Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Launches Anti-Virus Public Beta

Posted by Zonk on Thu Dec 01, 2005 01:26 PM
from the test-out-them-patches dept.
Microsoft Software IT
Chris Gondek writes "The Register has a story reporting that Microsoft has released a free beta of its upcoming anti-virus application. According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'. Microsoft announced in May that it would be releasing an anti-virus application based on software developed by GeCad, a Romanian anti-virus company that Microsoft purchased several years ago." More details from InformationWeek.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft Launches Anti-Virus Public Beta 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Ripping off Google again (Score:5, Funny)

    by BushCheney08 (917605) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:28PM (#14158940)
    Sheesh, look at how many times the word 'beta' appears on that page. They're trying to out-beta Google...
    • I keep telling them they're in danger of giving rise to dom. [bell-labs.com]

    • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:4, Interesting)

      by moro_666 (414422) <kulminaator@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday December 01 2005, @02:22PM (#14159572) Homepage
      Beta ?

      don't know about you but if it comes to windows machines, microsoft and antivirus, the word beta just scares the shit out of me.

      i will still suggest some other antiviruses to my friends at least until this stuff becomes stable ... stable like "bash" stable and not like IE stable ... which can pretty much be never/ever ...

      • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Wellspring (111524) on Thursday December 01 2005, @02:38PM (#14159757)
        I agree with you, but not without reservations.

        Norton AntiVirus used to rule the market by virtue of being the undisputed best. I haven't looked at MacAfee in a while, but it's tempting me, and I can see why MS would see an opportunity here.

        It's like when MS announces that they intend to compete in a market that the current ruler gets covered in Stupid Juice. NAV has really gone down in quality in the past few versions. Whereas before it only prompted me when there was, you know, an actual virus to stop, Norton Internet Security is constantly pinging me for love and attention with status alerts and 'features' that aren't fully baked. It's annoying and has more bugs than I'm used to in a Symmantec product (still less than MS of course).

        I saw the same thing happen to Netscape and RealAudio. Their marketing droids start demanding more "brand awareness" and more bullet points for the product slicks, and suddenly the product's main feature-- quiet competence -- is lost.

        • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:4, Informative)

          by Cylix (55374) on Thursday December 01 2005, @03:17PM (#14160165) Homepage Journal
          I've been looking the underdogs for a while.

          I was running with AVG for a bit, but it's ability to repair infected files fell considerably short when compared to Norton. AVG was pretty much like taking a step back technology wise, but at least it was light weight.

          I started picking through several freely available AV products not too long ago and came across aVast.

          It has an excellent feature set and definately is on par with the big hitters in the industry. HTTP, POP, Imap, NNTP, ICQ, Outlook and Yahoo support. I think I missed some. It also features advanced file recovery.

          Anyhow, that sounds like an ad, but I was trying to spit out the feature set as quickly as possible. I missed more then a few things, but I'm not trying to write a review.

          My problem lately with the norton products is bloat and simply running dog ass slow even on newer computers. So, try aVast for a day (free for personal use) and see how you like it. (Sorry AVG, I can no longer pimp you, except where resources are very limited)

          • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:4, Insightful)

            by lgw (121541) on Thursday December 01 2005, @05:54PM (#14161767) Journal
            Norton corporate is pretty sweet, but the home version of Norton is bad.

            You know, I haven't had a problem with NAV/SAV for many years, and I've never understood the ranting. It occurs to me that I've always used the corporate version, however. You might be on to somehting here.

  • Its a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PlayfullyClever (934896) <playfull@playfullyclever.com> on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:28PM (#14158943) Homepage Journal
    IMHO, it's only a "good thing" from a relative standpoint. Sure, it's "good" that MS realizes spyware is enough of a problem that they decide to buy out someone who has already been working hard to solve the problem. (From a few recent comments I read over on ArsTechnica after they posted a spyware-testing article, Giant's product is supposedly quite good. In fact, arguably the best available right now, of the non-freeware spyware removers.)

    As the parent poster pointed out though, this stuff isn't even an issue for non-Windows users. I'm using my PowerMac G5 tower right now, and it's rather nice not to have to wait while my anti-virus package loads up (further cluttering up a crowded system tray), and then having to wait while the thing does its automatic updates every day or two. No spyware/malware worries either. Just boot up and go....

    I do PC on-site service calls for a living (Mac too, on the odd occasion we get them), and I can honestly say that virus/spyware issues generate the vast majority of my income right now. From that angle, I guess I should be happy there's such a big problem. But somehow I'm not... I often tell my customers about the Macintosh alternative (both the good and the bad), and at least 40% of the time or so, they decide it really sounds like it's "right up their alley" and they consider one for their next system purchase.

    Call me crazy or whatever... but after 14 years of working with computers, I just feel like it should be as enjoyable an experience for people as possible. Using as much as 30% of your CPU time running background tasks like firewalls, virus scanners and anti-spyware packages seems so unnecessary....

    • True but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie (31020) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:36PM (#14159042) Journal
      Should they have to pay for it? I think the only fair way to do this make it free for users. There is something very wrong about paying MS "protection" fees monthly or whatever to keep your OS "safe".

      Microsoft may claim that the reason they need to charge for it is that if they bundled it they would run into anti-trust issues. But when has that ever stopped them before? Make is free, integrate it into the OS, and take some responsibility for your poorly thought out security framework.

      • Nicely Put. I find it ironic that the consumer is supposed to pay for MS to block flaws inherent in it's security implementation overall. Will security updates eventually end up in this service?

      • Re:True but (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PlayfullyClever (934896) <playfull@playfullyclever.com> on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:45PM (#14159143) Homepage Journal
        some spyware installs with "legit" apps MOST seems to come in through the browser through one of the following:

        1: users clicking yes blindly
        2: users clicking yes becuase the system makes it extremely hard for them not to by overlapping windows or by reloading the page when they click cancel (yes i have seen this done)
        3: security holes

        while the spyware companies themselves may officially frown on the latter two there is no doubt that they are being used by less scrupulous sites on commission per install.

        another problem is that the antivirus companies won't treat spyware like trojans (possiblly because they are scared of legal issues). a good on access scanner should be able to prevent any known shitware (viruses trojans spyware etc) from being run in the first place.
        • The contractor, in most places, is required by law to replace the locks. Same thing if they do something stupid like putting all residential hinges on a commercial door. If they don't, they have to do it again. If they don't and the place is broken into as a result, they are civilly liable for damage caused.
    • Its good that they are helping out those who can't help themselves. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us who run windows, who DON'T run antivirus/antispyware, and do just fine. I am vehimently anti-anything on my gaming machine at home. If you are smart about your online habits you don't need antivirus/antispyware. If you aren't then you do. Platform doesn't matter.

      -everphilski-
      • A week ago, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. My win2k box is behind a NAT box, I use Firefox exclusively, I keep Windows up to date, and don't visit suspect sites. I rarely ran anti-spyware, because it simply didn't seem to be a problem. But then my wife mentioned that she got redirected to some oddball website when she reloaded an unrelated site, and the alarms went off in my head. A couple of spyware sweeps later, I cleaned up a dozen spyware/adware programs that had been lurking (for how
      • Apple and Linux are merely doging the bullet (for the most part) because they currently don't enjoy the same desktop marketshare that Windows enjoys. The day that changes, I promise that you will see disagreeable persons targeting us with "keylogger.jpg.sh" and "lovebug.sh"

        Writing malware requires fairly deep knowledge of the internals. It's not a case of having a "virus builder", based on the ubiquity of VB and Outlook.

        As it happens, on Linux, deep knowledge takes hard work to gather, and I dare say it tak

  • Own third-party programs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jotii (932365) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:28PM (#14158944) Homepage
    So, now Microsoft are releasing third-party programs themselves for fixing their own bugs? If they're trying to make us trust their OS, I can't see the point.

    • From the MS site: http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=b 78afccd-47f0-460e-b09b-33c2d53ac53b [live.com]

      "The beta version of Windows OneCare Live is free, though the final service will be a paid subscription."

      So now they make money off their own bugs. Genius!

    • Well, they're going to charge for subscriptions when they release it. Will you be any more or less comfortable knowing that these people will be "paid to care" as opposed to "volunteers"?

      Also, a anti-virus isn't technically a "bug fixer", it's more of an "after-the-fact bug-exploiter defender".

    • A large number of problems with viruses/spyware/etc involve the fact that users click on the wrong things, not an unpatched or poorly designed OS.

      No matter how secure the OS is, virus protection is still required to protect users from themselves.

      Not only that, OneCare (I'm using it right now) has a VERY slick backup thing, and it's very easy to use--almost good enough for grandma. It recognizes quicken files as "financial records," for instance.
    • Logically one would be incredibly stupid to rely on an anti-virus product from the same vendor as the OS, particularly when that vendor has so frequently identified issues reported to them as not critical or not a bug and then they are shown months later to be critical. However I have no doubt that the average Joe Public will embrace this new product. Particularly when PC builders and suppliers have to pre-load it to maintain their discounts on Microsoft products.
      • I believe he was implying that they don't take enough steps to secure the operating system. If a lock is faulty and someone breaks it and steals from a house, the locksmith can potentially be held (at least partially) responsible in a civil court, even though only the burglar would be criminally responsible.

  • Like taking your PC in for a tune up (Score:5, Funny)

    by Basehart (633304) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:29PM (#14158952)
    How would changing the oil and brake fluid on my PC make it more secure?
  • If I were Symantec, I'd be very very worried by this move. Syamantec should ask Netscape or Novell for the experience.

    By the way, what happened to the metro format that was supposed to rival Adobe's PDF?

    • Screw Symantec (Score:5, Insightful)

      by realmolo (574068) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:45PM (#14159144)
      Have you used their products in the last few years?

      Norton Anti-Virus: An incredibly bloated AV scanner that rarely can REMOVE any viruses, on the off-chance it actually detects them.

      Norton Internet Security: Includes the bloated AV scanner, and a Personal Firewall that regularly shits itself and screws up the whole TCP/IP stack. The only fix? Un-install Norton Internet Security.

      Ghost: A good program until Symantec bought it, now most of the features that made it useful are gone.

      Screw Symantec. They're actually WORSE than Microsoft when it comes to selling shitty software. Much worse.

      • Re:Screw Symantec (Score:5, Informative)

        by plover (150551) * on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:56PM (#14159258) Homepage Journal
        Agreed! Norton AV has been the single largest generator of BSODs I've encountered. While it's been mostly stable since XP, it's still a huge slow-ya-down pig.

        One thing I've done to improve performance is to restrict the files it looks at to executables (and some of the more annoying scripting languages.) I still let it perform a weekly full scan on everything, but I don't real-time examine every picture or MP3. Yes, I realize I might get bit by a JPEG-delivered-virus because I'm not scanning .JPGs. But using anti-virus software doesn't mean I immediately start downloading crap from every .ru address out there anyway. I'm still mostly careful, use Firefox, disable most plugins, and keep other stuff patched.

      • Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels that way about Symantec nowadays. I used to be a big Norton AV champion, and then one day they just kinda started to go downhill. I don't think I've seen a virus removed by Norton anytime in the past two years, just a warning that says it can't clean the file or quarantine it and a big "your system is infected" message. Now that you can't run AV scans with Norton in Safe Mode anymore, it's pretty much useless. It's always sad to see a good product turn to crap like

  • So what happens when... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedyNO@SPAMtpno-co.org> on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:31PM (#14158974) Homepage
    What happens when one of the major Movie studios implement some bullshit DRM tech that smells, looks and sounds like a virus? Will they take steps to treat it as such, or will their obvious conflict of interests prevent them from acting on it?

    They have a lot to prove before I even think about using this application.

    • Re:So what happens when... (Score:4, Funny)

      by JimmehAH (817552) <slashdot@j-a-h.co.uk> on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:37PM (#14159057) Homepage
      Both Microsoft AntiSpyware and the Malicious Software Removal Tool remove the Sony rootkit.

      Doesn't mean they'll continue too, though.
      • I hadn't heard this before (apparently been living under a rock).

        Googled and found Microsoft will wipe Sony's 'rootkit' [com.com]

        but it says (my emphasis)

        Microsoft will update its security tools to detect and remove part of the copy protection tools installed on PCs when some music CDs are played.

        as of the story on 11/13 -- have they made this update yet? What "part" of the rootkit does it remove?

        • Re:So what happens when... (Score:5, Informative)

          by plover (150551) * on Thursday December 01 2005, @02:07PM (#14159369) Homepage Journal
          It removes the "rootkit" but does not remove the DRM that the rootkit was installed to hide. The DRM is still there to restrict you to three copies. If you have their DRMware and want to get rid of it, go to sunncomm.com and click on their uninstaller.

    • Re:So what happens when... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plover (150551) * on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:48PM (#14159174) Homepage Journal
      That makes no sense. You're going to hold some vague high ground and not install this because it might allow Sony's DRM to be installed? Rather than protect yourself by eliminating 95% of the threats, you won't protect yourself at all? I don't get that attitude.

      All the anti-virus and anti-spyware makers have had to make some compromises. The most public recently was when Microsoft made some kind of an arrangement with Claria, and then with the next month's release of Microsoft's anti-spyware they had "downgraded" the default settings for Claria from "threat" to "ignore". But others, even the freeware ones like Spybot S&D, have been approached by spyware and adware vendors claiming "our product isn't spyware, we'll prove it however you want, just stop removing it." Some do get delisted, others make installer/uninstaller changes to get delisted, while others send threatening-looking legal letters (and some even launch DOS attacks.) It's not easy being in the anti-"anything" business.

      Besides, looking specifically to Sony and issues of DRM, keep in mind that Microsoft is firmly in bed with the [MP|RI]AA, and they're even bringing the vaseline. Vista is going to contain the concept of a "Protected Media Path" (PiMP) which means the PiMP won't play "protected" content if any non-blessed, non-DRM-enabled drivers are active on your computer. Sony won't have to install crapware DRM because Microsoft will have done it for them. And yes, that's just one reason I'm not going to switch to Vista.

    • Re:So what happens when... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geoffspear (692508) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:50PM (#14159193) Homepage
      "Obvious conflict of interest"?

      Did Microsoft become a movie studio when I wasn't looking, or do you just assume that any member of the class of "evil corporations hated by the average Slashdotter" is automatically in collusion with all of the other members?

    • --
      How do we sleep when our beds are burning?

      You don't sleep. You call 9-1-1.

  • How long ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crackerjack911 (49510) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:31PM (#14158979) Homepage
    until there is a vulnerability discovered to install a virus through the anti virus application?

  • sounds good... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HTL2001 (836298) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:32PM (#14158992)
    For most users, the only thing in the windows security alert that could not be fixed by simply turning something on was antivirus software. All the others (auto-update, firewall) were included and could just be activated. Now they have one for that last bit (not like I use thier versions of the stuff, and hate autoupdate, but its good for the _normal_ user).

  • How are you supposed to develop for Windows (Score:3, Interesting)

    by maelstrom (638) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:36PM (#14159039) Homepage Journal
    It seems any profitable application that gets developed on the Windows platform gets noticed by Microsoft and they immediately start buying up companies, releasing a free version, or making their own. They are trying to take out Adobe (Photoshop, PDF), Antivirus (McAffee, Norton, etc), they already killed Netscape, Office Suites, E-mail clients, and they are working on killing SQL servers.

    Why does anyone think it is a good idea to partner with Microsoft again?

  • Press Release: (Score:5, Funny)

    by jav1231 (539129) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:36PM (#14159048)
    "The company that invented software vulnerability has launched a new AntiVirus application. Microsoft executives say the new initiative, when combined with the relaxed security in such products as Office, Internet Explorer, IIS, and Outlook Express, allows the company's revenue streams to come full circle; making them both the cause-of and solution-to most of your computer's security problems."

  • Gave it a go. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Conor Turton (639827) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:36PM (#14159050)
    Put it on, gave it a try, took it off. Brought the system to a crawl and Firefox mysteriously stopped being able to get any data from the net even though the firewall showed it as allowed.

    It's OK for newbies as it also reminds them to backup and defrag too. Also it turns the Windows Firewall into a proper one.

    Think I'll stick with NOD32 though.

  • woohoo!
    i'll be beta testing 'carry my butt around in a brown paper bag 0.9' earlier in the week - maybe I can work this in before my appointment to beta test 'light my head on fire 0.2'.

  • Yeah. Great analogy there. (Score:5, Funny)

    by sammy baby (14909) on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:40PM (#14159088) Journal
    From the writeup:
    According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'.

    Yeah. Now there's a trip to the service station I'd like to see.

    "So, what kind of car is it?"

    "It's an '03 Nissan Maxima."

    "And... you say there's some kind of problem with the steering?"

    "Well, yeah. Actually, it ran great for about twelve minutes [sophos.com], then it seemed to just take on a life of its own and started trying to run other cars off the road."

    (pause)

    "I don't think it'll pass inspection like this."

  • So not only do people now have to pay a huge amount for Windows, but people will have to essentially pay for 'protection' from vulnerabilities built into their own product? Sounds like a regular racket to me. "Pay us or your OS gets it in the knees"
  • Maybe I could make a deal with Linus to toss some bugs into the kernel so that I can sell antivirus software. He'd get appropriate kickbacks of course.

  • Make everything free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Thursday December 01 2005, @01:45PM (#14159148)
    When your greatest competition is making effective and useful products for free, you will have to follow that same route. So when does google come out with its own free operating system?

  • a tune up --- from HELL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Thursday December 01 2005, @02:52PM (#14159894)
    yeah, right. it's nothing like when I take my car in for servicing:
    • I take my car in when I want, not every time I start it up, nor when a nagging yellow balloon suggest I do so.
    • My service guy fixes what I suggest they fix, not 2322 other things that were not really broken.
    • When I get the car back, there's always MORE things working better, not fewer thing working, and the rest working more slowly.
    • When I add the Barbie mudflaps, it doesnt break the neon underlighting.
    • On a car you unscrew a plug to drain the oil. On Windows, it screws you and their product plugs are definitely draining.
    • When I take my car in for repair, the guy never says "oh, you need to upgrade to the latest version first".
    • Servicing a car doesnt require you to install an installer to install the service.
    • When the guy is repairing my car, he doesnt constantly mumble "90 seconds more" when it's actually going to take another hour.
    • The car guy has never said he can't install a new muffler as my glove box is too small to hold the muffler.

  • Should be included with windows (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ichthus (72442) on Thursday December 01 2005, @03:43PM (#14160405) Homepage
    If Microsoft can make anti-virus and anti-spyware software to cover shortcomings in its own OS, shouldn't this be included as PART of the OS? They can make a great argument why file compression, web browsing, disk defragging and other utilities should be part of the OS. Why not this as well?

    (Before I get flamed because Microsoft is currently giving its BETA away for free, check the facts. They will most-likely charge a subscription fee for them later.)

    • I picture something more like Whack-a-Mole. There's a lot of (security) holes and moles (viruses) pop up in them, but OneCare is like a giant hammer that keeps missing (and maybe making more holes :)
    • I wouldn't trust an M$ application to report on M$ operating system and other flaws even if I were offered large sums of money to do so.

      It all depends on how large a sum of money. If they give me a check for say $2 million dollars, then no problem, Microsoft is the answer. Of course I would retire at the end of the week. :)

      A real fix would be for Microsoft to use this http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp [sun.com] or even this http://www.redhat.com/ [redhat.com]. Of course this would cut into their revenue stream

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.