Slashdot Log In
MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed May 31, 2006 10:47 PM
from the protection-money dept.
from the protection-money dept.
user24 writes "MSN reports that Microsoft 'is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better protection for the Windows operating system, which has been vulnerable to Internet attacks.
Windows Live OneCare will protect up to three computers for about 50 dollars a year.'
From the OneCare website: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, users can't be patched.
Parent
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:4, Funny)
There are Nicotine patches to stop smoking,
Birth Control patches for unwanted pregnancies,
so why not Microsoft patches to quit Windows?
Parent
Sure they can (Score:3, Funny)
Sure they can - I slap a Mac on 'em. Then they can't click on anything stupid because there is nothing to click on yet that causes harm.
Yes there could be - but it's hard to ignore the plain fact that there isn't.
Like all patches, it may not last forever but it does fix the immediate problem.
Re:Sure they can (Score:3, Funny)
Make it sufficiently profitable and that will change in a heartbeat. There have been exploitable problems in OS X, its not like it's impossible to do. Moving to OS X and staying an idiot user fixes nothing, it delays the inevitable for a bit.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:4, Funny)
Actually Windows Live OneCare comes withe a trained MS Goon that whacks you on the top of the head whenever you do something stupid. That's the "live" part.
I didn't quite get the "allowing you to have fun" bit though.
Parent
In my country (Score:5, Funny)
In my country, we patch them regularly.
- Vladimir
Parent
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:5, Insightful)
[sarcasm] Oh, yeah, right it's ALL the user's fault. And *nix allows remote users to make changes to your system without your knowledge or permission whenever you're online too. And let's not forget that ton of Unix viruses that have made the internet nearly impossible to use because all the servers keep failing. And of course, *nix also requires a whole bunch of third-party software to secure it as well. Oh, and all OSes have browsers with Active X![/sarcasm]
Yes, a lot of users are stupid. But if the vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place there would be far fewer problems. If Windows was as secure as OS X -- and sorry, Apple fans, it's not as secure as some other *nix distros -- a virus would be a rare thing simply because it wouldn't have anything to work with. So, yeah, if they fixed it that would eliminate most viruses right there. Despite the stereotypes many would have you believe, there are a lot of Mac users who are just as clueless as the Windows user you're describing, but their systems haven't been compromised because the OS they're using isn't horribly insecure to begin with.
How to secure Windows by yours truly (hope this makes sense; I haven't had much coffee yet):
1. Firewall! Better still firewall + hardware router.
2. Anti-virus. I recommend Avast! for 2k and XP, AVG for 9x. If you want to pay for anti-virus, I've heard NOD32 is the best, with Kaspersky's coming in a close second.
3. Win Patrol [winpatrol.com] prevents many changes fromt aking place without your permission; just scroll down the page for the link to download the free version.
4. If you're using Xp, get xpy [softpedia.com] which can disable a whole lot of Windows problems, such as the remote regsitry severice which allows remote users to change your registry whenever you're online -- yes, MS made it that on purpose and isn't going to fix it -- and Active X, Windows' most infamous security hole. You need to know what you're doing with this program though; if you don't, get someone who does to help you.
5. Be careful. Research *everything* you'd like to install. Check the program's ratings at download sites and do a search on the program's name with a good search engine.
Personally, though, I tend to think Winsdows is hopeless. Patches aren't enough, the system needs to be built from the ground up with much higher security. That means a lot of programs wouldn't even work after that. And would MS provide this as a free fix to all of their customers? Ha!
But speculation is useless. Microsoft is never going to try to really fix Windows; as successful as they've been already, why should they? Especially not when they can make money selling services to protect Windows! Never mind that they should've built a secure OS in the first place like practically everyone else did.
Parent
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:3, Informative)
Forget firewalls, at least for home networks. The only thing I rely on to make a Windows PC safe from incoming attacks is NAT. Put the box behind a NAT router and only forward ports when necessary. Bang, zero chance of anything getting in and it's relatively cheap, as well. It also makes firewalls (which sometimes tend to cause more harm than good) obsolete.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:4, Insightful)
Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?
Parent
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
2. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
3. Profit!
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
1. Build an OS that's so hard to use only geeks can use it
2. Charge 50 dollars for documentation/support
3. Profit!
Oh wait, that's Redhat
Parent
IBM does it better (Score:4, Insightful)
Love those mainframes.
Parent
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".
Perhaps that's too much to ask.
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3)
1. Build hardware which is not always as great as everyone says
2. Charge 200$ for replacing a stupid button
3. Profit!
Re:We've known the second step for ages. (Score:3, Interesting)
Spent the entire day dealing with the CFO's laptop - one of those that happens in a Fortune 100 company on occasion. XP on a Dell decided to stop handling IP - Outlook would seize, IE and Firefox were hosed. Other than a rebuild, the system was screwed. Whole damn thing was tired. Typical fscking Microsoft "This system is more than 2 years old - I'm ready to die" crap. As if SOX regulators thought that way.
Interestingl
In search of the almighty $ (Score:5, Insightful)
Prevention is less profitable than response, thus, they'll never try making a secure system now.
Re:In search of the almighty $ (Score:5, Interesting)
If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.
In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.
When I write for Unix/Linux/QNX/VRTX/Anything the hell else, I can be pretty sure that if something goes boom, it IS my fault - and I should take the blame, and if it reflects badly on me, I deserve it.
I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.
Parent
Re:In search of the almighty $ (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
yup (Score:5, Interesting)
One - a 2003 server has never crashed - as I mainly leave that happily running Apache, mailserver etc.
One - my big beast has bouts of flakiness - everytime it's down to a flakey driver for some obscure or cutting edge piece of hardware. (a problem MS has attempted to address with signed/unsigned drivers).
Now if a company produces a buggy driver for Windows, you can usually be pretty sure they put even less effort into the linux one (if they bothered at all).
Parent
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Batteries not included.
Parent
Wrong analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't.
I repeat: anti-spyware and anti-virus software aren't there to protect you against "inadequate security". They *may* do this as a side effect, but it is not their purpose.
I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet.
No. Nor would I ever consider doing it.
If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything.
Undoubtedly. But this would be due to software bugs (and, arguably, bad UI), not "inadequate security" - not to mention the foolishness of browsing the web with a high-privilege account.
With Windows XP (original release, no SP 1) just connecting to the Internet from a user with administrator rights, without a firewall, is enough to be infected by worms within a short time.
As is installing many Linux distros and commercial unixes from the same time period. Again, you are largely describing problems caused by software bugs, not "inadequate security". I will agree that the firewall should have been enabled by default from the first release of XP and that services shouldn't be binding to external network interfaces by default - but even without that, all those remote exploits are coming from *coding errors*.
OS-level security - which Windows NT has in spades - can protect you against some aspects of malicious code. However, it cannot protect you against all, or even the most common, aspects of malicious code. That is what anti-spyware and anti-virus software is for.
Parent
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
You make a differentiation without merit, except for pure academic theory maybe.
Most security problems are software bugs. The fact that it is very hard to write bug-free software with current tools, technology and methods is one of the main headaches of the security people. I am one. Buggy software and users are what I am most worried about, in this order. False policies, configurations and errors in concepts and m
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:3)
Microsoft is still fixing real "OS security problems" for free via Windows Update.
Anti-malware (e.g. spyware, viruses, etc) is designed to thwart malware that doesn't necessarily rely on OS security problems (which, I repeat, will continue to be fixed for free via Windows Update).
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
....A little late? (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry (Score:2)
You think they'll keep doing that now? (eTrust bets OneCare by miles, imho)
Odd, isn't it? (Score:2)
How MS can sell you a product that they admit is broken, then sell you a subscription service to fix it? Those guys are marketing wizards.
If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.
Vista won't be better (Score:3, Insightful)
As you can see from the site http://www.windowsonecare.com/ [windowsonecare.com] they are offering antivirus, antispyware, firewall, performance tune-ups, and data backup and restore. At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.
It's obvious that they wouldn't be launching this service now if it won't also be needed for Vista. This was basically the last reason i needed to switch over to a Mac.
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:5, Insightful)
My original point was that most of what is being offered are dependent on OS deficiencies (i.e. of no value to linux/os x users even if written for those platforms) and the features not dependent on those deficiencies (e.g. automated backup) certainly aren't worth $50 a year.
Parent
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny that slashdotters like to think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, more "tech-savvy" than everyone else, yet they make such idiotic statements like the above with regularity. And some idiot modded the above statement as "Insightful", further damning slashdot's rep. LOL
Spyware generally doesn't rely on OS insecurity.
Viruses generally don't rely on such either.
Trojan horses almost never rely on OS insecurity.
For those that do rely on OS insecurity, Microsoft will continue patching OS insecurity for free with Windows Update (just as Apple does for Macs). For malware that doesn't rely on OS insecurity, anti-malware software (such as Microsoft's OneCare offering) exists.
Parent
Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Where's the Justice Department when you need them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Geeze Mistah (Score:3, Funny)
Two Quotes (Score:3, Insightful)
"There's a sucker born every minute." Widely and falsely attributed to P.T. Barnum.
"A fool and his money are soon parted." Thomas Tusser.
MS is apparently hoping that lightning will strike twice in millions of places.
They've said repeatedly that Vista will be the most secure Windows ever, so why would Vista need any additional security software, from the creator of the OS or a third party? Obviously, the answer is that Vista isn't secure, and MS already knows it. They've even thought of a way to turn Vista's lackluster security into a secondary revenue stream.
To which the suckers and fools will gladly contribute.
This is excellent (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft just gave Linux, MacOS X, and the BSDs a nice, juicy marketing point. There's no need for the DOJ on this one. Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by coming out and saying that their product simply isn't usable out of the box. If I were RedHat or Novell, I'd jump all over this. I can picture the ads now: "So I need to pay another $50 EVERY YEAR just to keep my computer from getting trashed by viruses? Thanks, but no thanks, Microsoft!"
Support? From Microsoft? FREE? (Score:3, Interesting)
This was my first NT domain. Upgrading from NT 3.1 to the newly released NT 3.51.
Microsoft changed the licensing mechnism in 3.51. I don't recall the details now, but the result was that my network of ~100 PCs was having itermittent login problems. It was annoying, but we were able to live with it while I figured it out.
I called Microsoft, they made some suggestions, we went around a couple of times trying things, and on the third
Re:This is excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lot closer than you imagine. My friend uses Linux (Mepis, specifically) and I don't think she even knows what the command line is. And no, I didn't spend hours configuring it for her, she installed it herself and didn't need to do any configuring because it automatically recognized her hardware and came with mp3, DVD, etc support. My mom used my Linux box and is jealous because all the silly
Al Capone style protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most (all?) antivirus companies have extremely harsh policy against employees writing viruses or other malicious code the software is to protect from.
What is there to stop Microsoft from putting a bug here, a hole there, purposedly, and "discover" it half a year later just to prove how essential the subscription service is to security of a company?
Re:You know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's initial product is defective, malicious people take advantage of the defects to create problems for users, Microsoft then charges users to remove the problems that their defective software allowed for in the first place.
Who you blame for viruses is debatable, but there's no doubt that Microsoft have a conflict of interests problem if they start selling virus scanner software. If they mak
Re:This is insane! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had taken the class, the instuctor would have pointed you towards the maintaince and service contracts that have been part of the consumer marketplace for over one hundred years. He would have reminded you that Windows has ninety-five percent of the home market and self-service Linux less than three.
Re:Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac (Score:3, Informative)
In short, It is
Re:They should be allowed to charge for this (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that just clicking on an attachment or a link... not even downloading and opening it... can execute malicious code locally is a fundamental design flaw in one of Microsoft's flagship operating system components... the HTML control. Remember, Microsoft went to the wall with the Department of Justice to avoid having this removed from