it, add "pod" or "i" to it's name, make the commoners think it was your idea in the first place (whether or not it was).
3. Profit!

Re:Obligatory

[ElleyKitten]

It did earlier this morning, but the servers are already overloaded. Glad I already got it.

Here's the link for when it works again: http://releases.ubuntu.com/6.06/

Re:Obligatory

[maxume]

I reboot win2k (much)less than once a month. That's good enough for me. My computer get's turned off to save power more often than it gets turned off to fix a problem, which is also just fine.

Hibernate would be nice, but there I don't have hardware support for it on my 9 year old computer, so I don't really blame Microsoft for not supporting it.

Re:Obligatory

[WhiteWolf666]

OneCare will necessitate more than "less(much) than once a month", because OneCare will automatically apply patches, and give you a "Please restart your system, automatically restarting in 5 minutes unless you cancel" every 15 minutes.

It'll do this, at minimum, once a month, and more likely twice a month.

If you have long Windows uptimes, you aren't patching. This is not the case for *NIX.

Re:Obligatory

[archen]

Microsoft figured that out a while ago. I recall back around 96-97 Microsoft sold "Windows First Aid", which was supposed to fix many of the problems with windows 95. I think this led to a sort of backlash and bad publicity which is why MS didn't do it anymore.

Re:Obligatory

[maxume]

Those are fair points. For a workstation though, uptime and stability are largely seperate issues. It is quite okay for most workstations to go down twice a month for maintenance, especially if there are shutdowns for other reasons.

Re:Obligatory

[operagost]

Nice jab at American automakers, Michael Moore, but the Japanese didn't invent long-life spark plugs. Electronic ignition and computers did a lot towards extending life. My 1976 Ford LTD had no computer-- just an electronic ignition module-- and I didn't have to change the spark plugs every year even though I usually put over 15,000 miles on it in that amount of time. But you basically have to use platinum plugs to get over 30K. That's not a Japanese thing-- it's the spark plug manufacturers, and while Ford and GM have their own house brands, you have big boys like Bosch and Champion who make that stuff for any car.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Throw bricks through the windows of a business or set the next door business on fire.
2. Offer to protect them from the hoodlums for a token payment
3. Stop setting fires and throwing bricks.

Sounds like the new MS business model has been done before.

Re:Obligatory

[MysteriousPreacher]

Granted the software could be designed better but some people are going to be buying this product to protect the computer from their own silly actions - like when they decide to download that fun little app that puts a dancing monkey on the desktop but turns the system in to a spambot.

"So you want this car? Well it's only $20 000, but we need $10 000 per year to install locks, alarm systems and a device that will automatically lock the doors if you stop on a dark and lonely desert road and offer a lift to a hitcher carrying a mysterious chopped-up-human-shaped soggy bag."

Re:Obligatory

[bishop186]

At least we don't have any "In Soviet Russia" here, I suppose. >.>

Re:Obligatory

[permawired]

Thats any linux distro you goon. Don't get me wrong for as much as I love linux, it isn't as easy to just sit down and use as a Windows system. Now while Windows is a security nightmare and has a number issues I have to agree with one of the other posts on here. Windows took over because of it's ease to install, change, and add to. IMHO, the main problem we have here goes back to a more fundamental issue.... Being Lazy. The bulk of the population out there wants instant gratification for as little effort as possible. As long as people aren't willing to spend a little extra time to look after their computer and their OS the security will always be a problem. Houses aren't broken into most of the time because of the locks on the front door, and most people will lock the house when they leave. To most people the computer exists in another realm or something. They don't think about it NEEDING to be secure. They are slowly learning this by the number of virus and other various attacks, but it's going to take a bit more before it's mainstream....

Re:Obligatory

[bogado]

- Well so you want the car, would you want a service and maintanace insurance with it also?
- How much it costs?
- it's $50,000.00 a year.
- $50,000.00 a year? - screams the customer
- yup.
- I guess not.
- Are you sure? - responds the seller with a worried face.
- Yes.
- It might explode, you know. - says the seller it a very low volume.
- What?
- What?
- What you just said?
- nothing, I was just wondering if would like this incredible service and maintanace contract, for only $55,000.00 a year.
- Wasn't it $50,000.00 a year?
- It was a promotion, but that is over now.
- And what about explosions, can this car explode?
- Off course not, no way, this brand of car never explodes - in a lower voice - unless you put gas on it.
- WHAT?
- But this will not be a problem with our service, you see our mechanics will install the latest and newest anti-explosion kits during the nigth, so you will not be bothered.
- So you're saying that unless I sign this contract the car can explode.
- Not if you don't put any gas in it.
- But without gas how can I drive it. - nervous
- I guess that would be a problem, on the hand you would not have any problems with explosions.
- No, absolutely, no, I will not buy a car that can explode.
- But sir, may I remind you that you already signed the papers. Also there is nothing to worry about, the car won't explode anyway, unless you do some dumb mistake like starting the car with gas in it. And even so many customers did that and their car did not exploded.
- oh, I fell much more confortable now...
- well, not right away, anyway. And none of the customers that had their car exploded complained, so the explosion may be a good feature.
- Can we null this contrat?
- Nope, you see the contract is binding and eletronic, so your account has already been billed and the car is already yours.
- So, you're saing that I already own a car that can explode any time.
- not unless you put gas on it, you know gas is very dangerous.
- I will sue your company, this is absurd.
- Sir, may I show this paragraf in the contract that says that the company is not responsible for any damage cause by the gas, even including explosions and fires.
- And if I sign this service contract?
- Well then you don't need to worry about the explosions.
- With it I can put gas on my car???
- Well yes.
- Well I will sign it.
- Here is the contract, it is only $60,000.00 a year.
- What?!?, never mind. - the customer signs the contract and leaves.

Re:Obligatory

[lewp]

To be fair, neither has the GGP. Apple updates require reboots all the time, and I've applied at least one or two to my PowerBook over the last couple months. Pretty much every OS requires a reboot from time to time if you're diligent about updating; even my RHEL and Ubuntu machines at work.

If you've ever had the misfortune of using an old Windows box or pre-OS X Mac, it's really amazing how far both sides have come from a reliability standpoint. I don't like to use Windows very much (my only Windows box exists solely for WoW and CS:Source), but it's not really as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. My computer-illiterate parents keep their little Dell virus- and spyware-free without having me around, so it's not like it's a very difficult task. Certainly no more daunting a task than using Linux.

In search of the almighty $

[Admiral Justin]

I gotta commend Microsoft, planning to make money of things that should be integrated into the system so that the threats never happen in the first place.

Prevention is less profitable than response, thus, they'll never try making a secure system now.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Include OneCare as a part of Vista.

Then you'll be the first to cry foul of antitrust, right?

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Kahless2k]

The problem is (as proven by Webroots suite against MS about Windows Defender being integrated into Vista) that if they DID integrate it, all the AV vendors (and a number of Slashdotters) would scream ANTITRUST!

Anyways; how many virus infections are caused by user stupidity and not necesarilly flaws in the OS? As long as users put their computers online and click YES to everything that pops up, there will be people who exploit that.

Agreed, users running as Admin all the time is not well thought out; But as people have stated before this is somthing that has been going on since before Viruses were a real threat and had to be grandfathered in so as not to break all the users software (also, admittedly lazy programming on the s/w vender's parts). Since MS is changing that model in Vista (if and when it ships), I'd say they're at least working towards a tighter security model.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[notaprguy]

Can you say "double standard." If MSFT integrated this stuff into Windows and gave it away for free many people (but not you I'm sure!) would pull their hair out and complain that they're using their monopoly power to edge out competitors. In this case they're doing the right thing - offering a service that many people need and want and charging what (to this one person) seems a petty reasonable price. What's to bitch about?

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the guy trying to sell you his house recommend you hire his agent as your agent.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Gorshkov]

No double standard at all. Symantec et. al. exist only because of Microsoft's design/implimentation errors - they should not exist at all - there should be no market for microsoft to push them OUT of.

If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.

In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.

When I write for Unix/Linux/QNX/VRTX/Anything the hell else, I can be pretty sure that if something goes boom, it IS my fault - and I should take the blame, and if it reflects badly on me, I deserve it.

I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case they're doing the right thing

I'm not sure that using ones monopoly powers to extend their monopoly and to muscle out competitors in a market that they created and sustain to offer services people have already paid for is the "right thing".

can anyone say swindle.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

man what a load of horseshit. Unix et al has just as many if not more stability and poor design issues as windows. Did you bother to check where symantec actually started out, guess what there products weren't originally designed for MS stuff, they ported to MS when they became dominant. Poor programmers exist in the windows and Unix world and regardless of where they are they should be blamed for there own crap, As a self professed ignorant when it comes to windows I am not sure how you can justify any critism you make anyway.

I write a lot of Client server software for Windows and yes For Unix (usually Solaris). I don't get people complaining about either platform with stability, but then unlike yourself I can program stable code on any platform.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Symantec's first anti-virus product was SAM, Symantec AntiVirus for Macintosh, which was introduced back in the 1980s. This was eventually replaced by Norton AntiVirus for Macintosh, after Symantec had acquired Peter Norton Computing (to gain a stronger foothold in the PC market).

As long as computers have been user friendly enough for non-technical people to use them, malware has been a problem, and it's usually a result of the user being tricked into running malicious code, as opposed to bugs in their OS or applications.

Your diatribe about users blaming you for Microsoft bugs is actually the opposite of my experience. Most non-technical people I know think 'Windows' is essentially synonymous with all of the software on their PC. If any random application crashes, they say 'Windows crashed', and blame Microsoft, despite the fact that (a) it didn't, and (b) the program that did crash wasn't even a Microsoft product.

It's very evident from your comment that you've never programmed for Windows, and would be even if you hadn't said so. I've programmed on various flavours of Unix, as well as NT-based Windows, and I can tell you there's no significant difference in terms of architectural stability. Ten years ago, if you had been comparing Windows 95 to any Unix, you would have had a point, but that argument is well past its sell-by date.

What is significantly different between Windows and Unix is that Windows supports a much broader range of hardware, and device drivers are typically developed by hardware manufacturers, as opposed to the OS developers. This leads to a large number of dodgy drivers that can destabilise the system, which is why Microsoft have all of these logo and driver signing schemes. I've known device drivers on PC Unixes to cause stability problems too, but the problem is much less pronounced there, owing to the much smaller number of drivers, the much smaller installed base (especially amongst non-technical users) and the tendency of the OS developers to write the drivers themselves (since hardware companies won't do it).

People who understand a modern system, whether a Unix derivative or an NT derivative, can make it stable and avoid viruses. My systems, for example, tend to be stable, whether they're running a Unix-like system or an NT-based one. At the same time, I've never had either become infected with a virus, and actually find buggy anti-virus software (on Windows) far more disruptive than the threat of viruses, which I know how to avoid.

For the record, I mostly run Windows these days, because of better device and applications support than any alternatives (and better stability on laptop hardware). However, I still use Unix-like systems from time to time, for specific purposes, and if the hardware and applications support, as well as laptop stability, were a match for Windows, I'd probably run a Unix-like system instead.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[xazos79]

Riiiight, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the OSes you spouted. I'd hate to bring you back to the real world champ... but its more likely that it *is* your app stuffing up rather than windows crashing. I've been writing apps for 6 years for all platforms and not once has my app crashed as a result of windows. If its crashed, its a bug that's escaped testing. Next time, get off your high horse because those of us down here can't hear you.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[ThePengwin]

Its okay.. The computer illiterate will never know ;) As for my security input, im still running XP SP1. Why? Because i never needed any security fixes.. my computer is proctected enough :)

Re:In search of the almighty $

[mcrbids]

I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.

I'm certain that your vocabulary impresses your many, important clients who pay you large sums of money for your invaluable services....

NOT.

See, the story has to match itself. And, your creative use of these numerous expletives indicate an inability to properly emphasize what you really mean to say. Combined with the use of the word "client", and I have to say, I don't buy it.

I wonder if you've graduated High School. I think it's very, very dubious that you've earned any significant amounts of money from "clients" who don't have a name like "Auntie Josephine". I would almost certainly put your years of experience as a very small number, say, ummm... one? two?

Windows isn't always the right thing. But all too frequently, despite our best hopes, it's better for the situation than anything else. And, if you've written your software correctly, it really shouldn't make much difference what O/S you use. Even sophisticated graphical apps like Quake, America's Army, and Grand Theft Auto are cross-platform.

Recently, I was asked to port over one of my software applications over to Mac OSX. (Developed on Linux/Windows 2000) Once the appropriate language libraries were installed, the program quite literally ran on the 3rd attempt, beta to be announced in the next month or so.

It can be done. You desperately need some experience to draw from.

And, if I'm wrong about you, please don't blame me. Casual use of profanity makes you look like either (A) frustrated, power-hungry teen (B) Low-life scumbag who can't seem to lay off the powder.

You may be very intelligent. But I have no way of finding this out except by your words, and if your words convey the above, I have no choice but to decide that you sir, are an id10t.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[drsmithy]

No double standard at all. Symantec et. al. exist only because of Microsoft's design/implimentation errors - they should not exist at all - there should be no market for microsoft to push them OUT of.

False. Anti-virus and anti-spyware applications protect against things OS-level security cannot.

If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.

How do you propose Microsoft address the problem of end users deliberately - or even accidentally - running malicious code ?

In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.

Bullshit. Microsoft *always* get the blame - even from people who should know better - even though 99% of "Windows problems" are really "software developer problems". That's why they go to such ridiculous lengths to maintain backwards compatibility - despite it often getting in the way of a better/cleaner implementation - because they know they'll always wear the blame for (frequent, gratuitous) developer fuckups.

Exhibit A: The multitude of applications that "require" Administrator accounts to run.

Exhibit B: The backlash against them for SP2 "breaking" applications.

Exhibit C: The plethora of low-quality hardware drivers

I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.

If your application is crashing, it's almost always going to be your fault.

Your post reeks of someone who hasn't used Windows since 1992 and thinks they are incapable of making mistakes. Even if you did write Windows software, I have little doubt it would be unstable and break every convention and best practice known just because "you know best".

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

I gotta commend Microsoft on discovering how to get some free advertisement by using such sites as slashdot and technocrat

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Chas]

our diatribe about users blaming you for Microsoft bugs is actually the opposite of my experience.

Then you've been SUPREMELY lucky. With our apps, every burp in the OS, every virus, every piece of spyware, even improper AV settings, and it's all OUR fault. And we get commentary about how second-rate our product is, how it shouldn't work that way, how everything worked BEFORE they buttfucked their system. And it's never the OS' fault, or their fault, or their goofy porn/spyware's fault.

They have a T1 and someone's running 2 0-day warez sites and a streaming 256Kbit audio station off the network. But it's OUR fault the network is so slow.

They install a new AV product that auto-filters all POP3 traffic except Outlook and Outlook Express to prevent worms and mass-mailing. But it's OUR fault our app didn't go in and manually add itself into the allowed list.

They're in an RF-noisy enviroment with 2.4Ghz phones, and running our database app on a wireless network (because they can't bring themselves to wire the place). So they keep bombing out when the phones are in use and since they're bombing out with their "fingers" in the database, they're getting data corruption as well. Oh yeah, and backups? What are those?

They're too cheap to buy a backup solution that can close/copy open processes and files. And they're too lazy to shut the client-side application down at night so they can actually back up. But it's OUR fault when (see previous example) their data corrupts and they're without backups for the last three years. And it's our fault that data's all lost. Even though we weren't the ones responsible for their backups.

Or when the client gets a hold of a bad AV patch that memory-leaks like crazy and eats all the system memory and 99.99% of the paging file. But it's OUR app's fault when the system runs like a slide show.

And when the company cheaps out and gets an ADSL line with a dynamic IP address and and uptimes measured in minutes, it's our app's fault when their internet connection goes down more than a whore on free blowjob night.

And I repeat, if you've never run into this situation, you've been supremely lucky. Or you're lying through your teeth...

Re:In search of the almighty $

[sheepmullet]

I wonder if you've graduated High School. Seriously only an idiot uses phrases heavily laden with sarcasm and then adds NOT. He has many good points but rather than refute them you see fit to personally attack him. I know many professionals who swear and your argument is rather silly. Then you have to use words like "expletives" to sound sophisticated. But mate you screwed it up with your first sentence, it utterly destroyed your credibility. And if porting software is as easy as you say it is then why is the typical windows users response to the question "Why don't you use linux/BSD/unix/etc?", "Because it doesn't have any of my favorite applications".

Re:In search of the almighty $

[nbuet]

Making money is THE difference between microsoft and ALL the other OS vendors.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.

This scenario has nothing to do with programming for Windows. This has much more to do with people skills. Managing user's expectation and trust is somethig that you should already be doing throughout an entire project. If you can't convince the client that you are reliable and a good programmer, what difference does it make if you program for Windows or not?

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Croaker-bg]

Wait. Let me get this straight. They are going to charge me to fix a problem that I don't know that I have, with a tool that I can't see working, on a reoccuring basis. Wow, this sounds a lot like the total screw I get every several months getting my oil changed at the local Jiffy Screw uhh .. wait I mean Lube

Re:In search of the almighty $

[mcrbids]

I wonder if you've graduated High School. Seriously only an idiot uses phrases heavily laden with sarcasm and then adds NOT.

So, what you're saying, is that using terribly immature language doesn't hurt grandparent's post, but one small "NOT" makes me look bad? Sorry, your point is incoherent.

Pick one:

A) Using immature, foul language makes you look bad.

B) Using immature, foul language is irrelevant to one's image.

I argue (A) and your post reinforces my point.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[notaprguy]

How would you know so much about the pitfalls of developiong apps for Windows if you've never done it? I've got news for you. Some application errors on Windows occur becasue of fundamental problems with Windows. Most occur because of errors in the application. By far, the most common cause of Windows crashes is bad device drivers. You can say that the design of Windows and the Windows driver model is the cause of the bad drivers - that's partly true. But Windows apps and Windows itself crashes are almost always caused by bad code written by others.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[yonatanh]

Although this aforementioned point which you're arguing also makes you out to look like an idiot.

Incredible

[abscissa]

Only in the software industry, folks, can you buy a product and then buy another product to make the first product work. I suppose if you are making a bomb that could apply too.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft didn't invent that. Just as a political side note: that's exactly what's happening in Iraq right now. First we bombed the infrastructure and now they pay with their oil to have us (esp. Honeywell) build it again.

Apparently businesses can do that now, too. What an irony!

Re:Incredible

[hackstraw]

Only in the software industry, folks, can you buy a product and then buy another product to make the first product work. I suppose if you are making a bomb that could apply too.

Batteries not included.

Re:Incredible

[xiphoris]

Fod sells car repair services, doesn't it? Maytag washers and dryers? Air conditioners?

I know it seems like nitpicking, but this is a real point. Plenty of people complain about computer software companies, especially Microsoft, selling "maintenance" products -- they act like they're snake oil.

The real thing is: why wouldn't you expect this industry to have maintenance? Pretty much every other industry does, and many product companies also sell a 'verified' maintenance service.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the car company charge you for a recall?

Paying for maintance on wear and tear items is to be expected (not liked but expected). Paying for fixing of flaws is quite another story.

(I have never had a recall on a vehicle so I don't know what happens.)

Re:Incredible

[Gorshkov]

There is a very major difference between a 10 year old washing machine needing repairs and parts replacements after good, solid service and use over a period of time, and having to have the Maytag Man show up on your doorstep once a week if you want to be able to do more than one load a month without having your clothes get caught in the gears.

Re:Incredible

[shadowbearer]

Kudos.

Re:Incredible

[jlarocco]

The real thing is: why wouldn't you expect this industry to have maintenance? Pretty much every other industry does, and many product companies also sell a 'verified' maintenance service.

For the same reason I can copy a file till my hard drive crashes or the universe ends. In fact, even when the hard drive crashes, I can load a backup onto a similar hard drive and copy the same file, using the same copy program, until *that* hard drive crashes. My point is, computer software shouldn't "wear out" over time. There are no physically moving parts.

Cars, washers, dryers and air conditioners all have moving parts that are susceptable to friction, heat and general wear. Software is more like a book. Once a book is printed, it will stay printed, completely readable until it's purposely destroyed or the papers physically degrades away in thousands of years.

Re:Incredible

[geschild]

Ow Come on! Why is such a flawed analogy rated Insightful? Unless I'm missing some sort of in-joke here, this doesn't even come close.

This is more akin to the automobile industry making you pay extra for their latest security innovation. Airbags, anyone? After a while, the feature becomes standard and something new is invented for which you pay extra like ABS, the various incantations of Stability Control and their bizarre acronyms, night-vision, etc.

The thing is, even that analogy is severely flawed. What Microsoft is trying to do here, is make a 'car' where the brakes fail once in a while because of shoddy construction and now they want you to pay for an 'augmented braking system' to catch those failures. If Windows was a car, they would have to recall it, fix the brakes and hope they wouldn't go under from liability suits.

As it stands, this is 'koppelverkoop', a 'linked sale' except that isn't the proper term english term. It would be illegal in The Netherlands.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

With the difference that batteries are generic (usually) and have a finite shelf time.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you said that. Maybe I should ask my wife why he shows up that often.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Security not included.

3 Steps

[KillerCow]

1. Sell insecure operating system
2. Charge extra to make it secure
3. Profit!

Protection racket

[Anonymous Coward]

Paid protection.. by their programmers from their programmers.

do they break kneecaps if you don't join?

I for one welcome ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... our new security overlords. Trust us, we're Microsoft.

....A little late?

[Kahless2k]

I used the OneCare beta for quite a while (actually a good product IMHO).. But the subscription service started at the beginning of the month... Slashdot is a little late in reporting it.. On a side note; I did stop using OneCare when I tried to pay for the subscription (reduced rate for beta users) only to see (for the first time) U.S. Only, with international support at some point in the future (a year?). Anyways.. my $0.02

Sorry

[gcnaddict]

Its funny, Microsoft advertises a free 1 year subscription to eTrust antivirus from CA on their own site

You think they'll keep doing that now? (eTrust bets OneCare by miles, imho)

Re:Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, I'm pretty sure MS uses etrust internally as well.

Protection Racket

[Anonymous Coward]

"We wouldn't want any 'problems' on your computer, now would we?"

protection money?

[fair use]

MS makes a dangerous OS and then they drag more money out of you to protect you from it. Sounds like the mafia to me.

Re:protection money?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they named it OneCare. Their OneCare is to get more money out of you.

Re:protection money?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

If Microsoft weren't going to continue patching OS flaws for free via Windows Update, you might have a point. But since that's not the case, you don't.

This anti-malware software is designed to thwart malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws. Malware that does rely on such flaws will continue to be addressed through free patches via Windows Update.

Should have been no surprise....

[zaal]

... to anyone that heard about a product called MS Windows Defender. Seriously, did people think that was going to be a stand-alone free product for people to use? From Microsoft?

Odd, isn't it?

[Weaselmancer]

How MS can sell you a product that they admit is broken, then sell you a subscription service to fix it? Those guys are marketing wizards.

If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.

Re:Odd, isn't it?

[SnotBob]

It's a little like Apple trapping you in their shiny new glass elevator and then trying to sell you an iPod so they will let you leave the store in under two hours. Wait...that would never happen.

Re:Odd, isn't it?

[bl00d6789]

If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.

Maybe they will. Maybe this isn't the stroke of marketing genius that everyone here seems to be suggesting it is. The public is pretty dumb when it comes to computers, but they tend to recognize when they're being ripped off. The real question is whether or not they'll decide to do anything about it.

Re:Odd, isn't it?

[babbling]

I've got a feeling they're not going to get away with this quite as easily as you think they will. Most companies are not stupid enough to not see what's going on here.

discount

[xx_chris]

Alternatively, you can get a discount for less secure software.

It still is

[gcnaddict]

Uhh, it still is

Re:It still is

[zaal]

I guess my reference was too oblique. My apologies. My point was they had released a free product, still listed as beta if I recall correctly, to the windows community and no one should have been surprised that it would become a piece of full paid-for windows security add-on. The release of Defender should have been a red flag to most people cynical towards Microsoft, which is about 3/4 of the Slashdot community. ;-)

Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD bnr

[Anonymous Coward]

Use this PC to go online and download content, Burn it to CD's and sneakernet it to trusted 100% offline computers. Should the throwaway PC get pwned, just format the hard disk and reload the OS or restore a HD disk image of the PC before it went online for the first time.

A pain in the neck, but more effective (and cheaper) than M$'s solution.

whoever said businesses weren't like the mob...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone is going to sue them under the raqueteering laws since they're essentially now in the protection raquet.

The Microsoft Car

[elwin_windleaf]

In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides seatbelts, a windshield, and doors.

Re:The Microsoft Car

[smokeslikeapoet]

No it's like charging $30,000 for a car, then charging you $500 for a anti-theft system... wait I think they do that. It's like charging you $30,000 for a car and then charging you $50 a month to park it in a secure garage... wait no, that makes sense too. My analogies suck today. DIE MICROSOFT DIE!

Re:The Microsoft Car

[jimmy_bish]

Aaah, the microsoft car. -Where if the car breaks down, you have to close all the windows and open them again. -Where every time they repainted the lines on the road you'd have to get a new car. -Where the oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

Re:The Microsoft Car

[Amouth]

VW already did this... it was called the IT - where everything was an option including the driver's seat and stearing wheel... etc.

Non-Conformist post

[Anonymous Coward]

This post has no 3 steps.

If it works, I'll pay for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple as that.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b

[Weaselmancer]

Another good way of doing this is to use Ghost, and then physically disconnect the drive you back up to. SATA is good for that.

No no no - Think SECURITY

[Hyperhaplo]

In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides

door and boot locks.

Well, close enough. The software to cars analogies never really work. I wonder how much power locks and a zapper would cost?

Vista won't be better

[mincognito]

As you can see from the site http://www.windowsonecare.com/ they are offering antivirus, antispyware, firewall, performance tune-ups, and data backup and restore. At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.

It's obvious that they wouldn't be launching this service now if it won't also be needed for Vista. This was basically the last reason i needed to switch over to a Mac.

Re:Vista won't be better

[Kahless2k]

Your not honestly going to say that you don't think that antivirus / antispyware is a good thing to have on a machine used by the type of person who will click OK to everything they see?

A firewall is useful on any system (not just Windows), and anyone storing data on their machine and NOT doing some kind of data backup (at least for the important data) is crazy.

As for the performance tune-ups, it really just puts the common tools into one place (defrag, clear temp files, etc)

Re:Vista won't be better

[Ucklak]

Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.

Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected.

Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you have a rule setup)

Performance tune-up - with NTFS?, ha. The page file will be bloated being that you'll need 1 gig to run the OS (512 is the minimum as we know how that goes). I read that as "let me check to see if your installed software meets our license requirements." How much you want to bet that defrag isn't included in the tune-up? Dies Windows still require defragging?

Data backup and restore - where is it going to backup to? Are there going to be systems uploading gigs of videos, pictures, and music to a Microsoft remote location hogging the bandwidth of the internet or will the backup be local so that when the hard drive crashes, the backup protection the customers are paying for doesn't work?

Re:Vista won't be better

[drsmithy]

At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.

Which three ?

Re:Vista won't be better

[mincognito]

Your not honestly going to say that you don't think that antivirus / antispyware is a good thing to have on a machine used by the type of person who will click OK to everything they see?

The point is, if the OS was secure in the first place, antivirus/antispyware wouldn't be needed.

A firewall is useful on any system (not just Windows)

But why should i pay extra when other OSs offer full-fledged firewalls built-in?

anyone storing data on their machine and NOT doing some kind of data backup (at least for the important data) is crazy

Yes. But that doesn't explain why sane people should pay $50 a year for onecare.

As for the performance tune-ups, it really just puts the common tools into one place (defrag, clear temp files, etc)

According to the site 'permance plus' automatically runs defrag, etc. for the user once a month. Not sure how this improves on a simple "scheduled task" either...

My original point was that most of what is being offered are dependent on OS deficiencies (i.e. of no value to linux/os x users even if written for those platforms) and the features not dependent on those deficiencies (e.g. automated backup) certainly aren't worth $50 a year.

Re:Vista won't be better

[zmotula]

"But why should i pay extra when other OSs offer full-fledged firewalls built-in?"

Just to be fair -- the current Windows XP built-in firewall seems quite nice to me. From the user point of view I do not see much differences from my OS X firewall.

Re:Vista won't be better

[westlake]

that doesn't explain why sane people should pay $50 a year for onecare

You subscribe to the service. Routine maintenance is automated. Life goes on. One Care is being marketed to non technical end-users who haven't shown the slightest interest in a migration to Linux or the Mac.

Re:Vista won't be better

[I'm Don Giovanni]

The point is, if the OS was secure in the first place, antivirus/antispyware wouldn't be needed.

It's funny that slashdotters like to think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, more "tech-savvy" than everyone else, yet they make such idiotic statements like the above with regularity. And some idiot modded the above statement as "Insightful", further damning slashdot's rep. LOL

Spyware generally doesn't rely on OS insecurity.
Viruses generally don't rely on such either.
Trojan horses almost never rely on OS insecurity.
For those that do rely on OS insecurity, Microsoft will continue patching OS insecurity for free with Windows Update (just as Apple does for Macs). For malware that doesn't rely on OS insecurity, anti-malware software (such as Microsoft's OneCare offering) exists.

Re:Vista won't be better

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.

Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected."

It doesn't mean that at all. Vista is the "fix" in that the default account will be non-admin. Hell, IE will run with even less priveleges and malware attacking IE can only do damage to a temp directory, as it won't be allowed access to any files outside of that directory without explicit user consent. What else do you want? A better question, what does Linux to better in this regard?

"Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you have a rule setup)"

Windows already has a Firewall. The OneCare version improves on it by protecting outgoing connections (as well as incoming). And no, you don't need to connect to OneCare to get the Firewall to work. Don't be silly.

"Performance tune-up - with NTFS?, ha. The page file will be bloated being that you'll need 1 gig to run the OS (512 is the minimum as we know how that goes). I read that as "let me check to see if your installed software meets our license requirements." How much you want to bet that defrag isn't included in the tune-up? Dies Windows still require defragging?"

You continue do show your ignornace. Defragging is part of the tune-up. The rest of your comment is just typical anti-MS slashdot drivel.

"Data backup and restore - where is it going to backup to? Are there going to be systems uploading gigs of videos, pictures, and music to a Microsoft remote location hogging the bandwidth of the internet or will the backup be local so that when the hard drive crashes, the backup protection the customers are paying for doesn't work?"

More ignorance (but at least you somewhat admit it, but in a way that condemns Microsoft out of sheer ignorance). The backup medium is optical discs and external hardrives. If an external harddrive is used, then the backup can be scheduled to run automatically. (Symantec or McAfee (I forget which) is going to also offer backups, including the ability to backup 1GB of data to an online location.)

If you really care about what OneCare does (you ostensibly do by posing your questions, but you likely don't and were posing them just to bash) see http://www.windowsonecare.com/.

Re:Vista won't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that they wouldn't be launching this service now if it won't also be needed for Vista. This was basically the last reason i needed to switch over to a Mac.

Is this the sort of thing attracting all you PC users to the Mac nowadays? Seriously, all you Johnnies-come-lately should just stick to Windows and Linux. Having to cater to the likes of you is already starting to ruin the Apple we love, the Apple you'll never understand.

Re:Vista won't be better

[mincognito]

Having to cater to the likes of you is already starting to ruin the Apple we love, the Apple you'll never understand.

Oh yeah, now i remember. Having to count myself amongst those who consider themselves especially deep artistic geniuses in tune with the buddha just because of the friggin computer they use is what has prevented me from getting a Mac up until now. Well done, your post almost disuaded me again but i'm still ordering a mac tomorrow -- the one with the glossy screen that apparently is ruining your world somehow.

Re:Vista won't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it backwards. We prefer the Mac's interface because we think a certain way, not the other way around. You, on the other hand, are already an admitted PC user, and unlikely to find Mac OS X a good fit for your personality. Instead of switching to the Mac and in the process contributing to the ruin of a platform for Mac-type people, why don't you do everyone a favor and just stick to an OS that thinks the same beige, square way you think?

Re:Vista won't be better

[drsmithy]

The point is, if the OS was secure in the first place, antivirus/antispyware wouldn't be needed.

This meme is so ridiculously, incredibly, obviously *wrong* that I can't even comprehend how it was started, let alone how it continues to propogate. It doesn't even pass the laugh test for any tech-savvy user who has a shred of experience with end users.

Here's a hint: whether or not something is "malware" is a matter of opinion.

Re:Vista won't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a waste of flesh.

Re:Vista won't be better

[Lord Ender]

How would a "secure OS" prevent users from downloading and running malware?

That's right, it can't. And don't give me the "programs should run as admin" crap. A virus can spread just as easily running as a user. It can destroy just as much of the user's data (which is all that really matters) running as a user.

Trusted Computing (requiring binares be signed to run) might help, but no other OS does that.

Yeah, as long as people have the ability to download programs off the Internet and execute them, there will be a need for a service that identifies bad programs and prevents them from running.

Re:Vista won't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that we Mac-type people are more frequently the recipients of Nobels and Pulitzers and Grammys and Tonys and Oscars and Pritzkers than are PC users, I strongly suspect that even the least accomplished Mac user is less a "waste of flesh" than you.

Note that a true Mac user is born, not made. Buying a Mac does not magically transform you into a Mac-type person. It makes you a poser, a Mac-type wannabe with a nose for value, at best.

Where's the Justice Department when you need them.

[FlatCatInASlatVat]

When auto companies sell defective cars that will injure or kill or even just break down, they are REQUIRED to do a recall and fix them for FREE. When Microsoft sells a completely defective operating system that allows data theft, invasion of privacy, extortion and wholesale hijacking of the internet, at a cost of billions of dollars, they get to charge more money for the fix. The arrogance and irresponsible behavior toward the customer is breathtaking. Why are lawyers not lining up for the class action suits?

We've known the second step for ages.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many of us who have known the second step for ages: don't have your business rely on Microsoft products.

What do we do? We use Linux. We use Solaris. We use BSD. We use Mac OS X. We use AiX. We use HP-UX.

How does it benefit us financially? What we spend on our UNIX licenses pales in comparison to what we would have paid for Windows licenses, plus this sort of nonsense (all which "fixes" problems that just don't exist when using UNIX). Of course, our Linux and BSD systems don't have such fees at all.

This isn't a matter of Microsoft figuring out the second step. This is a matter of the vast majority of companies not understanding it.

While many companies and individuals waste their time and money on this sort of junk, we just use systems that work, and doing so allows us to vastly improve our productivity. Our productivity improvements easily allow our products and services to succeed. Our corporate networks aren't infected by the Windows worm-of-the-week. Our servers are not easily compromised by script kiddies. We succeed because we know the second step: avoid Microsoft products.

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many of us who have known the second step for ages: What do we do? We use Linux.

Spent the entire day dealing with the CFO's laptop - one of those that happens in a Fortune 100 company on occasion. XP on a Dell decided to stop handling IP - Outlook would seize, IE and Firefox were hosed. Other than a rebuild, the system was screwed. Whole damn thing was tired. Typical fscking Microsoft "This system is more than 2 years old - I'm ready to die" crap. As if SOX regulators thought that way.

Interestingly, the CFO asked about my teams laptops and what we use in the security dept. to make sure things run, Sarbanes Oxley auditors stay off our asses, etc. "Ah... that Linux stuff again, huh?"

Yea. Linux made the auditors go away happy, in spite of all the Windows nightmares. Tell me Microsoft isn't ready to fall and I'll invite you into any SOX-regulated shop that knows better. Run, don't walk.

The moment Linux can handle desktop apps, Microsoft is the next Osborne.

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[WhiteWolf666]

The moment Linux can handle desktop apps, Microsoft is the next Osborne.


Have you evaluated Novell's SuSE? Depending on the apps you use, Novell's SuSE is already there.

Also, given that you are a large (Fortune 100, w00t) company, you do know that Codeweavers will do custom distributions of Wine for any application that you might need, at very, very reasonable prices ($5k-$10k), and then its yours, forever.

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[mrchaotica]

Also, given that you are a large (Fortune 100, w00t) company, you do know that Codeweavers will do custom distributions of Wine for any application that you might need, at very, very reasonable prices ($5k-$10k), and then its yours, forever.

That seems almost like a bad thing to me. Won't there be problems trying to run it side-by-side with normal WINE for other legacy apps (or worse, trying to run several of these customized versions side-by-side)?

Personally, I'd look into offering a WINE developer that same $5K-$10K as a bounty to get the program I need working in the standard WINE distribution instead.

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[WhiteWolf666]

It's not ;-)

The new Crossover "bottles" concept enables you to have separate spins of Wine for each application. They independant of each other, and independant of "official" Wine. I believe Codeweavers has contributed the code back to Wine (Codeweavers is a very good Wine citizen (in terms of OSS). They fund several of the Wine developers salaries, and contribute back all their code. They contributed back even before Wine was LGPL; it used to be BSD or X11, can't remember).

It's actually pretty cool; create a Crossover Wine Bottle on one of your development systems, setup up the application(s) for that bottle the way you like them, roll them into an RPM, and then roll that RPM out over your network. It's slick.

Take a look at their case studies: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/case_studies/

In particular, the "Legal Aid Manitobe" one documents where Crossover built a custom Wine capable of running a specific application for them, at a cost of $2000. Remember, since its all LGPL, you get the source, and the Wine project gets the patches, too. Furthermore, since you can distribute them on your network as RPM bottles, it doesn't matter if the patches become difficult to merge, or whether or not they get into Wine-Trunk; you just keep running the custom version of Wine for your legacy Windows app.

Notice that Google contracted with Codeweavers to get the Picassa Wine'd version working. I haven't tried it, but the initial reports have been pretty positive.

Paying Codeweavers is not terribly different from paying an individual Wine developer, and if you read either the Wine list-serv or WineHQ's WWN newsletter, you'll see a lot of good will towards Codeweavers. From my perspective, dealing with codeweavers is wonderful; and from a corporative perspective, Codeweavers gives you an entity to rely upon, and some one to take responsibility; not to mention provide a turn-key solution.

Best of both worlds, IMHO. Unlike Transgaming, whom I like as well, but whom has a great deal of tension with the Wine project.

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[mrchaotica]

Best of both worlds, IMHO. Unlike Transgaming, whom I like as well, but whom has a great deal of tension with the Wine project.

Hmm... think Codeweavers would do games, if a bunch of people put pooled their $15 each together instead of subscribing to Cedega with it?

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[WhiteWolf666]

Hmm... Very interesting question. . . . .

I'm sure they would like to. I wonder if they have the expertise.

While I do like Codeweavers more than Transgaming, I don't really disapprove of them, either. They forked a BSD-style project, contributing some code back to it (to the ReWind tree), and licensing code from some proprietary company for extensions that could help with some aspects of gaming (like copy protection stuff).

I'd love to see Transgaming behave like Codeweavers, but Transgaming didn't do anything wrong, and better yet, they do deliver on their promises. Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, etc. . . at near native speeds. When Transgaming says they are going to get a game running, they do. They've had problems with Punkbuster, but they're getting might close to having that resolved.

I'm getting old...

[mdavids]

It can't be April 1 already! Where did 2006 go?

More automated windows processes?

[bcarl314]

So let me get this straight. Microsoft Windows, already running (by default) background processes that hackers contantly exploit, comes up with an idea to add another automatic process to "increase" security?

And to top it off, Windows users have to PAY for that?

Isn't that like having a bank having to pay to have their security system installed by the mafia?

OneCare already offered for free

[llZENll]

Before everyone gets all excited and thinks this will fix any MS bugs on your machine, stop right there, and read the first page of the onecare website.

This ISN'T paying for updates and patches. This IS paying for an antivirus and antispyware tools that several other companies already offer. So basically MS is trying to protect you from not only their mistakes, but other software's as well.

You can already get everything offered in the OneCare package for free from other utilities, but for huge companies that push out 1000's of licenses this is probably a cash cow for MS.

Geeze Mistah

[Marko DeBeeste]

Dat's some awful pretty data youse got dere. Me an' Lefty would be heartbroken if sumthin wuz to happpen to it, huh Lefty? Maybe youse is need some prtection insurance?

Extortion.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuff said.

Prior Art and Improvements.

[twitter]

Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive.

I've seen this before ... oh yes, the off button. It is very quiet and just what Vista needs to be save and secure.

Of course, you could just use an OS that requires neither "protection" nor subscription fees.

Re:Prior Art and Improvements.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you could, but unfortunately for the average user learning to use a Linux OS is even more unproductive than turning off a Windows machine.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

that is freaking funny, and even more there's many suckers who will pay...LOL

This is insane!

[rindeee]

Everyone has pointed out WHY this is insane, so I really feel that the best use of my time and talent is simply to reiterate the insanity of this whole thing. Back in college, I would have LOVED to have proposed this in a marketing class. While I never took a marketing class, I would have if I had thought this up, if only to frustrate the professor with my very, very stupid and unmarketable idea (that Microsoft is now making money with). It's like they've found a way to profit from hypocrisy.

Re:This is insane!

[westlake]

Back in college, I would have LOVED to have proposed this in a marketing class. While I never took a marketing class...

If you had taken the class, the instuctor would have pointed you towards the maintaince and service contracts that have been part of the consumer marketplace for over one hundred years. He would have reminded you that Windows has ninety-five percent of the home market and self-service Linux less than three.

Re:This is insane!

[rindeee]

This is neither a "maintaince" (sic) nor a service contract, my friend. There is a reasonable expectation of security/privacy when purchasing an operating system for one's computer on which they will store, and will be encouraged to do so by the vendor, personal, financial and other sensitive data. What MS is doing is charging to bolster the system where it has failed out of the box. If the operating system could "wear out", then a service contract would be in order. Maintenance would be great in cases where housekeeping items need tended to (if things like defrag, etc. were necessary). Priority downloads and service packs and the like are reasonable to charge for. Building an OS that is completely sub-standard in terms of security and safety and then charging to secure it (proving that you had the ability to secure it in the first place) is simply dishonest. And as for Linux, I didn't bring it up...you did. It has nothing to do with this conversation, so why did you bring it up?

Good news

[debilo]

This is actually good news, and I thank Microsoft for driving yet more people to Linux and BSD and other excellent alternatives.

Re:Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that would happen, wouldn't you?

Not likely, though.

Re:Good news

[TorAvalon]

"This is actually good news, and I thank Microsoft for driving yet more people to Linux and BSD and other excellent alternatives."

Why? Did people run to Linux and BSD(where is Apple?) when Symantec and Mcafee offered their Security suites?

Security???

[ment0r]

What I want to know is what kind of security they are talking about? They haven't been able to demonstrate a 'secure' OS so far. I guess they going to downgrade current state of it and then charge money to make existing fixes available.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b

[WhiteWolf666]

Is this honestly cheaper/easier than switching from MS solutions?

How much of a pain in the ass does Windows have to get for people to ditch it?

Protection racket

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nice computer you got there.

Shame if something were to happen to it..."

It is quiet, but does it actually do anything?

[CompotatoJ]

"Windows Live OneCare [CC] works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive" If it is closed source and never alerts us, how are we supposed to know if it is actually doing anything? The program could just be filled with random code and gibberish to make it seem like it is imporant. At least it doesn't pop up asking you to restart every five minutes!

Re:It is quiet, but does it actually do anything?

[GotenXiao]

Your mouse has moved. Windows needs to restart for these changes to take effect.

pay, and no one gets hurt

[wardk]

no doubt this beta is named "guido"?

Who owns the software?

[Anonymous Coward]

From my understanding, Microsoft owns the Windows OS and I only have a license to use that software.

Why should I pay to fix their software??

Now if they want to allow me to become the owner of the software, rather than just a licensed user, then I can see paying for fixes. But I will not pay to fix someone elses software.

If M$ can get away with this then maybe local stores will start charging customers extra for maintaining a computerized inventory of their goods, after all, that is what they use to make sure they have the products on hand for the customers.

Re:Who owns the software?

[drsmithy]

From my understanding, Microsoft owns the Windows OS and I only have a license to use that software.

Yes. Just like every other bit of non-Public Domain software you didn't write yourself.

Why should I pay to fix their software??

You shouldn't.

People who use MS Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

deserve everything they get. Call it a stupid tax.

Seriously, who would still use Windows? I quit it 5 years ago now.
(Yeah -1 redundant I know, but there is are so many alternatives, and it needs saying over and over again)

That's a nice looking Windows install ya got there

[adam.dorsey]

It'd be a shame if something... happened to it, now, wouldn't it?

So let me get this straight...

[mike518]

ill be trusting a company (and forking out more dough) for security fix software from the same company that released the unsecure software in the first place?

Quite simply, they are nuts.

Wrong analogy

[Mostly a lurker]

Microsoft releasing operating systems with inadequate security is not comparable to repair of products that deteriorate through wear and tear (the software equivalent for that is such tools as defragmenters or registry cleaners). It is much more analogous to selling a car with a faulty brake system. Then you buy a separate braking system from another company. The problem with that is that this secondary braking system is not built into the fabric of the car. Thus, it leads to handling problems, will sometimes conflict with the original faulty braking system, and will occasionally even fail to stop the car when needed. The solution is to produce a car that has a properly designed braking system in the first place.

Re:Wrong analogy

[drsmithy]

Microsoft releasing operating systems with inadequate security is not comparable to repair of products that deteriorate through wear and tear (the software equivalent for that is such tools as defragmenters or registry cleaners).

Except anti-spyware and anti-virrus software isn't protecting you against "inadequate security", it's protecting you against user error - the stuff OS-level "security" can't.

Re:Wrong analogy

[Mostly a lurker]

Except anti-spyware and anti-virrus software isn't protecting you against "inadequate security", it's protecting you against user error - the stuff OS-level "security" can't.

User error is a very important source of security problems, but your statement goes way too far. I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet. If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything. With Windows XP (original release, no SP 1) just connecting to the Internet from a user with administrator rights, without a firewall, is enough to be infected by worms within a short time.

Re:Wrong analogy

[drsmithy]

User error is a very important source of security problems, but your statement goes way too far.

No, it doesn't.

I repeat: anti-spyware and anti-virus software aren't there to protect you against "inadequate security". They *may* do this as a side effect, but it is not their purpose.

I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet.

No. Nor would I ever consider doing it.

If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything.

Undoubtedly. But this would be due to software bugs (and, arguably, bad UI), not "inadequate security" - not to mention the foolishness of browsing the web with a high-privilege account.

With Windows XP (original release, no SP 1) just connecting to the Internet from a user with administrator rights, without a firewall, is enough to be infected by worms within a short time.

As is installing many Linux distros and commercial unixes from the same time period. Again, you are largely describing problems caused by software bugs, not "inadequate security". I will agree that the firewall should have been enabled by default from the first release of XP and that services shouldn't be binding to external network interfaces by default - but even without that, all those remote exploits are coming from *coding errors*.

OS-level security - which Windows NT has in spades - can protect you against some aspects of malicious code. However, it cannot protect you against all, or even the most common, aspects of malicious code. That is what anti-spyware and anti-virus software is for.

Re:Wrong analogy

[I'm Don Giovanni]

You miss the point.
Microsoft is still fixing real "OS security problems" for free via Windows Update.
Anti-malware (e.g. spyware, viruses, etc) is designed to thwart malware that doesn't necessarily rely on OS security problems (which, I repeat, will continue to be fixed for free via Windows Update).

Re:Wrong analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you have never worked in the real world. Please shut the fuck up, and let us know when you have done work on any type of network that has a minimum of 400 users.

At that point, you might realize that your idealistic fanboism and real world politics collide. Unfortunatly, in the real world, politics trump idealism.

Hard working people exist that battle both the potential and realized vulnerabilities that exist in "software bugs". This is realisticly the same thing as "inadequate security". Intent and responsiblity may be lacking, though it has the same effect. Death is death, whether premeditated or manslaughter. It sucks, and someone has to pay the consequences. So please... PLEASE... Get off your a) inexpierenced, or b) PhD holding high horse, and realize that your reality does not exist. You argue semantics, but the end effect is the same. I raped your mother, but you are still my son. Deal with it like the big boys do.

Re:Wrong analogy

[aussie_a]

I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer

Using IE can be attributed to user error as well :P

Re:Wrong analogy

[Decker-Mage]

Actually I do all the time and in all the years I've been using Windows, I've never caught any spyware, malware, or virii. Why? Well, for one I don't do anything stupid. Send me an attachment I didn't ask for and poof! I kill it in the mailbox on my servers in Dallas before it hits my network and for good reason. Even *nix can be infected via that vector, let alone the Windows machines. Even attachments I ask for get saved, not opened on arrival, and then scanned, examined, folded, spindled, and if necessary, mutilated.

I also use a web proxy (among the other things this tools does) that filters out all active content in the HTML unless I specifically set the site up differently. It's totally configurable about what can happen in both directions. Tack on reverse DNS so I know where a link will take me helps a lot there as well. Too many users are willing to click their way right into this kind of problem. That does not happen here.

Next, the whole registry and all system files are protected. Not a single entry or file can be changed without my permission; an early hack that I came up with long before WFP (which is still lame, even today). It's annoying when a major update occurs but at least I know what changes are being made to my system and why. The last thing up on the plate is network monitoring/logging so I know the gozintas and gozoutas and who they are from/to here.

You can be proactive about security, not reactive which is what OneCare is in my not so humble opinion, but it requires work. Aside from the various hardware solutions I've seen, and one *nix implementation, you have to roll your own solutions. You also have to monitor the security mailing lists religiously to make it all work. [Donning asbestos underwear.] If you are not monitoring those lists, and I don't give a rat frag which OS/applications/whatever you are using, you are setting yourself up for a fall. OX/X has security problems, Linux/Unix/Solaris/BSD have security problems, Windows has security problems, and all of them has security problems in the arena of applications. If you don't believe me, go over to a site like SecurityFocus.com and sign up for the mailing lists. Be prepared to be buried each and every day.

As for citing the problems of Windows XP non-SP1/SP2 connecting to the 'net, sheesh. Anyone who does that deserves everything they get. SP2 goes on before the machine goes on the 'net. Always. And everyone knows, in my region, that if you need a reinstall, I'll come by and do it for free. It also gives me a chance to harden their system with my collection of free tools I've rounded up over the years. This is a war and I'm a volunteer in that regard.

Re:Wrong analogy

[Tom]

Again, you are largely describing problems caused by software bugs, not "inadequate security".

You make a differentiation without merit, except for pure academic theory maybe.

Most security problems are software bugs. The fact that it is very hard to write bug-free software with current tools, technology and methods is one of the main headaches of the security people. I am one. Buggy software and users are what I am most worried about, in this order. False policies, configurations and errors in concepts and methods come way after those.

Re:Wrong analogy

[drsmithy]

You make a differentiation without merit, except for pure academic theory maybe.

No, the differentiation is important, because the consequences and remedies are significantly different.

"Inadequate security" would mean it's impossible to safely run a Windows system. Since this is demonstrably false - and fairly trivial to enforce in a managed environment - then it's simply not a factor.

Software bugs, OTOH, the end user - even administrators - can do very little to fix.

Most security problems are software bugs.

Rubbish. The vast majority of security breaches come from end users, either deliberately (corporate espionage style) or inadvertently (running virus-laden files from email attachments or downloads).

Buggy software and users are what I am most worried about, in this order.

Then your priorities are backwards. The most common vector into the typical machine for malicious code is the end user deliberately executing it, either knowingly or unknowingly. Accidental code execution via software bugs follows a distant second. Remote code execution - automated or otherwise - is barely even on the scope. These first two vectors are *precisely* the holes that anti-spyware and anti-virus software tools attempt to plug and OS-level security is largely incapable of closing.

Re:Wrong analogy

[Tom]

"Inadequate security" would mean it's impossible to safely run a Windows system. Since this is demonstrably false - and fairly trivial to enforce in a managed environment - then it's simply not a factor.

"Inadequate security" is first and foremost a very generic term open to interpretation. And if you think you can safely run a Windows system in any environment (except one allowing no access at all, neither local nor remote) than you are betting the farm that despite a couple hundred root-level exploits having been found in the past there are no future ones.

If you built a really secure system, you always assume your attacker knows something you don't. Because very often he does. They aren't called 0days for nothing.

The vast majority of security breaches come from end users, either deliberately (corporate espionage style) or inadvertently (running virus-laden files from email attachments or downloads).

We could fight over how exactly to count what exactly. I do agree that these two are major problems. I think you can agree that bugs often have serious security implications. That's good enough for me.

The most common vector into the typical machine for malicious code is the end user deliberately executing it, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Yes, but that is a vector that I can control. On both Windows and Unix there are several ways to prevent that. They aren't used often because of the inconveniences attached, but they exist and anyone not using them is deliberately taking a risk.

You apparently go by sheer quantity. And yes, on that scale you are correct, the 1000 or so compromised server machines a day don't even compare to the 100,000 or so compromised windos workstations.

However, except for DDoSing and Spam, a cracked server is more valuable than 100 cracked XP Home machines on DSL. And if you are looking for something specific (say, half a million credit card numbers) then servers are where you're going and remote code execution is what you're looking for, even though by pure quantity that is a minor vector.

Numbers alone don't mean shit. At the very least, you have to take Numbers times Impact.

Re:Wrong analogy

[drsmithy]

"Inadequate security" is first and foremost a very generic term open to interpretation.

Indeed it is. Given the context of the discussion, I am interpreting it to mean "deficiencies in the technical capabilities of Windows with regards to restricting user access". I don't see how any other interpretation could be reached, nor worth having a discussion about.

And if you think you can safely run a Windows system in any environment (except one allowing no access at all, neither local nor remote) than you are betting the farm that despite a couple hundred root-level exploits having been found in the past there are no future ones.

Reasoning which applies to every platform. So, again, not worth talking about if you're going to work in such an unhelpfully absolutist context.

It's the computer security equivalent of saying "the sun is going to burn up and kill us all, so what's the point eve getting out of bed ?"

You apparently go by sheer quantity. And yes, on that scale you are correct, the 1000 or so compromised server machines a day don't even compare to the 100,000 or so compromised windos workstations.

The reason I am working on quantity is because that is the context of the discussion. There have been *at least* as many "quality" vulnerabilities in non-Windows platforms over the years (with the possible exception of OS X due to its relative youth and relative lack of presence in large enterprise environments).

And if you are looking for something specific (say, half a million credit card numbers) then servers are where you're going and remote code execution is what you're looking for, even though by pure quantity that is a minor vector.

And even then most server exploits are the result of users - sysadmins, in this case - being irresponsible, ignorant, or just plain negligent.

I seem to recall that nearly all of the major remote Windows exploits have been the result of either a) unpatched holes (when patches have been available for extended lengths of time) or b) admins not changing default passwords and/or configurations.

Numbers alone don't mean shit. At the very least, you have to take Numbers times Impact.

The Numbers when you're talking about (non-server) Windows machines are so relatively huge that they almost always outweigh any Impact measurements. Windows desktops outnumber every other type of machine by around 90 to 1. That's damn near *two orders of magnitude* greater Numbers (yet frequently, Slashdot posters insist that this massive difference is irrelevant). Similarly, Windows Servers - *especially* in the small & medium enterprise market, where the bulk of the industry is - are more common than anything else (I will agree that Windows's penetration into high-end environments is relatively small).

So, yes, while something like a huge multinational bank is a nice, juicy target, it also has a highly trained team of people watching its systems 24/7, *proactively* trying to identify and close down any potential vulnerabilities and reactively fixing any exploits extremely quickly. While the attractiveness of a target increases significantly with its size, I would argue (and it is my experience) that its ability to defend itself and respond to attacks increases much, much faster (regardless of platform). This reasoning also applies to - and is validated by - security in "meatspace" as well.

Re:Wrong analogy

[Tom]

Indeed it is. Given the context of the discussion, I am interpreting it to mean "deficiencies in the technical capabilities of Windows with regards to restricting user access". I don't see how any other interpretation could be reached, nor worth having a discussion about.

How about "insufficient protection against unauthorized access"?
You see, the nifty thing about your definition is that it excludes both bugs and user errors by talking only about capabilities.

Oh yes - and you don't want to restrict user access. You want to restrict unauthorized access.

Reasoning which applies to every platform.

I'm not so sure about that. OpenBSD has had one remote root (default install) or about a dozen (real-world setup) depending on how you count. The reasoning might apply to every platform, but to varying degrees.

There have been *at least* as many "quality" vulnerabilities in non-Windows platforms over the years

see above. Unless, of course, you do what some liars^H^H^H^Hconsultants do and add up "Linux exploits" by adding up all of Debian, Redhat, Suse, etc. even though it's the same exploit. :)

And even then most server exploits are the result of users - sysadmins, in this case - being irresponsible, ignorant, or just plain negligent.

Well, yes. Sooner or later you always arrive at a human making an error. Until computers design, build, configure and administrate themselves that won't change.

The fact remains that some environments make it easier to make mistakes. Why do Windos machines get owned by the bucketload and Mac machines don't even though I wouldn't exactly say the average OSX user is more tech savy than the average XP user?

So, yes, while something like a huge multinational bank is a nice, juicy target, it also has a highly trained team of people watching its systems 24/7, *proactively* trying to identify and close down any potential vulnerabilities and reactively fixing any exploits extremely quickly.

Errmm... ... you haven't seen many banks from the inside, have you? While I'm not an expert on multinational bank IT infrastructure, I do have some knowledge (and know people who have more). Trust me, banks aren't as safe as they're made to be. You see, those hypothetical highly trained 24/7 teams cost money. Something most banks much rather make than spend.
Very, very, very few sites I've seen have adequate security teams. Most of them get by through luck and quite a few don't even know they've been owned until long after the fact.
If I had to dare a guess, I'd say at least half of the security breaches occuring are never noticed by anyone on the target site and half of the other ones get swept under the rug quicker than you can say "oops".

Re:Wrong analogy

[drsmithy]

You see, the nifty thing about your definition is that it excludes both bugs and user errors by talking only about capabilities.

Actually it only excludes user errors. Because user errors aren't something an OS can reliably do anything about.

Oh yes - and you don't want to restrict user access. You want to restrict unauthorized access.

And you question me about academic distinctions.

To the OS, there is no difference. All access == user access. The OS doesn't know whether "fred" really is fred, or if he's "CrashBurn" using fred's login.

I'm not so sure about that. OpenBSD has had one remote root (default install) or about a dozen (real-world setup) depending on how you count.

It's not hard to have a record like that when you don't actually *do* anything out of the box, and even "real world" setups are a tiny, tiny proportion of machines out there.

(Not that I have anything against OpenBSD - it's an excellent platform for border security - but that claim has always been rather empty in context.)

The reasoning might apply to every platform, but to varying degrees.

Your argument is because there *might* be unknown exploits, the platform cannot ever be considered secure. I fail to see how that argument does not apply to all platforms, *regardless* of their history.

see above. Unless, of course, you do what some liars^H^H^H^Hconsultants do and add up "Linux exploits" by adding up all of Debian, Redhat, Suse, etc. even though it's the same exploit.

When you take away all the Windows exploits that only worked in poorly configured and/or maintained environments, its security record is quite reasonable. This is the *only* way you can get even close to a reasonable comparison of OS security (and even then, the marketshare and user demographics make any sort of rational comparison impossible).

Well, yes. Sooner or later you always arrive at a human making an error. Until computers design, build, configure and administrate themselves that won't change.

Certainly, it always boils down to a human in the end, however, there is a qualitative difference between user ( or administrator) errors and programmer (OS) errors.

Most remote exploits - Windows or otherwise - are caused by poorly configured or maintained software. That is a *very* different class of exploit to a software bug.

The fact remains that some environments make it easier to make mistakes. Why do Windos machines get owned by the bucketload and Mac machines don't even though I wouldn't exactly say the average OSX user is more tech savy than the average XP user?

Because Windows machines outnumber OS X machines about 100:1. There are a lot of very important effects that this influences - which I will be happy to elucidate, if you want (most people just retort with "apache") - but that's what the view from 10000 feet essentially is.

Errmm... ... you haven't seen many banks from the inside, have you?

Banks, no. Similarly large environments, yes.

While will agree that in an absolutist sense, "large enterprises" have poorly run "security" departments, they're still streets ahead of smaller environments purely by virtue of their size. You *have* to have good technical staff just to keep large environment afloat and they inherently bring along with them substantially better protection against attacks, simply by virtue of noticing things that "aren't right" sooner - and being capable of fixing them.

Big targets are inherently more difficult to crack, and it is my experience that their difficulty increases much quicker than their attractiveness, except to people with "real" motivations like [industrial] espionage or the like - and in those sorts of situations, the software is unlikely to be the (primary) vector.

We should all sue them

[Susceptor]

major conflict of interest don't you think? I mean MS builds a platform full of holes, and then asks for more money to fix the holes. Thats like if GM built a truck with no engine, and once you took delivery asked for a seperate additional check for the engine.

Re:You know.

[Dis*abstraction]

Or in your case, to sucker people into a scam with the promise of a free Mac.

The design and overall vibe of the website linked in your sig fucking stinks of the PC mentality. Never trust a PC user, I say; even less a PC user hawking "FreeMacs4Me."

Fine with Me

[bob65]

Don't really know why anybody care about this or is complaining about this. They can sell whatever they want, and as others have pointed out, they're not including it as part of the OS. This might mean they can purposely introduce bugs into Windows to continue the sales of such a service, but hey, that's up to them. It's a business decision - they have to balance how good Windows is vs. potential sales of maintenance services to maximize profit. And maximizing profit at the expense of product quality is certainly something every company has the right to do.

Microsoft got where they are today by playing the business game right, so they deserve to exploit whatever advantages the free market gives them in their position. If you want to blame anything, blame the way our market works. I certainly don't blame Microsoft for trying to make money.

Re:Fine with Me

[halfcuban]

Microsoft got where they are today by playing the business game right, so they deserve to exploit whatever advantages the free market gives them in their position.

We don't live in a free market, not unless somehow governments dissolved away, regulations of financial and trade markets have been completely dumped, and the barrier of entry into any market has rounded down to 0 in the time I've typed this message. Seeing that it hasn't, we live in nothing vaguely resembling a "free" market. I know its the en vogue thing on comments now to make like you actually like Microsoft and the tinier tyrant known as Apple, in all their vendor lock in, DRM loving, open standards hating glory, but lets be honest; its as passe as Toby Keith singing about towelheads and Larry the Cable Guy making fun of Mexicans. You're not somehow being un-PC by approving of Microsoft or being "out of the norm" on Slashdot by saying positive comments; you're just spouting off market drivel in a shiny new ironic wrapper.

I've said it before

[blueZ3]

You don't pay the wolves to guard the sheep!

The amusing thing is that this tells you something about the average intelligence of MS users--they know that Windows products (created by Microsoft) are buggy and prone to spyware, viruses, and other threats, yet somehow believe the the same Microsoft who couldn't write a secure OS can somehow write software to "fix" the holes they couldn't be bothered to close when the OS shipped. Sheesh.

Re:I've said it before

[Nicaboker]

You're assuming that the typical M$ user honestly CARES about the bugs in the OS. They don't. They just want it to work, when it doesn't they call their local nerd to fix, if they don't know any (for whatever reason) they call that outsourced number that connects them to someone who couldn't make it as an actor so they are reading their scripts over the phone.

McAfee's zero-day response

[texaport]

May 30, 2006 (12:35 PM EST) - PRNewswire
SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall

http://www.techweb.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?arti cleID=X482225

"McAfee first delivered security as a service in 1999,
setting the industry standard with seamless, integrated
protection and transforming the way consumers use ..."

Always keep in mind, just who first delivered this plague of completely-expiring software upon users who already knew there was no need to buy this-years-model every 12 months.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b

[douggmc]

Use this PC to go online and download content, Burn it to CD's and sneakernet it to trusted 100% offline computers. Should the throwaway PC get pwned, just format the hard disk and reload the OS or restore a HD disk image of the PC before it went online for the first time. A pain in the neck, but more effective (and cheaper) than M$'s solution.

Well now ... aren't you a fucking wizard. I bet you went to ITT Tech or Univ. of Phoenix. I have a better idea. Use an OS that doesn't suck (I prefer OS X .. but to each his own. There are other options).

Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac

[tecker]

I figured out what OneCare is (aside from a really bad name). Take Spybot Imunize function combied with Microsoft Updates packages, add Rebranded Antispyware and Antivirus, and clone in .Mac.

If you look at the features most of those come standard with OneCare and the windows equal.

• "Two Way" Firewall == Windows Firewall
• Deframent == Disk Deframenter
• Frees up hard disk space == Disk Cleanup
• Tracks updates for Windows XP and other Microsoft programs == Microsoft Update

50$ a year for a Fancy All-In-One gui to your basic windows programs sound like a lot to me. Doesnt even backup to an remote backup server. Sadly Mac suckers (em, users) have been paying for years, Redmond is catching up and getting in on the action.

Re:Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't the pisser of the thing be if Microsoft follows through on their promises way back when they first acquired Giant Software?

Back then they said they would eventually release their Antispyware product to the consumer for free, after it got past beta. They'd make a version for sale to corporations with more manageability, but consumers would get it for free.

If they do that OneCare would basically be an antivirus subscription service. $50/year is a lot to pay for that - hell, I can buy a fully functional copy of Norton AV for about $20/year if I time my purchase right (once a year Norton is available in shrinkwrapped CD form for around $20, rest of the year you're stuck with the ~$50 boxed product).

If they don't release it to the consumer for free, well, then they've gone back on their word. Of course their well-paid industry pundits will find some way to laud them for doing that, and the rest of the techie crowd will have our hands full reminding everyone of what Billy G said.

Re:Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac

[hexdcml]

Infused with .Mac? Have you ever used .Mac? This is a completely different kettle of fish.

.Mac is an Internet services package that once upon-a-time included Antivirus, but now it doesn't. However, it does offer remote backup (1GB), one-click homepages from iPhoto/iWeb, one-click Podcasting (GarageBand) as well as acting as a IMAP mail server and sync server so that bookmarks, system preferences, application preferences, calendars, contacts and bookmarks remain sync'd across multiple Macs.

In short, It isn't anything like OneCare.

www.mac.com is the place to go and get educated.

Microsoft, Linux, Apple and Unix are all good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are linux people so angry about Microsoft, you have your linux, you have your free stuff so just enjoy it. Just be glad that you have what you have! Be glad it is not popular and therefore does not attract the attention of virus writers, spyware etc. If you make enough noise and bring enough people on board then you too will enjoy the pitfalls of being at the top of the heap! Maybe they need to release a version of linux called Chillout or Mello!

$50 per year is not a problem for me but I dont need it as I just dont get these infections as i am aware of how to protect myself. If you are competent enough to setup secure linux then you can do the same for windows if you try.

What's really sad is...

[woohootoo]

...a jillion and a half fools are going to sign up for this. And ol' Billy G. will just keep getting richer and richer. Whatever happened to buying quality products instead of being satisfied with crap? Pathetic.

Re:You know.

[Firehed]

Not to be nitpicky and flamebait-ey, but Apple's got holes too, hackers just don't care about them. If it's 50/50 between MS and Apple (yeah, yeah, Linux, I know), you can expect that Macs will be targets too. Something tells me that the [generic mean people] aren't out to prove a point about Microsoft and Apple/*nix, they just go after whatever's easiest. As OSX is Unix-based, I'd imagine finding security holes would be considerably easier should one be looking to do so.

sell a car, charge extra for the breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they sell us a producte and them charge extra to make it usable?!
How can we end this monopoly? I have no hope.

I never could figure how people put up with windows until 2000
and I never figure out how people put up with window after 2000.

Re:sell a car, charge extra for the breaks

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Well, automobile manufacturers have charged extra for things like air bags (particularly side air bags), anti-theft systems, etc.

Re:sell a car, charge extra for the breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

So if a car manufacturer finds a defect in the air bag that you paid extra for and the defect comprimised the effectiveness of that airbag, would you expect to pay to repair something that was defective from production?

If so I have a whole pile of things I would like to sell to you cheap. And I will even throw in a service package for an additional $50.00 a month to supply you with bandaids to fix those items when the need arises.

What's wrong with

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, give us some insurance money or your house might burn down...

Someone wise once said

[melted]

If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.

That's a classic move by MSFT. Writte buggy, insecure software. Charge money for it. Sell band-aids that need maintenance. Sell maintenance. Thanks, but no, thanks.

Two Quotes

[Dracos]

"There's a sucker born every minute." Widely and falsely attributed to P.T. Barnum.

"A fool and his money are soon parted." Thomas Tusser.

MS is apparently hoping that lightning will strike twice in millions of places.

They've said repeatedly that Vista will be the most secure Windows ever, so why would Vista need any additional security software, from the creator of the OS or a third party? Obviously, the answer is that Vista isn't secure, and MS already knows it. They've even thought of a way to turn Vista's lackluster security into a secondary revenue stream.

To which the suckers and fools will gladly contribute.

Classic Moral Hazard

[The Mutant]

What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?

Re:Classic Moral Hazard

[flyneye]

Theatres make little money on movies.
Pop,popcorn,candy and crap provide revenue.
Salty popcorn sells more pop.
Secure microsoft sells no insurance.
crappy microsoft sells much to gullible chumps.
code can remain crap as usual.
destroy it and they will come.

Re:Classic Moral Hazard

[I'm Don Giovanni]

What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?

What incentive does Red Hat have to make an easy-to-use OS if they are deriving revenue from the very difficulty of the OS (i.e. making money on support)?

BTW, Microsoft will continue to patch OS flaws for free with Windows Update. Anti-malware software is meant to stop malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws.

Re:Classic Moral Hazard

[The Mutant]

"What incentive does Red Hat have to make an easy-to-use OS if they are deriving revenue from the very difficulty of the OS (i.e. making money on support)?"

Market forces. Folks can and often do migrate to other distributions for many reasons, such as support that you've mentioned above.

As Microsoft has an effective monopoly on the desktop, competitive market forces don't appply. Microsoft clearly is trying to monetise the entire Windows experience, security faults as well.

Have you noticed something funny about the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try saying it real fast... With an Indian accent...

OMGfather

[Anonymous Coward]

They want us to pay protection.

AYFN???

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Are You Fucking Nuts??? They can't get it right for US$300.00 a copy for XP Pro and gods above and below know what for Vista; and they want me to pay another US$50.00 a year for fucking "security" ? Jesus Wept!

Windows WHY Care service

[Neo-Rio-101]

It's all wel and good that there is a Microsoft service to protect Windows, but what is protecting ONE Care?

Seems funny that security issues that Microsoft should have fixed created a new market, and now that this market exists, Microsoft cannot monopolize it by actually fixing the said issues with built-in software.

RIDICULOUS!

Runs on NT 5.0 but not NT 5.1

[fastgood]

Windows 2000 won't be able to run this; what happened to the idea
of your products being "tried and true" and improving over time ?

So is the new mantra going to be, 'Security through Immaturity' ?

Is the underlying foundation of WindowsNT so shaky that Microsoft
had to just throw up their hands and flatout give up?

Does anybody wonder if they are protecting users or market share?

Let's start a pool.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many hours will it be until a security patch is announced for the "security" software?

Bugger off!

[babbling]

Trust needs to be earned.

Never in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in a way allowing you to have fun and be more productive

Am I the only one who saw it like that?

pretty much every other industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

...has to do business with some minimum consumer warranty action as in "suitable for purpose" and not containing glaring defects. MS-and software in genereal temrs, is under no such legal liability in most cases. They are allowed the "neener, neener,sucks to be you, nothing is our fault" EULA dodge.

Now *why* exactly all these other billion dollar non software industries put up with that is beyond me, you'd have to ask them. I only run free software, and I totally understand even "stable release" means it is still betaware, but..it's free and Free so I don't care. If I was paying serious folding money for some software "license", I would have a different attitude about it, I'd want a minimum warranty. That's my "capitalist bottom line" anyone can go "leverage".

Surprise!

[babbling]

This may come as a surprise to you, but most viruses exploit flaws in Microsoft software to spread themselves.

Microsoft's initial product is defective, malicious people take advantage of the defects to create problems for users, Microsoft then charges users to remove the problems that their defective software allowed for in the first place.

Who you blame for viruses is debatable, but there's no doubt that Microsoft have a conflict of interests problem if they start selling virus scanner software. If they make their OS too secure, eventually they will kill the need for their new virus scanner product.

The fact that they intend for this service to be used mostly with Windows Vista is proof that they expect Windows Vista to have flaws for viruses to exploit.

Upgrade Questions

[fireheadca]

Perhaps this is an updated version of MS-AV?

What happens when OneCare decides the system
isn't safe enough and formats the hard-disk?

Is notepad going to also be a subscription service?

Now I know when people ask if they should switch
to Vista my immediate response will have to be
'no'.... unless, of course, I don't like them.

---
'That he surely did not.'

place your bets here....

[lon3st4r]

alright.. alright.. simmer down..
no rushing.. no rushing
place your bets here.. place your bets here..

Today's bet: When will MS bring out another paid service to make sure their Windoze Live OneCare service works as expected?

* lon3st4r *

Sure they can

[SuperKendall]

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

Sure they can - I slap a Mac on 'em. Then they can't click on anything stupid because there is nothing to click on yet that causes harm.

Yes there could be - but it's hard to ignore the plain fact that there isn't.

Like all patches, it may not last forever but it does fix the immediate problem.

Re:Sure they can

[0racle]

nothing to click on yet that causes harm

Make it sufficiently profitable and that will change in a heartbeat. There have been exploitable problems in OS X, its not like it's impossible to do. Moving to OS X and staying an idiot user fixes nothing, it delays the inevitable for a bit.

Re:Sure they can

[IAmTheDave]

Moving to OS X and staying an idiot user fixes nothing, it delays the inevitable for a bit.

Um... HELLO... Security through obscurity has been proven to be flawless time and time and time again! If people would just stop LEAKING these security flaws (like, maybe we could get the federal government to prosecute anyone leaking this sort of information...) then we wouldn't HAVE these problems.

DUH...

Re:Sure they can

[pnutjam]

Calling a Mac secure is like calling the second fattest girl in a room skinny.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b

[kjart]

I would say the more relevant question is how good do the competitors have to be in order for people to switch. Obviously, they aren't good enough yet.

Time for some good 'ol Mac advocacy

[SuperKendall]

Your not honestly going to say that you don't think that antivirus / antispyware is a good thing to have on a machine used by the type of person who will click OK to everything they see?

On a Mac the fact is that you don't need either of those things because no matter how stupid the user is there is nothing malicious the user can click on. You might in the future but why not cross that bridge if you ever reach it, isntead of paying $50 a year right now and risk that it will not even work? Windows has plenty of zero-day exploits that the virus scanners do not catch.

A firewall is useful on any system (not just Windows), and anyone storing data on their machine and NOT doing some kind of data backup (at least for the important data) is crazy.

For inbound traffic Macs don't generally need firewalls because they come with no ports open. For outbound traffic (potential spyware) a firewall might be of more use but since again, there is no spyware or malware it's not needed. Less technical users can get away with not running such things and simply start doing so if and when an outbreak of spyware arrives on the mac.

As for the performance tune-ups, it really just puts the common tools into one place (defrag, clear temp files, etc)

I'm not sure why you'd want to pay for those things; OS X includes them for free (including an incremental defrag approach to the FS that works really well).

In short the TCO figures for Microsoft just increased again. Can't run Windows without the $50/tyear tithe to Microsoft domination!

You mean Windoze Live TwoCare?

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt it'll be available before very long.

This is excellent

[Infonaut]

Microsoft just gave Linux, MacOS X, and the BSDs a nice, juicy marketing point. There's no need for the DOJ on this one. Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by coming out and saying that their product simply isn't usable out of the box. If I were RedHat or Novell, I'd jump all over this. I can picture the ads now: "So I need to pay another $50 EVERY YEAR just to keep my computer from getting trashed by viruses? Thanks, but no thanks, Microsoft!"

Re:This is excellent

[HillBilly]

I love this.

Everytime MS does something some twit on slashdot comes along and says something like "This will help Linux" or some other crap.

Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.

Re:This is excellent

[ElleyKitten]

Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.

It's a lot closer than you imagine. My friend uses Linux (Mepis, specifically) and I don't think she even knows what the command line is. And no, I didn't spend hours configuring it for her, she installed it herself and didn't need to do any configuring because it automatically recognized her hardware and came with mp3, DVD, etc support. My mom used my Linux box and is jealous because all the silly puzzle games she buys for $20 a piece are available for free with Ubuntu. I'd give her Linux, but her computer is used for telecommuting with her job, so I really can't.

Linux is great for home use and is getting better all the time. It's problem is that people don't know that. However, and more and more users get fed up with viruses and Windows and whatever, they will take the time to find out.

Extortion

[obnoxiousbastard]

Microsoft...selling security...BaWaaHAAAAA! That's a good one.

When the mob does this, they call it Extortion.

Maybe the Feds that they haven't paid off will wack them with RICO.

They should be allowed to charge for this

[Cannelloni]

While it's good that MS is trying to improve the poor security and reliability record of Windows, they shouldn't be allowed to charge for something that should have been fixed more than ten years ago at the system level.

As a Mac OS X user, I am not troubled by things like that, and I cannot be bothered with Windows, but I would be equally upset if Apple one day decided to CHARGE for security features! But they again, that would not be Apple's style, would it?

Same with Linux companies. They would never charge you for basic secrity, because a) it is built-in into the OS and b) a move like that would severely hurt the credibitity of the company.

So, in sum: shame, shame on you, Microsoft. You are a poor excuse for a technology company. You have NO credibility left in this world.

Re:They should be allowed to charge for this

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Things that can be fixed "at the system level" will continue to be with free updates, just as your Apple does. But most malware nowadays doesn't rely on OS flaws, but rather user foolishness (downloading trojans from warez sites or P2P, clicking on malware email attachments, etc). These are the kinds of things that anti-virus/anti-spyware is meant to address.

Re:They should be allowed to charge for this

[Cannelloni]

Not true in the case of Windows. Most security threats aimed towards Windows users are due to architectural flaws, bad coding on Microsoft's part in Windows, Internet Explorer, Office and other products, not user behavior I would say.

Re:They should be allowed to charge for this

[rbarreira]

True for XP. Not true for XP SP2.

Re:They should be allowed to charge for this

[argent]

But most malware nowadays doesn't rely on OS flaws, but rather user foolishness (downloading trojans from warez sites or P2P, clicking on malware email attachments, etc).

The fact that just clicking on an attachment or a link... not even downloading and opening it... can execute malicious code locally is a fundamental design flaw in one of Microsoft's flagship operating system components... the HTML control. Remember, Microsoft went to the wall with the Department of Justice to avoid having this removed from the OS, even risking splitting the company up rather than splitting up the HTML control into multiple components.

And I guess that was smart. If they hadn't left this criminally incompetant design stand, they wouldn't be able to charge for a security service now.

But don't for one minute think that it's all just social engineering and people being tricked into opening malware.

People can actually learn not to be socially engineered, I've seen it happen... for the decade and a half I was a system administrator for a Windows network I never once had someone come to me twice with a tale of being tricked into downloading a virus and launching it from their desktop or the command line.

Computers, though, don't learn. I've had plenty of people infected through Outlook, Internet Explorer, and other programs that use the HTML control over and over again.

That's not "user foolishness". That's "OS flaws".

Following Suit

[NetSettler]

It is much more analogous to selling a car with a faulty brake system. Then you buy a separate braking system from another company.

Mostly I agree with your sentiment here, but on this particular comment, I wanted to note that there's a material difference between buying it from another company and from the same company. In the case of two companies, the first company can claim the things the second company is fixing are not things they knew about or thought of, and in so doing they might have some sort of vestige of a defense against claims they are negligent for not fixing it in their original product. In the case of the care being provided by the same company, the problem is that Windows already sells this facility, since the Windows Update facility presumably gets frequent security updates.

If you'd get all the same patches anyway, and you're just paying for getting them instantly instead of waiting for a daily polling mechanism, maybe that's reasonable. But if they're actually making a conscious decision "let's not give this fix out for free, let's hold it back from our normal distribution mechanism because people should have paid us more for this kind of protection", there it seems like users should be lining up to sue every time there's a fix that they can't get throught Windows Update and it leads to material damage.

Unlike in the case of two uncoordinated vendors, it would seem like it would be easier to show there was a conscious decision by Microsoft to withhold a fix, and although I'm not a lawyer, that sounds to me like it would make a big difference to jurors considering a liability case.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b

[Drinking Bleach]

Apparently only when they charge you a monthly fee so as to not get a BSOD every time you boot. However, I'm afraid that suckers might still fall into that.

Dapper

[L0k11]

I was just about to give it a try when I realised I'm still using my ati radeon 9200... *

If someone can confirm that I'll be able to get it running relatively easily and stable with ATI graphics then I'll start downloading it now.

As for MS charging a premium for a more secure OS... why do we put up with this crap?

* I have an nvidia 9800 pro sitting on my desk however I am saving for a decent PSU - it kept crashing with my current 350w.

Re:Dapper

[JimmehAH]

The 9800 Pro is also ATI.
nVidia's latest graphics card is the 7800 something or other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_9800

Re:Dapper

[esmrg]

I am running a multimonitor setup on dapper with my ATI X850 pro. Most features work okay, except KDE has a bug with oversetting the resolution. (Pan and Scan) Video works good with bundled drivers.

Re:Dapper

[L0k11]

Errr... that was meant to say 6800 pro.

Getting really off topic though, mods, be nice!

Al Capone style protection?

[Vo0k]

Pay us and we will protect you from ourselves?

Most (all?) antivirus companies have extremely harsh policy against employees writing viruses or other malicious code the software is to protect from.

What is there to stop Microsoft from putting a bug here, a hole there, purposedly, and "discover" it half a year later just to prove how essential the subscription service is to security of a company?

Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[raftpeople]

A secure OS prevents those things that you listed. The malware is not allowed access to the resources it requires, including but not limited to: memory, registers, interrupts, system calls, files, disk, etc. etc. etc.

There are extremely secure commercial operating systems that prevent all of this.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[krunk4ever]

so how does the OS distinguish between malware vs non-malware? If the user is dumb enough to click install w/o knowing fully what he/she is doing (about 90% of how all malwares are installed these days), in the end, what you have is a compromised system.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[drsmithy]

A secure OS prevents those things that you listed.

How does this "secure" OS stop a user deleting all the files they have delete permissions to ?

Most malware doesn't not behave in a manner that makes is programattically distinguishable from a user.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[PinkyDead]

A most common malware scenario - especially with Windows (it being one of their target markets), is the home user where Mom, Dad and 14 Year old Peggy-Sue are all using the same computer.

[please reverse gender roles to taste]

Peggy-Sue is chatting with her mates, downloading everything that moves and clicking OK all over the shop.

Dad has his important files in his home directory and Mom never touches the computer except at Christmas for cards (and God help Dad if she can't get that done).

On a secure OS - at least one with proper file system security Peggy-Sue can pack her account with all kinds of nasties, and Dad's still safe as houses.

Windows just doesn't offer that kind of security.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Tim C]

On a secure OS - at least one with proper file system security Peggy-Sue can pack her account with all kinds of nasties, and Dad's still safe as houses.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. NTFS provides an extremely rich file system security model, with far more granularity than is present in all but a few obscure, specialised Linux filesystems.

Then the users go and run as admin and do away with most of that protection, but you can't blame that one on Windows/NTFS (you can blame it on MS for making it the default, and on third-party developers for writing shitty software that needlessly requires it).

Windows just doesn't offer that kind of security.

Windows 3 and 9x didn't, Windows NT (and so 2k, XP, 2003 Server and eventually Vista and Longhorn) with NTFS does.

Just because a lot of people choose not to use the features (often out of either ignorance or laziness) doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the issue would be resolved if Windows did not default to admin accounts, and if software more consistently worked in non-admin accounts. I'm cautiously optimistic this will improve with time.

With such changes it would be more difficult for rogue software to take over the computer; the users simply wouldn't have privileges destroy their system. They could still destroy their own account, but mangling one user account would be less likely to result in the agonizing virus and spyware cleanups many of us have performed for our family or friends. Windows machines seem to frequently get so messed up that folks just throw up their arms in disgust and drive to CompUSA to buy another PC.

With more limited default permissions they would need to go out of their way to explicitly acquire privileges to damage the system outside their own account. The people most at risk (users who don't know any better) probably wouldn't have the patience or experience to do so in many cases.

NOTE: I still can't forgive OS X for making the same mistake -- OS X defaults to an admin account. This is really frustrating. Apple hasn't learned from, or worse yet has wilfully ignored, Microsoft's depressingly obvious mistake.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[PinkyDead]

The idealized vision of reality that you are presenting and the actual reality faced by home users - or to use your terminology the "lazy" and "ignorant" - are two totally different things.

Unfortuntately, malware writers do not look at what should or could be the case, they look at what is the case. And it doesn't matter if NTFS is the most secure system in the world - if it's not used properly (because of the way it is deployed) then it is useless.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[ElleyKitten]

I don't like Windows and don't use it on my home computer, however, I have to call you out and let you know that Windows does have that kind of security. It's perfectly easy on XP to give Peggy Sue her own account and lock her out of Dad's stuff.

Now, if you were arguing that Peggy Sue would get less viruses and spyware on Linux because most distros don't default to root and any browser on Linux is much more secure than Windows' default, IE, then I would totally agree with you. But you're arguing that Linux will protect Dad from Peggy Sue, but if they use the same account on Windows they likely will on Linux, so Linux can't really protect him from her. She could delete the home folder just as easily as she could delete My Documents.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Cro Magnon]

In theory, NT-based systems should be secure. In practice, every XP Home box comes with one Admin account and no hint that you should or can create other user accounts. And if you DO create non-Admin accounts, chances are half your stuff won't work.

Yes, it's theoretically possible for XP to have multi-user security, but thanks to Microsoft's brain-dead defaults, that won't happen for 90% of its users.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Cro Magnon]

A truly secure OS wouldn't, by default, give the average user delete permission for every file on the PC.

A truly secure OS would discourage running as an Admin for routine tasks.

A truly secure OS might not stop 14 year old Peggy-Sue from messing up her own files, but it should protect Peggy-Sue's dad from her virus-laden downloads (by default).

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

so how does the OS distinguish between malware vs non-malware?

It does not, per se. It gives the user the information they need to decide what is malware, while at the same time providing the granularity of control the user needs in order to do what they want.

The granularity of control on Windows right now is pathetic. Generally, software can either do everything or nothing, the least amount of granularity possible.

Worse, due to architectural decisions, poor coding, and an unmaintainable codebase, Windows often allows others to bypass even that gross level of control and install and run software without the approval of the end user.

Finally, the UI in Windows does a horrible job of giving users the information they need to decide what is and is not malware. It does not warn me when something wants to read my e-mail address book. It does not warn me when something starts modifying my .doc files for the first time. It does not even provide me with adequate information to distinguish between data and programs.

Now I know some people will object on the grounds that other OS's don't take care of this either. The reason for this is that other OS's don't have a malware problem so the market is not demanding a solution.

If the user is dumb enough to click install w/o knowing fully what he/she is doing (about 90% of how all malwares are installed these days)...

First, most malware by the numbers is installed in an automated fashion without any user interaction. I don't know where you got the idea that user interaction was required for 90%, when it is actually more like 35%. Second, users aren't being dumb, for the most part. They aren't given the information they need to make a decision, or the control they need to have a system that is both usable and secure. Just add a "run but don't let it fuck my system in the ass" option for running software by default and much of the problem would go away. You can blame the end users when malware is a trojan and when the OS informs and empowers them.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[MaestroRC]

Granted, as you say, there are still a lot of people who use the same account on Windows, even XP. However, my experience has been that the "encouraging" of people to use fast user switching (most people think of it as a way to set the colors or desktop to whatever they want, rather than it being more secure) has been working. People, on average, ARE using seperate accounts on Windows XP machines, which is good.

But there is one major issue (read flaw) with this design. Problem is, most people don't muck around with creating accounts after their computer is set up, or setting permissions, or anything. Most people just follow the wizard that comes up when they first bought the computer, that asks you what users you want to set up, requiring you to create at least one, and allowing for I think up to 6 or 7. This is where the problem lies, because for all the good that a seperate user accounts does, it is blown completely out of the water with the simple fact that every user account created in the installer is an administrator level account. This means that, while Peggy Sue won't generally be able to browse into dad's documents and thrash them easily, the virus/malware/spyware that she installed CAN.

The only way to create a non-admin account is with the users control panel, and by setting them as a "Limited" account type (which IS the default here, I believe).

This is garbage, and is a major reason why OS X fares so much better in and of itself, even if everything else were equal. When creating accounts with the first-run wizard, it is always clear what level access users have to the system, and you are even encouraged strongly to only create one administrative-level account on your system, with that account even being limited until they enter their password for any administrative tasks.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[MaestroRC]

Granted, as you say, there are still a lot of people who use the same account on Windows, even XP. However, my experience has been that the "encouraging" of people to use fast user switching (most people think of it as a way to set the colors or desktop to whatever they want, rather than it being more secure) has been working. People, on average, ARE using seperate accounts on Windows XP machines, which is good.

But there is one major issue (read flaw) with this design. Problem is, most people don't muck around with creating accounts after their computer is set up, or setting permissions, or anything. Most people just follow the wizard that comes up when they first bought the computer, that asks you what users you want to set up, requiring you to create at least one, and allowing for I think up to 6 or 7. This is where the problem lies, because for all the good that a seperate user accounts does, it is blown completely out of the water with the simple fact that every user account created in the installer is an administrator level account. This means that, while Peggy Sue won't generally be able to browse into dad's documents and thrash them easily, the virus/malware/spyware that she installed CAN.

The only way to create a non-admin account is with the users control panel, and by setting them as a "Limited" account type (which IS the default here, I believe).

This is garbage, and is a major reason why OS X fares so much better in and of itself, even if everything else were equal. When creating accounts with the first-run wizard, it is always clear what level access users have to the system, and you are even encouraged strongly to only create one administrative-level account on your system, with that account even being limited until they enter their password for any administrative tasks.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[nytmare]

user is dumb enough to click install w/o knowing fully what he/she is doing (about 90% of how all malwares are installed these days)

You pulled that number out of your ass.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[ElleyKitten]

I've never known who had invidual accounts for everyone who used the computer, even on XP, so that's why I said what I did in my last post. I guess it's good that people are using different accounts, though rather useless because, as you point out, they're all admins. Appearently Microsoft is finally fixing this with Vista, so that'll be better for dumb users still stuck with Windows.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Elaarni]

You pulled that number out of your ass

So did the poster above you, made up statistics are fun when arguing on the internet huh?

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[drsmithy]

A truly secure OS wouldn't, by default, give the average user delete permission for every file on the PC.

Right. Because still being able to reboot is such a relief after having your life's worked wiped out by a virus.

A truly secure OS would discourage running as an Admin for routine tasks.

This is a matter of policy, not OS security.

A truly secure OS might not stop 14 year old Peggy-Sue from messing up her own files, but it should protect Peggy-Sue's dad from her virus-laden downloads (by default).

You haven't described anything Windows can't do. So I guess you're saying Windows is a "truly secure OS".

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[drsmithy]

Much of the issue would be resolved if Windows did not default to admin accounts, and if software more consistently worked in non-admin accounts.

Sadly, this isn't true. Very little - if anything - the typical piece of malware wants (or needs) to do requires elevated privileges. The only real reason running as a non-Admin works today is because so much malware is a badly written as so much other Windows software.

Not to mention, even those OSes defaulting to unprivileged users, still have a basically automatic facility wherein users can temporarily raise the privilege level of executing code. That in itself pretty much negates any advantage a regular user account offers to an ignorant/unskilled end user, because all a piece of malicious code needs to do to get elevated privileges is swap them for a candy bar.

I'm cautiously optimistic this will improve with time.

I'm not. Given the timeframe Vista's uptake is going to occur over, I'll be surprised if the move to non-Admin accounts has any measurable impact at all. By the time they're common, malware we have been suitably redesigned not to break in them.

NOTE: I still can't forgive OS X for making the same mistake -- OS X defaults to an admin account. This is really frustrating. Apple hasn't learned from, or worse yet has wilfully ignored, Microsoft's depressingly obvious mistake.

An admin is OS X is not the same as an admin in Windows. A closer (but not equivalent) analogy to a Windows Administrator user in OS X is 'root' (although 'root' has far more power over a unix system than Administrator does in Windows).

Lots of people on Slashdot seem to think non-Admin accounts are the silver bullet that protects other platforms from malware, and will finally rid Windows of it. Back (way back) in the good old days of Slashdot, I'd say that was because they mistakenly though their experience with large, managed, centralised multiuser systems had some relevance to the home desktop scenario. These days, I'm far more inclined to think it's a bunch of angst-ridden 16 year old kids who like to pretend they've got experience running a green-screen-serving business mainframe, turning over their BOFH Excuse Card every day and going <clickety-click> whenever someone asks them something, but who have never been closer to such an environment than a book (and still mistakenly believe it has relevance to unmanaged desktop PCs).

As long as uneducated users are able to make bad decisions about what software runs on their computers, the virus/adware/spyware/whatever problem will not be solved.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Cro Magnon]

Right. Because still being able to reboot is such a relief after having your life's worked wiped out by a virus

Actually, it is a relief. Because now, I can reboot and restore my "life's work" from my backups. Anyone smart enough to run an OS like Windows should be smart enough to make backups.

This is a matter of policy, not OS security

"Policy" is an important part of OS security. Perhaps the most important part!

You haven't described anything Windows can't do. So I guess you're saying Windows is a "truly secure OS".

You missed two important words. "By default"! Windows can, in theory, be somewhat secure, but out of the box, it isn't.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[Cro Magnon]

Lots of people on Slashdot seem to think non-Admin accounts are the silver bullet that protects other platforms from malware, and will finally rid Windows of it

I don't think non-Admin accounts are a "silver bullet". I think it's more like adding locks and security alarms to my house. A determined and skilled burglar will still be able to enter my house, but at least I won't have people entering through open windows.

I agree that Windows will always have a malware problem, even if Microsoft made it secure (and they still have a long way to go for that), but it can be reduced considerably, and non-Admin accounts is a big step in the right direction.

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[drsmithy]

I don't think non-Admin accounts are a "silver bullet". I think it's more like adding locks and security alarms to my house.

Actually it's more like a "beware of dog" sign.

When you don't have a dog.

A determined and skilled burglar will still be able to enter my house, but at least I won't have people entering through open windows.

It doesn't take much "skill" to get around a non-admin account if the user has the ability to elevate privileges.

I agree that Windows will always have a malware problem, even if Microsoft made it secure (and they still have a long way to go for that), but it can be reduced considerably, and non-Admin accounts is a big step in the right direction.

What exactly do you think they need to do to make it "secure" ?

Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware

[drsmithy]

Actually, it is a relief. Because now, I can reboot and restore my "life's work" from my backups.

Even the few people I know who backup, don't do it every second. So the last 8 hours you've spent writing that report are now wasted.

No matter how much sophistry people like you continue to spew, the simple fact is the user's data is *infinitely* more valuable that the system software. "Just restore from backup" is not a suitable solution.

"Policy" is an important part of OS security. Perhaps the most important part!

Policy is the purvue of users, not software.

You missed two important words. "By default"! Windows can, in theory, be somewhat secure, but out of the box, it isn't.

Funny, I thought we were talking about operating systems, not how people use them.

Again, your requirements for a "truly secure operating system" - apart from being worthless - Windows is already more than capable of meeting.

Re:Where's the Justice Department when you need th

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance is not only legal but required in some states. You talk big, but do you even have a liscense to operate a computer?

Yep...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this only SOLIDIFIES my stance on sticking with Apple. Forget Microsoft. Bill Gates may be a genius when it comes to making a buck, but he's obviously got no sense of right and wrong.

Hey Bill, if you're reading this, get at least this much through your thick, geeky little four-eyed head:

It's just not right to force people to pay even more money to you to keep their system secure when THAT'S WHAT THEY PAID FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, especially when you already have a monopoly on the OS market.

Fuck Microsoft.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now ... aren't you a fucking wizard. I bet you went to ITT Tech or Univ. of Phoenix. I have a better idea. Use an OS that doesn't suck (I prefer OS X .. but to each his own. There are other options).

Typical anti-Microsoft knee-jerk reaction. You must be a fan of Apple in spite of their almost non-existant market share.

The only 3 options that currently matter....

Linux - Great for server boxen and computer networking but insn't quite 'consumer grade' yet. I hear Linux installations are a pain to use unless you get one of the 'Windowslike' distros that have easy setup/installation routines.

OS X - A great, rather secure OS based on UNIX. Too bad only artistes use it like gangbusters--not the general public who just want to play games or manage their finances on their computer. Has tiny market share compared to....

Windows - Buggy, kludged for 'backwards compatibility' with earlier versions of DOS/Windows, and insecure, it's only strengths are ease of use and dominant market share.

The best idea would be to write a secure, efficient OS from the ground up. Can you do that? I could as I have enough knowledge of x86 BIOS, x86 assembler, and C to try. However, I don't have the time to spare to even make the attempt. And even if I did and finished it, it would probably be a 'hobby OS' like Linux was before big companies like IBM 'got behind it'....

Systems programming is not for the faint of heart!

It should only be attempted by people like Steve Gibson who writes all his Windows programs in 100% assembly language!

Reminds Me Of My GE Refrigerator

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year's model has a quirk where the freezer door doesn't shut all the way by itself. It looks like it's going to close, but then stops an inch or so from actually closing. This year's model has a new feature: a door alarm. It costs extra, though. They really ought to fix the poor door design, and MS really ought to write more secure applications.

IBM does it better

[SmallFurryCreature]

1. Build an OS that's so hard to use only geeks can use it
2. Charge 50.000 dollars for documentation/support
3. Profit!

Love those mainframes.

Re:IBM does it better

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple does it better:

1. Use outdated hardware for years,
2. Switch to not-so outdated hardware and say you are starting a revolution in computing,
3. Profit!

Re:IBM does it better

[mrcolj]

Amen to both comments. *nix is unsustainable because the GUI is designed by scripting fans--there's not yet been a theme or skin that looks professional to me, and that would be if you were allowed to stick within the GUI. My office terminal is entirely *nix, and I spent half my salary correcting people when they call it DOS (because the ONLY differences are under the hood.) And Apple still fulfills the age old stereotype: nothing I want is written for it (I didn't even have to mention that about *nix), the "security advantages" of not being able to mess anything up also means you don't have the ability to customize it or fix things when they break, they're expensive, no one supports them, and they're still run like a religion, with much more effort put into establishing "loyalty" than good hardware & software. Come to think of it, most all those arguments work for *nix also.

Re:IBM does it better

[kurtdg]

That necessarily wouldn't include your z/OS and other license fees of course. Because that'll probably be a few times as much -- per year. You didn't really think you can run a mainframe for that pocket change, do you?

yup

[goldcd]

I have a few windows machine.
One - a 2003 server has never crashed - as I mainly leave that happily running Apache, mailserver etc.
One - my big beast has bouts of flakiness - everytime it's down to a flakey driver for some obscure or cutting edge piece of hardware. (a problem MS has attempted to address with signed/unsigned drivers).
Now if a company produces a buggy driver for Windows, you can usually be pretty sure they put even less effort into the linux one (if they bothered at all).

Re:yup

[makomk]

Now if a company produces a buggy driver for Windows, you can usually be pretty sure they put even less effort into the linux one (if they bothered at all).

Of course, that's probably part of the reason a lot of Linux drivers are written by individuals other than the manufacturers (usually people who use the hardware in question). I don't know of any cases yet of someone completely rewriting a hardware manufacturer's open-source driver (probably because few of them exist) but it wouldn't surprise me if it happened. I do know the reverse-engineered forcedeth driver for NForce onboard networking is supposedly much less buggy than NVidia's official closed-source Linux driver...

In my country

[this great guy]

<<
Unfortunately, users can't be patched.
>>

In my country, we patch them regularly.
- Vladimir

Re:In my country

[thc69]

must...resist...can't...urge...too...strong...user 's...name...is...Vladimir...and...subject...is..." In my country"...

In Soviet Russia, users patch YOU!

Ahhh...now I feel better.

Re:In my country

[starnix]

Shouldn't it read "In Soviet Russia, Windows patches YOU!"

Except the response is just as easy

[Duds]

If you run Linux you need to spend $50 a year or more to get any support.

At all.

Re:Except the response is just as easy

[Cro Magnon]

IME, you got decent support for free for Linux. I'd rather have to wade through the "RTFM, n00b" posts on mailing lists, than to spend hours on hold waiting for a Microserf to say he can't help me.

Re:Except the response is just as easy

[Duds]

Because obviously there's no message board based support for windows that's free.

For instance there's definately not a wide variety of free forums and Over 2000 free newsgroups or anything.

Re:Except the response is just as easy

[argent]

Because obviously there's no message board based support for windows that's free.

Obviously there is, and there was back in the '90s, when the "free" support by Microsoft cost me half a day downtime for 100 people... see my original response to your post for more details.

The only difference between Free UNIX (such as Linux) and Windows support is that you're likely to waste time trying to get some use out of that support that you're paying for with your Windows license before going to the online discussion forums to actually get your problem solved.

Protection racket

[Anonymous Coward]

This amounts to a protection racket "Ooooh what valuable data you got on your machine. It'd be a real shame if anything happened to it, guv". Will Microsoft patch the next critical vulnerability for anyone who's not paid up?

total cost of ownership

[Anne Thwacks]

Can you say ...

M$ to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt that racketeering ??
buy our faulty operating system, then buy our protection for it...
Nice one microsoft !!

Free Windows Next

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft always wanted to have a subscription model for Windows. Since no one signed up for it, now they have a separate subscription based product, which is required to use Windows (at least for ordinary users). So now, Microsoft can now offer Windows for free and have this subscription model to derive their income. So it's a win-win situation where Microsoft gets their subscription model out with an annual income from their OS, and the users get a safer OS to work on.

It's not news

[Flatline_hun]

Microsoft asking money for what you have already paid for. Now they have economic intrest in creating faulty software, not just the usual negligence.

However if they'd provide this service for free, well THAT would be news.

And the beat (to our wallets) goes on!

[misterhypno]

Redmond keeps hitting us for more money. Why? Well, since the OS market is pretty well sewn up (they have about an 80% overall market share, so that qualifies as "sewn up in just about anybody's book), they have to figure out new and innovative ways to keep the cash coming in. This is obviously it. And, unfortunately, people will probably actually believe that the program works. Barnum's Maxim, in its full form reads: "There's a sucker born every minute... and TWO to TAKE him!" It seems that there's a high concentration of TWO's in Redmond. No wonder they're called "the terrible Two's...!" If their paid security program works as well as their initiative with a certain British University to "teach programmers how to write secure code" that was announced a couple of years ago, then anyone subscribing to this turkey will be in for a LOAD of VERY hard times on the security front! Lee Darrow, C.H. "Insecurity is better than NO security!" - R. Price, 1967

It's a protection racket

[infinite undo]

Check out the description of "protection racket."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

How is what Microsoft is doing any different?

The reason

[Bizzeh]

for all the zealots with "fix windows first"... i have this for you:

the reason you see the bugs in windows, is because it has a VAST majority of the market. so you see it more. linux as a kernel has more bugs in it than the whole of windows, you just dont see them, because linux is a very small part of the world comparitivly.

Go ahead and mod me Redundant, but...

[Zaatxe]

I have to say this:

They plan to charge more money to protect us from the problems they created themselves? What is the difference between paying this to Microsoft and paying the Mafia for "protection"?

Thans for letting me put it out. I just took a weight from my chest.

related news

[AlgorithMan]

The Ford Network reports that Ford is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better driving security for the Winesta cars, which have been sold with seatbelts made of Kleenex. Winesta Live OneCare will give you different seatbelts for three cars for about 2500 dollars a year (25% of the cost of the original car).

seriously - MS makes extremely insecure systems (Windows, Office, Outlook, IE) and then charge for the security, that those products are supposed to include from the start?
besides that: I don't beleive this service will help... MS has proven often enough that they can't make secure systems. how should this product offer any security that Windows,Office,Outlook and IE don't offer?

Man, I'm happy I've switched to Linux!

Go for OpenSuse or FreeBSD

[WeArab]

You guys should really think of using OpenSuse for Desktop or FreeBSD 6.1

You wont suffer from viruses or MS backdoors ;)

Re:Have you noticed something funny about the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Willy Wonka?

Gates as Don Corleone...

[Zhe Mappel]

He'll make you an OS you can't refuse. ;-)

Extortion has a new name

[oDDmON oUT]

'cause just like a drug dealer, that $50/year will get the unwary a taste of what using your computer on the internet *should* be, and then the price will rise to 'what the market can bear'.

A better solution would be for consumers (and this is who this is being pitched to) to withold their dollars and demand that MS fix what was so obviously broken to begin with, even if PHB and backdoor deals in the corporate world keep MS afloat.

It's amazing that the most widely used product on the planet is the only one that enjoys absolute, iron clad, protection from repercussions of any kind (but that's another thread)

uhhh no

[eneville]

s/Windows Live OneCare/Linux/ig

Misread

[aj50]

Did anyone else misread that last sentance as: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never, in any way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'

I was just thinking that would be about par for MS...

Hmmmm

[DeviantBoi]

In other news ... Michael Jackson is opening a Child Day Care Center.

Mod me down for this, I don't care

[Toreo asesino]

But frankly, I find some comments on this thread rather too anti-Microsoft to stay silent...

I run Fedora Core at home. Not Windows, but Linux. It's great. In the back of my mind though, it worries me however that my OS seems completely unbothered about any kind of self-protection for itself. Indeed, I have no (software) firewall, no AV-protection, no spyware protection - absolutely zip all!

My XP machine on the other hand is different. On factory install it whined like a bitch it didn't have AV protection, a known firewall, and all updates applied!
Windows actually cares whether or not it's protected; Linux does not - with maybe the exception of system-updates.

Now, I can already hear the Linux zealots copying & pasting their favourite template replies for this subject...."yes but Windows has so many more holes, this & that.....etc".
Remember folks, Windows is by far a more popular platform out there. Yes, in the past certainly its security record has been lax, but that's quickly improving; UAC in Vista is yet another improvement - the last truly lacking design feature in Windows that makes it inferior to Linux on a security-level.

Windows has had to be paranoid to survive, and the result is an increasingly hardened system that actually gives a shit whether the user is protecting it - which for 99% of ordinary users is exactly what they need.

I'm lucky enough to know how to look after my machine, so I'll stick with Linux. Others don't, so they shouldn't.

This OneCare is yet another step in the right direction in my opinion. Maybe Windows is a more 'dangerous' system to run (I personally don't believe so), but just lately, it's not been because of its design - only popularity.

But anyway, what am I saying. On Slashdot, Microsoft are between a rock and a hard place - too much and it's anti-competitive; too little, and it's poor design.

Nothing to see here; move along please...

M$ + Security

[mouce]

Hahahahahahaha...... Oh that's a good one, wait, it's not April Fools day...

Have I got a deal for you!

[rben]

Talk about a scam. Now MS has less incentive than ever to produce an OS that is secure and well-protected against viruses. Why protect their users for free when they can force them to pay a subscription?

This is another example of why MS should have been broken up. It's only by actually enforcing the anti-monopoly laws that we'll ever convince corporations that doing this kind of thing simply isn't going to wash.

To me, this is extortion, pure and simple, and should be agressively pursued by law enforcement as such.

The only reason I still use Windows is so I can play games. I dearly wish that the companies that make the games I play would port them to Linux so I could be shed of Windows once and for all.

Nice business model !

[unity100]

Ship it vulnerable, than cash clients to protect it.

Wonderful idea.

Hmmm

[Karem Lore]

Is this any indication as to the current code in Windows Vista...You need to pay more to be secure with MS Vista...can't wait.

Karem

Racketeering?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering
"The most well-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of "protection" from the consequences of crime - which would not exist if it was not for the presence of the criminals."

Users not needed...

[jpellino]

I freshly scrubbed a VAIO tower, loaded it with its shipped system (98se) went to Windows Update to lather rinse repeat what they said it needed. We gave it exactly one job to do - it's hands-off, headless, on the net FTPing a graphic once a minute with the results of a proprietary data collection app.

Two weeks later when my tech went to tweak something, he came back saying it was loded with crap - we had to do it all over again, this time secured with AVG/SpyBot/AdAware which we do by default to user machines and now run weekly via VNC.

And people wonder why I love my Macs.

Support? From Microsoft? FREE?

[argent]

My first support experience with Microsoft set the stage for later encounters.

This was my first NT domain. Upgrading from NT 3.1 to the newly released NT 3.51.

Microsoft changed the licensing mechnism in 3.51. I don't recall the details now, but the result was that my network of ~100 PCs was having itermittent login problems. It was annoying, but we were able to live with it while I figured it out.

I called Microsoft, they made some suggestions, we went around a couple of times trying things, and on the third call they suggested it might be licensing and suggested I try making some changes to the licensing settings and call them back.

The changes completely broke the network. Nobody could log in. I called them back. "I'm sorry, you've used up your three free support calls for a new install. You'll have to buy a support contract..."

They wanted me to PAY for the damage THEY had done?

I went ballistic at them, and did what I should have done in the first place... went to my free software support ... Usenet newsgroups. The kind of free software support you get for Linux. And was back up and running in a couple of hours.

A week later I got a call from some muckymuck at Microsoft offering me another three free support calls. I'm afraid I got a mite sarcastic with him.

Since then, well, there have been exceptional brief bright pockets of clue (the Pocket PC group when Derek Brown was there, Windows Services for UNIX after they bought Softway Systems, ...), but this has been my usual experience with Microsoft Support.

Paying someone else for support on Microsoft products is much more cost-effective.

Free OS and Office

[Anonymous Coward]

If they throw in the OS for free with Office for 3 machines for 50 per year, I will gladly switch from Mac to windows.

Why people trust Microsoft...

[argent]

In the back of my mind though, it worries me however that my OS seems completely unbothered about any kind of self-protection for itself.

Windows seems to be obsessive about security, it seems to be protecting itself.

In fact, it's the UNIX model that Linux follows that actually bothers with protection. It evolved in an environment where security mattered.

UNIX was developed when you had people who couldn't completely trust each other sharing the same computer. Once it got to academia you had professors writing papers, students working on their assignments, and lecturers writing and grading exams... all on the same computer. There's been problems with UNIX security, but they're well known and well understood problems and modern systems can avoid going anywhere near them.

Windows was developed for an environment where youcomputer was locked up in your office or your house, and someone had to actually walk up with a floppy disk to get stuff into or out of it. Every time it's been exposed to infection, it's caught a cold.

UNIX is a healthy mongrel, there's been a couple of big security scares like the Internet Worm that lasted a few days, but it's hardly ever been sick... because it washes its hands and takes care of itself, excersizes, and doesn't engage in dangerous activities. UNIX web browsers don't even have a mechanism to automatically download and execute foreign code... so they don't need web filters and spyware blockers. UNIX services can be shut off or restricted to the local computer, so they don't need firewalls and zone alarms.

You're assuming that the guy who's got a medicine cabinet full of grey-market antibiotics and patent medicines, and used prophylactics and single-use needles in his trash, is the one who's taking care of himself.

UNIX has been faced with a hostile evironment for over 30 years, and has been hardened at a deep level.

Windows has created its own hostile environment, and has absolutely refused to shed even the most flagrantly outrageously dangerous behaviours no matter what. The way Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, and ActiveX work together is the computer equivalent of running around snogging Ebola patients in the middle of an epidemic, and there's no way to fix it without backing out the whole internet-desktop integration and making IE just another program.

Every time Microsoft's announced another layer of security band-aids over their broken design a bunch of people have crowed that THIS TIME they've got it right. There's no reason to believe that this time is any different from any of the previous "this time"s.

Is there a linux distribution . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

that doesn't do this already? For free?

Hasta la Vista, baby.

[argent]

Yep, it's still true for XP SP2. And it'll be true for Vista, Vista II, Vista XP, and successors, until Microsoft gets serious about removing the inherently unsafe components from the system like most UNIX distributions removed IP-based "security" along with the Berkeley "r suite" applications that used it.

You don't get security by adding band aids, you get security by fixing and removing the components or processes that cause the problem.

Re:Hasta la Vista, baby.

[Cannelloni]

Exactly. Microsoft needs to address the fundamental flaws in the Windows system, and in their security thinking. The mechanisms that allow users to execute arbitrary code must be fixed. Dialog boxes with warning messages ("Do you really want to do this...?") provide an illusion of security, but not nearly enough, since they probably can be circumvented anyway by way of some clever hacking.

Was baldy dancing ? Subscriptions, Subscriptions..

[cpatil]

The lyrics is changing often in Baldy's school of music, from Developers, Developers & Developers to Subscribers, Subscribers & Subscribers - then threw a chair at them ;-)

Get the joke right, people!

[spun]

If you want to be true to the original (which most slashdotters are probably too young to remember) you have to do more than just reverse words, you actually have to make a comment on Soviet Russia using some kind of pun or play on words. We'll use "system" here, like so:

In America, users patch system. In Soviet Russia, system patches YOU!

See how that works? We are making a comment on the system in Soviet Russia, using the dual meaning of the word system (a social or political system, as opposed to a computer operating system) not just reversing the order of some words that have no relation to Soviet Russia.

I swear, in Soviet Russia, grave is turning over in Yakov Smirnoff. What a country!

Live OneCare

[jknopf]

Grisoft.com has a better and excellent service! Free! What's more, it does NOT have ActiveX or VBasic holes nor amateurish security philosophies like the toymakers at M$!

Translation .......

[Anonymous Coward]

'Windows works fine as long as you don't connect it to the internet, and install non-Microsoft approved software!'

Sorry, but as much work (see time=)is required out of the gate to get 'WINDOWS' to a working, albeit stable and secure(**cough**) state, is it really worth it when you can run a live CD of Knoppix (writing created data to USB flash) or install Ubuntu locally and be done with it??

Remember, we're talking about the average USER/CONSUMER here, not someone who has a little interest in thier PC and wants to see how things work...

/yea I went there, so what?

but isn't that...

[v1]

how it's always supposed to work?

Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC,

I am insulted that they would expect me to pay this extortion for what should be a basic standard feature of the product.

That's like paying Ford an extra $50/yr so your tires are less likely to fall off.

MS applying XBox Live model to OS

[NeutronCowboy]

This is (almost) what I expected - though I didn't think MS would use something as critical as security updates to flog their $50 a year revenue model. It all started with XBL, when MS figured out that users are apparently willing to pay $50 for a service that costs MS peanuts, and that users technically have already! It's no wonder that they've been looking to replicate this model elsewhere. I just thought it would be also in the entertainment section (WMP, for example), not in the critical security section.

Welcome your new MS overlords who will nickel-and-dime you to death.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't

[Wildfire Darkstar]

The problem, though, as others have pointed out, is less with Microsoft than with third-party programmers. It's actually trivial to set up a limited user account in Windows 2000 and XP. The problem is that there are a truly staggering number of programs out there that save their settings to the install directory or, worse, the Windows directory itself, which requires modify privileges to those locations. For the computer saavy, it's easy enough to edit file and directory permissions selectively without sacrificing too much security (say, giving write/edit access to \Program Files\Poorly Designed App without needing full access to the entire \Program Files hierarchy), but these sort of steps are neither trivial nor obvious to the uninitiated.

Microsoft's problem is defaulting to a basically insecure (everyone-as-administrator) setup. But it's easy to see why, since so much of Windows's reputation is placed on its backwards compatibility. Look at the trashing XP SP2 took for breaking compatibility with a very few applications in order to increase system security. And those incompatibilities are nothing like the problems most users would face if forced into a non-administrative paradigm.

Which doesn't totally excuse Microsoft of responsibility, of course: if earlier versions of Windows weren't such security nightmares, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in today. And they ultimately can decide to change Windows's default behavior, even if it would upset thousands of users. But, to be fair, they are essentially caught between a rock and hard place when it comes to this.

Response from OneCare's release manager

[lukeabrams]

Back in February, slashdot ran a similar story about Microsoft's entry into the "antivirus" space (as you've noted today OneCare is more than just AV). I had crafted a response to that thread, but by the time it was posted the story was way off the main page and I doubt anyone even saw it. :)

Here's a reposting of the original thread (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176820&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14719345). It's just a straight copy/paste, and I'll go through this morning and do a follow-up to specific comments on this thread. I think this is a great discussion, and I'd like for it to continue.

Thanks - Luke Abrams

=====

Hi folks,

My name is Luke Abrams, and I'm the release manager for Windows OneCare as well as a frequent Slashdot reader. I was stoked that OneCare was slashdotted today, and read through (almost) all of the comments and replies. As always, no shortage of opinions here, and it's interesting to see what the reaction in this community has been to the move by Microsoft to release an anti-virus solution.

I wanted to post my personal thoughts on Windows OneCare, both as an employee of Microsoft/OneCare, and as a bona-fide geek (if you need any proof I'll show you my nmos/pmos tattoos sometime ;).

1. "The problem...and the fix" - many of your comments were criticisms that Microsoft was selling solutions to the problems that it caused. It's no secret that all software has bugs and vulnerabilities - and like other software companies, we are committed to building software as secure as we can make it and finding and fixing bugs as quickly as possible. But let's not confuse code defects (exploitable or otherwise) with malware, and methods of protection. Let me dive into an analogy for a bit to flesh out the thought - think home security. When you build a house, you also want to make sure that it's secure. You install locks on doors, make sure windows only open from the inside, put your valuables in a safe, etc. But whether or not the builders left any exploitable holes in their design, you aren't really protected without a security system. Let's break this system down:

Good = secure design for the house

Better = above + updates to the design of the house as exploits are made known + good security practices (e.g. key management - don't leave your key in the mailbox!)

Best = above + active security system and a police force/infrastructure.
Alarm system (real-time scanning). In the event that some unauthorized entity enters into your house, an alarm will go off and the individual is immobilized until you decide whether to allow them to enter or not.
Police with "most wanted list" (signature detection) - they know who the bad guys are and stop them before they get to you.
Detectives/agents that update the "most wanted list" (malware investigators/signature updates) - this is critical in the security arms race, because the bad guys don't stand still. If you have an AV solution with out-of-date signatures, you're not protected against any threat that has been released since your last update (unless your heuristics are really good)
Beat cops with good instincts (heuristic detection) - they can detect suspicious activity and stop some of the bad guys even before they're on the most wanted list.

2. "MS is charging for fixes to their own OS!" - this is not the case. Microsoft will continue to service their products with QFEs, SPs, etc. for free through Microsoft Updates. It's in our best interest to help protect all our customers this way, not just subscribers to one particular service. OneCare (among other things) simply makes things easy for consumers specifically by helping assist with the updating process from Microsoft Update as part of its active protection. As for the active protection piece, MS has long told users they need antivirus protection to be safe - even Windows Security Center in XPSP2 tells you that you're unprotected if yo

The interesting part is....

[suman28]

that no one in the justice dept. will even raise an eyebrow, to see if this breaks any laws. People downloading music, they after, but not this.

Of course

[SuperKendall]

Make it sufficiently profitable and that will change in a heartbeat.

Of course, I even indicated that was the case. But people like you have been saying the same thing for YEARS. Who is to say you'll not be wrong for two more years - or more? All I know is that you are wrong TODAY. And probably tomorrow. I'll not guess beyond that. Well, actually I will - I know you'll be wrong next month, and for some omnths after, due to the shift to the Intel platform (which resets the counter to having exploits show up on OS X).

So why not take a path you know is problem free now and for some undefinable time going forward? Even if we do start to see problems it would take a huge amount of time to catch up to the level of problems Windows has. And if you are truly paranoid but a PPC mac because any new exploits that come out will probably be aimed at the Intel models, when they are in sufficient numbers (hundreds of millions of units? Tens of millions has not been enough to date) to have exploits appear.

In short arguing against using macs because they MIGHT SOMEDAY actually have A virus, is like not driving your Honda Accord until everyone else gets off the road. Especially when as an alertenative you strap yourself into a Gremlin with no seat belts and an open gas tank.

Just wait for the lawsuits...

[uarch]

Am I the only one who expects MS to get sued for this?

I'll draw an analogy...

• Car company X sells car A. A has a design error that causes a wheel to sometimes fly off the car, risking those inside.
• Companies Y and Z sell new lugnuts that will fix the problem for $50.
• Company X sees that Y and Z are selling lots of lugnuts and instead of placing these lugnuts on all new cars it builds decides to start selling the same lugnuts for $50 to anyone who wants to keep all four wheels on their car.

Plenty of people are already looking for any reason they can find to sue MS. This is making it too easy for them.

Consider me bitchslapped

[Infonaut]

Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.

Thanks, I really needed that. I appreciate you taking the time to make me see the light.

But seriously, don't you think this *does* give Microsoft's competitors some very obvious marketing hooks? I see it as a net gain for OSes that compete with Windows. Do you see Microsoft's admission of its own massive failure to make its software reasonbly secure as somehow beneficial to Microsoft?

The comedy potential for mispronounciation is huge

[fnord_uk]

I think someone was thinking of Bill Gates when they gave it its name. For those who don't get it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker

It's really quite simple

[Daishiman]

I work in a company that does system administration for several clients. Having an important installed base of Windows, UNIX, AS/400 and Mainframe, and looking at the security and reliability of each, you can easily reach a conclusion: If Windows is not safer or more reliable it's simply because it's not profitable for Microsoft.

You mean....

[SuperKendall]

Calling a Mac secure is like calling the second fattest girl in a room skinny.

Because it's obvious to anyone at a glance?

Claiming OS X is not secure just because there "could be" problems is like claiming your Yugo "could" win the Indy 500 because all the other cars in the race "could" spontaneously explode.

Keep on racin' man, keep on racin'. Glad you have enough free time to keep patching up them windows boxen, but I have better things to do like actually work.

Re:You mean....

[AllahsAvatar]

And post on slashdot ;)

Re:You mean....

[pnutjam]

Windows is fine for casual use, I use linux for real stuff.

Well, yeah!

[SuperKendall]

Hey that's work, right? Odd, I don't remember that being on my review last quarter... :-)

You could be wrong about the user.

[Burz]

If the OS keeps track of a file's executable status, I have to wonder why this crucial information isn't immediately recognizable in the GUI.

If users had a strong indication of executable status as soon as they look at any file, then I'd bet over time most users would come to avoid opening trojans (no matter how innocently they are named).

A system could also warn people the first time they open a non-bundled executable.

The more I think about this, the more it seems like GUI designers are failing us on malware. It is not the users' role to be mindreaders.

Welcome to reality...

[argent]

Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.

UNIX is, though.

Under the shiny Mac OS skin beats the heart of a hero.

What a classic business model!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a brialliant business model MS is employing! Why don't we design and build software with lots of vunerabilities, then sell that software to unsuspecting users, and when there computer is so full of malware that they cannot use it anymore we offer them a charged service that can fix there problems! Wow what other trully invative business model will MS come up with next?

Dialog boxes... ha...

[argent]

Dialog boxes may reduce security for some people by training them to automatically approve them, particularly on Windows where almost all the time they're completely superfluous.

Apple has started to go down the stupid dialog boxes route, though, because people have come to associate the illusion of security for the real thing.

To me, any time a programmer thinks "Oh, this might be dangerous, let me add a warning"... they need to change the design so the decision to perform a dangerous operation can be deferred and taken on the user's schedule rather than the application writer's. But don't leave the dialog in there as well!

The "Trash Can" is an example of this... it seems like Microsoft saw how useful it was on the Mac, but didn't understand why, so it asks you "do you want to move this to the trash" and "do you want to emopty the trash", even after changing the dangerous (delete) operation to a deferred (trash... then empty trash) one.

For the example at hand...

Don't automatically install or run components. Just download them, if you don't have a sandbox (a real application level one, not a 'low privilege user') to examine them in, and let the user open them later from the desktop or download manager.

People will learn not to open dangerous documents, if they don't have to make a snap decision about them in a hurry. And that will give them REAL security.

Productivity

[twitter]

for the average user learning to use a Linux OS is even more unproductive than turning off a Windows machine.

How true that is depends on what you are trying to do with the user, but it's always false in the long run.

If you are an ISP, you win both ways. When a typical user turns off an XP machine, your network's spam and DDoS load drops. The same thing happens regardless of the state of the Linux machine, though at first you will have to answer a few support questions any user of your service has to ask.

If you are a network administrator, you win big time. A few fanboys might be upset at losing their favorite non free junk, but most users could care less as long as things work and work they will! Turning off the XP computer has the same benefits for you as the ISP and you also have less industrial espionage to worry about. Say goodbye to pesky keyloggers.

As a home user you also win. You may have a few newbie questions, but Vista promosses much of the same confusion. Things are much better in the free world. You can play and work without fear of the OS turning itself off and losing things you care about.

"Service Contract"? Hardly.

[argent]

If you had taken the class, the instuctor would have pointed you towards the maintaince and service contracts that have been part of the consumer marketplace for over one hundred years.

This isn't a maintainance or service contract.

This is like having your car recalled because the engine was prone to exploding, and the only fix up to now had been paying a mechanic every week to look for cracks... and when you get to the dealer to have the work done you find that instead of replacing the faulty components in your engine they try to sell you their crack-detection service.

Someone at Microsoft should be criminally liable for the damage done by their arrogant and incompetant design.

What About Design Flaws, Luke?

[argent]

It's no secret that all software has bugs and vulnerabilities - and like other software companies, we are committed to building software as secure as we can make it and finding and fixing bugs as quickly as possible.

You've had almost 10 years to fix the fundamental design flaw that's by far the biggest source of security problems - the integration of the Browser and the Desktop using ActiveX - and not only has Microsoft NOT backed out that unfixable problem and the layers of kludges (like "security zones") plastered over it, Microsoft risked getting the company torn apart by the DoJ to keep that design in place.

Nobody else has anything like that. Even the dumbest things Apple has done like Open "Safe" Files After Downloading" are miles less daft.

When's Microsoft going th seriously address this?