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
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.
There are already a handful of free options available (AVG, Avast, etc), and they haven't stopped Symantec from raking in the bucks.
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
Presumably this will only be for Windows 7 as it is to be released around that time too.
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??
I had enjoyed AVG even though I didn't frequent sites or normally present infectable machines to the Internet. However, with their latest version (v8), I've found this to be the case as well, it quarantines legitimate files. Specifically, a program I used with nLite to create add-in programs for build CD's was flagged as dangerous and to be quarantined. I sent it in and AVG basically told me it was detected properly.
I've uninstalled AVG and don't plan to look at it for AV protection in the future.
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
What you speak of is known as The Dancing Bunny problem which as someone who has worked nearly 15 years in PC repair I can say is all too true. I had a buddy working corporate when Melissa hit and he said several PHB middle managers got MAD when he told them they couldn't have their attachment from that Melissa girl. He said he finally had to tell them "Go tell the boss you want to run Melissa and see what HE says". So never underestimate the incredible stupidity a user is capable of when they think there is a dancing bunny waiting for them. You should really read the link on the dancing bunnies. It is SO true!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I wonder which vendor they will buy the code from.
Just like MSAV was re badged CPAV (CheckPoint Anti Virus) from central point.
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
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.
Because if they don't, it takes away a perceived level of control from the user, and users like at least having the feeling that they're in control.
Also there are often false positives, and it would be extremely annoying to be unable to install something useful because it's mistakenly detected as a virus.
From the perspective of malware authors tho, microsoft taking over the anti malware market and driving all the other competitors out of business is the best possible outcome. You now only have one anti malware program to test your malware with (ie ensure it doesn't get detected) and one anti malware program that your malware needs to disable.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.