After a year in beta testing, Microsoft on Wednesday took the wraps off Windows Live OneCare, its all-in-one security and PC care subscription service. That package includes antivirus, anti-spyware and PC tuning and backup tools, along with free support for $49.95 USD per year.
You know, as much as I dislike MS, this could be a good thing. It seems to cover all of the bases, has some nice extras, is cheaper than the security suites from Symantec, McAfee, and Zone Labs, you won’t have buy new software every year to get new features, and it’s license covers up to three computers. It’s even possible that it will integrate better into the OS so that the latest patches won’t break it. It’s also interesting and Symantec and McAfee are suddenly coming out with similar offerings. Could it be that MS has done something innovative?
It’s been a long time since MS has done anything impressive but this looks pretty good (apart from the irony that they’re selling a service to protect you from the short-comings of their own product).
Would it be bad if I actually tried it out…?
Rather then selling it because they made such a insecure piece of crap OS.
Wahhhh.
Maybe you forgot about something called anti-trust lawsuits.
Microsoft bundles it for free, they get shit.
Microsoft sells it for relatively cheap, they get shit.
//You know, as much as I dislike MS, this could be a good thing.//
Ya gotta be kidding, right? MS make a shoddy, insecure OS that is easily compromised due to design flaws in the OS itself, charge people money for that rubbish, then have the gall to charge extra for “protection” software … a subscription no less … so that they get to charge over and over again, and you conclude it is a good thing?
Is this anything like bashing your head repeatedly against a brick wall … after a while it is better because you don’t have as much strength and can’t bash so hard, and your head is numb so it doesn’t hurt as much?
sappyvcv: //Wahhhh.
Maybe you forgot about something called anti-trust lawsuits.
Microsoft bundles it for free, they get shit.
Microsoft sells it for relatively cheap, they get shit.//
You are right, you know. Microsoft will get shit for offering shit, regardless if they offer it as expensive, cheap or for free.
What they SHOULD do is fix the OS in the first place, and abandon the architecture that still dates back to a single-user non-networked machine from 1995, and also abandon the incredibly bad ideas like ActiveX and co-mingling the web browser within the OS itself.
If any other manufacture in any other industry offerred a product as shoddy as Windows/IE, it would have to be recalled within a week. Microsoft gets to offer it again and again (95,98,ME,NT,2K,XP,Vista), every time claiming security has improved, and gullible users swallow it again and again. As a bargain Microsoft gets to sell bandaid fix-ups for its own shoddy product … and the bandaid fixups of course do nothing to fix the ugly festering ulcerating wound underneath.
What they SHOULD do is fix the OS in the first place,
Which they are trying to do. This is called insurance. Better to be safe than sorry.
and abandon the architecture that still dates back to a single-user non-networked machine from 1995,
You mean Windows NT? Um.. okay then.
and also abandon the incredibly bad ideas like ActiveX and co-mingling the web browser within the OS itself.
ActiveX was a bad idea, yes.
“Co-mingling” the browser and OS had little to do with the security woes.
//You mean Windows NT? Um.. okay then. //
The win32 API which is still supported (even in Vista) first appeared in Windows 95. There was also in that year (or perhaps the year before) a partly-successful backport of this API to windows 3.1.
//”Co-mingling” the browser and OS had little to do with the security woes.//
Au contraire, “Co-mingling” the browser and OS has a lot to do with the security woes. Ordinary people cannot rid the system of the IE browser (without going to a lot of trouble and some expense). If an ordinary non-tech person (such as my sister-in-law) avoids IE and uses Opera or firefox instead, then they are largely safe – but as soon as there is a reason to use IE once again the system is often compromised.
//Which they are trying to do. This is called insurance. Better to be safe than sorry.//
Here is a better solution (once-of fee of just $69.99) if you have a desperate need to run Windows applications and you want to avoid security issues:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6877604095.html
“Copy-on-write-snapshot mode, which can prevent changes to the user’s virtual disk from being saved, denying viruses and other malware the ability to corrupt the user’s virtual system disk.”
http://www.win4lin.com/
http://www.win4lin.com/content/view/64/125/
https://www.win4lin.biz/servlet/Detail?no=5
Enjoy.
Edited 2006-06-01 02:16
The win32 API which is still supported (even in Vista) first appeared in Windows 95. There was also in that year (or perhaps the year before) a partly-successful backport of this API to windows 3.1.
API != Architecture
Au contraire, “Co-mingling” the browser and OS has a lot to do with the security woes. Ordinary people cannot rid the system of the IE browser (without going to a lot of trouble and some expense). If an ordinary non-tech person (such as my sister-in-law) avoids IE and uses Opera or firefox instead, then they are largely safe – but as soon as there is a reason to use IE once again the system is often compromised.
But how. You’re just stating it as a fact and not providing any substance to back that up.
Here is a better solution (once-of fee of just $69.99) if you have a desperate need to run Windows applications and you want to avoid security issues:
No thanks. Windows security is improving and with a little know-how, you can keep yourself safe. I wouldn’t make myself suffer through using something like that.
//Windows security is improving//
No it isn’t. The number of active viruses, Windows vulnerabilities and “owned” or compromised Windows systems is growing every day.
//with a little know-how, you can keep yourself safe//
You’re just stating this as a fact and not providing any substance to back that up.
It does transpire that with a lot of care you can often keep a Windows system from being compromised for a reasonable period. Primarily you do this by avoiding any use of IE, Windows Media Player, Windows messenger or Outlook. That my friend is however a long way from “keep yourself safe”.
It would be far preferable if the system was hardened against intrusion in the first place, rather than this silly OneCare approach of trying to detect and remove compromises after they happened.
//I wouldn’t make myself suffer through using something like that.//
I showed you one way to get a hardened system that is resistent to viruses and malware yet can still run Windows applications at native speed. After all, you were the one that talked about “extra insurance” … I thought you might be sane enough to be interested. If however you call that “suffering” … well you could always leave out the Windows bits I suppose.
Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, as they say, but you can’t make it drink.
Edited 2006-06-01 04:48
Nice backhanded insults.
Maybe one day you’ll gain some common sense and trying to argue with you won’t be completely pointless.
//Nice backhanded insults. //
I think you must mean backhanded compliments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backhanded_compliment
//Maybe one day you’ll gain some common sense and trying to argue with you won’t be completely pointless.//
Who is the one with insufficient common sense to know the difference between an insult and a compliment? Hmmm?
It isn’t anything to do with me that makes you trying to argue a case for the things you are saying a pointless exercise. It is your arguement itself that makes it pointless.
Yes, backhanded compliments. I was a bit sick last night.
It does transpire that with a lot of care you can often keep a Windows system from being compromised for a reasonable period. Primarily you do this by avoiding any use of IE, Windows Media Player, Windows messenger or Outlook. That my friend is however a long way from “keep yourself safe”.
I’ll agree on IE but WMP, Messenger and outlook are hardly a problem these days. I use all three of them and I don’t have any viruses or malware on this machine.
It would be far preferable if the system was hardened against intrusion in the first place, rather than this silly OneCare approach of trying to detect and remove compromises after they happened.
Agreed. I could care less for Onecare.
//I’ll agree on IE but WMP, Messenger and outlook are hardly a problem these days. I use all three of them and I don’t have any viruses or malware on this machine. //
Perhaps.
WMP is mostly a way to get spyware and DRM on to a Windows system, rather than viruses. The fact that it might be “officially sanctioned” spyware and DRM software does not make it any the less malware from an end-user point of view, IMHO.
Messenger – is mostly a doorway to get trojans past unsuspecting end users, which is most of them I’m afraid. The primary problem here is the Windows end-user culture, which does not see any threat in running stuff from untrustworthy sources, until after they have been stung.
However – I have come across one “party trick” where someone was able to open the CD tray on a remote Windows machine when both barties were conversing via messenger. That suggests some level of remote access into another’s machine via messenger. This person tried his “party trick” with my daughter – but she was using gaim under Linux at the time instead of messenger so the trick didn’t work.
Outlook – does no longer seem to be a problem per se. They just dropped the ability to send nearly all types of attachments. Removed functionality rather than fix security. Talk about a wrong-end approach to solving a problem – it would have been far better to remove the scriptability features out of any attachment rather than just drop the ability to send them at all. And of course the best solution, once again, is to properly harden the whole system in the first place.
So I sort-of agree with what you are saying, but I still point out that WMP, Messenger and even Outlook can all still be vectors into a Windows system whose user is not tech-savvy.
Edited 2006-06-01 06:09
//Windows security is improving//
No it isn’t. The number of active viruses, Windows vulnerabilities and “owned” or compromised Windows systems is growing every day.
You are confusing growth with rate of growth.
The number of viruses increase, but pretty much all viruses are just using same holes over and over again.
Windows vulnerabilities are found every now and then, but not every day as you imply, and the important metric to keep track of is the growth rate. And just so you know, vulnerabilities are found regularly in ALL modern operating systems (whereby I mean the actual combined system of kernel and userland tools, and not only the kernel).
You are confusing growth with rate of growth.
Saints preserve us. So there are still a great deal of viruses and exploits, but because a lot of them have been used the growth of new viruses has slowed? Nice one Sherlock. That should make everyone feel better.
but pretty much all viruses are just using same holes over and over again.
Well yer. It’s so easy at times for virus writers to just use the same kind of exploit, but change it slightly to get around any patch Microsoft has made.
///but pretty much all viruses are just using same holes over and over again./
Well yer. It’s so easy at times for virus writers to just use the same kind of exploit, but change it slightly to get around any patch Microsoft has made.//
Which gets back to the main point. These “holes” are actually designed-in architectural elements of Windows. Things like the Win32 API and ActiveX. As long as Microsoft persists with compatibility in areas such as these, the security holes will remain, and with that also the ever-increasing number of viruses and other malware.
So, in the final analysis, it turns out that Windows security is not “getting better” at all, under any possible definition. Windows security will not “get better” until Windows abandons backward compatibility with the leagacy security holes in its design.
Edited 2006-06-01 10:54
API != Architecture
In the case of Windows it is. NT may well have been a pretty secure OS ‘in design’, but the accommodation of the Win32 system and various other parts of ‘Windows’ has contributed largely to a security nightmare.
But how. You’re just stating it as a fact and not providing any substance to back that up.
Oh please. Unless you’ve lived under a rock for the past ten years you would know this if you’ve ever used Windows. Provide us all with some evidence that what he’s saying isn’t true.
No thanks. Windows security is improving and with a little know-how, you can keep yourself safe. I wouldn’t make myself suffer through using something like that.
People are suffering now. So ‘Windows security is improving…..’ So it is a problem then?
In the case of Windows it is. NT may well have been a pretty secure OS ‘in design’, but the accommodation of the Win32 system and various other parts of ‘Windows’ has contributed largely to a security nightmare.
Uh, no. Just because it has “contributed largely to a security nightmare”, it doesn’t mean API == Architecture. That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
Oh please. Unless you’ve lived under a rock for the past ten years you would know this if you’ve ever used Windows. Provide us all with some evidence that what he’s saying isn’t true.
Nice. “Everyone knows its true, duh!” Still no substance.
People are suffering now. So ‘Windows security is improving…..’ So it is a problem then?
Yes, it is. Did I ever say it wasn’t?
Search google for +”win32 API” +”software architecture”
http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22win32+API%22+%…
Results 11 – 20 of about 9,510 for +”win32 API” +”software architecture”. (0.08 seconds)
Here is one that you might find interesting:
http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/17899
“Software Architecture Reflects Hardware Architecture
Software architecture usually reflects hardware architecture, and Windows is no exception. The big elements of a desktop computer are still screen, network and disk. In the past, Microsoft Windows bound all these elements together using the Win32 API, with GDI and NTFS acting as noteworthy sub-components. Of course, there have been many enhancements on that basic structure, like COM/DCOM and DirectX.”
Now excuse me if I have conflated some terms together incorrectly, as I am not a software engineer, but it sure reads to me like the Win32 API is part of the Windows software architecture.
//Nice. “Everyone knows its true, duh!” Still no substance. //
Searching Google for +”win32 API” +vulnerability
Results 1 – 10 of about 24,400 for +”win32 API” +”vulnerability”. (0.37 seconds)
Oh dear. No substance, hey?
Want me to post some of them?
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/117394
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/3922
Here is one that I like:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bVRFmxRa6_gJ:www.ece.cmu.edu/~…
Edited 2006-06-01 12:48
Wow, I can’t believe you’re using the # of google search results as your backup.
Now excuse me if I have conflated some terms together incorrectly, as I am not a software engineer, but it sure reads to me like the Win32 API is part of the Windows software architecture.
Win32 API is a piece of the architecture. There’s a big difference.
What do those links have to do with IE and the integration of it with the OS?
//Nice. “Everyone knows its true, duh!” Still no substance. //
Hey, while poking around, I found an article with a really nice title that you might like:
“Win32 API utterly and irredeemably broken”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/07/win32_api_utterly_and_irred…
Windows Vista maintains compatibility with the Win32 API, did you know? Perhaps I already mentioned that?
Don’t be daft. This has nothing to do with anti-trust! This is about a company making a piece of crap OS and then charging you extra for some software that polishes it up a bit.
It’s like buying a car and then having to pay extra for brakes.
Microsoft and their software suck.
Yes, actually it does. If they bundled it, it would bring up the anti-trust suit again.
Whose daft now?
AVG plus Windows firewall plus Spybot search & destroy plus Firefox is all you need to get a good security. Why spend money?
Windows XP x64 users are out of luck, again.
Yes, out of luck of having to pay MS for a questionable quality “protection” service. Why I say questionable ? Well, if they had a strong history in secure software and/or security/protection/etc., I wouldn’t say that. And there are plenty of good (many free) solutions out there which do (to some extent).
I’d have more faith in Linux claims that it is more secure than Windows if they didn’t bundle a firewall with every copy. Doesn’t that imply they don’t think its very secure?
//I’d have more faith in Linux claims that it is more secure than Windows if they didn’t bundle a firewall with every copy.//
Don’t rely on anyone’s claims at all.
Just count up the number of compromised systems out there, and the number of “live malware threats” that target each system. That will tell you which is the most vulnerable and most easily targeted system. It will tell you with objectivity … don’t take anyone’s word.
BTW, they bundle a firewall with Windows too, you know.
//Doesn’t that imply they don’t think its very secure?//
My Linux distribution has a firewall installed but not activated. It doesn’t normally run, unless you want it to and configure it to do so. I have run this system (using different versions of Linux) with no active firewall and no virus or spyware scanner for about five years and never had a single, soliatry intrusion or piece of malware ever.
After running her Windows system on the internet with firefox for over a year without much trouble after I had set it up, a few weeks ago my sister-in-law changed ISPs, and the installer person for the new ISP deleted firefox from her system, so that she had to revert to using IE (on his recommendation). Within a week she has picked up at least one virus, and she tells me that her system has slowed down markedly.
What does all of that imply to you?
Edited 2006-06-01 05:14
If you’re not running any kind of AV or tripwire on your system….how do you KNOW that you’ve never been compromised??
Geez, ok, I know we all have to start from somewhere, but… whatever.
Point is, if there is a firewall in every Linux and co., that doesn’t mean the OS is less secure. It means the use of firewalls has been a natural way of networking culture in decent OSes, where people won’t even think about allowing ports to be accessed from non-local nets if that port doesn’t explicitely need to be available for a _reason_. This does not show its weakness, but on the contrary, the strength that lies in the way it’s built and (should be) used. It shows a way of thinking that most Windows users simply lack, to the point where they think the need for a firewall shows architectural weakness.
These kind of arguments make no sense whatsoever.
You are attacking linux distributions for being proactive about their security?
And furthermore, iptables, the “firewall” bundled with all modern linux distributions, is not merely a firewall. It is a whole kind-of, user-controllable network stack. Iptables can be used to make your computer into a router, gateway, implement sneaky port-knocking techniques and things like that. And all that without any overhead, because it is really a feature of the linux kernel. As such your point is really invalid.
“free support for $49.95 USD per year”
It’s MS alright
Note: it’s not the service, it’s the phrase itself 
It seems as though this is a good way for MS to get its customers into a subscription based licensing model (as they do with their corporate clients). Presumably it won’t be too long before people will be signing up to a monthly charge to use Microsoft’s other products, insuring Microsoft an even steadier revenue stream.
just how secure this service truly is.
With Microsoft’s history of security problems I have a credibility issue with them.
Not to sound like a wise-guy, but this seems like the fox asking the farmer if he’ll pay him to keep the chickens safe. And then the fox seems shocked and wonders why the farmer wants to hit him with a shovel.
Just that one, little issue……..
sign me up! here mr. gates here are my $49 dollars.