Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Offer Free Anti-Virus Software
Dynamoo writes "The good news is that Microsoft have announced free anti-virus software for consumers, dubbed Morro, available late next year. The bad news is ... well, exactly the same. Although Microsoft's anti-malware products are pretty good, this move could drive many competitors out of business and create a dangerous security monoculture; major rivals will be lawyering up already. On the other hand, many malware infections could be prevented even by basic software. So is this going to be a good or bad thing overall?"
If it comes free with the OS it will drive away competitors because Joe-sixpack is
not going to spend any money to replace something he got for free, even if it sucks.
On the other hand, if any feature needs to be part of the OS is precisely a form of
protection against malware.
Come to think of it, if MS does a bad job of protecting PCs and drives away
competition on virus protection, maybe the company will finally implode and let other OSes
get a greater market-share.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
That's all I have to say.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
Does it run on Linux?
...will Morro detect and remove Vista?
That's right, Microsoft's just the latest to roll they're own distro.
Microsoft has done enough to break backwards compatibility already. They should just go the whole hog and on their next iteration, do a ground-up security analysis and refactoring of their OS, instead of trying to prevent & remove malware that latches onto existing API problems that some software might use legitimately.
It wouldn't be impossible to give private sandboxes to "legacy" apps that don't use the new secure APIs.
I've used both Avast and AVG freeware products with good results. Zero infections over the last couple of years.
As a consumer, it sure would be nice to have the OS actually ship with something that keeps the naughty people out, but there are a number of freely available alternatives already.
http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
http://free.avg.com/
'course, if you use Linux then you can probably safely ignore the threat for now.
Cheers,
Didn't microsoft get pegged for something similar with internet explorer?
Microsoft has long had the strategy that "We don't need to do that... we are creating a rich fertile ground for third-party developers."
(Which of course brings up: if they create rich fertile soil, what does that make them? But I digress...)
Then, as Microsoft so famously does, it reverses its strategy and promises to partners, when it becomes convenient for them.
The free products are probably better anyway. Sorry, Microsoft, but you are reduced to catering only to fools. Admittedly, that is a rather large market.
There are already a handful of free options available (AVG, Avast, etc), and they haven't stopped Symantec from raking in the bucks.
I know they are not making their O/S's more secure, but isn't anything they do to reduce malware a good thing. Aren't these other companies only existent because of Microsoft's poor quality in the fist place?
1) Find a company that make a product with a defect
2) Make a process for improving the flaw
3) Sue when they try to fix the flaw
4) Profit for life?
When will they release well thought out and secure software that doesn't need anti-virus software?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"...making it ideal for low-bandwidth scenarios or less powerful PCs." That can't run the higher iterations of Microsoft anyway. I'm glad they've decided to protect 3.1, I was concerned that someone could hack my ARCHIE search query history.
"...major rivals will be lawyering up already."
Interesting mix of tenses.
Digital Sailor
That reminds me, I need to put duct tape over all the rust on my car. Thing should hold up like a champ!
From Wikipedia :
Built initially in 1589 in response to raids on Havana harbor, el Morro protected the mouth of the harbor with a chain being strung out across the to the fort at La Punta. It first saw action in the 1762 British expedition against Cuba when Lord Albemarle landed in Cojimar and attacked the fort defended by Luis Vicente de Velasco e Isla from its rear. It fell because the English could command the high ground
@neonux
Microsoft probably thinks that this is a great way to compete with other, more intrinsically secure operating systems.
Having basic security provided by a bunch of third-party vendors has never been a good thing for windows. A lot of antivirus suites today are so kludgey that it's hard to tell whether they are working or not. A good antivirus program built into the operating system would give windows some level of parity with other major operating systems. (speaking strictly in terms of functionality, of course.)
A bad one, on the other hand, could indeed make the whole system more insecure, by driving competitors out of business and giving malware writers one unified target to aim for. Though I don't think things could get much worse than the confused, mess that is the modern antivirus market. This has always been one of the main reasons I run Linux: Paying a monthly fee to keep my operating system unmolested because the programmers couldn't get their act together feels too much like extortion.
The antivirus market is, as everyone knows, the most FUD-filled part of the security industry. The effectiveness of different antivirus products is largely anecdotal, and shifts rapidly because of the arms race between virus writers and antivirus manufacturers. As it stands now, even "expert" end user cannot ascertain the relative effectiveness of the suites, and because antivirus products are still heuristics-based with a few "depacker" routines built in, they only catch the really obvious fish. (One funny thing with this is, if you pack an executable with a common yet relatively complicated packer, say "redeye", it'l get caught, but if you just jump in and jumble up the instructions with a debugger you can make it "invisible" easily). Because of this reliance on FUD to sell, and because there *is* already fierce competition in the antivirus market, maybe this won't change much, unless MS locks other vendors out somehow. Or will it be a different form of competition, because of the now-asymmetrical playing field? MS has an advantage in that they have access to the code and people who wrote the code, and designed the OS architecture.
2. It will be a basic virus scanner and will probably not replace NOD32 or another fully featured scanner.
3. Webroot seems to be doing just fine even though Windows Defender has been around for a few years now. Same for Spybot, Ad-Aware, and any number of other apps.
4. Compounded with #3, Microsoft Antivirus will be entering a well established field with plenty of household name competitors. Norton and McAffee are well known names that most consumers know and will probably opt for (quality of software notwithstanding).
5. Many smaller firms (Kaspersky comes to mind) have consumers as their small-fry and make their big bucks off volume licenses. It appears that Morro isn't competing here.
6. Whether accurate or not, perception or reality, many people consider Microsoft Security Solutions to be an oxymoron. So long as it can be uninstalled, people will be free to add their own antivirus software (see point #4).
Joey
That is if it works. Windows defender, in my experience, does not work nearly well enough. I have it on my MS Windows computers because it is installed by default by MS. I still run spybot to actually protect the machine. My fear is that MS is not going to that good of a job, but people are going to feel that the MS protection is enough, and not lay in that second line of defense. Maybe the company that built all the security holes is the best to build the defense against them. Maybe not.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
More like, Morr-o'the same!
When they couldn't manage to actually sell their own antivirus software.
Buying branded software from them is like having sex with the local crack hore. Sure, it works but there's an STD in there somewhere.
Presumably this will only be for Windows 7 as it is to be released around that time too.
It shouldn't be installed by default, but rather as an optional install from windows update or something.
So let me get this straight MS is now offering "free" add-on that kludge-fixes a long standing basic flaw with Windows.
If this becomes flame bait then things are really that bad.
Who do you trust? People who come in from all over the place with their "security experience" who build antivirus software that can protect against exploitation of all the security holes in Microsoft products, or the people who develop the Microsoft products that have those holes in them?
I say stay with the people who know the holes best, and who knows a child better than its parent? Microsoft!
...Linux!!!
It's only a bad thing if the software does not work. I want MS to fail as to do most of us but they seeing as they contract out that anti malware software the anti virus software will probably be at least semi-decent.
Anti-virus really shouldn't be needed (Obligatory XKCD), but if they are going to offer the updates for free as well, that could be a good thing.
It could also be a very bad thing, since it would lead to a near monoculture of OS+antivirus, so you only have to crack one platform and the associated antivirus to write a virus, and don't really have to worry about other antivirus software products.
Antivirus is "enumerate the bad" which generally doesn't work well, instead of having a whitelist of acceptable software.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
No? Then it's gonna suck.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
The opportunities for humor start here and go on forever. I guess we might as well start:
"My God! Its full of fails!" "Like buying antibiotics from the hooker." "TrunkMonkey equipped with chair." "Would you like Warez with that?" "Antivirus vendors: Oooh. That's what 'gold partner' means!" "Hi, I'm a Mac ... and I'm a PC (achoo)." Good Lord this stuff writes itself. Hold on while I microwave some popcorn.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
So let me get this straight. Microsoft is essentially patching vulnerabilities in their software, thus removing a niche that has been cosily occupied by various antivirus application providers since square one.
Where's the conflict of interest? AV companies made the business decision to place themselves in a position entirely dependant on another company's mistakes. Latter company fixes said mistakes, niche disappears, former companies are shit out of luck. It was their poor business decision in the first place. Tough cookies.
There is already free AV software, yet the commercial vendors are still in business. In fact, the quality of commercial offerings seems to be dropping to a really low level recently, so the free stuff cannot be much of a threat. Knowing Microsoft, their free stuff will also not perform well (even their paid for stuff is mediocre at besst and that across the board) but many people will be usiong it as default. I think this ia actually a good thing and it will force AV vendors to clean up their act and offer good protection and usability once more in order to be significantly better than the MS offerting. About time.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is a clear anti-trust violation. Whatever the explanation for this move, the fact is that for the better part of two decades an industry has been built out of the security flaws in Microsoft operating systems, and now, as if a replay of the whole Internet Explorer-Netscape debacle, Microsoft is giving away a product where competition with for-pay products currently have a share.
But the economic woes that will preoccupy most governments will let them get away with this, where in fact Microsoft should be threatened with fines so massive that Steve Ballmer might even put down that chair.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
OOH me me me!! I want my copy!!!! Not no but HELL FUCKING NO.
There are two issues here. Will it really change business for the companies who already give away their home use software for free - ie. the ones who make their money on business solutions? I doubt most businesses would be content with whatever MS offers up. Second, will people trust MS, a company who makes wildly insecure software, to provide anti-virus software??
In the beginning there was windows and Netscape.
Then MSFT decided to include their own browser, and most users didn't think they needed _another_ browser, so they stuck with IE.
Eventually, Netscape ceased to exist.
IE stagnated for years and this led us to Firefox.
Most users still use IE (70%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Usage_share_of_web_browsers.png
Will McAfee go down the same roads at Netscape? Will the average user go out and buy McAfee when Microsoft's might just be "good enough"?
It's free. If ANY other company (Apple, HP, anyone) decided they were going to release free antivirus software, anti-malware, blah blah blah, it'd probably be a good thing. MS does it and it can't be good, they're just fixing their own software, it is their own fault to begin with, etc. One would think we'd have gotten at least more creative at blasting MS.
On a more constructive note, it doesn't matter if MS ships it free with Windows. IE ships free with Windows, Safari ships free with Mac, Konqueror ships free, etc. The user that doesn't know any better to begin with is not going to go out and look for the best (out of 25) anti-virus and anti-malware solution possible. The user that doesn't know any better will use what Windows comes with. So what's wrong with MS providing free software with it's own product? Nobody seems to gripe about Konqueror being default in KDE, even though I presonally dislike it as a web browser.
Now, if they do other shady things like make it hard to uninstall, or whatever, that's different. But "free anti-virus software" and "shipped with Windows" in the same sentence doesn't mean we should get out a Gates-shaped guillotine.
Driving out the big players in the commercial antivirus market will do consumers a world of good. If you've had to use a computer infected with Norton or Symantec antivirus anytime in the past few years you'll know what I mean.
Did I read this right? Finally, they've confessed in public that they cannot, just cannot make an OS even remotely secure by design?
Whoa.
Make it a feature of the OS that it will flag trojans and malware. Nothing to install or configure, it just does it. Virus signature updates just get installed transparently via Windows Updates. Savvy users can opt-out, just like they can with UAC and Windows Firewall. If anyone does need "extra-strength protection", they can go ahead and install whatever they like.
As to the wider issue of anti-trust; you can't complain that the OS is insecure, and then complain that steps MS takes to secure it are an abuse of their monopoly power.
This might even work well enough that botnets will dwindle as systems become more secure. The only people who might lose, are AV companies. Tough. You're not *entitled* to the AV market. And I've seen enough pushy sales tactics and ineffective programs *cough*Nortons*cough* to have little sympathy.
It's been ages since the signatures were updated in MSAV. I was sort of hoping they'd just increment the version number on MSAV and see how many people actually remembered the old gem from DOS 6.2.
MS releasing free A/V software... again? Wasn't Windows Defender "anti-virus" software?
And what to you do when someone finds and exploits a security hole in what many users will use as their sole means of computer protection?
I've got a bad feeling about this...
Anybody want my mod points?
It's obvious why they are offering / integrating an AV product.
... requiring an antivirus? since windows 3.1? Windows 95?
But it's been how many years now that they've really had the reputation for
Why are they doing this now? Did they just now get the guts to roll out an AV since the whole integrated IE issue? What was the trigger point, really? How long have they been working on it? Are they giving up on the likes of AVG, Avast, Norton and McAfee? (I know I gave up on the latter 2 back in 2000, 2001, personally)
Is it because they think they can do it better? Are they realizing that Norton and McAfee are CRIPPLING their operating system, giving them an even worse reputation?
I guess it ISN'T so obvious why.
Like many slashdotters, I'm "The Guy" people come to and ask questions like "Which Antivirus should I use? Why is my cupholder broken? Can you help me dust off my 386 and put it on the interwebs? Why is XP slow when I have 64 megs of ram on my celeron 233?" I need to know why MS is doing this and if it is any good.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Probably the most common DNS server out there is BIND, which runs on most computing platforms, and is available for free. If the anti-virus and OS vendors collaborated on something similar to that, then we could have a universal anti-virus that's at least partially open-source and highly-effective.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
I use to use Norton, but have stopped since it keeps flagging tools I know aren't infected as virulent. Giving MS the power to decide what can and can't run on your machine in this way sounds like bad news to me.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Or they could, y'know, fix the damned exploits in the first place.
How long has it been since you've had your well-patched system infected by something self-propagating (read: something you didn't run that you shouldn't have)?
Has anyone actually looked at what most anti-virus software does? If you look in a directory using Windows Explorer... yup, that's right, you scan every file in the directory. If there are zip files in that directory, yup, they are unzipped. If you have JAR's or WAR's... the same thing.
Don't even think about moving quickly today, you probably spend over half of your computing power on virus scanning the same stupid dll's... over and over.
Anti-virus software is a complete SCAM.
Do yourself a favor if you use anti-virus... download filemon from sysinternals, and run it constantly for a day. See how much your own virus scan slows you down. Your computer is NOT slow... your virus scan is.
Here's another one that just about killed me with McAfee... I was trying to find out why delete operations were taking so long when I was performing large clean, build, and deploy tasks in Eclipse... it takes your system certainly less than a second to delete an 80 MB WAR file in Java... however, with McAfee enabled under default scanning on-access rules, it takes me about 15 seconds to delete that file. Because it must first be scanned as a virus.
Who writes this stuff? Virus scan is for people how only use computers for reading email (and downloading the latest virus / Jessica Simpson porn) or your parents.
If you feel differently about your virus scan product, run filemon.exe for a day. You'll realize that (1) your system is bound by disk IO, not CPU and (2) your system isn't slow, your virus scan product is.
Bah!
Keep your Windows Update (or Mac-based Software Update) actually up to date, and you've got precious little to worry about.
I want to thank the author for this great news! Boy, I can't even begin to tell you how excited this is going to be! I switched to Linux many years ago since there weren't any decent anti-virus program out there. I am now going to make the switch back to Windows. Finally! Yee haa!
"...Microsoft have announced free anti-virus software for consumers, dubbed Morro, available ..."
You misspelled moron...oh wait!
Vista's enough crapware from MS for me. I don't need them to make more...
(JK!)
Than software will be able to tell the Anti-Virus "I am not a virus" without the hassle of asking the computer owner what to do...
Just like how software can tell the Windows Firewall to just let them online. It kind of eliminates the whole reason for a firewall!
I'm guessing that the product will be mediocre at best, but it will at least offer minimal protection to those that wouldn't otherwise purchase it. I think in the end it will be a good thing. Those products that are both fee and pay to play will either stand on their own, or fade into the woodwork as a result. It may even give them a bit of competition. I could see an MS product at least running properly on a windows system so it isn't so cpu intensive perhaps?
If you're going to do this right, buy a company like AVG and then give away the software. Don't just stick it to them all. You've got the money, MS, do what other companies often do. Buy a company that already does a pretty good job...don't just put them out of business.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
free tinysoft Anti-virus?? you mean windows security patches? yeah, that works, sometimes.
Perhaps an improvement would be to provide a free malware removal framework and allow antimalware companies to provide subscriptions to malware signatures. The framework would need to provide all the current detection and removal methods of current products. Customers could then subscribe to multiple vendors without the hassle of running multiple often conflicting antimalware software. Cliffe.
Free anti-virus from Microsoft? I can't believe it! Why are they doing this first? I don't get it- I'm still waiting for those free checks from Bill Gates for sending out all those emails!!!!
Where's the justice in this world!?
"Before humanity, the stars shone throughout the heavens. After humanity [has gone], the stars will continue to shine"
Perhaps an improvement would be to provide a free malware removal framework and allow antimalware companies to provide subscriptions to malware signatures. The framework would need to provide all the current detection and removal methods of current products. Customers could then subscribe to multiple vendors without the hassle of running multiple often conflicting antimalware software. Cliffe.
I was wondering whats the whole point of giving things free ? There are really good stuff out there in the wild wild net and how different will MS anti-virus be compared to others ? And why now ? Well, the bull ain't liftin' its tail without seein' nothin' !!!
Mr. Obama: "And now Mr. Ballmer, let me show you my fully armed antitrust division."
AV companies: "I can haz bailout?" Paulson: "No can haz. Not yours."
But will there be a Linux version?
Of course it requires WGA. Why wouldn't it require WGA?
Somebody stop me please.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You know, I've been a Norton fan for years and watched my PC slow down as a result. I switched to Avast this year and yesterday was presented with the first XP blue screen I've seen in a while. When the PC came back up, it claimed it was due to anti-virus software.
At least with MS touting anti-viral capabilities, there will be less finger-pointing capability. Company X didn't use the right hooks/API's! MS didn't document them well! Company X should've blocked this! MS shouldn't have been vulnerable to it!
Personally, I have to give MS props for stepping up. The potential PR vulnerability dwarfes the OS exposure.
________________________________
http://techdojo.org/
The reasons why antivirus software exists is because Microsoft software security uniformly sucks, almost all software for the platform is pathetically vulnerable to exploitation and people don't patch it - mostly because the patches themselves are often toxic and because the patching system is so archaic every program needs its own update monitor and installer, each with permission to update software on the box and each subject to its own vulnerabilities. People also don't patch because many of them are using pirated windows or other software and are leery of getting the WGA virus, so they don't patch and become a persistent blight on the global network.
Microsoft making an antivirus isn't going to solve any of these problems, and Microsoft making the quality of antivirus software that matches their anti-malicious software effort will make things worse. It will, however, drive yet another category of software partner out of business. It's good to have goals, I guess.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Probably a Window$ uninstaller ??.
Because the Windows Defender and other Microsoft AV software are almost total crap and not a real AntiVirus program. Non-MS Antivirus programs seem to find malware that Windows Defender won't like trojans and rootkits and spyware and adware.
MS-DOS 6.X had Central Point Antivirus with the Microsoft name on it.
Windows Defender etc did not come built in with Windows like CPAV did. It was an add on, but in many geek's opinion a commercial Antivirus or even a free one like Avast! Home Edition or AVG Free was better than Windows Defender.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
The first thing this Anti-Virus software should do is detect you are running the biggest virus of all, namely Windows, and delete it, replacing it with a less virus prone O.S. such as Linux.
HyVee grocer line sells its own brand of products... and the worst part is, they do this IN THEIR OWN STORES..the wholesellers incomes are thus damaged and justice must be brought down on the ebil HyVee overlords before they destroy the grocer supply market systems all over the universe!!!!
BE AFRAID BE VERY AFRAID....YOUR HYVEE COULD BE STEALING INCOME FROM THE OTHER BREAD PRODUCERS OUT THERE BY SELLING THERE OWN VERSIONS....THEY ARE EBIL!!!!! /. screams about innovation being squashed by thoughtless idiots with baseless legal crapspeak all the time...but are more then happy to squash any innovation if it is from MS...
I wonder which vendor they will buy the code from.
Just like MSAV was re badged CPAV (CheckPoint Anti Virus) from central point.
I just hope it isnt welded into windows 7. I also hope they integrate it with their security center crap, and make it modular, and removeable from windows. Firewalls are for companies, hackers, and computer illiterate people. Antivirus software is just for chumps.
I mean come on, think about it!
Viruses thrive on Microsoft Windows because Microsoft can't get security right in the first place.
Microsoft now tries to make an anti-virus product to fix the holes it creates in Windows.
Wouldn't it just be easier to fix Windows? Oh! Wait, that's right, Microsoft doesn't *fix* anything, they just add features.
It has to be some inside joke at Microsoft. They screwup Windows so bad that they create an ISV cottage industry of companies creating software to plug the security holes. Then rather than actually FIX the problems, they use their monopoly position to put them out of business.
Its just insane.
It is about time that Microsoft finally helps protect their customers from the flaws in their applications and network stack. They should have been doing this for years as I find it completely unacceptable to have to subscribe to third party software to protect my PC. That is why I use a Mac. Four years running: No viruses, no spyware (and never any OS related crashes or malfunctions). I am a Windows developer with 10 years of experience as an SA of 300 Windows servers; I am pretty proficient with Windows.
there's already one out.
Good riddance to all that goddamn useless bloatware. The cure is worse than the disease.
If Microsoft can't point fingers at a third party when their OS runs dog shit slow, or gets a virus, maybe, just maybe, they will actually be motivated to make something that actually (1) works and (2) isn't completely shitware like everything else out there. I.e. - this setup puts the reward/motivation in the right place. The status quo incentives are all wrong, and the end result is pure crap.
What this will do that is so brilliant is allow the typical I'd-rather-not-touch-anything hotmail user who wants to keep it simple to do just that. People install a virus scanner they don't understand and it slows down their computer. This M$ version will presumably run much more quickly and not bog things down as much. This is probably the easiest way to speed up the average speed of installed windows platforms the world over. That will impress a lot of people.
Next, re: Patches, this will give a quicker way to update rather than waiting for quarterly patches. Windoze really needs that, most linux suites usually include an update manager that does just that.
I'm sure there will be major embarrassing problems for them but this is one of their wise moves. It will cut into but not kill the commercial anti-virus software market, sure, but the important things are speed and speedy patching.
As usual, just when you think M$ will collapse in stupidity they pull another thing like this out and the tank keeps on rolling.
My biggest worry as a non-M$ user is that these changes will eventually become so ubiquitous that Linux GUI designers will start making it in a way which mimicks the M$ design somewhat which is always stupid because you know it is regression. (Why does Evolution and Thunderbird mimic outlook instead of Eudora, why does OpenOffice Mimick Office instead of AmiPro or something better??? M$ always lowers the bar)
Stupidity is its own reward.
You are aware of course that Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows Vista Home Premium, and Windows Vista Ultimate can all play DVDs out of the box right? Admittedly, this is somewhat late to the game... but at least WMP and Media Center have progress bars...
Microsoft just can't win with you, can they? They volunteer up free AV software and it's a bad thing? What the hell is wrong with all of you people?
does it detect Vista as a virus?
The same name was given to the SS Morro Castle, which had a disastrous fire at sea off New Jersey. Myopic design flaws and human errors allowed the fire to spread past "fireproof" bulkheads with ease. The emphasis on fancy looks meant ample wood paneling and many thick coats of oil based paint covering the steel, turning supposedly non-burnable walls into fuel for the fire. The fire hydrant supply was adequate for only a fraction of the taps, incapable of keeping up with a major fire that required all resources to be used to save the vessel. The analogies go on and on!
I don't believe in trusting the wolves to guard the sheep.
Why would anyone sane trust the company that either a) couldn't be bothered to fix exploits, or b) doesn't have the smarts to find the exploits, to protect them?
If Microsoft can afford to find these exploits and block them using their AV product, why can't they just patch the OS? It could be the deafening sound of greed... or some other, more mundane reason.
But my basic question stands: if they can do this in AV, why can't they do it in their OS?
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
MS providing a free AV solution will put pricing pressure on 3rd party providers and add some competition.
A decent basic malware package (AV and spyware -- not a security suite) should not cost more than $15 to buy and $10-$15 a year subscription
Its not the years, its the mileage
1. Release buggy OS that can be raped in the butt by malware
2. ???
3. Profit!
Oh wait, this is step 2 :)
It's a good idea. sure Symantec, McAfee, and the rest are going to lose some business - I doubt it'll be a big enough dent to notice. Folks that will rely on the microsoft offering will be the same people that rely on Defender for malware prevention. Those slightly more technology minded will identify the need for something more robust.
Chalk my vote up in the "its better than shipping it with a trialware sales pitch for some other crap" column.
Ok, so they manage to dominate the AV market and drive the competitors away. Now viruses and malware are Microsoft's problem, but I doubt consumers will pay more for Windows when "free anti-virus" is no longer a seen as a benefit. It seems short-sighted to me.
Surely any tech out there that works on Windows PC's will know the brilliant Microsoft Antivirus Suites the company has to offer.
Examples: XP Antivirus, Vitae Antivirus, Windows Antivirus, Antivirus Pro, Antivirus 2007, 2008, and 2009, System Antivirus, Vista Antivirus, and XP AntiSpyware 2009
All quality software that inform you of the hundreds of infections your PC has.
This is a joke by the way, enjoy your vundo virus ;)
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
cout >> "I have no patience to program anything useful and I hate having to write code";
Another name for Windows Defender. does nothing extra than older versions.
What I don't get from the reading the article, is that Microsoft is not bundling this product like IE or Media Player but making it available for download for free. The problem the A/V vendors have is that it will stifle competition. I know it's not FOSS but what implications does this have for FOSS? You can't give something away for free if it will hurt competitors? How can they be establishing a unlawful competitive advantage if they don't force people to use it?
cout >> "I have no patience to program anything useful and I hate having to write code";
You're right about this one, because you got the operator wrong: :)
cout << "I have no patience to program anything useful and I hate having to write code";
I guess I was wrong in the first place
That new fangled Antivirus 2009 thing is a total gyp. I've been clicking that thing all day...wait, now a Java update is prompting me. Jeesh. I gotta go, that Nigerian millionaire's needs my help..
[/end user speak]
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Let me see if I get this correctly.
MS has supplied bad code for so long that an entire market has evolved around keeping that creaky wagon a bit safe. A bit like some dominant car manufacturer supplying cars without brakes, thus creating a whole aftersales market for brakes, parachutes, airbags and wall padding..
In other words, NO track record whatsoever (nil, nada, zilch) of writing anything that actually fixes the problem they have created themselves (which figures, if they ever fixed the OS properly they would no longer be selling hope - that's the whole Vista vs XP problem), and someone is supposed to trust THEM to get it right? I bet there are plans to charge for this "feature" as well at some stage.
(shakes head in disbelief that people continue to fall for this)
Insert
... seriously
Joey
Next OS release will finally be patched. There. Fixed that for ya.
Seriously though, how can the AV vendors have any leg to stand on? Whatever happened to that suit the makers of patches for inner tubes brought against the tire companies when tubeless tires were introduced?
As for this creating a security monoculture, and for that having an impact, then AV companies will just re-emerge.
Sorry. I have a hard time shedding any tears for AV companies. I don't run AV, it just slows down your machine. I'm vigilant, and have occasionally had to manually remove infections over the years. It's high time MS itself addressed the issue. If there's anything wrong it's the way they're doing it.
Instead of presenting their solution as AV software, they should present it as better control over the installation and running of executable code. That's all infection really is anyway--the undesired modification or introduction of executable code. If you can control that, you have solved the AV problem. The challenge is that there are so many legitimate executables, DLLs, processes, threads, etc. on a box that it's information overload even for technical users. Some of the solution's I've had in mind are a bit too much for a /. post.
DEP was a step in the right direction. I've seen it in action a couple times now.
Bottom line though, is that AV should have been nipped in the bud long before AV companies became so big. I mean, not just one, but a whole category of companies based on fixing a fundamental flaw in another company's software. I mean, just... wow.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If microsoft wanted to make the computers secure by default and avoid lawsuits by antivirus types, then they're Doing It Wrong.
Just work (alot) harder at making it less vulnerable to start with. There's a reason why an entire MARKET sprung up around Windows security.
If Microsoft now steps on the feet of all those malware removal providers maybe they'll stop claiming that MSes products are completely secure and any remaining security problems will surely be fixed soon.
I mean seriously, get Ubuntu and look how software installation is handled there. You'll stop understanding why Windows doesn't have a propper package manager.
Run "XOR 0xff" over a Windows install disc.
MSFT has finally unveiled its long term strategy. They already own the market for browser, office, and development platform and server wares on their own OS, might as well corner the antii-virus business too. Somebody at M$ marketing finally figured out how to turn a weakness into strength, a losing battle into a business opportunity and profitability. Pure genius, I tell you! Pray that MSFT shares do not go down or they'll hit up the government with a bailout threat too.
This is like the cigarette companies selling cancer treatments.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
At some point, I believe it was XP but maybe already in Win2K, M$ included zip/unzip capabilities in the "OS". It was incredibly slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.
For me, it meant that, exactly as before, Winzip or some such product remained on the list of software to load immediately onto a freshly installed box.
Same thing with the included firewall - I for one don't trust it one bit, I'd never rely on it for decent protection. At most, I see it as something that will con the pc-illiterate user into thinking s/he's protected without having to pay anything on top of the M$-tax, and I suspect that is the only reason they keep coming up with these bits that dupe stuff that's already out there.
If their anti-virus effort will be anything like these, I suspect nothing much will change...
Xeers,
Philip
-- Any sufficiently advanced level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
How can a new antivirus software be a BAD NEWS in any way? I'm tired of this antimicrosoft-bullshit really, how many people there are out there using computers without even such basic knowledge as to install antivirus-program for themselves? Like my dad, for example. If this comes with windows and lowers the count of infected zombies in net then it's good news. We, who know better, can get ourselves better programs.
It's idiotic how bare ie windows xp is when you install it. This is something that's been waited for.
Would it not be possible for MS to roll out a trojan removal tool to target spam botnets via automatic updates, as they do with the existing Malicious Software updates? It would at least cut the global spam levels down a bit, assuming Windows users have automatic updates enabled.
It will also kill vnc since it is detected as possible malware.
It is easier to remove vnc than to make a malware excpetion.
Why do antivirus programs present users with a "Do it anyway" option?
They should just say "That's a virus!" and totally block it.
As for Microsoft anti-virus: If their malware removal program is any good then why is the world's biggest botnet over three years old? The monthly cleanup currently being done by Windows update should be wiping it out.
No sig today...
Finally Microsoft will give up their so called operating system and go for UNIX.
Don't feed the penguins
A side effect of this will be that MS will be able to readily identify where license numbers are being used more than once. If they take the opportunity to remotely shut down ''illegal'' PCs, the whole exercise might make them money.
I wonder if they will do an Apple and disable s/ware that they don't like (pronounce as malware) -- because it competes with some MS s/ware.
You forgot to put the URL behind that 'somefamouspersonnaked.exe' link - I've tried clicking on it but nothing happened.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
is as a consumer I WANT as much as possible in the OS I am paying for.
I don't want to have to think buy computer, buy OS, buy video player (after all the Stupid EU voted to have a version of windows shipping without media player :S who would pay for less considering both versions cost the same), buy AV software.
Now offer me all of the above in one price then ok that starts to sound better. AV companies tend to get false positivies and tend to cause system stabality problems. Now if MS offer a AV solution bundled with their OS I know full well it is going to work flawlessly with their OS.
There is no point in really going after MS for anti-competiveness because lets face it their OS is the most used in the world so they are already uncompetive, what's the choice APPLE or LINUX? both are viable alternatives for users that word process or surf the web, but for say gamers there is no choice. It's MS or a console
Personally I don't use AV software why?
Because I have had more problems with it than without, and if MS shipped with it built in then I may actually use it providing it doesn't impact the system.
while i like the idea of free Anti-virus software, it will kill the competion, witch is not a good thing, pretty sure everyone knows that. i don't get this, i once heard a rant from bill gates about the software dev's not getting paid for their work, this was about freeware and open source software. so now he is starting to give out free software? i bet what will happen will be microsoft makes it free, kills the competion, then jacks up the price 10 fold of what it was before.
Microsoft NEVER do something for nothing, its always about turning a buck or making a rival bankrupt. My guess is this new offering will only work on Windows 7 and Vista, in an attempt to force us into leaving XP behind.
In the light of all the above being available, plenty of people still pay for anti-virus software. I do. I use Esets NOD32 and will continue to.
Microsoft offer Windows Defender yet people still prefer to use Spybot S&D et al in their droves thus proving that just because MS offer something for free in a sector, it doesn't automatically follow that people will go for it.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
How about:
- Viewing event logs (Note that viewing means read only)
- Running many applications... each and every time they are run.
- Viewing the 'System' part of control-panel to find out how much ram (once again read only)
- Anytime any one of the numerous random pieces of bloatware decides it wants to check to see if updates are available.
Face it, your lucky to go 30 seconds without the screen suddenly darkening and the interruption of normal programming to bring you this annoying piece of nagware.
Why don't they just spend their time writing a secure system that doesn't need AV guarding the keys to root? I can somewhat understand the uses of AV at the user level; more for people running proprietary software, but nothing that the user does should be able to compromise the rest of the system. People should see this as a _problem_, not a nice "free" feature.
That is exactly the point, MS couldn't sell anti-virus software in any way. The only options they have is distributing it for free, or not distributing at all. This latter option looks like the best for them, but they can't take it anymore since they spent a small fortune buying an anti-virus a few years ago, expecting to sell the product, and have to explain to shareholders why they didn't see the criminal consequences of selling protection against your own incompetence.
Now, they'll only have to explain things to the governments around the world, and those are way more receptive than shareholders. The only thing that can happen is them being forced to stop distributing the anti-virus, that is the best outcome for MS anyway.
Rethinking email
std::cout << "The parent can not code for shit." << std::endl;
They tried this beofre, and it didnt work, they offered it free for a 30 days, then you had to buy it, if I have to buy something I will go with the best there is either zone alarm or kaspersky,
not M$ who can't even get their products right in the first place. A virus is something that attacks your vulnerabilities, therego have a perfect software no need for AV, this is like M$ saying
"ok you bought your program from us and it belongs to you, but if you really want it to work the way it should, you should pay us again"
M$ go f*ck yourself, if you can't get your OS right to begin with, I doubt you'll be able to now either....let me take a chance with McAfee or Symantec before I trust you again!
Microsoft has proved throughout history not solving bugs or other security related issues, partly because of their interest to push new product versions into the market. So that said, it is not a very promissing story to the customer. Independent third parties have more interest in solving security related symptoms, and they are more effective at it because it's their core business. If Microsoft would be able to get a monopoly on antivirus software by providing this software or free, we all would lose.
Instead of having a laserlike focus on core business and being very good at it, Microsoft continuosly seeks to have a monopoly of mediocracy on all businesses by having no core business. Despite Microsofts succes pushing thirdparty software business out of the market, fortunately the open software community will only thrive even more with high quality solutions which make Microsofts mediocre products obsolete. In the end the open source software has proven to be superior in delivering best of breed software.
This is bad news. Microsoft's security products suck big time. Their AV was compared against other top AV brands last year and failed miserably compared to Symantec, Kaspersky and others. I have never used it myself but if it is anything like Windows Defender, which I have used, then it definitely sucks. Defender never finds anything even if the system is teeming with spyware. Customers won't care though and they won't buy the additional software. This is bad news for the big box stores too. They're already losing money on their sale computers and they generally try to make up the difference by selling you software and other crap.
Time makes more converts than reason
Anti-virus sellers will never claim that Windows is less secure than the alternatives. It's the only way they stay in business, if they ever recommend any other plataform, they'd become useless. MS can hurt those companies any way they want, it won't create a problem bigger than extinction.
Rethinking email
It is like cigarette companies giving (useless) cancer treatment for free, and people complaining that this will make the competing business (that actualy curate people) go out of business.
You know, analogies have some limits on how far one can push them.
Rethinking email
Second time is the charm anyone, or are most of you too young to remember them giving it away before?
it's called Morro, because the only people using windows and still without an anti-virus program installed are "morrons"
It's called fdisk.exe
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Windows Live OneCare doesn't support Home Server. I wonder if the "new" offering will?
I don't really know if it's an antivirus that's really needed from Microsoft. They just need to spend their time making Windows as immune to viruses as Linux is. Security and safety were one of the reasons I stopped using windows a long time ago.
I wonder that possible features will be included in the Free AV. It all very well good giving a free AV, but if it does not actively protect then it is useless. It is like using medicine to protect against STI's rather than using Condoms.
There are lots of free AV around, some offering onaccess and some do not.
Perhaps MS will offer the free version like other vendors do, but for advanced protection like onaccess perhaps you will have to pay.
I wonder what will happen to pc manufacturers though if MS release a version with onaccess etc, There will be no point including th trial copies of norton etc. They will have to replace it with some other annoying trial
It doesn't. There are standard tools and APIs provided for that by Microsoft, have been around for ages (e.g. ClickOnce). It's just that there is that Windows developer mentality that if you need an updater, you have to roll out your own, give it an ugly tray icon complete with baloon popup barrage every time it thinks it needs to update, etc. That is still the same old problem in the Windows land - it is possible to make very nice and well-behaving software, everything that's needed is there - but virtually noone is bothering to learn how to use it.
the chicken guarding the hen house. hehehe.
The problem here as I see it is that Microsoft is doing the same thing it did with Web Browsers. Unable to sell the Web Browser by itself, it packaged it with the OS, driving nearly all other browsers to extinction. Remember Netscape the company?
be that they are desperately trying to achieve "obscurity through security"...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
They consistently test near the bottom third of all the malware test suites I've ever read about.
Windows Defender in particular irritates the crap out of me because it reports tons of "suspected software" in the Windows event logs without being able to do anything about it - either shutting off the spurious messages or specifying that the software is safe. It's pathetic. It also detects things like Adobe's crappy License Manager creating bogus "services" repeatedly.
Use Spyware Terminator or SuperAntispyware instead of Windows Defender and use a decent brand name AV instead of anything Microsoft might sell OR give away free.
The only advantage to a free Microsoft product is that the company idiots who don't run AV because they're too cheap might actually use it. I've got one small business client I had to put Comodo AV on their machines - even thought Comodo detection rates suck - because they're just too cheap to pay for Kaspersky or Avast.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It's amazing that it took them this long, but I've been waiting for it to happen, the time is right.
Microsoft's usual pattern is this:
If you once wrote proprietary faxing software, or CD burning software, or even IDEs (with .Net they created the API+framework and implemented it at the same time, slightly different but still devastating), or, well, cruise through Control Panel or Accessories or Administrative Tools for more examples, anyway you can see what I mean.
And in the end, it's good. Once stuff subsumes into the "OS", it just becomes easy.
Anti-virus got to the API+Framework stage a couple of years back. Microsoft released Windows Defender for Spyware/Adware and not Viruses, why? Probably just to be nice to their "partners" for a bit; how hard would that final step have been? But it had to come eventually.
I have no sympathy for Symantec/McAffee/et al. Their products suck (Symantec I'm talking to you here!). One day no one will remember their names, and it will be wonderous.
Meanwhile, I'm writing this on an OS with no need of anti-virus. Thankyou free software people!
Open source software vendors promote competition in the ecosystem.
Closed source software vendors promote collusion in the ecosystem.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Imagine a hacker finding a loop hole in a Microsoft product being used by a bank.
This hacker can siphon off our money by the time Microsoft detects and releases the patch for this loophole.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. --Oscar Wilde
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
I'm sure I'm not alone in remembering MS-DOS's Anti-Virus product, CentrePoint software acquired by MS when it bought the company (if I recall correctly). ...
The very first message it delivered on starting was "the definitions are out of date" and you could get new one's by subscribing
It was pretty much totally useless ... but it was "free"
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
It's a good thing that Microsoft is trying to secure its software in a manner that doesn't involve blocking the user of doing anything advanced on their PCs, at least. Let's hope that this harsh free competition will make the current commercial antivirus products a bit better, too.
I am not devoid of humor.