Slashdot Mirror
MS Adds Security Suite To Update Service, Antivirus Rival Objects
CWmike writes "Microsoft has started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by US Windows users when they fire up the operating system's update service, and antivirus rivals are crying foul. 'Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition,' Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro, said on Thursday. 'Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned,' she added. 'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update. Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering the software via Windows Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player. But most users won't understand the distinction."
Any good Windows administrator knows that you can't rely on a Microsoft product alone to solve your virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
But isn't this both optional and free?
I don't see the problem at all. It's not like IE, which was free and mandatory (it's still free and bundled).
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
But most users won't understand the distinction.
Outside of some very specialized applications, that sentence could apply to almost any software.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
If it'll get rid of this Ozzy Osbourne virus, the FanFan trojan, and others infecting my machines that Trend doesn't even see, then hey, go for it.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
Or is that how Security Essentials got there and the people "crying foul" are just sore that they'll have to pay, too?
The whole anti-virus industry seems like an artificial market. I wonder if they privately throw fits every time Microsoft releases patches to close potential security holes too. I mean, extending the argument, doesn't a more secure base system minimize the need for the full time, bloated nanny programs most of these companies provide; thus eroding their market share similarly? Those dirty bastards!
After calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning, E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose.
I am of two minds about this. In the past, many things we consider to be "core" OS services were once separate. For example, a TCP stack was once an add-on product that was purchased separately. Same for the internet browser, calculator, notepad, and even the GUI. Many companies have either been consumed or gone out of business as their products were rolled into the OS.
On the other hand, having a single vendor -- especially an OS vendor with Microsoft's history -- manage all security is an invitation to disaster. At least with competing products there's a chance that an exploit will be caught by some of the products.
I think it's a good thing, though. My Dell laptops come with that hideous McAfee A/V that prompts me every time I restart my PC and nags me about upgrading.
forefront and MSE are actually pretty good (MSE being built from forefront).
Their foot print on a system is quite reasonable (unlike many av suites) they do a good job of doing what they should do and staying out of the way. We all pay the price of way to many totally unsecured systems connected to the internet. FTFA the update only appears when no security software is detected on the system, So this will be being offered to users that would otherwise have no av protection at all.
I can see where MSE being offered free (and now offered via windows updates) would make other av vendors unhappy ..but f*ck them far to many of the consumer orientated av offering are just terrible bloated piles of junk.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
While I'm no MS fan, this is a good thing. Note: they only add MSE if no other virus checker is present. MSE actually does a pretty decent job, and it is a lot less intrusive than version McAfee, Norton, etc. available to private users.
Microsoft has a vested interest in improving the security of Windows without disturbing the rest of the user experience. Their motivation for MSE is roughly the same as the users'.
It has always bothered me that the interests of Norton, McAfee and the rest are not aligned with the user. You want a clean, fast machine. They want to sell you AV subscriptions. Which means they want to convince you how necessary those are. False alarms are fine, as are in-the-face dialogs and interruptions to remind you what a wonderful piece of crapware you have on your machine.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Good! I personally love Microsoft Security Essentials. It does exactly what you want in a Virus Protection Program: 1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected" 2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there.
Plus it's FREE. FREE!
they create a virus ecosystem, a happy world of virus, trojans, spyware, so they are like god, so they can do wathever they want with their world.
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
How about an App Store?
/cue delusional whining about App Stores being the start of a slippery slope to concentration camps and lockdown.
Putting moderation advice in your
AV is a lose-lose situation for MS -- they're screwed if they do and screwed if they don't...
'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' --Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro
Windows Update is a choice sweetie, although a lot of Windows users seem to choose not use it, or any ant-virus software for that matter.
Most of the well branded av's are just packed full of bloatware and getting worse. It's even got to the point now that alot of free software which i have installed also installs mcafee smartscan or a similar product to my desktop without allowing me to not install them. Isn't there something foul about this? Personally i use the lesser known eset's nod32 and i think it does a good job.
The only reason they are bitching is they want the money for charging what MS is giving away for free. MS *should* have provided better protection for their operating system years ago, and AV companies have had a free ride overcharging for something that should be a core part of the operating system. Now that MS is finally making security a part of the OS and not an add on product, the fear mongers of the AV word are having kittens because their gravy train has been derailed.
Security should NOT be considered "separate" from the operating system. Not to be cliche, but ask any Linux admin....
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
'Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition,' Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro, said on Thursday.
Don't worry, Carol; the majority of Windows users worldwide supposedly run pirated installs which means they aren't likely to be running Security Essentials anyway (much less able to keep it properly maintained with updated virus definitions). However, there's nothing preventing your company from selling subscriptions to software that can run (and be updated) on otherwise-illegitimate Windows installs... ;)
That;s what I thought, then I read it again and:
" the optional download list seen by US Windows users"
Apparently they're not daring to pull that off in Europe, but in the US its fine.
They don't have a monopoly and aren't a convicted monopolist. Until then they won't be forced to unbundle anything.
Please Read the Summary...
If Windows update detects you have no Anti Virus package installed, it adds the Microsoft Security Essentials as an OPTIONAL download that you can CHOOSE to have.
Just like the Browser Election ballot Europeans got (Which listed many alternatives to Internet Explorer) it's the user's Choice to install the software or to acquire Anti Virus software on your own.
When I buy Windows, it should include virus protection that works - and continues working for at least a couple years without my paying any additional costs. Viruses exploit software defects produced by Microsoft. They are Microsoft's fault. Microsoft should bear the cost of protecting me from them. It's obvious that MS will not ship products that are inherently safe from viruses due to bad programming. So MS must ship an OS that includes an effective virus protection system to protect it as an extra layer. The "new virus" subscription might have to cost extra after a couple of years, as that's about how often MS introduces a new OS. But it should still cost a small amount, like $10-20 per year. MS can make a huge profit from that kind of rate. Of course, that's if the MS virus protection SW is good quality, and if MS doesn't make basic OS SW that's such bad quality that its virus protection SW is overwhelmed.
I don't have to pay extra for seat belts when I buy a new car, unless I want belts that perform better to accommodate some unusually bad driving I do. OS security should be the same.
--
make install -not war
.. is not bundle an extra program,but take out all the ones.
Their suites offer more functionality, and if they are coded well are faster and have better detection rates. MSE is good stuff and I happily recommend it to anyone who needs "free" to be the price point. However there are plenty of good suites out there that improve upon it. If you look at AV comparatives you'll notice the good ones have better detection rates, and faster scanning. Then, of course, the full on "security suites" offer things like nicer firewalls and so on. I like MSE, but I pay for ESET Smart Security because I like it more.
I see nothing at all wrong with MS wanting to provide basic, competent, virus scanning and allowing companies to market better solutions. They don't stop it, and in fact 3rd party solutions work well. ESET integrates with the Windows security center and it quite happily accepts them as the virus and firewall solutions.
I don't see that MS should be prevented from including software just because someone else happens to make it.
I don't know much about WIndows, I've heard it has improved since Windows 3.1 and that's about it. I am used to GNU/Linux distributions giving me all the latest software when I apt-get update or emerge sync;emerge -uv world or yum update or whatever. I never go to some website to get or update some piece of software, the OS has some feature which lets me do that. If Windows Update would be able to do something like that then it sounds to me as if it's a very good thing. Perhaps not so good as long as it only lets you grab Microsoft software, and it would likely be hard for them to add too much other software being that Windows typically means non-free software, but still.. this sounds to me like a step in the right direction. But as said, I don't really know that much about the Windows world.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I actually hate Bill Gates, and despise Microsoft and almost all of their practices, but even I have to say that this is an excellent idea, and Trend Micro should go screw themselves. Microsoft has directly contributed to the Virus problem to the point where it is accepted and expected by most people. Now they are actually offering a free tool to clean up their mess to some degree. This isn't like the browser scenario, where they were looking to embrace and extend to own the Internet. Antivirus isn't an application like Word, or a web browser where people will need and want it regardless of OS. It is a necessary evil. If a company offered free smoke detectors to anyone who didn't already have them, would anybody seriously be arguing that said company is Antitrust?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I don't really understand why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to include their own security software. Microsoft should purposely leave end users high and dry when it comes to something as important as computer security (something that the OS should take care of) for the sole reason that they don't have even the slightest edge against the competing security software makers?
This reminds me of a year or so ago when there was opposition from security software groups against Microsoft because they closed up access to a few things that those groups used for their antivirus software. Something that no one really should have had access to in the first place. You can't cry that Microsoft software isn't secure and then cry foul when Microsoft actually works to improve security.
I have tried many other products. On the consumer level, there is really no significant benefit the other guys have over MSE that makes it worth the cost per year. The only product I'd probably recommend would be Sunbelt Software's offerings because their products are good at delousing a machine when it can't be taken apart and fixed by someone with a clue. Suites [1] are a different story, but antivirus products alone, there isn't much anyone else has that MSE doesn't on the consumer level.
Enterprise-wide, different story. Products like Forefront or Symantec Endpoint Protection provides far more than just a "virus condom". As an IT guy, I can have it to stop "hacking tools" such as most serial number grabbing utilities, have it lock out USB flash drives, give me comprehensive reports from the Windows side of the house, hook with NAC to ensure that if a Windows box doesn't have AV, it doesn't get connected (for CYA reasons rather than technical), and loads of other stuff that matters in business.
So, on a personal level, I would just be content with MSE. If an acquaintance called up saying, "OMG, my computer is infected", I'd tell them to download Sunbelt Software's offering and let it attempt to clean the machine. If I were running a business, I'd spring for SEP or Forefront because of the enterprise level features.
[1]: Antivirus + firewall "suites" are pointless in any Windows version post 2000. Want a firewall? Get a hardware router, so blackhats don't have a small window of attack when a machine starts up or shuts down, and the software "firewall" isn't loaded and hooked into the IP stack.
That's not true. The reason for the firewall at the computer level is that unless you've set up your network specifically to do it, all the computers are by default able to see each other. Meaning that while it might be tough for an attacker to get past that firewall, as soon as any of the computers on the network gets haxxored, all the other ones are vulnerable.
it IS unfair competition itself. it was what was done with ie against netscape, and media player against others.
Not quite. Media player and IE come pre-installed on your machine but this is explicitly labeled an optional download. Being part of the "optional updates" means it will be presented to users as an option. They will not be in any way forced to download it and in fact will have to go out of their way to deliberately check the box to get it, something most people (i.e. my mom) probably won't do assuming they even realize the option exists.
Actually major media player updates (e.g. version 11 if you have version 10) are listed as optional as well if I recall correctly.
IE4 was actually pretty good.
Its footprint was quite reasonable (unlike Netscape Communicator 4). It does a good job of rendering all web pages I visit, and faster too. We all pay the price when WWW innovations were being dictated only by a single browser, and I did not want to see yet another Geocities page with blink tags all over.
I can see where IE4 being offered free (and then being offered via Service Releases) would make Netscape unhappy .. but f*ck them, Netscape is just a terribly bloated pile of junk.
(seriously, I have MSE installed on all my computers, and i'm perfectly happy with the current method of acquisition, but this all looks way too familiar)
Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
I guess its unfair competition that Unix/Linux started with a security model with prevented the rise of a virus problem so terrible that an industry was created around fixing issues that the os vendors/projects should have prevented. Man, I guess Cisco should sue the pfSense for allowing people to build security/gateway boxes every bit as capable as an ASA, only tens of thousands of dollars less.
If the EU "fixed" this situation, which perhaps one of the most sensible moves by Microsoft EVER, it will be really, really bad for all of us. That would be tantamount to saying you're not allowed to make a quality product because it is "unfair" to other companies that make money trying to work around your shoddy design.
This is absolutely nothing like the IE/Netscape browser wars. 15 years ago, a browser wasn't really considered necessary software and most people weren't on the web. The web wasn't a software platform in the same way it is today. But, yeah... whatever Microsoft does is bad and suspect and woe the humanity, think of the poor, suffering gnus!
Get over it. This is inevitable and beneficial. Most of those third-party security suites are so bloated and evil that they make the computer barely more usable than if it were infected by a virus. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find out many of the antivirus companies make and release viruses themselves to help perpetuate a need for their product. I'm not just talking about Norton and McAffee either. Don't forget that Eugene Kaspersky is a former KGB major, but don't worry, you can totally trust him.
From TFA: Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update
Items in the optional section aren't automatically downloaded or installed, nor does a user even see them unless he/she clicks on a separate button to view the optional updates. MS is offering an optional & free program to protect users from Malware, and a user has to go out of his/her way to see and select that program before it'll be installed, and it's only offered to users who don't already have another AV program installed.
This is almost a "hidden option". I've got concerns about numerous M$ business practices, but I can't object to this one.
BTW - I haven't seen Adobe complaining that M$ offers Silverlight in the Optional section of M$ Update, even though M$ has clearly made some statement against Flash.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Some may suggest that Windows Update is now Microsoft's "app store" and claim that they are doing what every other operating system vendor is now doing. But you have to remember that the rules are different for Microsoft. Microsoft has been declared a monopoly by a federal court, and therefore must play by different rules.
Microsoft should have been divested when the court had the chance.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I remember a similar discussion when Microsoft added a TCP/IP stack to windows, the vendors like Winsock were really upset.
I'm not sure if I see a difference here, but anyone who used TCP/IP before it was added into the OS knows now what the correct choice was.
Internet Explorer is already an optional feature, just enabled by default on most builds. Systems that don't have it can already get it as an optional download. New versions are already available as an optional update on Windows Update. How exactly is adding one more optional update supposed to be a problem? It doesn't install automatically or anything.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I don't like Microsoft's market tactics, but the sooner they make the "Security Ecosystem" redundant the better.
We Linux geeks know how nice it is to not have to deal with dozens of "security" vendors.
--
BMO
the av industry wasnt born because of windows, dear fool. the potential for viruses has always been there. they are just capitalizing on the most common operating system. if windows becomes more secure, they will exploit other operating systems.
Read radical news here
one moronic example after another.
software that accepts input from user will always be susceptible to viruses. it doesnt matter whether its linux, or it is windows. because the most exploitable system is windows, they are concentrating on that and having an easy time. if, it had been linux and it was much more tougher than windows as it is, they would just spend more time, but exploit it too.
please, dont come and post with shitty arguments.
Read radical news here
'optional' is irrelevant. billions of clueless users will download it and wont give a chance to anything else, just because it comes with windows.
Read radical news here
Especially when that market is worth billions of dollars!
Symantec = $13B market cap
Trend Micro = $4B in market cap
McAfee = $7B in market cap
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Not in terms of being able to stop traffic, but in terms of user interface and management. The Windows firewall is very much based on default permit outbound, ask on inbound. The ESET firewall can be configured a whole lot more. Ultimately they both work the same, but the defaults in how they work (like on my system it is ask in both cases, on a per program basis) are better.
And just how does it decide what a valid AV package is? There are thousands of the bloody things available these days and they change on an hourly basis in some cases; there's got to be a pretty high false-negative rate.
For years now, large part of my job is cleaning infected Windows machines in small companies my company has maintedance contracts with, and other customers.
So, now to be legal and safe Windows user in small business, now you have only Windows to buy and use Security Essentials since AFAIK thats only legal free antivirus for business users. Bigger companies will need some centralized console but that's beside this point.
For most of these people/companies, antivirus tax is something they can't afford now. They could be using that money to buy legal Windows and or increase wages (yeah, fat chance).
This environment has few Windows 2000 left to now lot of Win 7 - some pirated some legal - some patched some not, some with 128 mb ram some with 8 gb, some with antivirus some without. For desktop/laptop, this is 98% Windows environment. Remaining 2% - I personally use Linux exclusively, couple of servers too, and couple of bigshots use MacOS X. Most of the machines we maintain share the same LAN.
For those Windows machines, least infections by a wide margin, are on machines with legal OS and automatic updates ON, and any antivirus with definitions. These people mostly use free home versions AVG or Avast, even on machines used for business, but it still works for them (we keep telling them that that's illegal). Some use legal Trendmicro, Sophos or NOD.
But for machines with low memory, any antivirus is a performance killer. In our experience hotfixes don't impact performance negatively.
Other machines, jungle of all forms of malware. But no hotfixes or service packs is usually much worse than no antivirus, since most undetected malware that manages to execute itself due to ie network security flaw kills antivirus instantly. For those we usually use Autopatcher to bring them up to date, average once per year. When Conflicker arrived, we urgently patched almost all machines to latest service packs and Autopatcher collections, and the result was that there was when it came, it infected only few machines that were skipped for any reason. However, it's getting better since number of legal Windows installations has gone from 5% to around 50% and those machines got much easier to manage.
IMHO, far far overdue. Windows costs good money here. If it were about the customers, Microsoft should just make very hard to disable automatic patches and antivirus. OR JUST HAVE A MAJOR REDESIGN WITH SECURITY IN MIND. Windows were designed VERY badly in this respect, and MS will not refund money for a bad/catastrophic product experience.
And yeah, antivirus industry should die. They are making money for fixing the Microsoft's problem that should never have been there in the first place.
Try reading a bit further in the article:
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Um, bullshit. They aren't bundling anything. This is nothing like what was done with IE. They're including an optional download link, in the same place that they include links to Silverlight and Live Essentials tools like Movie Maker. They aren't changing any default configurations, or making available anything that wasn't available before.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Considering prebuilt machines and laptops virtually always come with some form of AV package preinstalled (McAfee is popular here) - I think you over-estimate those amounts.
My sister's computer needed anti-virus software. The little action centre icon was was complaining in the taskbar. So I clicked on it and clicked get anti-virus software fully expecting to be brought to Windows Security Essentials. What I found was a webpage with every anti-virus vendor listed EXCEPT Microsoft. I was wondering why they were intentionally limiting their product so that people couldn't find it. Windows update is the right place for this software.
This is similar to searching for financials on Google. The first result is typically finance.yahoo.com rather than www.google.com/finance.
And just how does it decide what a valid AV package is?
The software company just needs to register their product with Microsoft. From http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457154.aspx.
"Virus protection
The Security Center checks for the presence of antivirus software using queries for specific WMI providers that are made available by participating vendors. If the information is available, the Security Center service also determines whether the software is up-to-date and whether real-time scanning is turned on."
to be crying foul when you make your money from other people's technical ignorance. I also distribute MSE when it's needed - because it is the best and free.
"Convicted monopolist". Lol. I love when people say that, it's such a bullshit phrase but people say it so dramatically.
Anyway - in any sane monopoly situation you don't hamstring the company with the monopoly to the point where they can't do things other companies can. You prevent them from leveraging their monopoly in ways other vendors can't.
If Apple, Linux, ...any other OS bundles a browser, Microsoft should be able to.
MSE first felt like a great solution, But I have increasingly heard lots of DPC* latency issues after installing windows 7 over XP.
The main culprit? Microsoft Security Essentials.
I already know a few cases where people have replaced it with f-secure and instantly got rid of it.
* This is a serious issue that will make your audio playback crack and pop, it might even take hours before this starts to happen so it's very hard to debug.
Believe me, we fought with this beast for like a month (updating all drivers and BIOS, even resintalling windows but no go).
Immediately after removing MSE the problems disappeared instantly (and installed a 3rd party scanner).
So if anyone else is experiencing these issues while reading this, Try removing MSE.
If they can fix this fatal issue then I am all for MSE as I hate intrusive scanners that almost feel like scareware/adware.
And to input on the topic: I think that MS should be able to do what the duck they want to with their OS. They are just providing a FREE way to fix/clean up their OS from stuff that abuse it's weakness, wait a minute... that sounds almost like windows updates. Yeah. I have always felt that there should be a integrated tool for this ever since the 9x days, virus scanners shouldn't be anything that you need to pay any extra for. But this is just my opinion.
I have seen Microsoft Security Essentials listed in my WSUS server for a couple of months now. I also have been installing it in place of whatever free AV was in place on systems I work on for friends and family. The software is lightweight and works well, and I have no problem with Microsoft doing this. The mess that is the Internet is partially thier fault, it's fair they should help clean it up.
Microsoft created the Anti-Virus market through their bad design choices, now they are putting forth an "optional" effort to help alleviate the problem. I'd personally rather see them solve the bigger underlying issue that brought us all of the malware and viruses in the first place, which would really put the AV companies out of business. Would they cry foul then too?
chown -R us.
Perhaps the existing antivirus companies can stop making bloatware and start making an antivirus that actually works. Just like Microsoft has done.
Don't get me wrong; I am no friend of Microsoft. But it seems like the AV companies are acting a bit like spoiled children, here.
Their entire business model rests upon the insecurity of MS operating systems. I would think that -- clearly -- Microsoft has the right to try to make their operating system more secure. Security Essentials is a free download. There is no revenue stream associated with it. It is simply a linear upgrade to the system -- a patch for the OS. If it removes the vector by which other companies make money, it seems like the burden is on the other companies to stay relevant rather than trying to keep Microsoft from doing anything to make its operating system more secure.
It just seems strange to me. They don't charge for Security Essentials. It's a plug-in for the operating system. This has a core difference from, for example, the IE business, because Microsoft isn't providing a service so much as attempting to remove a problem; I don't really have sympathy for the plight of those that profited (however honestly) from the problem.
>>Giggling teenage girls post as ACs on /.?
I was expecting her to break out into Katy Perry lyrics...
As anyone who's ever accidentally done it knows, installing more than one antivirus on your computer (assuming both have background scanning) is a great way to make sure your computer freezes, is slow, or develops weird errors. Microsoft's detection is not going to be flawless - certainly if it's the same as Windows Security Center's detection, which often reports the wrong information about whether or not an installed antivirus is working. This means users are going to be offered Security Essentials when they already have a working antivirus, and many of them aren't going to know enough to avoid installing it if they see it. I've had one client already who did this very thing.
Trend Micro gets it wrong on a few points. Windows Update is the updating service for Windows only. MSE is released through Microsoft Update - the service for applications and additional Microsoft software that didn't come on the CD/DVD with Windows - things like MS Office, SQL Server, Windows Live Essentials, etc. Not only do customers have to turn on Windows/Automatic Updates, but customers have to explicitly opt-into Microsoft Update for anything that's not part of Windows.
Trend Micro can't have it both ways. When MSE was originally released, nearly all AV vendors said MSE was inferior. Now that it will be automatically offered as an Optional update, suddenly it's not so bad after all. Anyway, it's not automatically offered to anyone, only to the customers who actually open their Windows/Microsoft Update console, find it and select it (i.e., they choose it).
Finally, MSFT was prohibited from offering additional features in Windows for anticompetitive reasons (email, newsgroup reader, IM, Movie Maker, Photo Gallery). Like MSE, these are now an optional update called Windows Live Essentials that customers have to explicitly select from the Windows/Microsoft Update console to receive. Is it wrong for MSFT to use their distribution channel to offer an optional upgrade in the same way? Replace MSFT in the pervious sentence with the name of your favorite auto manufacturer and see how much sense it makes.
I just spent about 8 hours tracking down why a PC was suddenly and inexplicably "soooooo sloooowww" to boot, load and give control back to the user. Turned out it was Sunbelt Security's Vipre. Specifically SBS updates not deleting themselves around the months of September AND October. They'd (the def. updates) filled the users computer with 100's of thousands of files to the tune of 95GB. Yes, that's 95GB. Although Sunbelt minimized the issue on their support forums they posted no solution to the fact that Windows couldn't enumerate the files to delete them. You can be sure that I'll never ever recommend that product to anyone. Corporate or personal, paid for or free. Not because it ain't so bad but because of their lack of integrity in admitting the extent of the problem and posting a real solution for all to see.
May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
Most people criticize MS for having crappy security and being virus prone, but when they try and do something about it, people get pissed and call it anti-trust. Where's the happy medium? Is there one if the average user refuses to buy anti-virus yet not having it literally endangers everyone else on the internet?
.. the anti-virus industry is crying that they can no longer ride on the back of a problem that should not have been there in the first place. Well, as they have costed the average user a lot of money and a shocking amount of resources over the years with incredibly bad bloatware I cannot feel sorry for them - it would be like feeling sorry for Google and Facebook for getting their heads bashed in about privacy, they have had a free ride for too long too.
I'm glad MS has at last started to do something, but I fear it will not do what is needed: fundamentally rethinking its architecture. There is a reason why UNIX derivatives are so insensitive to infection. It's time MS actually *uses* the experts they have instead of letting them only talk at high end customer presentations.
Not that it matters to me, I have now moved to Linux and OSX and it is very relaxing to just being able to get some work done. I'm no fan of monopolies, but credit where credit is due - for me, OSX just works..
Insert
The makers of the anti-virus software that one day just decided that all .jar files are for applets and thus they instrumented them with confirmation crapola that meant Java developers getting their libraries and Maven components from an outside repository had to click a button whenever the poor build system wanted to write a file?
That Trend Micro?
Since MS, has never offered such a product before, I can't see how *anyone* would "know that you can't rely on a Microsoft product alone to solve your virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems".
Considering I've run for well over a decade without ANY such product -- and doing so solved my 'problems' (non-existent) just fine, then how can adding such a product not create benefit (providing one doesn't mind the inevitable hit in performance for real-time/on-access scanning malware scanning.
It's networked, and name me one software vendor who has their software running on more computers than MS. MS collects malware reports from a large number of those running MS-software, since being able to detect 'malware' problems is a high priority issue if they want to verify the integrity of their licensing mechanisms. MS has a high interest in keeping their systems clean and has are in a better position to collect and act on information about malware infestations than any other vendor.
It's always been my opinion that the need for 3rd party apps to deal with malware is due to a flaw in the OS and that the OS is in the best position to deal with such problems. A well designed OS would have malware protection built-in. And sure, MS could screw it up -- but they do have a financial incentive to get it right -- so much so, that they *GIVE* it away for free. I'd call that a rather high motivation.
Conversely, if they charged to protect their systems from things that are essentially bugs in their system -- that would be something akin to blackmail or 'protection money'... But then that's how I see much of the for-pay malware industry -- "pay us, or your system's toast"...
Third party anti-malware companies have formed their entire existence on *flaws* in MS products.
MS providing free malware protection for their own product is ethically, the right thing to do. It's hard to argue that MS shouldn't be doing this or that it shouldn't be included as part of the OS.
If you still spend *any* significant amount of time with "tracking down" stuff or "delousing", I guess the clue train hasn't stopped at your station yet. *DING DING DING*
Hint 1: As soon as a machine is compromised, there can be *anything* installed in *any* way possible, and just missing one single thing will leave the machine vulnerable. So it's futile anyway. Swallow your geek pride and go pro. This brings me to
Hint 2: Booting off an Ubuntu CD, copying user data to an external drive or some online server and reinstalling Windows is the quickest way, and the only one to be sure anyway (see hint 1). If the user doesn't have that much data, it will be accomplished in less than 1 hour. Bonus points for making an image of the machine to use later for even quicker recovery. If you're cheap, you can just boot that Ubuntu CD again and do a simple dd piped to ssh and there's your image.
Of course, if your friends aren't gamers, but of the e-mail/Office/browsing type, just installing Ubuntu will go a much longer way. Nowadays it's friendly enough really, and they usually already know Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice etc. I just show them Ubuntu for five minutes and ask them whether they want Windows or Ubuntu (and that it's perfectly okay to want Windows). I haven't had a single person choose Windows. The machines running out of the box with the live CD without having to hunt down drivers and installing stuff helped a lot, of course (the live CD even autoinstalls the printer). Put a shell script onto the desktop called "Let [your name] fix the computer" that phones home to your ssh server and gives you secure remote access without having to poke holes into their network. Voilà. C'est formidable.
That said, a fresh Windows install with MSE will do just fine, if that's what they need. But stop toying around and complaining. Really. Reinstall, make an image, be done with it.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
Agreed. As an IT pro, I have been asked by family members and friends to "fix" their virus-ridden computers for years. Three years ago, I made the announcement. "I will fix your computer for $75.00 an hour OR I will install Linux and give you a virtual Windows environment in Linux for free." The screams of outrage could be heard for miles. I stated at the time that the lingering insecurity of MS systems should have a MS supplied built-in solution. This goes a long way to do that. Maybe now, I won't have to remote into Uncle Bill's computer and install it for him. He wouldn't know a legitimate download site from a goat porn, flash-infected cesspool. As much as it grieves me to say so, MS got this one right. About time.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.