Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ships Antivirus For macOS as Windows Defender Becomes Microsoft Defender (arstechnica.com)
Microsoft is bringing its Windows Defender anti-malware application to macOS -- and more platforms in the future -- as it expands the reach of its Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) platform. From a report: To reflect the new cross-platform nature, the suite is also being renamed to Microsoft Defender ATP, with the individual clients being labelled "for Mac" or "for Windows." macOS malware is still something of a rarity, but it's not completely unheard of. Ransomware for the platform was found in 2016, and in-the-wild outbreaks of other malicious software continue to be found. Apple has integrated some malware protection into macOS, but we've heard from developers on the platform that Mac users aren't always very good at keeping their systems on the latest point release. Further reading: Microsoft launches previews of Windows Virtual Desktop and Defender ATP for Mac.
This is the height of arrogance. Microsoft's poor architecture is responsible for all the spam and viruses and e-waste in the world. They're the reason why everyone has to rely on Google rather than running their own SMTP. They created entire industries of fraud that have led much of the developing world into lives of crime.
Reminds me of Microsoft Visual Studio Code - lots of people at work raved about this app, but when I tried it on my MacBook its as full of telemetry as any Windows 10 app - no thanks! (Without Radio Silence to firewall outbound connections...) Since A/V normally has elevated permissions, and Microsoft's attitude about telemetry seems to be 'your computer and your data are ours and you can't do anything about it', how can we trust this?
Better welcome the anonymous TLA overlords and their M$ Defender APT.
I can't wait to be able to install security software from a company with as sterling a track record as Microsoft's on my servers!
Also, totally unrelated, today is World Down Syndrome Day, and I have a MCSE.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Since the Windows 10 data collection system doesn't run on Macs, is Microsoft using Microsoft Defender as a foot in the door to get data collection installed on Macs?
If would be ironic if someone found a way to use Defendwr to put viruses on a Mac.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
and a person that rhyms with "works" just turned over in his grave ...
No need to have MS "Telemetry" inserted into my pristine macOS in the guise of (unnecessary) "Anti-Malware protection".
Will it remove itself?
Maybe starting from scratch M$ can make something that doesn't steal 30% of my processor cycles like SEP. Turns my 2016 MBP at work into my home 2007 MBP. Thank science I don't need to run that kind of garbage at home.
"This is being sold as antivirus, but in reality it'll be a way for Microsoft to start gathering data on MacOS users..."
Microsoft has apparently abandoned the policy of making software that has only the stated goal. Microsoft does not describe updates accurately.
The result is that an update to "Microsoft Defender" can do anything Microsoft wants. An "update" can take control over your computer.
I recently ran Defender on a Windows 7 desktop computer. Immediately after weird things began happening. Is Microsoft trying to discourage the use of Windows 7?
In general all these early systems were so primitive and designed for single use
Yes, indeed. And weren't even network connected on any large scale, so not much targetted by malware.
Sneakernet was, for a long time, the only viable way for a virus to have an chance at replicating (until BBS were a thing).
The UNIX, VMS and other Mainframe OS's were just to system intensive to run on these early PC's to be affordable for a normal middle class family to own.
Yes, indeed. But on the other hand, those massive machine where multi-users, connected, and among the first to communicate across larger territories, once arpanet started existing.
Meaning that the knowledge about security, etc. did exist.
I wasn't relevant to apply it to Apple II computers or the first 8088-based IBM PC, but the knowledge did exist.
These Early PC OS's had a few commands, and mostly just populated RAM in its executable sections with the program code, and pointed the program counter to that location.
These all these early PC OS's are acceptable to viruses.
Again, I agree. These home machine were simple, and couldn't afford much in terms of security, and on the other hand, weren't much exposed to multi-users, networks, and menace (from anything else than sneakernet).
Now the MSDOS system because of the PC Compatible market, and with a legal loophole IBM had.
Still agree. MS-DOS getting popular was a fluke.
Mostly due to IBM designing an expensive machine (and slightly under-powered. Hey, you gotta protect your core business !) exclusively made out of common, off-the-shelf parts (gotta catchup after missing the micro-computer revolution). Giving a great opportunity to clone (anyone else could buy similar or better parts from the same metaphorical shelf) and make attempts at slightly better or cheaper alternatives.
Also IBM was a big brand, giving even more popularity to the platform.
And thus MS-DOS (and the BIOS underneath, be it IBM's original, or cloners' clean-room re-implementation's Phoenix) becoming a de facto standard.
Microsoft being already at that point marketing itself aggressively, of course were going to win (note that two other BASICs from your list were ALSO written by Microsoft: Apple's non-ROM/non-Integer BASIC is written by Microsoft (as opposed to the in-ROM Integer BASIC), Commodore's BASIC was single-licensed from Microsoft too). No matter which company took off, they were on board automatically.
Created a Generation of software build around MSDOS Compatibility Up to Windows ME. Because these OS's needed to be backwards compatible with older software, they kepts on hacking and tricking the DOS Environment to keep working.
That is the exact point where we start to disagree.
Microsoft systematically opted for the most lazy and fast fix-ups, because they wanted to concentrate more on marketing aggressiveness than on correctness.
e.g.: There was very little effort from either IBM or MS-DOS to standardize on anything but the few offerings of BIOS and DOS. To do anything but simple CLI software, you had to directly bang the hardware.
They could have worked together with various software developper to make something like standard libraries, etc.
Compare the situation with Mac OS which was much more reliant on API, AmigaOS which had strong API offering, etc.
The NT Kernel got rid of a lot of the DOS code, but still had limited compatibility, which still lead to security problems. But the problems moved from easy virus code, to problems with access and authentication, mainly because Multi-tasking, Multi-User OS's was a new thing for the home User, and the fact that software can run in the background without a UI is possible, making it a problem.
The problems were with mostly Microsoft trying to keep as much compatibility with older software than possible, b
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You do realize ms dos was an unlawful Rip-off of dr dos, right?
You're confusing the names.
Your mixing it up with Q-DOS, that's the thing that Microsoft ripped to quickly produce MS-DOS and license as PC-DOS to IBM.
DR-DOS is the earlya attempt at bringing multi-tasking to DOS, by Digital Research, the company making the *other* major OS back then i.e.: CP/M - the OS that inspired QDOS, and that Digital Research didn't manage to license to IBM.
QDOS and thus MS-DOS being close to CP/M was a big point for Microsoft. As said above CP/M was the major OS at the time, and having a very similar API meant that application developper could quickly writes port of their software for PC-DOS on the IBM PC.
DR-DOS also leverage the closeness: it's based on Concurrent DOS, which is based on CP/M-86 (which eventually added MS-DOS compatibility) and the whole CP/M family explored multi-tasking with MP/M-86 (including MP/M-86, direct predecessor of Concurrent DOS)).
Digital Research was a significant competitor to Microsoft, that's why Microsoft tried to crush them as much as possible.
(Including making the DOS-based Windows harder to run on DR-DOS)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's not like Apple has a stellar reputation for security.
It's all depending on your point of reference.
Today's subject is Microsoft.
Compared to the nightmare of security, bugs and telemetry that is Microsoft, Apple and any other vendor HAS a stellar reputation.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Avoid APK's work for security. It is close source shitware that has been proven to not provide any actual security but used over 14,000 lines of Pascal code to write a string sorter. Also why should one trust a prolific spammer with the security of their system.
If you RTFA and watched the marketing video, you would have noticed all the laptops with Tux penguins on them throughout. If I had to guess I'd say Linux is in scope and will follow the Mac version
So will Microsoft also port Windows viruses over to the Mac to give Microsoft Defender on macOS a reason to exist?
Maybe Microsoft will bring back the amazingly successful Internet Explorer for Mac. I cannot tell you about all the people who loved IE for Mac. That's because both of them are ashamed they liked it and don't want anyone to know who they are.