Slashdot Mirror
Concerns Over Security Software
Arthbunot Bullwinkle writes to mention a BBC article exploring concerns about the future of security software. The piece looks at trends toward 'free' security products, such as ZoneAlarm, and wonders aloud about where those products will find themselves after Windows Vista is released. From the article: "'Now maybe the good ones will actually get rid of that attack but at the same time they may drop maybe 10 or 20 other attacks onto your system.' The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get. But completely free security software may be a thing of the past when the new version of Windows hits the shops early next year. "
The requested URL (it/06/09/09/2050234.shtml) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
I'm pretty sad Windows Vista is apparently killing this off.
Free as in "freedom" security software is safe. It's this gratis stuff that's dangerous.
How is software that one pays for inherently safer?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Maybe chris had troubles fixing computers, as stated here but we would hope there would be LESS of a need for 3rd party security apps with Microsoft's next gen Windows release...
btw, what about Kate Russell below him, I wonder how she feels about pentration testing...
I sacrifice my karma in the name of cthulu!!
The biggest problem that I see with Vista is that everyone will be encouraged to use nearly identical software. It's why most viruses written get past Norton at least for a few days... everyone knows to test Norton and McAfee to be sure your virus works.
I've always gained a bit of security by using Mozilla rather than IE... by viewing my e-mail in plain text rather than HTML. By using Zone Alarm rather than a Norton or Microsoft product. When you have everone using one piece of security software, it's less secure because if you can infiltrate one, you can infiltrate all.
This is yet another good reason to avoid upgrading for now.
Personally, one of the major reason why I haven't taken RC1 into actual use beyond testing it a bit is lack of compatible 3rd party firewall.
Then again.. situation was pretty similar when Win2K came out - early on nothing was compatible. XP was easier because it is effectively a reskinned Win2K, and 99% of Win2K apps worked out of the box - even security products.
Vista is quite a bit more than a reskinned XP, as lots of stuff under the hood has been reworked, and again it's just like Win2K - nothing works intially, but I'm sure over time the problem is going to be fixed. In fact, it's surprising how good the situation is, considering official launch is still several months away.
Um, I hate to defend Microsot, but unlike Internet Explorer, which had no need to be integrated into the OS as much as Microsoft claimed it was, but basic network security features are exactly the kind of thing that should be built into the OS. I hope that antivirus programs eventually become obsolete (likewise with firewalls *anywhere* except perhaps in extremely sensitive environments, but that's probably a long way off).
Now, I'm not particularly confident that Microsoft will actually manage to render third-party security software obsolete, simply because the company just isn't all that good at software development, but I'm certainly not going to rebuke them for trying.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's ironic that somone from McAfee would dog free products that compete with them. The only AV products I've found on customer systems that were disabled by an infestation were Norton and McAfee products. People running free AV and firewall products are at least as safe as those running Norton or McAfee.
Is it just me or does this guy sound like he is talking out of his ass? There will always be those "fake" security solutions out there that offer themselves for free but are actually spyware/malware. However, there is a large community of people who keep track of these programs and I can tell you that if GriSoft or the makers of ZoneAlarm started dropping trojan horses or spyware on your computer that there would be an uproar and you would hear about it. Right now it is pretty sad for the security companies that charge for their solutions. Every virus/worm that comes out nowadays automatically defeates Norton Anti-Virus or is design to escape its notice. Therefore solutions like Grisoft's AVG Anti-Virus have a leg up sometimes in defeating these problems. In addition, none of the pay solutions do anything useful to prevent or get rid of spyware. While you can upgrade Ad-Aware or Spybot, both have free versions that work great!
I wonder how much Symantec paid these guys to write this article.
Is Bill Gates planning an invasion of Canada? I know his "Trusted Computing" initiative is designed to eliminate choices, but will that junk really work?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get.
Mr Day is Greg Day of McAfee.
His intentions are for spreading FUD. There IS bogus spyware software and virus removal tools out there. Odd thing though is some are free and some you actually have to pay for. Having a cost does not make it legitimate at all and Mr Day is stating a criteria that unless you pay for it, chances are it may be a scam. Of course this also implies if you did pay for it, it is not a scam and that is far from the truth. Instead of breaking the FUD campaign into free and paid for, it should be split into "well known and trusted" and "not well known and trusted". Mr Day does not want it to be decided on well a known and trusted basis because to reach that status takes time and effort by a company, he wants everyone to just assume his companies software is the best solution and of course that HAS to come at a price.
Sorry vendors and computer users but these are not binary decisions and it takes some research either way. Free or not free.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
ZoneAlarm is itself malware. See the first two questions on this page.
It's not like Windows Live OneCare is getting great reviews by anyone who's doing a comparison based off what threats it stops and which ones it doesnt. Even Ziff-Microsoft publications rated it #7th out of 10 a month after its release.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
"...it has also released its own security product known as OneCare. The all in one package is designed to look after your computer and all your data, ..."
Let's hope that all they are looking at is *security* related. Blind trust so often being a really Bad Thing®.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Shoulda included these since my post isnt a troll
June 13 2006 - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1976149,00.as p
There's also the printed mag that came out at the same time with a program by program comparison (which it was #7 of 10, scoring horrendously against many threats that #1-6 crushed it on).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Ugh... asleep at the keyboard. The 3rd part of my post was that same magazine rated AVG (free) as far better in the next issue (if you do the comparison by looking at the stats from each article - they didnt).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
They claim that with software that you pay for *you know what to expect*, not that it is *safer*. How you managed to confuse those two concepts is beyond me.
I agree that there is no real reason to 'upgrade' a Microsoft operating system. MS has reached the point where they have received a sum of money for a reasonably functional operating system on nearly every PC in the world. So the only way that they have to keep their profits and stock price high is to convince everybody to buy the same reasonably functional again and again at full price. But if you remove the eye candy, is MS Vista or whatever significantly better than the OS that you bought from them three years ago? (I know you didn't, but think of yourself as the IT manager of a corporation with a few thousand employees).
No it isn't.
And all the weird registration hoops and hidden DRM and secret commercial links and co-sponsorship arrangements. Shit, all you have to do is look at monkey boy and you know that the only reason that he exists is to sell you as a product to all the other corporations in the Fortune 500.
Personally I run Windows 98 on the PC that I need to have direct programmable access to the I/O ports and Windows 2000 on any other PC that I use. And when Windows 2000 stops working for some incomprehensible reason, then I will switch to Linux. Very slowly, but most surely all of the programs that I use are being converted in functionality to open-source. I'd be happy to contribute to the process, but no one needs or wants Visual Basic 6 or AVR assembler coded applications 'polluting' the open-source universe.
"The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get."
Can we not say the same for commercial software? How many people are still buying Norton Anti-virus despite it's somewhat public record because of it's brand name and price tag? What about firewall software? We've all seen plenty of reviews and comparisons showin firewall A to be better than firewall B and vice versa, but some of the best firewalls for Windows _are_ available for free (e.g. Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall [free version] or the rapidly developing Comodo Firewall).
Nothing guarantees that because a product has a price tag attached it is better than any other product.
How to find something reliable and trustworthy? The same way people have been doing it for years - identify knowledgable and reputable third-party reviewers, communities, and do a little research.
You sue Microsoft, claiming anti-competitive practices.
Blame the user, not the software.
This man never heard about jetico personal firewall or he would shut up. It's freeware, light, and no commercial firewall can compete except
maybe fprot firewall....
Based on the fact that Vista will have been exploited seriously before it's even released. What M$ product hasn't been hit hard in the first week of release? I still have serious doubts about the ability of anyone in Redmond to spell security, much less do anything about it!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
MS generally provides pretty basic versions of software for their included versions. As you noted, IE is an exception, but things like the firewall, defragmenter and so on are functional and fine, but really don't compete with the stuff you can buy.
The defragmenter is a great example. Windows 2000 and above have a built in one. It works on NTFS and FAT drives and does an ok job. How then do companies like Executive Software and Raxico survive making replacements for it? Simple: They make more feature rich versions. The included defrager does just fine when you run it, it'll clean up most of the fragmented files on the drive. However it has some major limitations. The biggest is it's not real aggressive. It just kinda cleans things up, it doesn't do any sort of placement optimization or try to prevent future fragmenting. Also it doesn't have any features to schedule itself, you need to run it manually. You can, of course, use other software to schedule it but it's a pain. It also isn't all that fast. It's clearly not very speed optimised.
Thus we have a market for other defragmenters. Perfect Disk (Raxico's program) will do a much better job defragmenting your disks. In fact, you can tell it how you want it to operate. It can just do a cleanup, kinda like the internal one does, it can spend more time and try to intelligently place files to improve performance and reduce future fragmentation, or it can get real aggressive and try to consolidate all your freespace to further reduce fragmentaiton. You can have it create multiple schedules on different intervals, it can defrage multiple disks in parallel, you can set it to only defrag on certain fragmentation thresholds, etc.
Basically, they made a better defrag program. Not everyone buys it, but then even when NT 4 had no built in defragmenter many peopel didn't buy one. However enough people do to keep them in business. As a die note if you play a game like WoW or Oblivion, go get Perfect Disk or Diskeeper. You didn't know your system was slow, they'll show you it was (by fixing the problem).
Same is true with firewalls. The firewall in Vista is better than the one in XP, but both are fairly basic. Good enough to keep most people happy and something at least for those that wouldn't but/download firewalls before. However don't kid yourself in to thinking they have the features of the 3rd party ones out there.
In most cases, you really can compete with MS's included versions of stuff because they aren't aiming to have the be-all, end-all version. They want to put something that's good enough for most people to do the basics. Defrag, notepad, the firewall, the calculator, paint, etc all have better versions available from 3rd party sources. Some are free, some are pay, some are a little better some are way better.
Either way just because MS puts something in their OS doesn't mean your market is going away. It just means you have to make something that's more than basic.
I don't care how secure they make their OS, short of a trusted computing model, they'll always be a need for virus/alware scanners. Why? Because most of these programs come in the front door, not the back one. What I mean is they piggy back with another program, or are run from e-mail, etc. They user gives them permission to run, in other words. So it doesn't matter how many levels of privilege escalation there is, or how well isolated components are. If the user gives that thing permission to run at a high privilege level, it can do as it pleases.
So what you have to have is a gatekeeper. You need a program that has a list of bad programs that will warn the user "this is known to be bad, don't run it. The OS can't (barring a trusted model) know if a program is good or bad. It has to take the user's word on if it should execute something, if that user has admin access. It can warn the user that the program wants elevated privileges, but many programs need that so that doesn't do any good.
So does this mean that the 30 and 90 day trials of Norton and McAfee products are filled with malware or they lower their security settings to entice you to buy at the end of the trial period? Lol!
By the sounds of it, Once vista is released, they will cramming their sw with crap to get people to buy it just like the others will.
Let the feeding frenzy begin!!!!!
It's the end of the world for the industry for programs that fix blatant security problems in Windows because Vista will be perfectly secure! Microsoft said so! Just like when they released Windows Server 2000! And Windows Server 2003! And Windows XP! And XP SP1! And XP SP2! And Windows Firewall! And Microsoft AntiSpyware! And Windows Defender! And...
Frankly, I can't see Vista changing a thing. Fixing security holes? Making code that doesnt suck? Assuming that's true, people are still idiots, and there's trojans out there. How is Vista going to defend against people downloading and deploying some mass-emailed chunk of evilware (or link to same)? Throw up a warning? How much are you willing to bet that if said evilware author puts up a note saying "windows will warn u about this just tell it to ignore", people will believe them?
And on top of it all, if there's an industry wholly dependent on one company making lousy code and not doing a thing to fix it, said industry deserves to die.
in a book about psychology i read that "expensive products must be better than cheap products" is a thought that has been burned into our brains. In times of our parents and grandparents this was true (thats why they taught us that) but today it is just not true anymore
today this thought is exploited by greedy companies that take more money for their products than comparable products cost, so people will think it was better
I read a test once. a cheap noname dish liquid was place 1... I don't know about you, but today I buy cheap noname products. I don't recognize any difference to the expensive products and save lots of money, because I don't fall for this psycho-trick anymore...
besides I also use linux today...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Artcile is obvious FUD. Instead of provide information ot the public about which free security porgrams are not full of spyware, the BBC decide to blanket all free security software as unsafe, and help these companies sell their products.
It's either bad journalism or an infomercial.
after reading some comments I now see that this guy didn't fall for this old psycho-trick, but is using it against his readers, because he works at McAfee...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
What if you can't infiltrate the one piece of security software? Wouldn't it be better for everyone to have that one?
Certainly, it's better to have alternatives if there's some problem with the existing one. But I think the downside of having one standard setup to rule them all is mostly negated by F/OSS -- rather than all the security work (and all the other work) going into many separate pieces of software, they go into one.
I am not saying there shouldn't be alternatives, but every time I hear the anti-monoculture stuff, I have to throw out a devil's advocate.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
This analogy is inherently flawed. Computer "viruses", or worms, or whatever you want to call them, have no more reason to be arbitrarily limited to one OS than any other piece of software. If there was any real competition among them, we'd see this a lot more.
Besides, MS already does this. It's called Home edition and Professional edition, and the same malware works across both. Certainly, if they want the software to be compatible across different Microsoft OSes, the malware will be, too.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I know I can trust my free solution for AV and firewall protection. It's called using a Debian powered p3 box as a proxy. I had two Microsoft Updates fail because the scanner didn't trust them so it must work right.
I'm sorry, were you trolling, or are you actually this deluded?
If Microsoft was good at software development, why do so many of their products suck so much? I'm not talking about feature bloat, I'm talking about unneccesary bloat and major security flaws. Why can even the tiniest browser beat Internet Explorer at security?
Small 3rd party products are loved because they get the job done, not because they're only used by people who need them. Or are you implying that we like our third party stuff because we can get a small app, dedicated to exactly what we want? True enough, but what's stopping MS from splitting their apps up into smaller, more flexible pieces?
And we don't always choose open source for that reason. Eclipse is huge, bloated, and slow, and packs way more features than any one project will ever use, and there's still and addon structure for it. But people prefer eclipse because it gets the job done, better and faster than the competition.
Now, why do people prefer pretty much any antivirus solution under the sun to McAffee or Norton? Answer: they both suck. By disabling McAffee, I immediately noticed a speedup of about 20-30 times what it was. My roommate had Norton instead, and it constantly killed the games he was playing, or alternatively lagged the crap out of him -- in a 2D RPG! He had to interrupt his game every 20 mins or so to kill Norton.
And consider: OS X somehow manages to be very, very usable to geek and newbie alike, without actually getting too bloated. I'd argue the same about Linux, but your average newbie will believe me about OS X, and really, it's true of both.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I personally don't trust ANY software, especially the "free" stuff, no matter whose name is on it. It's hard to find anything (even for money) that doesn't include at least a little bit of garbage-ware...
The only exception is properly peer-reviewed open source. After enough people have seen the code, one can be pretty sure there's nothing "extra" in there.
As far as security software, I think OSS is the only option. If everybody has access to the source, and it still isn't broken after some time, then it probably doesn't have any huge holes in it.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah....HA!
Yes! Of course microsoft will release an operating system that is compltly secure and will not need third party support..and...ummmm.....ya...compltly secure...hahahah
OK, now, is Microsoft protecting itself from external threat or protecting it's monopoly?
On a side note I had difficulties installing ZoneAlarm on Windows XP SP2. These was (seems) to be a conflit between the firewall of Zonealarm and the one in WindowsXP.. ( No network connection was possible) Anyway,
It is a GREAT idea to isolate IE from the core of the OS. But I should be able to use the Firewall i want (Either the free or paid one.)
Hargh, it's no use.. Please MS, continue to put barrier and block etc etc.. At least more and more people with understand what you'r up to and will start using Linux (Any distro will do fine)
For more information on alternative please see: http://distrowatch.com/
Yeah, I think Symantec showed us just how safe the software we buy is.
(open sarcasm)
That Norton Security Suite didn't have any spyware or anything built into it. It didn't basically root kit everyone's machine that installed it.
(end sarcasm)
I'm all in favor of the open source guys. I run ClamWin on several machines. I've found it to be reliable and quite effective. I keep hoping that they'll release an enterprise type console where I can force updates, force scans, and lock users out of their settings.
I'd really like to see something similar from the open source community for a firewall product. I don't trust the Collective to make good choices for me, so I'd be pretty open to turning off Windows Firewall in favor of an open source product. While I don't make a habit of perusing source code for such things, it's always nice to know that you can so that you can avoid another Symantec situation.
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank
So you criticize use of M$ to represent "Microsoft". The name refers to Microsoft's roots as a developer of implementations of the BASIC programming language. Microsoft's first products were BASIC interpreters for several 8-bit microcomputer platforms, notably including the Altair and Apple II. In fact, BASIC is the product line that Microsoft has continuously produced since the company's inception (Altair BASIC to Applesoft BASIC to GW-BASIC to QuickBASIC to QBasic to Visual Basic to VB.NET). Versions before QuickBASIC used line numbers, and the name of every string variable ended in the character $. The following is a valid program in the most famous Microsoft BASIC dialects:
I see use of "M$" in Slashdot comments as analogous to use of Perl/PHP substitution ($DEITY). Do you also complain about shell globs (*n?x) and sed commands (s/to much/too much/)?
You mean "free" as in speech, right? How much did the P3 box cost, and how much does its electricity cost over its lifetime? Many installations, especially in homes, would do a better job with a firewall/router/NAT appliance with a built-in 100BASE-TX switch and 802.11b/g access point.
you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get
Because when he buys that software for a price then he can be certain what he'll get ? I won't even go on with that.
Thing is, whatever good firewall and antivirus and whatever else Vista might contain, I'd rather trust a company with a long record of producing good firewall [etc] software than what MS will include in there. If he so much emphasizes the "trust" part of this whole thing, then the question is [falsely] seemingly simple: which company you trust more [well, if you trust any company, that is]. For me, just because MS thinks he should include a firewall and other protective tools, is not enough reason to drop those product which I've been using for some time and which have proven to be trusworthy. And I won't list them with purpose, since this is not about one particular product or the other.
Regarding MS, "trust" is not a word that is any near of the top of my list. Yes, this is my own feeling. But I'm not alone with this, and that's exactly why security companies will have a chance of survival.
As always, when "competing" with MS [see, that's another isue brought alvie by MS PR, that whatever anybody comes up with, has to be in competition with them] those companies had the most chance that concentrated on specific issues rather than being everything everywhere like them.
Some [most] of av and fw software already have Vista-running versions, even my favourites have and I use them when I try the latest beta. If Vista's included tools will someday prove to be at least so effective than these tools, I might consider dropping them. BBC or MS PR is just not enough.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Most security software that is downloaded comes with checksums you can and should check. That way you do know what you download is what you expect.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
The same concern was when everyone was waiting for the Win 95 to be released. The future of the anti-virus companies especially. We all know what really happened.
Sadly if one of the major uses for the PC is gaming, 98 is obsolete, and 2K is starting to have some (rare) issues - mostly due to braindead programming or deliberate 'breaking' of apps to require XP. So for gaming, currently you have to have 2K or XP, and XP has less 'oddball' issues without any real drawbacks.
And in the future, with DX10 getting no backport, you will either get Vista, or scrap PC as a gaming platform.
I have no hurry to swap to Vista - it's still unfinished and probably will need it's fair share of patches and fixes post-launch before it becomes usable. However, Microsoft will make sure it will, in the end, be mandatory for gamers. I just hope most stupid bits are fixed by then, essential applications have catched up, and any builtin drm crap neutered by third parties.
And yes, I agree that x64 version, with it's compatibility issues and draconian driver signing regime is basically DOA. Unless Microsoft changes their policy before launch, it will set back adoption of 64bit Windows back another 5 years or so. Things just won't work - hardware developers can't be assed to get signatures, and will just ignore 64 bit version, and applications requiring low level access (firewalls and DRM workarounds come to mind) will just not work, driving userbase to ignore the whole crap.
What will be interesting is the NEXT version of Windows, whatever that might be. 32bit Vista, while it does change the defaults towards taking (some) control of the system away from the average user, it still is possible to reconfigure it to keep the user at the driver's seat. Yes, some bits of kernel are being walled off in the name of security, but as long as unsigned code can be loaded at 'root' level (drivers and similar bits), there are ways around it. They may be convoluted and cause pain for, among other things, firewall developers, but the system isn't locked down in this regard.
Vista's x64 version on the other hand has the first bits of "I'm sorry, mr. Bill Gates and his borg collective say you can't do that" included with mandatory driver signing and other 'security' around the kernel, and it's obivious in the future MS will continue to try to push users down that slippery slope, until some day we need to get MS's approval to do anything on _our_ computers.
x64 Vista is dead as a doorknob as general purpose OS, but it's successor may be the tipping point where you either install Windows and give control to MS, or you install something else and actually get to decide what your computer does. In the meantime, 32bit Vista is coming, and for the most of the computer users of the world, you most likely have to adapt. OEMs will make sure of it, making XP 'vanish' off new computers as soon as it's feasible.
It will be interesting to see the mess with 32bit vs 64bit Vista on OEM systems. One would imagine MS would push the installation of x64 version on OEM systems with 64bit CPUs (umm, basicaly all of them?), but if the OS refuses to work with lots of very common stuff with no way to fix them (say, Daemon Tools and similar programs relying on low level access come to mind, plus lots of hardware with no signed drivers), the OEMs have a support nightmare on their hands... Can't wait to watch THAT trainwreck over the next year or so.
Naturally, this artcile, and the comments in it, are made by someone who has a vested interest in (guess what) .... paid security software.
Duh!
Well, this alone puts me off that company. If their spokesperson lacks integrity, to misreport the market for his own gain, then I have to ask the reverse question... why on earth should I buy products from them when others act with more integrity?
Just Get Linux. Or Mac. Or *BSD. Or anything that has less security holes than swiss cheese. Microsoft products boast that they are 'secure' but security cannot be claimed, look at WinXP, they said that was secure, but today we know it has more holes than aluminium pits on a pressed CD.
Microsoft should stop calling their products secure, even the networking stack is screwed. To anyone who upgrades within the first two years, I blissfully stand, point and laugh.
Note, FC5, Ubuntu 6.06, Mac OS X and OpenBSD all have firewalls as-standard. Did WinXP when it first came out? Nope. I'm gonna ask when Microsoft will implement a 'critical' feature that the FOSS community comes up with that secures sooo much stuff (I'm thinking SELinux, ELF, or other low-level protections here).
Anyone who tells you Windows is secure by default has no place in the IT community. They'd be better off bashing their heads against brick walls until their brain's left a stain.
I've pretty much lost track of the number of people who think that AVG Free is faster and more effective than Norton's. -- and, of course we all know that OpenBSD can't hold a candle to Windows for security holes.
Even if you could successfully sue MS for $selling you broken software, if you're looking for security (rather than a scapegoat), you're still better off with the the better software than trying (with varying success) to point the finger at the owners of a more expensive (but less effective) product.
A pretty package doesn't indicate the quality of the product -- only the quality of the packaging -- and sometimes not even that.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
'do I want third parties, other than the manufacturers of the kernel (the core code of a computer's operating system) that I'm using, making changes to that?'
...yes.
Well, when the manufacturer of the kernel has a 20-year history of not being able to protect it even half as well as third-party vendors...
Launch every sig!
Vista is more secure AND has security software built in so you don't need third party security software. Free or otherwise.
AND if you want even more security, Microsoft will sell you that also, for relatively cheap and who knows their software better than Microsoft?
Security is dead. Long live DRM.
every system have their own abilities and disabilities. just support them to do the best nextime..is for our own sake too.. ---- Windows supporter.. :p