Microsoft has confirmed plans to bundle anti-spyware protection into Windows Vista, a move that is sure to raise eyebrows among competitors and possibly antitrust regulators. “The core Windows AntiSpyware functionality gets built in,” said Greg Sullivan, lead Windows product manager. “For unmanaged environments, home and small business users, we want to provide base-level security services.”
Many disagree with my POV here, but I say, good for them. You can always install something else if you desire, and having something like this installed by default is better than having nothing at all.
The fundamental problem is that most users will not seek other applications. How many users will search for:
1) New browser
2) New text editor
3) Firewall
When Microsoft bundles software into their product; it gives users no incentive to search for another product; because they already bought it. MS is using their monopoly power to extend themselves into other facets of the industry.
So, if/when MS starts to incoporate RAV Anti-Virus software into Vista; do you think many users will go out and buy:
Norton AV, McAfee, et al?
This will affect the competition in various markets and reduce consumer choice in said products. Sorry, I have to disagree.
“The fundamental problem is that most users will not seek other applications.”
Which IMO only reenforces my argument. Having something installed by default, is better than having nothing.
“Sorry, I have to disagree.”
Well that’s fantastic. But niether of our opinions mean squat, as Microsoft is going to be adding this software anyway.
“Well that’s fantastic. But niether of our opinions mean squat, as Microsoft is going to be adding this software anyway.”
opinions matter! voices matter!
change does not come without these.
So you think a company shouldn’t be allowed to fix its own mistakes for free as it hurts the competition?
If Apple sells iPods with broken screens, shouldn’t they be allowed to fix them for free, even if it means that the repair companies lose income because of that?
This goes back to the tying argument during the DOJ trial.
Microsoft won the browser war for 4 reasons:
1) Placing Internet Explorer on the Desktop in front of th user as default.
2) Tying Internet Explorer to the OS tightly enough so that it can’t be removed.
3)Fostering exclusive leverage agreements with PC manufacturers, effectively cutting out any competitors.
4) Providing no access to Windows source code so that other developers could develop equivalent products.
It appears they’re starting the process over again.
Hate it all you want……..and this isn’t going to be popular.
Microsoft won the browser war for 1 reason:
For a very LONG time they had the best product.
The same applies to Office suites.
They won because they violated the trust-case from 1994.
Word is better than WordPerfect or FrameMaker?
Since when?
Also, while IE became better than Netscape, it certainly isn’t better than FireFox these days, and yet you see how hard it is for Firefox (or Opera) to make headway against a bundled IE.
If an application is bundled, a segment of the market for that type of product becomes unavailable to all other competitors.
This isn’t a matter of Microsoft fixing their product. This is as if a company sold an mp3 player where the battery cover kept falling off, and instead of fixing it, they include some duct tape.
So why would they change from what they have already to Microsoft’s A/V? If it’s working so well for them, why would they leave it?
Maybe because:
1.) It’s overpriced (A/V is not worth a $40 subscription)
2.) It bugs you about buying more of their products.
3.) It’s difficult to configure
4.) It’s nearly impossible to get it to actually shut off.
5.) It’s slow (it literally quadruples program load times, even if it’s scanned that binary since it’s mtime)
I say bravo. I hope that McCafee and Norton both learn a lesson: You can only treat your customers like crap for so long. You have to sometimes at least pretend you give a rip.
I see this as Microsoft’s right. All they have to do to not make me advocate their beheading over this is:
1.) Make it fully, and easily, uninstallable in the same manner as any other application.
2.) Sell any subscriptions at a reasonable cost, without lying (3 months free! -begin fine print-Then we hike the price up to $60!-end fine print-).
3.) Do not make it accessible from shared libraries. If people write code to use it, it once again becomes a required part of their OS.
Of course, they’re gonna break 1 and 3. And once Norton and McCafee die off, they’ll break 2; but I’ll not condemn them until they do something that’s really monopolistic.
Just having a 100% market share does not, does not, make a monopoly.
Treating security like a feature.
Security is a process, not a feature.
The mindset is idiotic. “sure, we’ll just produce swiss cheese then fix the problems *AFTERWARDS*”
Instead of “let’s produce quality code that won’t let this stuff get in the doors *IN THE FIRST PLACE*”
Proactive security is worlds better than reactive security. Too bad MS doesn’t understand this.
They deserve to lose marketshare to linux and apple.
Consider this …
Spyware has nothing to do with OS security. Absolutely nothing. Do you know how 99% of spyware makes its way onto a Windows box? Internet Explorer.
What Microsoft should do is dramatically improve IE’s security — which they are doing with Vista. Whether or not it will pay off remains to be seen.
Keeping a Windows box in top-notch shape is much easier than most of you Linux trolls think:
1. Firewall. Hardware, software … whatever. A simple NAT router is enough.
2. Windows Updates — manual, automatic … whatever. If you fall behind on your updating by two months, then get owned, it’s your own fault. No OS is immune to critical updates. Not Linux, not OS X, not Solaris. Deal with it.
3. Smart usage. Don’t accept .EXE files from people on MSN. Don’t try to play “music” that comes in a .EXE file. Don’t run britneyspearsnude.jpg.gif.exe.
That’s it. Both my family and my girlfriend have been completely spyware-free for three years because of these simple steps. I put them on a Linksys router, enabled Automatic Updates, and explained to them the simple decision-making process one has to go through to roughly determine the safety of a file.
Keeping a Windows box in top-notch shape is much easier than most of you Linux trolls think:
Well, keeping the nasties out is easy. Keeping Windows from deteriorating in performance and stability is something I haven’t been able to achieve after using Windows for many years.
GNU/Linux is as easy to update as Windows and it doesn’t mysteriously blow up after 4 months of use, waiting for a reinstall…
Windows mysteriously blows up after 4 months of use? Really? I better go inform my parents, my brother, my girlfriend, and my girlfriend’s mom — all of which have had their XP installations active and working well for well over a year and a half.
Lame attempt at a troll, but thanks for trying.
Keeping a Windows box in top-notch shape is much easier than most of you Linux trolls think:
1. Firewall. Hardware, software … whatever. A simple NAT router is enough.
are you trying to be serious ?
almost all spyware gets installed by the user blindly clicking on adverts like, “add smileys to your email”, or” desktop wallpapers to download”. Once the spyware gets installed, it just uses the same open ports on Windows that browsers do, so it will remain undetected.
try a test,
open a search engine and type “emulator page”
did commercial sites come up first ?
Half of the infections that make their way to a dumb user’s system could probably be eliminated merely by not using IE. The other half … well, forget about knocking — these people are literally POUNDING on Hell’s door. Someone is damned sure to open up eventually.
There’s basically nothing that MS can do to prevent self-inflicted, deliberate spyware infections, short of limiting the infection to a single user account (coming in Vista).
“2. Windows Updates — manual, automatic … whatever. If you fall behind on your updating by two months, then get owned, it’s your own fault. No OS is immune to critical updates. Not Linux, not OS X, not Solaris. Deal with it.”
Windows Update is nonsense, I’ve never used it. Just make sure to remove IE as soon as you get your new PC and never use Outlook Express. Got Windows ME running in this fashion for 4 years without problems.
1.) On by default on all SP2 machines.
2.) On by default on all SP2 machines, even reminds you to reboot!
3.) Off by default, seeing an extension by default on Explorer requires a special option in preferences. Yes, it should appear with a different icon, and that’s the users fault for not noticing it. But if you ask me, the real problem is lack of education there, people don’t know the difference between an exe and a jpg: This is necessary knowledge to use a computer, at all. You won’t see me driving a car without at least knowing the difference between a stick shift and automatic!
Ya know. My dad almost never gets spyware/adware/virus’s. He’s no expert on using a PC, if it still rean MS-DOS, he’d know his way around, but he’s lost on this internet thing. He even uses Outlook Express: The most insecure thing on a Windows desktop!
But I’ve met people who know what they’re doing and can’t hardly get the spyware to stay away. I think a lot of it depends on how much pr0n you browse with IE
. I really believe it depends a lot on your usage pattern.
You’ll notice that people who make heavy use of P2P programs to pirate software and look at pr0n will have the largest number of virus’s on their machine… I’ve seen machines (old ones, 400 PII range, running Win98) so dogged down with adware that you have to wait, literally, an hour after booting it before the mouse will move! Guess what we find on those sort of machines
.
>>You’ll notice that people who make heavy use of P2P programs to pirate software and look at pr0n will have the largest number of virus’s on their machine…
Your experience is very limited. At work we have two machines that are constantly infected with spyware. Porn is never on those machines. (I know I checked) . I can’t keep spyware off of those machines. The same three ones pop back faster than I can delete them.
My Windows ME box at home needs to be reinstalled annually(more or less) It’s never had a virus or antivirus or spyware crap on it. Of course it has a software firewall and a hardware firewall, and IE gets nuked seconds after i install the OS.
So If you can’t use the default programs MSFT installs because they are insecure who is to say that virus writers won’t find a simply way around MSFT anti virus? it wouldn’t be the first MSFTY installed a back door for themselves and everyone else noticed it was open.
I agree with the point that the usage pattern is lot a cause for the intrusion by spyware/adware. Most of them are linked to porn/pirated software sites and the free stuff sites. Atleast people who stay away from these are not dogged down by them. Anyway, I would prefer to have an OS that is resistant to these attacks or atleast do something to reduce the impact surface. MS should take it a priority to do this first and secure the base system from going down. Then we would not require any anti-spyware. Till then let MS protect its users by providing anti-spyware software.
————Spyware has nothing to do with OS security. Absolutely nothing. Do you know how 99% of spyware makes its way onto a Windows box? Internet Explorer.———–
ROFL, sure buddy. IE isn’t uninstallable from XP. Even in the later versions of windows(pre xp) it’s still there as part of the OS.
That’s why you can get IE page script errors in MS office. ROFL
————What Microsoft should do is dramatically improve IE’s security————-
Bingo. Being as they’ve integrated IE with the OS as far as they have, it’s the same thing essentially.
IE is no longer it’s own application. Hasn’t been for quite some time now.
———–which they are doing with Vista.———-
……….many broken promises later.
————Keeping a Windows box in top-notch shape is much easier than most of you Linux trolls think———-
Why even go that far? Just use something that actually works right out of the box. All I need to know is my productivity apps.
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/2033216
Yes, Windows CAN BE secured. It’s not easy, though, and involves quite a bit of work (unless you have a good set of custom tools and know your environment).
(Note: The reason why you were modded down is that people who do know security (even a modest amount) do not want your misguided advice to be take seriously by folks who don’t know security at all. The issues involved are much more complex.)
Lose the attitude buddy. I am sick of seeing these comments over and over again. While the points you raise would work in ideal situations, you are complaining about what is found in hindsight. They didnt go to the way they are willingly. There is not a developer mindset at microsoft saying, lets shit out code and see how much of it sticks. The amount of quality stuff that comes from microsoft is astounding, and I would REALLY like to see you get up off your ass and do 1/1000th of what the company has pulled off. This wasnt done on purpose, other factors pushed them into this situation, and they are doing the best they can to make an operating system “better” and make a profit at the same time. Hats off to ms, especially since you bitch and whine at them, yet use their products all the time, and depend on them.
Dittoooo
I don’t depend on MS. I moved off their crap years ago.
Apple and linux provide me with everything I could want, an all I need is a software firewall running.
MSFT has great engineers keeping together a rotting wooden damn. Sooner or later the whole thing is going t break and no matter how many great engineers you have will stop it.
The number #1 easy way to illegally access Windows boxes is through ActiveX a cheap rip off of javascript. Security was never thought of when it was created.
.Net is a Java ripoff. IE enhanced HTML is another poor rip off. MS XML is MSFT going after yet another market by dominating it with force.
MSFT wants to control everything. They fail ALL software standards compilance testing. They can’t even support their own formats from 8 years ago.
Well, you’re right. The trouble with IE is that it’s 5 years old. It still has small bugs from 5 years ago, which means they certainly haven’t been looking to fix anything they didn’t *have* to.
And with Windows, there are some legacy mistakes they’ve made that they’ve yet to fix. I don’t think that’s because the code is bad as much as the design is bad.
Also, asking someone to so a thousandth the work of a group of over 3,000 people is a big difficult
.
———Lose the attitude buddy.———
Just telling it like it is. That’s the problem though, the truth hurts so it comes off as if it’s attitude. But it really isn’t.
———-I am sick of seeing these comments over and over again.————
I’m sick of seeing them too.(and typing one every now and then) But until MS actually fixes this the right way you’re gonna keep on seeing it.
It’s the classic “if you build it they will come” scenario. They built swiss cheese, and here it comes.
—————-especially since you bitch and whine at them, yet use their products all the time, and depend on them.————
Nope. I don’t use them at all. Only at work and other places where it’s beyond my control.
Lose the attitude buddy. I am sick of seeing these comments over and over again.
Maybe you need to ask yourself why so many experienced people seem to have a fairly negative view of Microsoft’s products, design approaches, and business methods.
Hint: such conclusions are typically not arrived at in a random manner, or overnight, but are the results of many years of interaction with the company, its products, and the many (often superior) competing products that it has displaced.
I am experienced and I don’t have a negative view of Microsoft’s products and design. Business methods, yeah a bit. But I judge each product based on how good it is alone, not on their other products or my opinion of the company.
There are also tons and tons of experienced Windows user that still like and use it. Oh wait, they’re just Microsoft fanboys that drink the kool-aid, right? But those who use linux are free thinkers…
Microsoft is actually working on security from the ground up. With the amount of money they have and the talent they employ there is no reason for them not too.
spyware is less a OS issue and more a unknowledgable user issue. Any OS is vurnerable to the installation of spyware.
Microsoft also realises that the user market thinks of security as having “Anti-virus and anti-spyware”, mostly anti-virus software producing companies are to blame for this. Microsoft is in this business to make money, so including extra useless software in their OS is great for sales.
– Jesse McNelis
———–Microsoft is actually working on security from the ground up. With the amount of money they have and the talent they employ there is no reason for them not too.—————-
After all these years? Besides, “microsoft *now* is working on security” is de-ja vu.
Besides, look at what they’re doing. It’s obvious they are not really looking at the security itself. They are looking at ways to turn it into a feature.
I agree 100%.
Very unpopular opinion, though, with the ‘security is a patch’ folks!
(Not that MS will loose much market share, though they do deserve some punishment for such amazing abuse of customers and sysadmins everywhere.)
They will. Linux isn’t going to be a wham bam the way firefox was. It’s gonna be a slow creep. The Mac is no longer #2 OS.
I seem to hear again and again that *nix is more robust against malware by default. Now Windows tries, too. What’s the difference?
– That AntiSpyware could be shipped as a standalone program? Well, so could *nix’s filesystem, memory manager, and process manager, the main sources of security against malware. Minix shows how to do it.
– That MS is a monopoly? Then, why stop at AntiSpyware? Why not force them to strip the OS down to the bootloader, to allow competitors to enter the market at any level.
Can anyone give me a hint?
– Morin
Here’s a hint…
Don’t ask vauge, loaded questions regarding a complex issue.
Do your own homework.
google.com
Sure, it’s fine and dandy that you have the choice to not use the MS anti virus / spyware software, but can you actually completely erase it from your HD? Hopefully you can, other wise you’ll be left with crap code that isn’t being used. I hope they don’t just remove a link to it, lol like they did with outlook / IE.
All this just adds up to too much bloat for an OS.
Mike
I haven’t had a virus scan installed in years. Just put the PC behind a hardware firewall, don’t download questionable software, don’t use IE (or use it but disable ActiveX) and install latest windows updates.
It is much easier to prevent viruses and spyware from entering the system than trying to removing them afterwards. The perfomance is better too without the antivirus running.
How about:
1) Disable
2) How about un-install it.
Let me reiterate this for you:
You cannot remove Trident from Microsoft Windows without breaking a horde of other programs.
Once again, in case you missed it:
You cannot remove Trident from Microsoft Windows without breaking a horde of other programs.
All the uninstall does, is disable the program which uses Trident to render web pages, I don’t believe it even removes it. I *think* you can actually still run it by opening “My Computer” and punching in a web address.
right. thats why you can leave the rendering engine (trident or whatever) and just remove IE and outlook.. that way programs like “add/remove programs” an what not dont break.
My XP system has been running like this for ages. I use opera 8 as my browser..
I’m sure it will run as a Windows service, which you can disable.
I quote from the article:
“It’s not about the cost of the software, it’s about how you take your expertise to people. […] Cost is not the barrier here — expertise is”.
That, in itself said a lot: Open Source needs badly advocacy, promotion and PR in a concerted manner. It’s on the right track but it needs to accelerate!
For the moment, the apparent explosion of versions, distributions and softs could scare unaware people away. Also there needs to be a better organized technical support for the Free Software.
MS thinks it owns the software market of the black continent; what if it does not own it? The same stands for the rest of the world …
This is typical MS. Just keep adding more and more “free” software to Windows and watch the competition go to the wall or at least struggle.
Personally I still won’t trust my web browsing/email/etc/etc and now security to their sub par (don’t hold you breath waiting for the fix) software.
Vista, now with protection against Spyware*
*Except Claria and Gator.
“Microsoft won the browser war for 1 reason:
For a very LONG time they had the best product”
Actually, they started with the worst product. I used to be an avid netscape user, as Internet Explorer did not support plug-ins, and was really ugly IMO when they first started shipping it. What made them win the browser war was the fact that once they fixed that, in IE 3, maybe 4, can’t remember for sure, they also made the plug-ins available for free. For Netscape the plug-ins cost anywhere from $10-$30. Personally, if I would have been able to get the plug-ins for free, I would have stayed with Netscape oh those many years ago. That is the main concern for a home user. Why should I have spent good money to enjoy web sites the way the author of them intended, when I could use the same items for free?
This is all IMHO.
*yawns* and goes back to his 16 year virus/spyware/adware absoutely cool platform.
I have trouble understanding why developers who produce consumer applications for Windows doesn’t move elsewhere.
MS can put them off the market so easily whenever they wish for.
That would worry me a lot if I was in their situation.
A company that provides a platform and encourages people to develop commersial applications for that platform should be very careful about these kind on things.
It would have been one thing if MS corrected their mistakes early in the game. But if they choose to ignore the issues other companies will develop a solution and start make a living off it. Then MS realise after many years that they can provide pre-installed solutions for these issues. Making those other companies go out of business.
Fix the problems before other people get a chance to. Or at least give them a nice share of your money before you put them out of business.
I sure wouldn’t want to make my living as a Windows application developer.
Once again, MS is putting bandaids on problems rather than solving them. Unfortunately, a lot of idiots will continue to fork over their hard-earned cash for this nonsense.
Microsoft has alot of faithful kool-aid drinkers it can rely on as a support base.
Another acceptable answer would have been “I’m a troll”.
Once people start talking about needing hardware to stave off the malware, you know that’s a bad sign.
But let a distro like Suse have a massive work force the size of the Windows division working on it and you would see what an OS should be like. Instead you’ve got all features and hardly any security in Windows at the behest of the higher ups because that’s the priority at MS. Funny thing is those features aren’t that impressive to warrant that limited security. And here they are confirming what we already knew for so long…that the need to implant anti-spyware software in Vista to do better than they did with XP.
All you MS apologists need to find a new hobby. MS doesn’t need you when they have other mindless mouthpieces like Balmer around.
there wasd a spate of articles along this line. Most of the linux users seemed to feel that it was microsofts job/duty to try to prevent spyware/viruses and such. while most of the windows users said the second they did every one would cry monopoly.
hey wow.
Someone said that security is a process.
Well guess what? This is part of the process. It’s not like they’re not doing anything else to prevent spyware with Vista. They are. But there are still users that use p2p software and download then run britneyspears_nude.jpg.exe and get infected.
Microsoft is now adding another layer of security, because no OS can be perfect. Idiot users will still find a way to infect their machine. So now they have another thing to help stop these infections, for no cost.
So should users be denied that extra layer of security so some company can make money? No.
So should users be denied that extra layer of security so some company can make money? No.
Certainly not. I think that it’s good that MS is taking the issue seriously. I’m only questioning the timing.
This has been a known problem for a very long time yet MS has done nothing until now, allowing other companies to create a market based on the issue.
This has been happening way too many times now with various softwares and I simply don’t think it’s a good strategy for MS if they want to keep their developers who they speak so fondly of.
I don’t think the timing was intentional. It’s simply how things went about. The spyware issue became an issue in 2001/2002 and people started to realize it was very serious in 2002/2003.
Microsoft was, to be honest, a bit slow in reacting to these threats. And they’ve gotten TONS of deserved criticism for it. But now they are making an effort to fix it, and at some point, it’s time to move on from the constant criticism and let them make their effort to fix things, then judge that (we can’t yet, it’s not finished).
I see the more experienced Windows users always saying “you can disable it”, well it’s not as easy as that. Average joe dont know how to and I have goto go and fix all the spyware, popups on my uncles, computer tomorrow because it’s become unusable.
Fact is MSWindows shouldn’t be getting spyware in the first place, no one gets it in Linux. Vista is not going to fix the problem, access controls and being able to see whats in the .exe is the way to go. I know whats in my Linux packages and code, a Windows user has no clue what so ever. Vista gives the impression thats it’s like glass, you can see through it, not there playing mind games like never before.
Ask yourself…
Why does Windows need so many add-ons for security?
Ask yourself…
How come MacOS, Linux and UNIX do not?
Exactly.
Why should I continue using a product developed by some
company who treats security like a PR exercise?
Has anyone bothered to question why some of the
security issues aren’t even addressed for 6 months or
more?
Bundling anti-whatever software, adding a security
feature like buffer overflow protection, into an OS is
NOT solving the problem. This is like applying a
band-aid to a gunshot wound.
Solving the problem would involve an entire renovation
of Windows. That ain’t gonna happen. As that requires
effort from Microsoft.
And to top it off, the AntiSpyware definitions are
controlled by Microsoft! As if its hard to pay MS large
amounts of $$$$ to get off the list!
The fundamental problem is that most users will not seek other applications. How many users will search for:
1) New browser
2) New text editor
3) Firewall
==========
Ok, so maybe we need an open source solution to this? How about some wise guys make a script and bundle say, AVG Personal, Open Office, and Firefox and market it to users?
Why pay more? $40.00 for Antispyware? Here is Ad-aware personal. Pay for antivirus updates?? Here is AVG Personal. Afraid of web-based intrusions? Here is Firefox, safe, fast and secure. Don’t have $400 for MS Office? Here is Open Office, used by governments as the new standard in the US!
It’s all about marketing. It frustrates me to see the open source advocates just blathering on about x,y,z products, on techy only shows. Get MARKETING.
The more Freeware/Opensource that people use, the more competition and growth there will be. Then, as people get used to “free” as in speech and in beer, you’ll see them question buying Vista, or Orwellia, or whatever version of MS that comes next for some onerous price.
Now if we could only get Novell or Red Hat or better yet, Mandrake (I’ll never use that new, flaky name), to support some SERIOUS games porting/development for the platform. (And no, I don’t mean 3 year old titles running under emulation. Total conversions, that work online etc.)
My 2 Pfennigs.
“sure to raise eyebrows among competitors and possibly antitrust regulators”
The only sure thing here is that this writer is clueless. Come on this isn’t the latest media player or Web Browser, this is a security feature which shouldn’t be needed in the first place. Which is why I would welcome built-in anti-virus in windows since I wouldn’t need Norton slowing everything down and charging yearly subscriptions anymore.
Chasing the bull is a term used by marksmen for a shooter that is so fixated on the bulls eye that they hit everything but the bulls eye.
Microsoft is doing the same thing. They want so badly, the acceptance by the general public. They want the public to trust them and view MS as a security minded software company. Without this, they can not advance on other avenues of profit outside of the PC.
The problem is that they already have a secure OS now in XP if they would only step back and rethink things. They keep adding things to make their OS more secure rather than sticking to a basic OS that is truly secure. This is the reason why alternate OSes like Linux are gaining traction. They stick to a general OS and allow other development teams to create programs that plug into the overall OS. Some of these programs are the same thing, only from several different vendors, but that ensures that if a fault is found in one program, you can simply use another without sacrificing a lot. MS should encourage third party development rather than competing by integrating their own product, like Apple has done with OS X.
I have a XP machine that I literally took three hours to disable all the extra “features” through various different means. I then added a few third party apps to ensure safe use of my PC to include anti-spyware, firewall, and browser. Once I finally removed or disabled all those processes or programs and added my choice of products, I have a very fast, very stable OS that has not had any issues with spyware, viruses, or other exploits in over two years.
So MS continues to chase the bull by adding more programs, processes, and features to each new OS release in an effort to make it better than before. The only thing is does is give people a false sense of security, builds frustration in those that bought the hype and were let down later, provides more motivation to the FOSS movement, and drives the supporting software companies out of business because they can’t compete with free bundled apps.