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."

Sure

[jawtheshark]

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

Unspecified reasons?

[Rombuu]

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

[dslauson]

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

Anti-Trust Concerns?

[geoffrobinson]

I would assume that packaging that software would hurt many anti-virus companies. They are probably doing this for legal reasons. Why cause more anti-trust headaches when you don't have to?

Way to spin it

[grasshoppa]

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.

So? What's the big deal?

[BigBuckHunter]

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

Re:Two possible reasons

[luvirini]

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?

So let me get this straight...

[inphinity]

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

What, exactly are they upgrading??

security != virus protection

[ChrisGilliard]

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.

You mean to tell me...

[rdavis542]

that the visual upgrade from fisher price to MacOSX isn't enough for you? Cause I'm sure MS is going to charge about $300 for the desktop clock upgrade.

Re:Third possible reasons

[darkonc]

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.

Redundancy and Anti-Monopoly?

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

I don't see whats the problems. An anti virus is like rust-proofing your car. Its needed and its your own damn fault if you never had it made. And you can't accuse the manufacturer of not doing it for you either
Microsoft claim that Vista is so secure, wouldn't it seem redundant to include an antivirus? You know, just like people (some of them, no one on /. of course) laugh at the built-in firewall?
And beside, wouldn't they expose themselve to Anti-Monopoly law if they were to include an antivirus?

(not that it dether MS usually but still...)

Re:Two possible reasons

[nbert]

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

[R3d M3rcury]

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...

Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[JTorres176]

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.

Re:So first virus in?

[saskboy]

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.

Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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:I know we hate M$ here...

[oGMo]

...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.

Not when the company that rightly disgusts us is a convicted monopolist. Convicted of abusing the monopoly by bundling software.

Furthermore, any notion of "cannot ship their own anti-virus solution" being ridiculous is far outweighed by the ridiculousness of shipping a product that needs it so badly out of the box.

This Roffles My Waffles.

[RoffleTheWaffle]

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.

Re:Two possible reasons

[cli_man]

I have always said that I would rather have a virus on my machine than an anti-virus.

I may get a virus that causes some troubles once every couple of years but most of them are pretty easy to remove and if they are not then I just re-install my machine and go happily along again.

However it seems with almost all of the anti-virus products your computer runs slow all the time and you get some nice random lockups when the anti-virus is scanning stupid stuff like a print job and then crashes your printer subsystem, or a new virus signiture that keeps your computer from shutting off correctly, or a new update that just hoses your install.

My advice for most people:

1. Use a computer with a private IP address behind a firewall, dsl router, etc.
2. Keep your updates/patches done
3. Only use an email service that does good server side virus scanning
4. Don't do stupid stuff, a little common sense goes a long way

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

[ivan256]

There's an option three.

They could implement a sane security model where file permissions disallow non administrative users from modifying executable code on disk, thus making 90% of what virus scanning programs do obsolete.

Re:I know we hate M$ here...

[Whafro]

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.

Good news

[buddyglass]

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.

One Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh. One Care is awful. I installed the public beta for a bit, but it basically turns your computer from a useful, productive tool into a dedicated One Care Updating Device. Constant interruptions and slowdowns, updates, and restarts. I had to remove it, it was such a burdensome application.

Except for the OneCare experiment I've gone without virus protection of any kind for more than two years now, no problems. I think a hardware firewall, exclusive use of web-based email (that scans attachments) and common sense is probably as good a defense against viruses and malware as any subscription "service".

Of course, come Feb. 3, Nyxem will probably delete these famous last words.

Re:Third possible reasons

[Denyer]

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

[Peter Bell]

For Windows to have a lack of virii like Unix systems they would have to shrink their market share to a small, Unix-like niche, so nobody would write virii for them.

Probably for the best...

[_Pablo]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the funny thing is that Mac OS X has implemented all of these things and more... back in 2003... Except the DRMed Windows Media Player... And closed standards for its "PDF alternative-Metro" printing subsystem (OSX went with PDF/postscript instead).

Seriously though, since you might not know much about Mac OS X, and may doubt my words that MacOS X has already implemented all these, just ask me which feature you need more info on, and I (and others) will try to help.

A few words about this " PDF alternative (Metro)". There is absolutely nothing wrong with postscript as it is already universal, versatile, and powerful enough. The only reason I see MS trying to re-invent the gravity is so they can then sell that "new and improved" gravity(tm) to suckers like me.

Like paying extra to fix leaks in brand new roof

[Retired Replicant]

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?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[aaronl]

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 Windows user at home, and someone who does MIS for work, most of these features are ones that will not be useful to me or my users. I approached my response not from a personal preference stance, anyway, but from a more objective analysis. A lot of these things really aren't a big deal, and don't require an OS revision, by any means. Many of them are already available, and certainly do not require hardware or software upgrades, and the very large associated cost of doing so. It will be many years after the release of Vista before businesses are going to be using it.

The volume control thing is nice, but by no means important enough to be major feature. It's also something that could be done by a third-party application by intercepting DirectSound for each app accessing the API. The priv-escalation would be nice for me, but not something that I could deploy across the enterprise. Tweaks that enhance performance are always nice, so I can't complain about them. IE use is already discouraged, and IE7 isn't going to change that. The IE design is broken, and IE7 isn't going to be fixing it. The existing printing system works, and is also of no concern to the vast majority of users. Also, PDF is ubiquious, and a MS-only alternative is not desireable nor welcome in most places. Fast user switching in domains is useful in very isolated cases, but not for the general business case. It is useless at home, since you don't have a domain at home.

The decision to not backport the full WinFX API kind of dooms the API. WinFX is not cross-platform, and won't be available on Win2K, which immediately means that I can't and won't use any apps that require it in the enterprise. The same is true of most businesses, since most have Win2K in wide deployment. Any applications targetted at business users will not be able to touch it.