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?"

Comments

re Hard to decide ...

[jelizondo]

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.

Re:re Hard to decide ...

[dnoyeb]

Its illogical. How can you produce a product that attacks things attempting to exploit your holes when you have the ability to patch the holes?

If they sold it, it would be a conflict of interest.

Re:re Hard to decide ...

[quanticle]

but a whole lot of them will sit up and take notice if their antivirus pops up and warns them away.

You'd think so, but that's simply not the case. In my time as a PC tech. I saw all too many PCs where the user had clicked on something, seen repeated antivirus/anti-spyware warnings and still continued with the installation. Basically, it comes down to an issue of trust. People distrust their antivirus as much as they distrust the random crapware they download from the Internet. So, when the antivirus pops up and tells them, "Hey, this software is going to bring along a virus," they feel safe in ignoring it, since they've seen all too many false alarms for other things (like tracking cookies).

Re:re Hard to decide ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is much worse... I got a trojan on my system, a Net Devil, roll-your-own type. Before I went to uninstall it, I debugged it and got the ICQ account details. I used the credentials to log into the account and changed the password. I watched as the victim IP addresses poured in! To investigate, I downloaded the client half of Net Devil and connected to a few victims. Total access!

Screen capture, key logger, executable, download, upload, you name it! It had a feature to send popup messages that I used to tell the victim they had a virus and they should take steps immediately to remove it. Some would unplug their computers immediately, while others would just click OK and keep going. I would send another message like "No really! You have a virus!" and they still just pressed OK and just kept typing their IM. Of course, it usually got their attention when I opened 30 message dialogs in a row. The most effective way I got their attention was to turn their graphics upside-down and open their CD/DVD tray :) Nothing like a ghost in the machine to wake them up.

• Other variations:
• launch winamp and crank up the volume
• same, but use a pr0n clip from their stash
• (most sinister) activating their webcam
• (silent, yet dreadful) the keylogger

It had an option to remove the trojan from the host, so I cleaned up a few, but the IP addresses kept flowing in worldwide (esp. France?) and it was rather depressing trying to help users that pretty much ignored anything but the blatant scare tactics.

Security vs backwards compatibility

[White Flame]

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.

Re:Security vs backwards compatibility

[Nico3d3]

Couldn't have used better words to describe what I was thinking. Instead of reusing and unsecured platform for every new Windows version, why not start something completly from scratch like Apple did. We were able to use the Classic environnement in OS X when we needed old app compatibility and it didn't cause any security concerns because the OS9 program were running in a sandbox. The Classic environnement disappeared in OS X Leopard but, we can still use Sheepsaver emulator if we really need OS9. It wouldn't be the first time they copy Apple anyway ;-)

Re:Oh Yeah?

[hairyfeet]

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!