Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

No Anti-Virus in Vista

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jan 30, 2006 03:48 PM
from the left-out-in-the-cold dept.
Microsoft Security
truthsearch writes "Microsoft will omit anti-virus protection in Vista, the next version of Windows. Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software. For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service."
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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.

No Anti-Virus in Vista 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Two possible reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RandoX (828285) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:50PM (#14601322)
    1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
    2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

    • Re:Two possible reasons (Score:5, Funny)

      by jurt1235 (834677) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:52PM (#14601356) Homepage
      3) Bigger profits!
    • Yes, those are the reasons likely, as they are allready in hot water for including things in the operating system and making more money with subscriptions is allways nice...

      The real question is however: How long until that thing bites them hard like the security problems they had with XP?

    • If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.

      • Re:Third possible reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Denyer (717613) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:44PM (#14601936)
        If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.

        It'll be interesting to watch... if there are periods during which their anti-virus defends against it, but patches don't, they'll be found to have acted in very bad faith.

    • Re:Two possible reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nbert (785663) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:02PM (#14601478) Homepage Journal
      4) Since everybody would have this software pre-installed only a virus being able to circumvent the protection would have any impact, resulting in even bigger problems if there is a bug in the antivirus software (no doubt about that IMO), because most of the users would rely on the protection coming with Vista, so it would spread even faster/further than anything we have seen before.

    • Damned if they do, Damned if they don't (Score:5, Insightful)

      by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:04PM (#14601493) Journal
      This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

      If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.

      Personally, I think it's good that they don't include it. If I decided I needed antivirus services--something that is generally in need of constant updates--I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this protection.

      As long as Microsoft doesn't start strong-arming these other companies ("Nice Windows license you have--it'd be a shame if something happened to it."), I don't have a problem with it. But it definitely should give our anti-trust monitors something to keep an eye on...

    • Re:Two possible reasons (Score:5, Funny)

      by muszek (882567) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:07PM (#14601526) Homepage
      5) Vista will be a secure OS, thus it will not need any protection ;)
    • I believe they will be selling a service. Glad to hear that they are not thinking of the customer's safety first. *sigh* So much for Trusted Computing.

      • Religion is blind. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:11PM (#14601564) Homepage
        This, of course, is the conspiracy theory de jur. But it seems more likely, in light of legal issues both at home and abroad, it's actually to avoid messy legal bullshit that would end up eating time and money. That they can also sell the same functionality as an additional service is just an added benefit.

        But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.

  • Sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jawtheshark (198669) * <slashdot.jawtheshark@com> on Monday January 30 2006, @03:50PM (#14601328) Homepage Journal
    We wouldn't like Norton to go broke, would we?
    It at least looks like competition. ;-)

  • Unspecified reasons? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rombuu (22914) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:51PM (#14601330)
    Unspecified Reasons? Like not wanting to get sued for bundling again? So the EU doesn't make them release a "Vista Version V without Antivirus Protection" that nobody really wants to buy anyway?

  • Antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dslauson (914147) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:51PM (#14601337) Journal
    It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.

  • Way to spin it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedyNO@SPAMtpno-co.org> on Monday January 30 2006, @03:52PM (#14601343) Homepage
    Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.

    Way to put a spin on that one. However, let's not forget MS is getting it's butt chewed off for monopolistic behavior in a few countries ( not that they have any danger of that in their home country ). If they were to include an AV as part of the base OS, AV companies would be lining up to take shots at MS.
    • I agree. While I do think that certain basic applications such as a web browser and media player should be bundled with any typical "PC" operating system these days, I think that adding antivirus would be going a little too far. Perhaps if there was more competition in the OS market it would be ok, but in this case it would just hinder antivirus competition.

      Selling an cantivirus application as an add-on is the way to go, and it looks like that's what they're doing. I still expect to see the other big ant

  • EU reasons? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cnettel (836611) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:53PM (#14601367)
    Ok, it's probably a bit stupid to connect the dots just because they occur together in time, but might this be a preventive move to avoid further troubles with the EU commission (and possibly the U.S. DoJ) for leveraging the existing semi-monopoly into related markets?

    Firewalls, media players and other stuff is generally included in distros and the other commercial desktop OS (MacOS X) now. AV isn't. Therefore, it could seem intrusive by MS to include it. (On the other hand, we are all quite aware why noone else NEEDS to bundle that.)

  • So? What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigBuckHunter (722855) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:54PM (#14601374)
    I'm not certain what the big deal is. Most OS vendors do not ship with an AV solution. I'm not certain I would want to have an AV solution integrated into the OS. Can anyone comment as to why MS 'would' integrate an AV solution?

    BBH
  • ... No anti-virus
    ... No new graphics engine
    ... No new filesystem architecture

    What, exactly are they upgrading??

    • Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)

      by luvirini (753157) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:58PM (#14601418)
      Pricing and DRM.

    • Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:46PM (#14601950)
      First of all, I don't know how you can call WVDDM + WPF + DCE 'not a new graphics engine'. New driver model, new GUI system, and a new window manager - seems new enough to me.

      Second, Vista has a number of big new features:
      - Brand new networking stack that is 100% IPv6 internally
      - New ACPI subsystem including a hybrid STR/STD support, faster suspend/resume, and a more robust mechanism for dealing with bad drivers
      - New audio subsystem with per-application mixing
      - UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access
      - Major memory manager tweaks
      - Kernel tweaks to improve streaming performance
      - New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies
      - 3D accelerated UI / window manager
      - New Media Center and Tablet PC features
      - Fast User Switching on AD Domains
      - Integrated AntiSpyware
      - Integrated indexing / search (ala Spotlight) including extensive metadata and tagging support
      - New Windows Media Player
      - New version of IE with CSS fixes, phishing filter, tabbed browsing, native XMLHTTP, freform resize (ala Opera), and many security enhancements
      - Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)
      - New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
      - New Windows Installer version
      - New printing system / PDF alternative (Metro)

      So, in response to your question, basically everything.

      • Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aaronl (43811) on Monday January 30 2006, @05:46PM (#14602544) Homepage
        There are a lot of changes coming along with Vista, but they aren't as startling as you imply. Many of the big features that MS is publisizing aren't a big thing, and many of the remaining will be made available to previous versions of Windows. After you take out all of that, there isn't a tremendous amount left. Worse yet, some of what is left won't see the types of benefit that MS is proposing (ie: account privs).

        - Brand new networking stack that is 100% IPv6 internally
        Might be useful, if people were using IPv6, or likely to do so any time soon.

        - New audio subsystem with per-application mixing
        Applications could do this today, but most just set the system mixers.

        - UAP support (not running as admin all the time) with automatic privelage elevation (with user approval) for installers and other programs that need admin access
        Could be nice, but users will just get used to typing in the password, so offers no real security. Doesn't fix all the broken apps out there that depend on improper permissions. Not useful in a corporate setting, and not used in a home setting.

        - Major memory manager tweaks
        This is an update, not a new feature

        - Kernel tweaks to improve streaming performance
        This is an update, not a new feature

        - New programming framework (WinFX) based on .NET 2.0, WPF, and a host of other new technologies
        Whee, *another* new framework. It will also be available on WinXP.

        - 3D accelerated UI / window manager
        Resource wasting

        - New Media Center and Tablet PC features
        Useless to a majority of users

        - Fast User Switching on AD Domains
        Useless to a majority of users

        - Integrated indexing / search (ala Spotlight) including extensive metadata and tagging support
        Available today, will be backported to WinXP

        - New Windows Media Player
        This does not need to be locked to the OS revision.

        - New version of IE with CSS fixes, phishing filter, tabbed browsing, native XMLHTTP, freform resize (ala Opera), and many security enhancements
        This does not need to be locked to the OS revision.

        - Support for auxiliry LCD displays (windows SideShow)
        Whee.

        - New, faster install system (no more text-mode 'copying files')
        Again, whee.

        - New Windows Installer version
        Will be available on other revisions of Windows

        - New printing system / PDF alternative (Metro)
        Whee some more.
          • Think of it slightly differently and you'll probably see my point. Home users won't care one way or the other; they certainly don't know anything about APIs. Business users won't be using Vista any time soon, and most of them don't care about APIs, just about applications. As a result of this, a lot of applications won't use the Vista specific functionality of WinFX, since most of the users won't have a copy for quite some time.

            You're right that I don't care about a lot of the features. As an occasional

  • And at Ford... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rumblin'rabbit (711865) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:56PM (#14601399) Journal
    The new Taurus will have seat belts only as part of the optional FE (Family Edition).

  • I know we hate M$ here... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by the computer guy nex (916959) on Monday January 30 2006, @03:56PM (#14601400)
    ...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.
    • If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place? I, for one, would be up in arms if a company took such an overtly-passive approach to the security of their software.

      It would be like parachute makers/packers offering body padding in case their parachutes malfunction. Yeah, maybe it'd work (), but it displays a distinct lack of confidence and effort with regards to the quality and reliability of their product.
  • Security does not have to come in the form of virus protection as the post has implied. This is a common misconception. BSD is considered a very secure OS, but it's not because it has a lot of virus protection software.

  • No Antivirus (Score:5, Funny)

    by db32 (862117) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:02PM (#14601473) Journal
    Why would they ship a product that is likely to erase their own .dlls? What if it removed IE?!

  • Charge for the cow... and for the milk. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JTorres176 (842422) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:06PM (#14601511) Homepage
    I know no OS is perfect, but why charge for a solution to end a problem that your OS causes in the first place? Hell, you have to be a "root" user to install anything on windows giving everything you install full permissions over the OS during installation of anything.

    • Make users able to install something in the C:\Documents and Settings\Foobar\ directory without affecting the entire system.
    • Take away user ability to affect the entire system. (such as connectivity/interfaces)
    • Allow a sudo type system to stop forcing people to sign in the system as admin every day.
    • Force the creation of at least one non-admin account for every day use during install.


    I know viruses/adware/spyware will still be able to be installed, but why not make it just a little bit harder. Hell, if a burglar wants to get in my house, he can kick the door in... that doesn't stop me from locking and bolting the door every night just to make it a little more inconvenient for Johnny Break-in to steal my stuff.

  • This Roffles My Waffles. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RoffleTheWaffle (916980) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:17PM (#14601623) Journal
    Okay, so first I'm going to have to choose between some seven versions of what amounts to a Mac-skinned Windows Server 2003... and then I'm going to have to pay to keep other people from screwing it up, when I can get FREE virus protection on my current XP box? Yeah, just keep piling on the upgrade costs. I LOVE IT.

    I don't think I'm going to be switching to Vista any time soon, that's for fucking sure.

  • Good news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buddyglass (925859) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:33PM (#14601795)

    I'm a big fan of maintaining a dividing line between operating system and applications. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft should be free to bundle their apps with their OS, but those apps shouldn't be integrated with the OS in such a way that they can't be easily removed (and replaced by competing products). That principle should apply to media players, mail clients, web browsers, anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. I would love to see Microsoft ship Microsoft-brand anti-spyware and anti-virus tools with Vista. I would hate to see them be as tightly integrated with the operating system as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player currently are.

  • This Just In... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BeatdownGeek (687929) on Monday January 30 2006, @04:33PM (#14601798) Homepage
    In other news, MS announced that the new operating system will now be renamed to Windows Vista Millenium Edition.

  • Probably for the best... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _Pablo (126574) on Monday January 30 2006, @05:03PM (#14602137)
    It's probably for the best for users that MS do not include their own AV for few reasons:

    o A diverse population of AV is better for stopping virus epidemics
    o MS need to concentrate on securing the OS itself and not rely on AV to cure the cold
    o Some AV vendors manage to write exploitable AV and MS could too

    It's probably for the best for MS if they do not include their own AV for a few reasons:

    o Bundling & Anti-Trust
    o Selling AV subscriptions

    So this news is only really negative for Viruses.

  • Great (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Monday January 30 2006, @05:18PM (#14602300) Journal
    Now, if Windows Vista runs slow all the time, it'll be because of viruses/malware, not because of virus protection.

  • Like paying extra to fix leaks in brand new roof (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Retired Replicant (668463) on Monday January 30 2006, @05:35PM (#14602461)
    How much incentive would your roofer have to build you a solid leak-proof roof, if he new he could get you to pay extra to fix leaks in your new roof?

  • This is taking the piss (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 99luftballon (838486) on Monday January 30 2006, @06:28PM (#14602848)
    Sooner or later Microsoft is going to have to admit that it isn't interested in doing antivirus. It deals in boxed product and proto-web services within a rigid framework. Antivirus is primarily a signature service system with a dollop of heuristic programming. It looks like it has bought a few companies, looked at the depth of the problem and decided not to bother. Vista is looking increasingly toothless.

  • Does Ford explicitly charge you for brakes? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gelfling (6534) on Monday January 30 2006, @07:27PM (#14603186) Homepage Journal
    Let me see if I get this right. Implement a bad design that's vulnerable. Force people (more or less) to upgrade to it. Toss normal ecnomic efficiencies out the window so that price never goes down. Then charge folks a premium for a bunch of extra tools meant to overcome the badly flawed design vulnerabilities?

    This is like car companies charging you for brakes or airlines charging a premium for not crashing.

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.