No Anti-Virus in Vista

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."

Re:So first virus in?

about 4 months ago... [com.com]

Re:So first virus in?

Have not heard about that in the wild... proof of concepts do not count.

Re:So first virus in?

If Vista is susceptible to 99% of known viruses today, it's got a big problematic future ahead of it.

They hopefully told their designers: "Throw Blaster, and Melissa, and Norvag at this new system, and if it dies or allows itself to be infected, FIX IT!"
"Anything related to fix compression/decompression, image file interpretation, or anything that opens a port, must be reviewed against all known viruses attacking those vectors."

Will they, or have they done that? No, but we'll see.

Two possible reasons

1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

Religion is blind.

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.

Re:Religion is blind.

Dman, I've been made. It's true, I don't even know what it means, but it implies credibility to my argument... ;)

Re:Two possible reasons

3) Bigger profits!

Re:Third possible reasons

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

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

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

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:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

Umm... used Windows lately? As in a properly configured Windows?

The security model does that one already.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

It isn't enough just to sandbox the viruses. It must also run the programs you DO want to run. A "properly" configured Windows box won't do that. There is plenty of blame to go around for that little feature.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

You're going to have to explain to me what you mean by 'properly configured'.

You certainly can't mean anything that is close to the default settings.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

Umm... used Windows lately? As in a properly configured Windows?

The security model does that one already.

Ever administered a Windows system? It's as easy as setting a umask of 022 and using chmod where needed, isn't it? And no issues with file ownership, right? By the time you've set group policies, right-clicked your way through the file system and mucked about in the registry, do find time to tell us more about this security model.

Or are you suggesting that a Windows user needs a security expert to reconfigure the default installation on their new Dell box to make it properly configured?

Sorry, but the parent comment about a sane security model is perfectly valid. My guess is that it'll take a few more tries for Windows to reinvent itself and resolve the tortured directory system with the concept of a path and give up on inventing new models. Chances are it'll resemble Unix.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

I don't know either, but I wish /. could let you give a -5 score to any posting with "virii" in it.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

What's the problem? Virus is Latin, right? So two = virii, three = viriii, four = viriv, five = virv, six = virvi, etc etc.

J.

Re:Two possible reasons

5) Vista will be a secure OS, thus it will not need any protection ;)

Sure

We wouldn't like Norton to go broke, would we?
It at least looks like competition. ;-)

Unspecified reasons?

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

It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.

Way to spin it

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.

EU reasons?

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?

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

So let me get this straight...

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

What, exactly are they upgrading??

Re:So let me get this straight...

Pricing and DRM.

Re:So let me get this straight...

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...

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.

And at Ford...

The new Taurus will have seat belts only as part of the optional FE (Family Edition).

I know we hate M$ here...

...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.

security != virus protection

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.

Hold on bucko!

You're moving too fast here...

You're just yelling slower and louder to someone who already has no idea what you're truly trying to say...

No Antivirus

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.

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.

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

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...

In other news, MS announced that the new operating system will now be renamed to Windows Vista Millenium Edition.

Probably for the best...

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

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

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

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?

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.

Introducing SpoonCare!

MS RowBoat (TM) Will NOT come with a bailing bucket as previously speculated, however their new SpoonCare service will send users a new BailingSpoon (TM) update every month. Those who decide not to subscribe to SpoonCare will still be provided with a free monthly CorkPlug Update.