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

....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

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.

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,

[Lord Ender]

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

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".