Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Privacy Microsoft

Sneak Peek At Microsoft Anti-Spyware 440

Posted by timothy from the takes-one-to-know-one dept.
Ant writes "Broadband Reports mentions Neowin's sneak peek of Microsoft's upcoming anti-spyware software recently acquired community favorite Giant spyware; Microsoft has code-named their re-hashed version of that software 'Atlanta.' It is currently in an internal beta test. There are screenshots of the application in action."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sneak Peek At Microsoft Anti-Spyware More

Sneak Peek At Microsoft Anti-Spyware

Comments Filter:

  • Sample (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:12PM (#11250592)
    Warning: Firefox detected! - Internet Hijacker - Automatically deleted for your protection.

    • Re:Sample (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BottleCup ( 691335 )
      Think this funny all you want, but the parent post may have a point there. Perhaps this is another devious way MS is going to try to get ahead of rival products - i.e. by labelling them as Spyware. Some windows users are just silly enough to believe anything MS says.

      • Re:Sample (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Michael Hunt ( 585391 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @11:45PM (#11251110) Homepage
        One would hope that if somebody actually took the initiative in installing Firefox, or similar, that they would know that the MS tool is, in fact, lying.

        That said, dollars to donuts that nobody who'd install FF or its ilk would pay Microsoft for something they can get for free off Lavasoft/Spybot.

        • Re:Sample (Score:4, Interesting)

          by NPN_Transistor ( 844657 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @01:07AM (#11251473)
          Some people may think Firefox has a virus in it... that happened once when I installed Firefox for someone and for a while they thought it was a virus before they found out that their computer's problems were actually caused by a real virus. If Microsoft lists competing products as spyware, I think a lot of people would think... "What??? I didn't know that was spyware. Oh well, better safe then sorry, better delete it". Unfortunately, people are very easily fooled in this world. Talking about fooled, the spyware program doesn't seem to be a very effective one. They just want to make people think that Windows is secure. E.G. Even though XP includes a firewall, it isn't all that effective, and that's why a lot of people still buy seperate firewalls.I think the same thing will happen with these so-called "anti-spyware tools".

          • Re:Sample (Score:3, Funny)

            by Jedi Alec ( 258881 )
            If Microsoft lists competing products as spyware, I think a lot of people would think... "What??? I didn't know that was spyware. Oh well, better safe then sorry, better delete it".

            Considering their recent track record in the european courts...I almost wish they'd go ahead and try to get away with that one.

        • Re:Sample (Score:4, Interesting)

          by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @04:19AM (#11252047)
          Problem is getting people to install and use it. My mother in law wouldn't use firefox in a hundred years because some of the websites of the suppliers of her company rely on broken javascript. Needless to say, she blames the browser. Mozilla isn't going to fix this-- because, as they say, it would add bloat and they'd be chasing a moving target. This makes sense, but in the meantime it stops people from switching over.

        • Re:Sample (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Errtu76 ( 776778 )
          That said, dollars to donuts that nobody who'd install FF or its ilk would pay Microsoft for something they can get for free off Lavasoft/Spybot.

          They would, if the tool provided by Microsoft detected everything (and more) that the 2 programs combined detect.

          Some say Ad-Aware is better than Spybot. Others claim vice-versa. Only yesterday i first ran Spybot (detected 19 objects correctly) and then Ad-Aware, which still detected 39 objects (that Spybot somehow missed). Other people may tell you the sam

      • Re:Sample (Score:2, Interesting)

        by has2k1 ( 787264 )
        That is true to a big extent. Afew months ago I was helping a couple of university students with spyware and viruses and one thing suprised me on some machine.

        This girl had acquired a pirated version of Norton 2004 off kazaa or some p2p and I think it was bundled with a crack. To cut the story short, Norton virus scan was detecting the crack file(Norton2004crack.exe) as a viral file. She thought the whole program was a virus since it was detecting "itself" as a virus.

        Ofcourse I made a couple of bucks tro

    • Since they are intending to sell this product for.. profit.. does this mean they will have as many security holes as possible in Windoze?

    • Re:Sample (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nik13 ( 837926 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:41PM (#11250801) Homepage
      Actually, one of the things I noticed about this Giant-Antispyware is the number of false positives. On some systems it found a half dozen of them (things like VNC and such). Also the slowest, high memory usage, and last I tried, cancelling a scan doesn't let you delete what was found on the partial scan.

      Most likely they'll charge for this product, whereas it's completely unnecessary if you use firefox and IE and don't install apps like Gator and such.

      • Re:Sample (Score:3, Insightful)

        by macdaddy357 ( 582412 )
        Microsoft wasted their money. Pest Patrol, the only one worth paying for, already got gobbled up by Computer Associates. I hope CA doesn't screw it up.

    • Re:Sample (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:47PM (#11250833) Homepage Journal
      Maybe they will simply fix IE so that it does not accept so much rubbish onto the PC and it will appear like this 'new' product is great.

      To me it seems like getting a broom to crack a nut. If you use the right tool (read Firefox) in the first place you do not need to sweep up the mess.

      • Re:Sample (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LO0G ( 606364 )
        They already did that with IE - it's call XP SP2.

        With XP SP2, modulo security holes, the defaults on downloading code are all NO - the user has to decide that they want the rubbish or not.

        After that, it's a question of user education.

        • SP2 still enables AX by default (Score:5, Interesting)

          by steve_l ( 109732 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @06:51AM (#11252345) Homepage
          on a clean SP2 build (that is the MSDN WinXP+SP2 all in one install), Prompted ActiveX download is still enabled for the internet zone.

          If you turn that off, windows update stops working, as http[s]:*.microsoft.com is in that zone.

          I dont call that locking down the browser, To secure IE (even if you only use it for windows update)

          1. disable AX download in internet zone

          2, edit trusted zone site security to medium. Like you ever need a 'run anything, unprompted' zone.

          3. add https:*.microsoft.com and http:*.microsoft.com to the trust zone

          4. uncheck the 'require https in trusted zone' switch

          the aim is to redefine "trusted" from "total access" to "prompted download active X controls", which is a serious enough undertaking that I dont want to enable it broadly. Only MS sites and spyware vendors seem to use it, after all.

      • Re:Sample (Score:5, Insightful)

        by __aatgod8309 ( 598427 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:06AM (#11251189)
        Fixing IE would involve such a substantial change to both itself and windows that it won't happen. You've seen how long it took to provide the 'fixes' in SP2 for XP, and in the end it diverted staff from development of Longhorn. Imagine that applied to something even more fundamental to windows, like redesigning ActiveX to be easier to manage, or making IE an optional windows component.

        That kind of work would be probably be even harder than writing Longhorn, and we've seen how long that's taking. And that would most likely require a development team as big as that of Longhorn, if not bigger. And they wouldn't be getting paid for it - so what do you thing the chances are of MS doing that?

    • Not too far off (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mickyflynn ( 842205 )
      I looked at the virus definition database for Norton one time, and 'vmlinuz' was listed. If I actually read the report the shit my school makes us use creates, it pops open the java CLASSPATH file and says a bunch of that stuff is trojan horses.

  • Ironic methinks. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:12PM (#11250596) Homepage Journal

    At the risk of sounding trollish... I think it's more than a bit ironic that MS is now going to bundle spyware when a good chunk of spyware is installed thanks to bugs within the present code. Why not deal with existing issues first?

    Oh wait, new bells and whistles are good PR and prompt upgrades.

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:5, Funny)

      by beacher ( 82033 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:17PM (#11250630) Homepage
      (Lives in Atlanta) - I just think it's funny. Sherman burned Atlanta (almost) to the ground. I just wonder if someone will name a piece of spyware Sherman and watch it raze Atlanta again....

      THE SOUTH SHALL FORMAT AGAIN!
      -B

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by confusion ( 14388 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:18PM (#11250639) Homepage
      Part of my thinks the irony is abusrd - they are going to great lengths to fix a problem they created in the first place. But, the reality is that no matter how good they got, there will always be some holes that spyware gets in through, maybe not as many or as frequent. Also, it's hard to keep people from clicking "yes".

      Jerry
      http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

      • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ack154 ( 591432 ) * on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:37PM (#11250756)
        Also, it's hard to keep people from clicking "yes".

        I don't think it's so much clicking "yes" for most people (joe user)... it's more of clicking "go away" on things.
      • they are going to great lengths to fix a problem they created in the first place.

        The real irony lies in the fact that they (MS) aren't 'fixing' the problem. MS is buying a company that 'fixed' it and passing that off as charitable intent... MS remains clueless outside of pimping.

      • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:5, Informative)

        by CritterNYC ( 190163 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:59AM (#11251430) Homepage
        Also, it's hard to keep people from clicking "yes".

        You don't have to click YES or ACCEPT to get spyware in IE. All you have to do is visit a specific website... or a website that's been hacked... or a website that shows ads from a network that's been hacked... and it will auto-install it for you through one of IE's lovely unpatched exploits.

        I just cleaned 12 off my sister's Win98 laptop and then promptly installed Firefox and Thunderbird.
    • ill have to disagree with this. im pretty sure most spyware is installed manually. of course people dont know its in the installer they are using. but its not due to any holes in windows, its a regular manual install..

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's the Microsoft Way - Sell the problem, then sell the solution.

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dioscaido ( 541037 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:38PM (#11250769)
      Have you been missing the stream of patches coming from MS? How are they not dealing with the primary issues?

      Even so, please tell me which pieces of spyware exploit legitimate security holes? The "security hole" they exploit is that users run as admin. Hardly a bug in the OS, just a horrifically misguided ease of use 'feature' in the installer. Easily fixed. I've never gotten infected with spyware while running as a Limited user, and neither has my Mom, who has a penchant for running little apps she finds on the web. In the cases where they are malicious, she just gets a protection fault and knows to happily move along to the next little animation.

      http://www.techproblemsolver.com/limited.html
      h ttp://www.dotnetdevs.com/articles/RunningAsNonAdm in.aspx
      http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/
      ht tp://www.pluralsight.com/keith/book/html/howto_r unasnonadmin.html
      http://support.microsoft.com/de fault.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;305780

      For the handful that did take advantage of some buffer overflow, please point out those vulnerabilities that remain unpatched through Windows Update.

      • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @11:14PM (#11250968)
        The issue is bigger than that; it isn't that there's a specific bug or fault, its in the design and implementation of things like Active X.

        Why should a browser EVER make it that easy to run arbitrary code off the net at the user's priviledge level in the native OS?

        The only "valid" reason is that it was THE stick to beat Java over the head with and allow web-based applications to run as Windows applications, with all the easy advantages and UI widgets people expected. Java was stuck with it's horrid GUI, while ActiveX looked and felt like a Windows application.

        And that reason was only "valid" if you were a Windows product strategist trying to keep the web and Java from eliminating the need for Windows and IE.

        So now we have every third web site wanting to run Active X on our machines, often in the "helper" mode to add stuff to our machines so we can see their over-animated web sites that just HAD to be implemented with Flash or Shockwave or worse.

        And you wonder how people reflexively hitting "OK" to Active X warnings get infested with spyware and insist it's not MS fault?

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Ralconte ( 599174 )
      I felt the irony too, and here's why. Its the damn cheery Win XP layout that just sort of screams at you. You have to download, install, scan, and then (probably) confirm that you want something with an obscure name copied to some obscure directory on your hard disk.

      If Microsoft can't plug the hole, why's there a dialog box: "Do you want to uninstall the keylogger?" I think its all these layers and cartoons for something that could just be buried in the OS that may just irk some people.

      But those people

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by v1 ( 525388 )
      It does seem rather silly of them to attack the problem from this end... "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" fits here well. Stop the spyware from getting installed, rather than trying to pry it out once it's dug in. This merely seems like common sense to me.

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @11:42PM (#11251096)
      Well.

      I was part of some focus group thing (online) that MS did and they asked me how to improve Windows Update. I told them to make Windows more secure. Failing that, they need to make stuff to fix the problems they caused. Not Giant. Not Lavasoft. Not Patrick Kolla.

      Microsoft.

    • Re:Ironic methinks. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @04:48AM (#11252101) Homepage
      Why not deal with existing issues first?

      Because that would mean admitting responsibility. At present, Microsoft can still rely on the myth that Windows' continual security problems are do to monoculture and basically being a big target.

      It would also piss off developers of spyware and anti-spyware, and if there is anything that Microsoft is reluctant to do, it's scare of developers, even if it's at the expense of the user's experience. Remember Ballmer's "Developers! Developers! Developers!"? That's where the focus is.

  • hmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:14PM (#11250605)
    Microsoft Anti-Spyware. Isn't that like Sasser Anti-Virus?

  • Hate to break it to Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)

    by CypherXero ( 798440 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:14PM (#11250611) Homepage
    ...but there's already plenty of free [lavasoftusa.com] alternatives [safer-networking.org] out there. Also, just stop using Internet Explorer. That move right there will cut down at least 90% of all spyware/adware.

    • Re:Hate to break it to Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zbyte64 ( 720193 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:22PM (#11250671) Homepage
      Yes.... just tell that to the normal users that simply use their computer for pr0n or for simple searches
      Most people dont know where to get software like firefox or spyware removal - let alone even know it exists
      Microsoft will either bundle it for free, increasing the value of their OS (again most people don't know about alternatives) or MS will charge for it, making more $$ - in the end, average joe will think MS is their hero for saving them from spyware (o the irony)
    • That move right there will cut down at least 90% of all spyware/adware.

      That statement might be true if the majority of spyware wasn't installed directly by the user's actions and not the browser's.

    • Re:Hate to break it to Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pla ( 258480 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:52PM (#11250865) Journal
      but there's already plenty of free alternatives out there

      I personally have always used (and liked) AdAware and Spybot, and as much as I hate to admit this about purely commercial software... I recently had a chance to try Giant.

      Slower than a DOJ antitrust proceeding against Microsoft, and takes a similarly budensome level of system resources (100% CPU for over half an hour on a Pentium-M 1.7GHz!), but damned if it didn't find two problems both AA and SB had completely missed (completely as in, not just left inactive fragments lying around, but real live active spyware).


      Also, just stop using Internet Explorer. That move right there will cut down at least 90% of all spyware/adware.

      Agree completely. The above-mentioned two problems that Giant caught - Well, let me first say that I use Mozilla almost exclusively, only loading MSIE (in a maximally-locked-down configuration) perhaps once a month for sites that absolutely will not work (even with the user agent switcher add-on) in Moz/FF. And both the spies that Giant caught had latched on to MSIE.

      Sad. I mean, good to see MS address (one of) their current major weaknesses; but sad that they would use something comparable to an antivirus scanner rather than just fix the security flaws that lead to massive spyware infestations in the first place.

      What ever happened to SP2 as the end-all to MS's security flaws?

  • Reads like a bad translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:17PM (#11250633) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft's upcoming anti-spyware software recently acquired community favorite Giant spyware

    What? Microsoft's anti-spyware software acquired a company? I wasn't aware software could own something, although you can certainly use software to own something - usually windows.

    Editors, is it too much to ask that you edit?

  • Unacceptable! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:17PM (#11250635)
    As a resident of Atlanta, I resent and am offended by this nomenclature. Where do I file my complaint?

  • Wait two weeks... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SilverspurG ( 844751 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:17PM (#11250636) Homepage Journal
    And some malicious website will have an exploit which turns this anti-spyware into a remote code execution tool.
  • The anti spyware didn't do a very good job of stopping the spies from getting out screenshots, dang it...

  • If it works.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:18PM (#11250641) Journal
    If it works, is free and can be deployed and controlled via Active Directory GPOs I am going to be a happy man for the enterprise.

    Anyone know if it IS going to be free?

    • Re:If it works.. (Score:3, Funny)

      by waa ( 159514 )
      Of course it is free.

      The first one's always free.

    • Re:If it works.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by illtud ( 115152 )
      If it works, is free and can be deployed and controlled via Active Directory GPOs I am going to be a happy man for the enterprise.

      Anyone know if it IS going to be free?

      Having a GPO aware anti-spyware would be good, but I doubt if MS would be allowed to make it free. Certainly I don't think they could bundle it with the OS, because they'd kill the anti-spyware industry at a stroke. Leveraging a monopoly, anybody?

  • Heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by bharatk ( 845736 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:22PM (#11250672) Homepage
    Oxymoron (n) A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in Microsoft Anti-Spyware.

  • Available through Windows Update? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by REDSECTOR1 ( 695888 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:26PM (#11250694)
    Surely this will be available though Windows Update? If not ... Microsoft fix your damn code first instead of making us pay for your mistakes. *groan*
  • It seems like there's a lot of wasted space in the top third of the application window. I'm guessing this is slated for XP and not Longhorn so you'd think they'd make it look more like other XP apps.

  • SpyNet... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Samah ( 729132 )
    Anyone notice in this pic [neowin.net] how it mentions SpyNet?
    Sounds a little too much like SkyNet to me :)

  • Interesting Move (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bogie ( 31020 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:29PM (#11250719) Journal
    I find this interesting because traditionally Microsoft has always had an open door policy about which software can be installed on Windows. There are many pieces of software that legitimate companies install which users and many anti-spyware companies consider spyware and thus remove. Microsoft up until this point has had no public policy on semi-legit software which users have unwittingly been installing. So now here we have MS now denying them the ability to install their semi-legit software. Will they now be able to sue MS for keeping them off of the Windows platform? Did ms tweak the rules so that companies like Claria can continue to push Gator?

    Think about that for a moment. There is plenty of malicious software out there but there is also plenty of "grey" software which drives users nuts but is in reality legal. Is it ok for software to change a user's homepage and install fake ad killers? Can companies no longer sell software which preys on users who are used to quickly hitting the OK button? I'd be interested to know what ISV's Microsoft is now for the first time denying access to Windows even though they develop semi-legit software. Are big legal battles about the start up?
    • If you look at the images, it shows an example of trapping Messenger Plus.
      It gives a description of what the problem is, explains that its not the actual Messenger plus program that has the problem, but the spyware installed around it, there is the option of ignoring it (selected on screenshot).
      I cannot tell from the screenshots whether it comes up on ignore by default, but its at least giving more information than previously.

      On a slightly different note, in the neowin forum, some folks are saying "i haven

  • How long until the EU considers this a monopoly? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:33PM (#11250742) Homepage
    If Microsoft adds an anti-spyware tool free to Windows, how long until Mario Monte declares MS's move as an illegal monopolistic practice?

  • admitting defeat? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <see my homepage> on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:34PM (#11250747) Homepage
    i think the worst part about microsoft of all people releasing antispyware software, is that they are admitting their OS is easily hijacked. spyware is a worse problem than viruses now a days (since every machine i've cleaned up for friends has 200+ pieces of spyware littered around their machine), and for the most part it is easier to prevent! stop using IE, and stop installing random software off the web.
    • Anything that requires awareness or discipline on the part of the bulk of users is doomed to fail. Too many people like the eye candy that they get from installing those random pieces of software off the Web. Not much is going to change that.

      • Re:admitting defeat? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bnenning ( 58349 )
        Anything that requires awareness or discipline on the part of the bulk of users is doomed to fail.

        100% correct. Spyware doesn't *need* insecure-by-design features like ActiveX to spread, that just makes it easier. Social engineering is always going to be available, and if Linux or Mac OS X became sufficiently mainstream then will be problems there as well (probably not to the same extent, but they will exist). The only solution I can see is sandboxing with fine-grained access permissions. The spiffy curs
    • i think the worst part about microsoft of all people releasing antispyware software, is that they are admitting their OS is easily hijacked.

      Really? I think that's the best part.

      Admitting to the problem is the first step toward fixing the problem.

  • And so as I type this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Incoming9000 ( 783817 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:35PM (#11250751) Journal
    .. thousands of mallicious coders are linning up to grab a copy of their newest target.

  • This product supports versions other than XP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03, 2005 @10:39PM (#11250781)
    At least this is a product that supports other distributions than Windows XP, it also supports 9x, NT, and 2000. You can't get IE6 SP2 on anything other than Windows XP, so this is a welcome break to users of other Windows versions who unfortunately don't have the benefit of Microsoft's full support.
  • They wrote the operating system. They already know about the next security flaw....they already know about the next big worm. They just won't act upon it until someone on the outside discovers it and/or exploits it. This opens the door to preemptive protection against the spyware that exploits the security flaws.

    Besides, the problem with the hijack stuff is that it's increasingly complicated to figure it out inside of MS's nonsense. Who better to offer protection than the people who invented the comple
    • I don't think they know about the security flaws or possible worms - it's not a big conspiracy at MS. They're programmers like the rest of us, fighting fires as they come up.

      It's like the "UFO conspiracy" that the US government has been executing for the last 50 years - do you really think they're that organised???
      • I don't think they know about the security flaws or possible worms - it's not a big conspiracy at MS. They're programmers like the rest of us, fighting fires as they come up.

        While this is true to an extent, they provided the fuel for said fires. They also have the best programmers in the world working for them...and lots of them. Rest assured they have a stack of paper sitting there with nothing but bugs yet to be discovered by the public. Fixing them and rolling out a patch may be impractical, but at

  • MS's grad plan? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SirTalon42 ( 751509 )
    I know how MS is going to eliminate ALL malware. I figure that they plan to raise attention to the serious issues with just anybody being able to write software, so then they can try and make a licensing program where companies can pay to have their software certified as legit, and the binaries signed (creating a new revenue stream for MS), then once some big companies start following along, keep applying pressure to the ones that don't go along (like them showing up as 'spyware' in their anti-spyware soft

  • Messenger Plus (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tsalem ( 813623 )
    Messenger Plus is labelled 'adware', and yet MSN Messenger itself has adware? (bottom of the contact list). Messenger Plus has some neat features to remove the bloat (ads, annoying image links that take up a quarter of) the Contact List as it is.

    When installing Messenger Plus, you can agree or disagree to supporting them by having adware thrown all over your PC. I disliked seeing this addition, but just simply disagreed to it to avoid it. Perhaps the person submitting the screens didn't?

    (Yes, I'm awar
    • The problem with MSN Plus! is that when you run it's 'Update' feature, it adds the CoolWebSearch (I think that's what they're still bundling in with it) without the 'Agree or Disagree' menu. Just the regular installer has the option, but the update feature just sprays CWS all over your machine, at least in older versions it did - perhaps Patchou has fixed it by now.

      So with behaviour like that I'm glad it's labelled adware, and probably illegal too - seeing as I'd specifically refused to have CWS on my mac

  • treating symptoms? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jnf ( 846084 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @11:02PM (#11250922)
    Well at first glance it seems somewhat silly- as if they are treating the symptoms instead of the problem. Everyone can pretty much agree switching to another browser can alleviate a lot of the problems, or even just mutilating IE so that it becomes a pain in the ass to use (i.e. prompting for confirmation before allowing activex/etc), and thats what happens in 2003 by default (IE becomes a pain the ass to use), but agreed- that doesnt cure all of the problems. For instance, I know I've seen some spyware piggyback in on files played by media player or winamp, or p2p programs (contrary to popular belief kazaa lite appears to be spyware as well, fire up a sniffer and watch the local network). But when you really look at it, solving the problem hardly seems to be the point. Contrary to what a lot of us would like to think, microsoft isn't full of idiots- and a lot could be learned from the 'failure' that is most anti-virus software, namely that signature based detection is not the best way to detect malware. So then you have to sit back and ask yourself why a corporation would follow such tactics if the elimination of spyware/adware was their goal? Money, just like it always is- You don't want to cure the problem because then you start pinching your paycheck. Plus you have the advantage of testing/(further) conditioning the public to subscription based payment methods, and they will thank you for it because you are 'helping' them. IMHO, it just seems like another wolf in sheeps clothing, but thats just my take on it.
  • When I first saw the title of the article, I thought it read "Anti-Microsoft Spyware," and wondered such old news ever got accepted.
  • This is just wrong - simply a conflict of interests. Microsoft will sell this product I'm sure, and they also sell windows. There is nothing stopping them from ignoring holes in windows that spyware exploit regularily, but wa-la, they now have software to "fix" it up for you at an additional cost. What a bunch of crap.

  • This is kind of stupid... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) * on Monday January 03, 2005 @11:26PM (#11251032)
    The solution to the spyware/malware problem is simple, as demonstrated by Firefox-

    Disable ActiveX controls.

    Is there any legitimate reason for a non-intranet website to use them? Whenever a site requires ActiveX controls to work, I think "Boy, they hired an bunch of idiots to design their site."

    They should just modify IE so that ActiveX flat-out doesn't work on any site that isn't explicitly and MANUALLY allowed to by the user or network admin.

  • MSAV (Score:2)

    by sporty ( 27564 )
    Will this be another MSAV? What ever happened to that tool?

  • This is insane. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SoupIsGood Food ( 1179 )
    This is insane. Spyware stems directly from Microsoft's inability to engineer a secure computing architecture... something =every single one= of its competitors can do. Buying a single anti-spyware product isn't going to fix the problems that make spyware possible in the first place. It will merely offer a false sense of security to the foolish.

    It's like tossing a half-full Dixie cup onto a raging housefire you set in the first place. A half-assed placebo to gull the gullible.

    Any Mac or Linux user can te

  • Easiest way to eliminate Spyware (Score:3, Funny)

    by io333 ( 574963 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @12:37AM (#11251314)
    It seems pretty obvious to me that the best way for Microsoft to eliminate spyware would be to take Firefox, rename it Internet Explorer, and be done with it.

  • can't remove "69.20.16.183 ieautosearch" from host (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blackest_k ( 761565 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @09:01AM (#11252702) Homepage Journal
    Well if Microsoft is doing anything to help against spyware it has got to be of some use.

    There is a new extreme piece of spyware which seems to have surfaced in the last month.
    http://forum.iamnotageek.com/t-78554-1.html [iamnotageek.com]
    is the start of a very interesting thread concerning what seems to be the latest generation of spyware.
    some of the things that it does include generating randomly named dll's
    restarting processes that have been killed, runs IE even in safe mode, drags in a whole raft of other spyware to confuse things and leaves the PC it infects after unsuccessful removal unable to connect to the internet.

    This thing is really nasty.

    I am pretty sure I was dealing with a case of this yesterday. When adaware was installed and ran on a pc with XP service pack2 It triggered a Reboot due to a failure in dcom with a 1 minute countdown. The worst part was after cleaning with adaware the Pc was unable to connect to the internet unable to get an address from the router.

    Manually configuring a network address and setting 192.168.2.1 as the gateway got the network working to the lan pc's.
    The router could be pinged successfully but it wasn't possible to reach 192.168.2.1 through firefox netscape or IE to check the router status.
    and after several hours of trying this pc refused to connect to the internet.

    After banging my head against this brickwall over a period of about 12 hours the only solution was to reinstall XP.

    This is the worst spyware I have ever seen, according to the thread the initial attack seems to have occured after a search for the song "over and over" by nelly although a precise location of the source of this infection isn't known.

    If you have to deal with spyware on a regular basis check this thread out because you are not going to solve this one just by running adaware and spybot S&D.

    http://forum.iamnotageek.com/t-78554-3.html [iamnotageek.com]

    This latest spyware really should be submitted as a story on slashdot it is very new, very nasty and it is going to infect a lot of Pc's.

    Please mod this up or investigate this yourself and Post about it.
    because this is going to be a major disruption to Pc users everywhere, especially with it's defence of blocking the Pc's internet connection when you attempt to remove it.

  • How long will it work for? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by duffster ( 787023 ) on Tuesday January 04, 2005 @10:02AM (#11252997)
    Leaving aside the questionable irony of this software, I do wonder how well it will work in the long term. One of the problems I've already experienced when removing spyware is programs that hijack the anti-spyware software itself, usually by sabotaging the spyware definition files as soon as they are downloaded.

    If Microsoft starts distributing this as standard software, should we expect to see more spyware that avoids removal in this way? Will users have to reinstall the software, or run it from a boot disk, every time they want to clean their system?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close