Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blocks Pirates From Security Essentials Software
CWmike writes "Microsoft will block users running counterfeit copies of Windows from installing the free Security Essentials antivirus software, said Alex Kochis, director of Microsoft's Genuine Windows team, in a post to a company blog. On-again, off-again debates about the wisdom of blocking security-oriented downloads like patches or defensive software have centered around the argument that Microsoft should protect all users, including pirates, since hijacked PCs threaten the entire Windows ecosystem. In this case, though, one analyst isn't buying that line. 'I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users],' said John Pescatore, Gartner's primary security analyst. 'Those people have many other choices, including free. There are plenty of alternatives to Security Essentials,' he said, adding that that makes a difference. Windows patches, on the other hand, aren't available from anyone but Microsoft."
With vaccination, this is known as herd immunity. Basically, even if an individual is not vaccinated (or virus/malware/etc protected in this case), by virtue of others being vaccinated, there is less chance the non-vaccinated will become infected since there are less people who they are coming into contact with who are harboring the virus. Following with this, the greater the number of immune, the less likely the unprotected will become ill.
I strongly suspect the same concepts would apply to computers, and allowing pirates to have this protection would indeed provide greater security to ALL the unprotected windows users. Thus, the choices for MS are 1) increase security for all users (paying or not) by allowing even pirates to download in order to increase the protection via herd immunity or 2) increase company profit by trying to coerce hackers into buying a copy by not allowing them this download. Since the latter will never happen, all MS is really doing is simply missing an opportunity to increase security because they *think* they can increase profit. Alternatively, maybe they think they are simply teaching those pirates a lesson, but sadly it would be at the expense of others.
He's right in that many people who have the tech-savvy to pirate a copy of Windows will know what their options are regarding anti-virus.
On the other hand, how much does Microsoft actually stand to lose when it comes to giving this away?
I'm willing to bet that they ran the numbers... "how much will the bandwidth cost us" vs "how much do we lose in good will by weakening the herd immunity".
Now that would be an interesting (read: evil) spreadsheet to look at :D
Microsoft would be just protecting their own reputation when unknowing users of pirated installs are complaining less about Windows instability and others see fewer attacks from zombie farms. If you created a problem such as IE6, you should do everything in your power to solve it rather than ranting about others. Good for karma, good for pocketbook.
John Pescatore makes a good point. AVG, Avast, etc... are all free antivirus. When MS withholds patches, it can lead to stronger botnets and ID theft. However, antivirus applications are plentiful and the money MS will be investing in this thing makes them justified in not wanting to simply give it away.
As much as I hate to say it, I won't blame Microsoft for this move.
Pirating is illegal.
Pirates are only ones really complaining.
Pirates switch to Linux
End of problem and it will takes windows out of the Free OS market.
Anyone running pirated versions of the OSs eligible for MSE will probable have cracked WGA, and will be able to install this if they wish.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
...and allow for the propagation of viruses at the same time.
Knowing that, any user of a counterfeit version of Windows will not be fool enough to install such an application, isn't it ?
elephant in the room... what if I want to run XP Pro?
my only option if I don't already have a legitimate copy is to pirate it, given that you can no longer purchase it.
(granted I could still buy Vista with downgrade licence... but I don't want to pay for something I will never use)
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
The problem is microsoft has a love/hate relationship with the pirates. They have an absolute need for piracy to be possible but not to become attractive enough (in the first world) to become popular enough to eat into their profits overmuch.
Think about it, Microsoft could eliminate 99% of piracy overnight by using harsh copy protection combined with mandatory Genuine Advantage plus a couple of targeted logic bombs launched against a few of the more flagrant pirate copies. Problem is most pirates these days either built their PC from scratch (else they would have been force fed a license) or bought a PC from a pirate. The DIY crowd is too influential to piss off and what they are doing already stops the bulk of the chopshop pirates in the developed world. If they make pirate windows too unstable in the third world where it is popular they simply can't pay so would be driven to look for alternatives.... and would find them.
So this move is easily understandable, it gives the pirates a nudge but won't overly annoy any of the major groups who pirate. The DIY type who pirates Windows because those guys pirate everything just for fun will have little trouble finding cracked copies of whatever they have been using. At all appearances nobody in the secondary markets updates anything on their damned machines already, considering how much crap spews out.
Democrat delenda est
Everyone can blab on about herd immunity etc but this seems like denying a stolen car a repair under warranty. Systems are going to be used for attacks, it might as well be the pirates systems and not mine. Security these days is more about running faster than your peers, not outrunning the hackers. Microsoft doing this will put paying customers closer to the front of the race. And I am not a microsoft fanboy so don't write some bs about that.
What will everyone want next? Metadata updates for your stolen music from the record companies? As much as I hate some things about companies, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Giving this software free to pirates is almost a promotion of piracy - if you get same stuff when you pirate, then there is no downside to do it.
ll
Also, few pirates might feel bad about the fact that their copy is not 'genuine'. And some owners of valid copies might feel satisfied knowing that people who got free ride didn't get the whole package.
Wait I run Linux, thank god I'm already safe!
"Microsoft attempts to block pirates from security essentials software"
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I don't see that many pirated Windows installs but the ones I do see are all from poor people who were given a bootleg XP or Windows 2000 disk with no product code and no questions asked. I mean, fair is fair and Microsoft is selling a product as a business not giving away their OS as a charity but in my experience the people they're hurting are the ones least able to help themselves.
The poor people I'm talking about here are usually seniors with little computer knowledge using out of date hardware and single parent families with few resources. They're not buying new computers and $150 for a Microsoft OS is too steep for their budget.
They're not leet hackers laughing at Microsoft, they're simple folk. One little old lady who had her computer in was completely horrified when I told her that her Windows was pirated, she literally had no idea. Our policy is we don't help you once we discover your Windows is pirated for the simple reason that we have no way of knowing what has been done to the OS or what has been corrupted or is missing. In that case she came in a couple of months later with a legal Windows disk she'd saved up and bought and I installed it for her gratis. I know the price tag hurt her though but she would have no truck with illegal Windows.
Anyway, my point is that these folks are for the most part clueless and are ripe targets for botnetting since they lack the knowledge to acquire and keep an AV updated on their own. Free Avast and Free AVG are available to them but without handholding they'd never figure out how to jump through the hoops to download, install and set these up. The beauty of Microsoft Security Essentials is that they've made it pretty much self-running and idiot-proof. Like I said in my post yesterday, I'd push it out to everyone not already running an AV if I were Microsoft. It increases the general health of the Windows eco-system, makes Windows more secure and run better as a result, which in turn makes the Windows experience better for everyone and increases the likelihood of Windows purchases down the road through good word of mouth.
The leet hackers have the tools to look after themselves. If it were just them running pirated Windows, I'd agree with Microsoft and say stuff 'em. It's not though and things look a lot different on the bottom of the food chain; it's those most unable to protect themselves who get hurt the most.
"Microsoft will block users running counterfeit copies of Windows..."
No, try this rewording instead:
"Microsoft will block users not running WGA certified copies of Windows..."
It can be non-counterfeit and yet not registered or certified by the Windows Genuine "Advantage" stuff. It can even be non-counterfeit and REJECTED by WGA.
True pirates will use Avast! anyway.
What if some dope was screwing your daughter and there was nothing you could do about it, but somehow you could magically make him wear a condom. Wouldn't you put the condom on him (magically)?
Yeah, it would... but when someone brought in a vehicle reported stolen, i'd also expect that dealer to contact law enforcement immediately, when the dealer discovered the report.
but left the activation key sticker on the machine, only to be asked to install some version (any version) of MS Windows because they do not have original installation media, and yet believe that the activation key sticker is a license to any version of Windows since they can not use the computer without an operating system installed.
It's the OEM versions of Windows that have these stickers.. The license is permanently tied to the computer and cannot be re-assigned to another computer (per the OEM EULA).
The purchaser has failed to live up to their obligations under the license, and surrender the media when surrendering the sticker.
Anyways, the sticker is confusing. Basically, Microsoft should either stop making the dubm stickers, or print a unique URL on each sticker to permit download the License and backup media corresponding to that copy of Windows (for a nominal download fee, to pay for bandwidth, of course).
The problem is that Windows is intentionally designed to be easy to crack, as a marketing tool. They wanted it to spread as wide as possible. In former Soviet Union about 99% of Windows are cracked versions.
Now they stop critical updates because they want the bot-nets to grow and make the Internet unusable, because they are losing in the Internet to Google. So they destroy the Internet, and the world is returning to the Desktop.
It is quite possible. For example, I cannot already use the torrent, if I use it, then my provider disconnects me next day for several hours. Crime and punishment.
I begin to see a new meaning in the words: The freedom is not free.
Is piracy good for microsoft, and bad for linux? If *indows wasn't "free", in practice, would linux have seen more adoption? Should Linux users then help Microsoft denounce piracy, go for the piracy snitch rewards?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
When MS withholds patches, it can lead to stronger botnets and ID theft.
And, if your hacked bootleg Windows system went online to pay for a legitimate key, that would be "priceless".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Unless I am completely mistaken, most botnet infections occur because of user action, not because the computer is allowing remote connections. Linux would be equally vulnerable if unqualified users were using it and installing software on it. When the software they are installing asks for the root password, they would obviously supply the root password, because they are unqualified.
That explains the situation for Windows. Plain and simple, these people using Windows have no business administering a computer, period. I assure you that a botnet infection program can be written for Linux and simply ask the user to do whatever is required during installation. You may discount these because YOU wouldn't do what was requested, but that has nothing to do with what your average Windows-using grandmother would or would not do.
Sorry, you can't make a computer secure that is (a) administered by someone unqualified to do so, and (b) allows software to be installed on it. I would claim an iPod is completely secure. So is a clock radio. If you give a computer user that cannot administer their machine an appliance that cannot have other software installed on it, you can have a secure computer for unqualified users.
A general-purpose programmable computer that requires administration cannot be secure unless it is administered by a qualified person. This is why a lot of corporate systems are indeed secure even through they are running Windows. It is also clearly why other corporate systems are completely insecure and have botnet infections.
Nevermind the pirates. They get what they paid for. Giving them nothing makes good sense.
What the hell happened to Windows Live OneCare? You know, paying customers?
What does the MSE release say to the people who paid for that Microsoft AV program, among other OneCare services?
The message is pretty clear: "Pay Microsoft and get screwed." Get your OS software for free, because it is nearly free when you buy a new PC. The entire expectation they are building into the market is "Our product and our word is worthless." Releasing this almost seems like an admission that they can't fairly compete in AV products.
Which also says to me "Illegal product dumping." Symantec and CA should sue them silly. This is definitely not a fair way to enter the AV market, not even for the "free" AV's because it absolutely kills their upsell business. I expect DOJ action, or a joint lawsuit on this. A class-action from the OneCare people wouldn't be out of the question either, if they aren't offering refunds to recent purchasers. This release is criminal, in my mind, and utterly undermines the concept of proprietary software that you pay for because it is worth it.
The message to the end-user is: "Our software is not worth buying." The message to the entire security sector is: "Thank you for covering our backsides for all those years, now piss off."
Ugly. This kind of bad faith could (and IMO should) hurt Microsoft. I don't know what they're thinking out in Redmond. They need to rally around the Windows 7 release, not insult vendors and their paying customers.
--
Toro
She is highly unlikely to be reliant on any industry vertical software or anything obscure like that (she probably just wants a web browser and email client), and would be much better off with a free OS.
seems a bit fishy to me ....
Everyone knows that MS Windows is the main host of botnets, zombies, and general malware on the Internet. Hardly a month passes without Microsoft patching yet another "critical vulnerability". Unfortunately there are reasons why MS Windows is more vulnerable than e.g. MacOs, Unix, FreeBSD, or Linux. For one thing, MS Windows (until Vista) was never designed from the ground up for multi-user operation, security was ever tacked on as an afterthought, the architecture of MS Windows with its miriad add-on's (that tend to carry out _system_ tasks) and the (deliberately) tight coupling between MS Windows and MS applications conveniently makes for multiple points of attack, and once a process is suborned by an attacker there is nothing in MS Windows architecture that's designed to contain it or stand in its way. That's why we see so many infected Windows PC's on the Internet.
Oh yes, there are those who hold that e.g. Linux would suffer the same level of penetration had it had the same level of penetration on the desktop but the fact that about 60% of all Internet traffic is handled by Linux machines (which are far less often compromised) pleads against that. It's not exposure that does it but architecture (and the quality of administration, but that's another issue).
So that being the case, what would benefit Microsoft more than to be able to cast doubt on tales of machines being infected and taken over as "Probably pirated copies; legal Windows versions are protected by MS security updates."?
That would give Microsoft a good reply when called out over the insecurity of MS Windows (e.g. when a large organization is considering what OS it should use in the next 10 years).
What do you think? Might I be anywhere near the mark?
...or they might miss the chance to infect lots of computers with malware! Seriously, it's not like people are going to stop pirating windows.
The pirates who seed the software, or the people who run the tracker, could conceivably log the IPs of the people who download their windows torrent.
Scroll forwards a month or two to the next SMB2-grade bug: Bam, the hackers have a list of ip addresses for people who are likely to be using un-patched versions of windows.
mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
MS also blocks pirates from installing an illegal copy of Windows, but yet they do it. I'm sure they can also install an illegal copy of the Security Essentials Software. If they want to.
But perhaps you'd like to manually go get yourself a backbone so that you can demonstrate some strength of character...
Don't like Windows or don't want to pay for it? Then don't use it, get off your backside and spend some time learning about a free alternative like Linux or BSD.
Smart-mouthed idiots like you just give the evil corporations the justification they need to stick on DRM and all manner of protection that make it bad for legitimate users as well.
So please don't expect me to be impressed because when it comes down to it, if you're a pirate then you're a jerk.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Wow, I went from a +3, informative, down to 0, flamebait. Nice. Despite the swearing, everything I said was true, and you are wrong. LOTS of Windows malware has spread WITHOUT user interaction, thanks to a slew of MS apps that execute code willy-nilly, for example Klez ("The text portion [of the email] consists of either an HTML internal frame tag which causes buggy e-mail clients to automatically execute the worm...") and Sasser ("Sasser spreads by exploiting the system through a vulnerable network port...") and the Kak worm ("...a VBScript worm that uses a bug in Outlook Express to spread itself.")
Your argument about administering Linux and Windows boils down to "Neither Linux nor Windows can be secured 100%, therefore they're equally bad" and that is NOT the case. If Linux or Mac OS X were dominant they'd have SOME problems, but not the amount that Windows has.
That aside, I agree with you when you say security is not an easy thing. However, security comes in layers, and having an OS that's not equal parts mashed potatoes and swiss cheese is a good start. LOTS of the technologies that could have stopped the spread of MOST malware were WELL KNOWN and EASILY IMPLEMENTED at the time needed but MS just sat on their hands and did NOTHING for YEARS. Buffer overflows can take some work to find but MS has made COUNTLESS stupid decisions over the years, like having Outlook Express automatically execute code sent IN ATTACHMENTS (besides displaying/executing bad HTML/JS/etc in EMAIL CLIENTS) and having lots of services OPEN BY DEFAULT.
Botnets are an example of how MS's shoddy code has made everyone's--not just Windows users--lives worse. So, like I said, MS owes it to the world. Again, the guy in the article is saying "I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users]..." but MS is already giving it away for free to registered users so it's not like they're losing sales. All they'd had to pay for would be bandwidth, and there are already a zillion sites that give away bandwidth to deserving downloads--universities, ISPs, etc. Don't you think every single school in the world would host a copy (AT LEAST for their internal users) to keep their own networks safe? Same for every ISP. Large companies would also distribute it internally. There is NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER to this inconsiderate asshole's* argument. (-1, here I come!)
* just to be clear that I'm not flaming the wrong person: "this inconsiderate asshole" refers to John Pescatore as quoted in the summary, not the poster to whom I'm replying.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.