Microsoft Anti-Spyware to Be Free of Charge 470
fubar1971 writes "During his keynote speech at the at the RSA Security Conference Bill Gates announced that the MS antispyware will be offered for free. From his speech: 'We've looked hard at the nature of this problem, and made a decision that this anti-spyware capability will become something that's available at no additional charge for Windows users -- both the blocking capability, and the scanning and removal capabilities.' Additional information at Government Computer News." Update: 02/16 16:57 GMT by Z : Microsoft was previously considering charging extra for this service.
It wasn't a big change... (Score:5, Insightful)
rscrawford writes "CNN reports that Microsoft may charge extra for security software. So first they edge their competition out of the browser market, then they tie IE into the OS so tightly that a crash in IE can crash the computer, and then they make IE so vulnerable that just using it is hazardous to the typical computer's health, and now they want to CHARGE users to fix it?"
From today's Slashdot article blurb:
Quite a turnaround from charging extra to free.
Looks like they never said for sure that they were going to charge extra. As you can see above it said "may". Now, are we all going to whine that MSFT shouldn't be distributing software with their OS to combat spyware because it "may" edge out competition in the spyware removal market or are we just going to complain that they considered charging people to use it when they aren't now?
Because MSFT software (browser, OS, and extras like ActiveX) should have been programmed correctly in the first place I would expect MSFT to distribute this software for free. People should be able to clear their computers out of what shouldn't have been there from the get go.
Personally, I don't care. I will likely continue to use what I have been using all along (although I have been trying to use the Mac for most surfing) as recent testing has shown MSFT's solution to not be quite as good as third party offerings.
not a 'turnaround' (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a turnaround; the linked slashdot article simply cried wolf. MS hadn't ever released a statement committing to a pricing-model for MSAS. At most they had said they were investigating the options. Now they have finished their investigation, and the price is $0.
you know the best spyware tool... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too Bad for Ad-Aware (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope MS doesn't turn around and start charging once the competition is eliminated.
Re:Okay that's a start... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Next week's news (Score:5, Insightful)
How effective this tool is remains to be seen, of course. But what's notable, IMHO, is that Microsoft is making a responsible gesture to their customers.
It's OK to show a little appreciation sometimes, even for Microsoft.
Re:Watch for the Error.log file (Score:5, Insightful)
For the next two points, I have never thought the MS multi-user model was worth its weight in rat shit. YMMV
Last point? Well, I have always wondered if MS developers put their beta-ware out for testing, then sit back and go "hey, no bugs yet" for three months, then release it, all the while never even noticing that they forgot to build the feedback mechanism
Justin.
A call for objectivity (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, how cool would it be if this was rolled out as an automatic update?
I'm all for any solution that might stem the tide of adware/spyware-filled systems, and the bot-driven-spam & "my computer's broke" complaints that they bring.
This probably isn't said very often on
So it sucks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware (Score:3, Insightful)
G
Re:Next week's news (Score:2, Insightful)
Your analogy doesn't hold water. Spyware/Adware is a malicious program maliciously written by someone to take advantage of a lack of total, perfect security. A more apt analogy would be holding a truck manufacturer responsible if someone slashes your tires because they manufactured an insecure truck insomuch as they didn't prevent the malicious person from maliciously slashing your tries.
I'll never understand this mentality that someone who puts out a product is responsible for not stopping people with malicious intent from screwing with it. This standard is only applied to software, and it's ridiculous.
I'll pass (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be a good product, but it is no longer necessary for me!
Re:Too Bad for Ad-Aware (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps continue to provide a superior product?
Re:No. The "right" thing would be to fix IE. (Score:2, Insightful)
And keep in mind that the beta of IE7 is due out this summer, so we may get just what you're suggesting.
Re:Watch for the Error.log file (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has a newsgroup for this purpose. Yeah its lame, but its findable and web accessible.
Fun bug: Put your task bar on the side of the screen (I keep mine there hidden but wide, when it pops out, lots of tasks are very readable). Now write a batch script and try to run it. A popup is triggered asking if you really want to do that, problem is it "scrolls" into the screen, but since there's no task bar in the way it keeps scrolling right off the screen! So you can't run your script and you can't clear the popup, which remains in highest in your - list till you reboot :)
Mmmm, Microsoft goodness
WRONG! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:isnt antispyware an oxymoron.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also a bit of common sense while browsing / collecting email on a non-secure OS (read: any OS) doesn't hurt either.
Also, if I want to get really picky (which I quite clearly do), antispyware is NOT an oxymoron since merely using a few cpu cycles does not make a program spyware. QED.
Re:It wasn't a big change... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of sick that in your mind you can justify equating possible HUMAN DEATH to spyware infections.
Tires blowing out due to design flaws can end someone's life. Spyware infecting a computer due to design flaws can cause someone to format their hard-drive.
Two entirely different worlds that are not comparable.
Change Caused by FireFox (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in order to make IE competitive with FireFox, the management of Microsoft was forced by the economics of the market to give anti-spyware software away -- for free. Basically, FireFox and its startling growth in marketshare forced Microsoft to be generous.
Bill Gates once said that your computer screen is the most valuable piece of realestate in the world. The management at Microsoft intends to continue to be the owner of that realestate.
Oh. Yes. "Thank you, Mozilla and Firefox! A job, well done!"
Re:Next week's news (Score:3, Insightful)
Security holes get left in software by accident, and by sloppiness on behalf of programmers. If that happens, bad things can happen (malware gets in).
Surgical instruments get left in bodies by accident, and by sloppiness on behalf of doctors and theatre staff. If that happens, bad things happen (bacteria gets in, the contents of your bowel seep into your stomach).
Now MSFT's programmers aren't to blame for the existence of scumbags like Malware writers, anymore than doctors are to blame for the existence of bacteria, or easily lacerated bowels. But if it's through their own laxness and/or incompetence that these bad things can get in
Let see (Score:5, Insightful)
they were evil because they wanted to charge for something everybody using their crappy OS needs.
AFTER
they will be evil because they will bundle useful software with their OS killing competing third parties.
Have another good day on
Spyware BAD! Spam zombies GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Microsoft refuses to provide security patches for free. If you haven't paid for a license, they will not provide you with security patches. If spam zombies and worms find their way onto your unsecured system, Microsoft doesn't care. I presume that this is because the spam does not appear to be a problem with Windows.
But it is. I conclude that Microsoft is not concerned with security, but with the APPEARANCE of security.
Re:Next week's news (Score:2, Insightful)
*boggle*
Not with IE. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft needs to fix IE's security model.
Instead, they're promising band-aids for removing the crap they allow to be installed in the first place.
Re:It wasn't a big change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. Microsoft Windows is like an expensive car parked in a bad part of town with the door unlocked and the keys in the ignition. The only thing lacking is the owner's signature on the title showing the transfer of ownership. Where Microsoft comes in is that it is not completely the owners fault: the car locks don't work all the time and the key is welded in place.
There really are no "safe surfing" guidelines for new users. Do PC suppliers walk the user through buying the proper AV software and a dedicated firewall box for every sale? Do they or Microsoft tell people up-front to avoid websites with ActiveX? Wasn't it only recently that Windows XP firewall was even active by default?
I feel fairly safe on the Internet--but I run UNIX on a non-Intel computer with a hand-tuned set of services and stack execute protection and a dedicated firewall running BSD. It took days to set this up, and I have a degree and work experience in IT. And I still worry, a little. Who knows when a JavaScript anomoly will be found, for example.
Re:Enterprise WILL be Charged (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the wealth of free for home/expensive for enterprise software out there, I wouldn't be surprised, but the articles never mentioned the difference.
Brilliant on so many levels (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all we need is for somebody to explain to us why we should devote resources toward getting out virus definitions in less than our own sweet time.
Whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the same bullshit I hear from them with every single problem.
"Wait until the next version."
"You should upgrade to the newest version."
Why is it so fucking hard for them to just issue a patch for their existing versions?
Re:It wasn't a big change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be naive. The risks of spyware go far beyond lost data. I could write a piece of software than installed itself on my enemy's system and downloaded a bunch of kiddy porn. Or, I could install something onto the workstation of an FBI agent and manipulate data pertaining to a capital investigation. Or I could leak the identities of government agents. Need I continue?
Spyware is a lethal risk. Just because nobody has written spyware of the sort I just described (actually, it probably does exist, we just don't know about it) doesn't mean the risk isn't there.
Charge for a patch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't stop there! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just the fact that you are connected to the internet is enough if you machine is unpatched.
It's not ONLY the broswer choices you make that decide if you get botted... Running an unpatched xp system without any firewall or NAT in between will get you botted...
Just using Windows XP is enough. Keep your system up to date... Or better still, keep moaning at MS for creating such a weak system that forces you to install almost 100MB and over 40 patches to become 'slightly' safer than before and still require you to install AV, FW, SB, and Firefox software just to keep it afloat... Then add a dumb (average Joe) user with Administrative rights and start your stopwatch...
Re:It wasn't a big change... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that Firestone was killing people was not my point. The fact is they released a faulty product and it would have been a fucking joke to attempt to charge to fix it.
You're deliberately looking past my real point. In other words, you're the one with the straw man.
Re:Next week's news (Score:2, Insightful)
Running Windows (pre XP,SP2) is like buying a car whose locks don't work, only to have dealer explain that if the car is stolen because I failed to buy an expensive, third party lock, immobiliser and alarm, it's my own fault for not displaying "due diligence." Sorry, but operating systems, in their default setup, should prevent arbitrary third parties from running code on my machine.
PS : Why am I replying to someone who's called "Trolling4Columbine". I must be stupid.
Re:Next week's news (Score:4, Insightful)
So I submit this tensor:
Difference ( Good Guy, Bad Guy ) == The Good Guy can do what the Bad Guy does, but doesn't.
Re:Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
But, alas, any OS comes with a bunch of applications in the package. Sometimes they can be uninstalled (galeon) sometimes they cannot (internet explorer, konqueror if you use kde) - but does this really matter ? Does the average Joe stop using IE and use Firefox instead if IE could be uninstalled ?
Seriously some applications move towards the OS itself. This was for file compression, for local disk browsers, for disk checking programs, then for internet browsers and for media players. The chance for the third party market to survive lasts as long as the OS integrated tool is not up to (some users') expectations (for example zip folders didn't destroy WinZip's and WinRar's market, and Defrag didn't quite kill third party defragmenters and XP firewall didn't kill third party firewalls).
The question is : how much can be integrated in any OS [or any other product] ? This is a question which hits the Linux market hard, too. Most distros have more and more software integrated every day. Sure it's free software, but when you work at Opera, does really make a difference if you lose your job to Internet Explorer or to Firefox ?
Figure this scenario out : MS buys Jasc (the authors of Paint Shop Pro). They integrates PSP in the OS. Adobe sues MS. MS line of defense is : hey every OS around has a a similar great program built in! Look almost every Linux distro comes with this "the Gimp" installed. Why they can and we cannot ? It's normal for an OS to have a graphics program built in..
This is not to say MS is not interested in blowing away opponents with unfair competition, and I don't want to say that it's wrong to have Linux distros inflated with so many sw packages including office suites (EEK!), browsers, media players, CADs, games, servers of any kind. Still this is a problem which is hard to solve.
Re:Watch for the Error.log file (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Next week's news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whatever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does the local phone company suck ass? Why do products break shortly after their warranty expires? Why do people dread returning stuff at Giant Box Retailer?
The answer to all these questions is that they have your money already, and there is little incentive for them to care about you after the fact. In perfect competition, post-sale satisfaction is as crucial part as any, but in monopolistic, nobody really cares if you take your business elsewhere, or tell your friends to not shop there. Providing good customer service isn't worth it these days.
This is why I can't wait for software by subscription like Microsoft is proposing. Every month when the software bill is due more people will be apt to consider other alternatives. Would you pay $X/month for something you're irritated by?
Bill's hopes THIS subscription service sells (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bet that this mechanism will be used for system and application patching too. They already said they were considering a fee based security patching system.
After all, did Bill say the software AND SERVICE were going to be free? I recall only hearing that the software would be free....
None of this is good for McAffee or Symantec investors or employees. Nice knowing you.
LoB
My Opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, IANAL but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
Re:It wasn't a big change... (Score:1, Insightful)
Whoa, stop right there. Mod me flamebait or offtopic if you want, but it's not Linux that doesn't work with every single piece of hardware out there, but the hardware (non-standard, secret specs, refusal to provide drivers...) Don't blame Linux for that, but hardware manufacturers.
Re:Let see (Score:1, Insightful)
An example would be if I had a restaurant with leaky pipes running above all the tables causing customers to get wet. Then someone decided to start a little side business selling umbrella's to people before they enter.
Me, as the restaurant owner, decide to help out my good customers by offering restaurant-branded umbrellas that can only be used inside the restaurant (you have to give them back before you leave).
Why not fix the leaky pipes you ask? Well, why should we?? We have umbrellas!
Re:Watch for the Error.log file (Score:1, Insightful)
i realize that ms-bashing is a favorite pasttime for pseudo-intellectuals, but please at least be aware of your irrational biases.
Re:Next week's news (Score:3, Insightful)
So, um, where's the owner's manual for Windows that tells me that if I don't have a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware running, it's going to be like running a car with no oil in it?
Yeah, I know, you and I don't need to be told. We aren't average computer users, though, and Microsoft isn't aiming their OS at us. It's aimed at the non-techie user (which is a brilliant move by Microsoft, by the way, since there are lots more of them). But the non-techie user doesn't know what they have to do to protect their machine, and Microsoft doesn't tell them.
Now, credit where due, Microsoft finally turned on the firewall by default, turned on Windows Update by default, and if you let it go that way, Windows Update will also keep your anti-spyware up to date. (Still no anti-virus, though.)
But the original point was valid, and I don't think your response addresses it very well: Microsoft releases software with features that constitute gaping security flaws. Rather than remove the features, they put on a bunch of bandaids, trying to keep the feature but not let it be misused. But since the feature itself is inherently a security flaw, the bandaids leave a lot of room for new exploits to keep appearing.
To go back to your analogy: If you sell me a car that needs an oil change every 10 miles, and other cars need an oil change every 3000 miles, and you're not going to fix the car, you better be giving me the oil for free. And it's not "sour grapes" to be disappointed even then, and to have the expectation that you really ought to fix the car.
Disclaimer: I work for Symantec, and they are also starting to get into the spyware removal game. I don't think that my viewpoint is biased because of this, but feel free to ascribe bias anyway. And, of course, I don't speak for Symantec...
Re:Will MS get spanked for this? (Score:3, Insightful)
But if the above conditions were true, then it is possible that the auto maker in question, like Microsoft, would be governed by a consent decree that restricts its options in an effort to reform it and prevent further injury to consumers and competitors.
(But let us also be realistic: after years of litigation the automaker would in all likelihood have been let off with a slap on the wrist, just as Microsoft was by the administration of George W. Bush, to whose campaign it has contributed handsomely.