CWmike writes "Microsoft's new free security software, Windows Security Essentials, passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors, said independent and trusted firm AV-Test, which tested Essentials, launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers. 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,' Marx said in an e-mail. 'That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet.' It also tested well on false positives."
"AV-Test also examined the program's anti-rootkit skills and its ability to scrub a system of malware it finds with a limited number of samples and "found no reasons to complain," Marx said. "[Security Essentials] is able to remove found malware very well, but further tests against larger sets of samples are required before we can come to a final conclusion."
I'd be pretty suprised if they're AV-tool doesn't handle "Malware" - considering Mark Russinovich of sysinternals works for Microsoft now, and was the one to discover Sony's Rootkit and provide the fix for it. Among the many other tools he has provided over the years and still updates regularly. http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/ [technet.com]
Even against viruses, trojans and worms, it really won't stop them from getting owned. It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones. And new ones often will take out the antivirus, leaving you with an even falser sense of security.
> It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.
You refer to heuristic scanning, or pro-active security. This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.
You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics (60%) in retroactive tests (outdated definitions, therefore, unknown viruses) with by far the least number of false positives (which is crucial for good heuristics).
They even overtook the former leader, NOD32 (and often even in performance).
But they still think the US and it's friends are the whole world:
From the download site: Not available in your country or region
You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.
This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows. I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?
Should be interesting to see if the current AV vendors try the anti-trust card with MS for this. I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.
TCP/IP should be in the OS - it is a resource management issue and is a hardware issue. If only a handful of apps used it, maybe third-party would be acceptable. But you don't want a third-party stack crashing the OS, so write it yourself and include it.
On the other hand, Anti-virus products shouldn't even be needed. MS should be able to write software with fewer holes in it. They have piles of static analysis tools, piles of research, and piles of other stuff. They just don't want to take the time and fix things (including testing), so they put wrappers like UAC around things instead of fixing it.
I've seen lots of bug reports ignored by MS just because it doesn't look like it's exploitable, only to have some crafty fool figure out how to exploit it. I can cause a stack overflow in Oracle 10.x drivers by sending a VALID openquery through a linked server. Runtime catches the error, but then it causes a crash in the error reporting because the stack is trashed. Currently it's a null refrence, but how hard would it be to turn a stack overflow into a server root hack? Not all that hard. But they won't fix it because the problem is in a third party module, and if that one is fixed the MS error disappears. I'm just saying these vulnerabilities are all over the place, especially since they have so much third-party code.
One person or company making the problem, and the solution to the problem, does not look good. Especially since MS only publically fixes holes they publically admit to. There might be piles of security problems no one else knows about, but MS AV might know to watch for suspicious behaviour that only MS knows about.
Giant virus outbreak because it's too expensive to patch a particular problem, or can't get it out fast enough, and only Windows SE customers are protected so everyone ditches Symantec and other AV and goes to Windows. It's not that far-fetched, and they might even do it that way by accident. When it's possible to have that kind of advantage and wipe out your competition in a single event like that, especially if it's unintentional, that's a problem.
Just saying, the mafia used to take protection money, but you were being protected from the mafia. Problem and solution should be from different sources. Therefore your analogy is invalid, same as if my hair were a bird.
On the other hand, Anti-virus products shouldn't even be needed. MS should be able to write software with fewer holes in it. They have piles of static analysis tools, piles of research, and piles of other stuff. They just don't want to take the time and fix things (including testing), so they put wrappers like UAC around things instead of fixing it.
Microsoft software is already more secure than most vendors. Recent major viruses have either:
1) Spread via social engineering. (The kind of thing UAC is suppose
Be that as it may, his statement of comparing the relative usability of windows during time periods before and after MS made a windows component change is no less valid. Additionally, his statement supposes that similar integration (assuming it is done properly) will likewise make windows usability improve.
So, AC, your very obvious implication that he is astroturfing despite relating nothing but easily confirmed facts is a waste of everyone's time involved. If you want to take a swing at MS' credibility, by
I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.
How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?" Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?
really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.
It isn't one OS.
Every OS is "broken" in the sense that there are always avenues of attack.
It can't be otherwise so long as mere humans have the final say on which programs can be installed and which programs can be run.
To call something "Malware" is fundamentally a value judgment.
I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved and certified-safe by Redmond, Cupertino, or his favorite Linux distro.
It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product? I think that is there biggest problem here... PR.j I will admit I laughed when I saw the article, and it is Microsoft's reputation that made me laugh. Maybe it is good, but I am I really willing to give them the chance with something that important?
I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.
Let's face it. If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?
In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed. Then maybe the manufacturers won't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products, and THAT will be fun to watch.
It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product?
Microsoft is strongly positioned as a client OS. On the server. In core business applications. In development tools. In console gaming....
In software software sales, MS Office is bigger than games.
Bigger than anything. It is the tail that wags the dog. The 900 pound gorilla. Choose whatever metaphor you like.
The Win 7 Beta opened to rock-solid reviews and has effortlessly claimed about half the market share of Linux on the desktop. Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com]
The geek knows all of this intellectually, but he can't process it emotionally. It is easier to live within the bubble.
I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.
Windows Firewall wasn't designed for the techie.
It was designed for the user relentlessly nagged by requests to approve outbound access for the obscure subroutines of programs that already have his permission to access the net.
People forget (or weren't alive yet) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel can't run on (no hardware support for "root" on a 8088)
Not exactly accurate. For starters, Windows NT 3.1/3.5 also ran on Alpha and MIPs, not just x86. More importantly, Windows didn't take off until the 386 came out (and i386 is still the basis for much code, including Linux). Almost no one ran Windows on a 286, and virtually no one on a 8086/8088.
With all that talent, resources, and internal knowledge they should have a slam dunk. Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood. It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner, or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component.
The Microsoft style is to solve problems by throwing a lot of people at it, and they use that strategy fairly well. Instead of simplifying the structure to where it can be reasonably dealt with by a small group of people, they are happy to make it big. For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel. Having so many more system calls means each internal refactor will have to take more into consideration, as well as requiring more testing, but it's ok, Microsoft is happy to throw lots of testers at it. The ASP.net model, which basically wraps a whole system around html/javascript to encapsulate it and make it easier for the average programmer was an amazingly man-hour intensive job, once again requiring lots of testing and many special cases, and yet Microsoft did it.
That operating style is especially well suited to AV software, because it is a job that can be easily broken up and handed out to different programmers, and catching all the viruses is a job that can be easily helped if you have a lot of programmers and testers. It makes sense that Microsoft would write good AV software.
Ok, I have to quibble with the ASP.NET comment. Bash Microsoft all you want but get your facts straight.
ASP.NET is not primarily an HTML/Javascript wrapper. Its purpose is much more ambitious than that. I would argue that the greatest strength of ASP.NET is providing an easy method for a web developer to utilize the.NET framework. Yes, its complex but so are the enterprise-class applications I build with it. Some of us build things more complicated than a blog publishing platform. And thus we need more rob
In my view, using a "small subset of the.NET framework" is not an argument against using ASP.NET..NET is a huge and extremely varied framework (as you evidently know well). It would be a very odd case where any particular application - whether it be web or Win32 - would require the majority of the functionality provided through.NET.
But the fact that all I need is a screwdriver does not lessen the value of having a well-stocked toolbox. The first time I had to create a web application that could consume and perform complex recursive logic on XML files created by a mobile application framework, I didn't have to wonder whether.NET provided the necessary functionality. I knew it did even though I'd never used it before.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you there aren't things about.NET that drive me nuts. And, in fairness, I don't have a lot of experience with other web application frameworks. Still,.NET gives me what I need when I need it and without a lot of fuss. The biggest problems I deal with each day have very little to do with my framework of choice and much more to do with things outside of my control. C'est la vie, eh?
By the way, I'm the Anonymous Coward that posted above. I just created a new Slashdot account so now I can be a Well-Known Coward.
It's always been this way. Microsoft rests on their laurels until an upstart company starts making money at their expense. Between Mac, Linux, and the insane proliferation of general crapware, MS has a real image problem on their hands. Luckily for Microsoft, the best and the brightest can be wooed by the kind of money they're able to throw around. When they throw their top programmers at a job, the results are stunning, just witness the turnaround from early Vista to the current beta of Windows 7. Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers. Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.
So I decided i'd check it out for my XP box....
"Not available in your country or region
You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.
This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
"
So...not Canada?
*sigh*
Well, time for Nod32 or kaspersky I guess...
A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor advocating a healthy lifestyle. Stop twisting reality to fit your fundamentalist preconceptions.
Any computer consultant worth his salt won't get drawn into silly squabbles over OS/platform/software/language/etc., and will recommend the *best* solution for the client. Don't ever let bigotry blind you...
I describe myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Unix proponent (24 years now), but I run Windows on my desktop machines, and have recommended Windows on many occasions, including some large-scale Fortune 20 deployments, where it made more sense. (For servers, I avoid Windows unless the app environment really needs it or runs markedly better there, but there are still a good number of those situations. Given my druthers, I design new systems around open source technologies, mostly because of the lifecycle cost savings. Auditing all those licenses is a non-trivial cost and PITA, not to mention acquiring them in the first place - and avoiding licensed software makes leveraging cloud computing *much* easier...)
Windows certainly has its faults, and I'm a big critic, but it also has its place, and for a good number of things (even some server-based things), Windows is the best choice - sometimes by a good margin.
Microsoft should not be making antivirus software. It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.
The OS has many fundamental problems, some of which cannot be resolved without redesigning the core internals which would render all older software incompatible any newer version of the OS. This sort of problem was identified long ago, but it was decided that the cost of change would be too great, the burden on third party software vendors too heavy and ultimately, it would be too slow to adopt and migrate for all users. And the longer they wait for this eventuality, the more expensive and prohibitive it becomes to make such important changes.
If this sounds like the U.S. moving from Imperial measurements to the globally accepted Metric system, you wouldn't be alone in this observation.
Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it. And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything. But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here. Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?
All UAC did was train people to press "Yes" on every dialog even more zealously than before. A system based around asking important questions to people who neither understand or care is not a good one. sudo works because everyone using it does care.
What MS is doing here is clever IMO. Instead of trusting the user to not do anything dumb, they've instead given them a big "Press me to fix your computer" button to wail on. People will see their computer is being slow, hit the button and hopefully the problem will be fixed.
When you consider all the extra crap they ship with their OS, including something that is actually useful like this should have been done 10 years ago.
It has had much more patches over the year and I'm not conviced that an actively developped open source project like this is more vulnerable because more holes are found. That might be a sign that it's easier to locate in apache than IIS but does not mean they are non existent and unknown to the wrong people in IIS.
To sum it up: you don't care about any numbers I might show you, you just firmly believe that Apache is more secure, simply because it's OSS.
So, is there any point to discuss it further, then?
A real shell? Having to install cygwin is kinda a pain. No powershell does not count.
Way to craft your requirements in such a way that they're impossible to meet. What is a "real" shell? And what features does your "real" shell require that PowerShell doesn't have?
Let me guess, a "real" shell is defined as "a shell that Microsoft is not currently shipping."
Try using it. 1. A shell that uses objects is asinine. It looks like a bunch of java idiots tried to make a shell. If I wanted objects I would use a programming language, this is supposed to be scripting.
2. No ssh, lame.
3. does not support anything like authorized_keys.
If my memory serves correctly, Windows Defender is based around IE and protecting the computer from exploits that come in through the browser. Anti-virus software on the other hand scans the rest of the system. To come up with a theoretical example, if you are running Windows Defender and AV software, when you visit a website with malicious code on it, Windows Defender will recognize the code attempting to execute in the browser and block it. On the other hand, if you are only running AV by itself, the m
Malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Malware? (Score:5, Informative)
"AV-Test also examined the program's anti-rootkit skills and its ability to scrub a system of malware it finds with a limited number of samples and "found no reasons to complain," Marx said. "[Security Essentials] is able to remove found malware very well, but further tests against larger sets of samples are required before we can come to a final conclusion."
Parent
Re:Malware? (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/ [technet.com]
Parent
Re:Malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Malware? (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up. The "several other [antivirus] scanners" won't detect new ones because they're tested against before release.
From a software engineering point of view, malware is state of the art.
Parent
Re:Malware? (Score:5, Informative)
> It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.
You refer to heuristic scanning, or pro-active security. This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.
You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics (60%) in retroactive tests (outdated definitions, therefore, unknown viruses) with by far the least number of false positives (which is crucial for good heuristics).
They even overtook the former leader, NOD32 (and often even in performance).
Source for heuristics (2009):
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report22.pdf [av-comparatives.org]
Parent
Sounds positive (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But they still think the US and it's friends are the whole world:
From the download site:
Not available in your country or region
You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable.
This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried to open that file but it didn't work. My norton is working to protect me from malicious files very well thankyou.
If norton was doing its job, it would not allow you to open norton since it is also malicious.
I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (Score:5, Funny)
Well, we know one thing for certain: "Resistance is futile"
Parent
Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (Score:5, Funny)
"Resistance is futile"
Yes but only if much less than 1 Ohm
Parent
Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (Score:5, Interesting)
claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.
How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.
Come on EU, save us from a secure windows platform.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anti-trust? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anti-trust? (Score:5, Interesting)
There was talk about antitrust suits when Microsoft first included the TCP/IP stack in windows. Before that you had to go to another vendor.
It made life a LOT more easy once it was built into the OS.
I'm pretty sure the same thing will be true of AV software.
Parent
Re:Anti-trust? (Score:4, Insightful)
TCP/IP should be in the OS - it is a resource management issue and is a hardware issue. If only a handful of apps used it, maybe third-party would be acceptable. But you don't want a third-party stack crashing the OS, so write it yourself and include it.
On the other hand, Anti-virus products shouldn't even be needed. MS should be able to write software with fewer holes in it. They have piles of static analysis tools, piles of research, and piles of other stuff. They just don't want to take the time and fix things (including testing), so they put wrappers like UAC around things instead of fixing it.
I've seen lots of bug reports ignored by MS just because it doesn't look like it's exploitable, only to have some crafty fool figure out how to exploit it. I can cause a stack overflow in Oracle 10.x drivers by sending a VALID openquery through a linked server. Runtime catches the error, but then it causes a crash in the error reporting because the stack is trashed. Currently it's a null refrence, but how hard would it be to turn a stack overflow into a server root hack? Not all that hard. But they won't fix it because the problem is in a third party module, and if that one is fixed the MS error disappears. I'm just saying these vulnerabilities are all over the place, especially since they have so much third-party code.
One person or company making the problem, and the solution to the problem, does not look good. Especially since MS only publically fixes holes they publically admit to. There might be piles of security problems no one else knows about, but MS AV might know to watch for suspicious behaviour that only MS knows about.
Giant virus outbreak because it's too expensive to patch a particular problem, or can't get it out fast enough, and only Windows SE customers are protected so everyone ditches Symantec and other AV and goes to Windows. It's not that far-fetched, and they might even do it that way by accident. When it's possible to have that kind of advantage and wipe out your competition in a single event like that, especially if it's unintentional, that's a problem.
Just saying, the mafia used to take protection money, but you were being protected from the mafia. Problem and solution should be from different sources. Therefore your analogy is invalid, same as if my hair were a bird.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, Anti-virus products shouldn't even be needed. MS should be able to write software with fewer holes in it. They have piles of static analysis tools, piles of research, and piles of other stuff. They just don't want to take the time and fix things (including testing), so they put wrappers like UAC around things instead of fixing it.
Microsoft software is already more secure than most vendors. Recent major viruses have either:
1) Spread via social engineering. (The kind of thing UAC is suppose
Re:Anti-trust? (Score:5, Interesting)
I should be able to submit bug reports directly to MS
secure@microsoft.com [mailto]
I have actually submitted information about a vulnerability that way. It was fixed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Be that as it may, his statement of comparing the relative usability of windows during time periods before and after MS made a windows component change is no less valid. Additionally, his statement supposes that similar integration (assuming it is done properly) will likewise make windows usability improve.
So, AC, your very obvious implication that he is astroturfing despite relating nothing but easily confirmed facts is a waste of everyone's time involved. If you want to take a swing at MS' credibility, by
Re:Anti-trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.
How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?" Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?
Oh ok... Thought so.
Parent
Re:Anti-trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.
It isn't one OS.
Every OS is "broken" in the sense that there are always avenues of attack.
It can't be otherwise so long as mere humans have the final say on which programs can be installed and which programs can be run.
To call something "Malware" is fundamentally a value judgment.
I think the geek would be the first to howl if he could only install the apps approved and certified-safe by Redmond, Cupertino, or his favorite Linux distro.
Parent
Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product? I think that is there biggest problem here... PR.j I will admit I laughed when I saw the article, and it is Microsoft's reputation that made me laugh. Maybe it is good, but I am I really willing to give them the chance with something that important?
I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.
Let's face it. If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?
In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed. Then maybe the manufacturers won't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products, and THAT will be fun to watch.
Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product?
Microsoft is strongly positioned as a client OS. On the server. In core business applications. In development tools. In console gaming....
In software software sales, MS Office is bigger than games.
Bigger than anything. It is the tail that wags the dog. The 900 pound gorilla. Choose whatever metaphor you like.
The Win 7 Beta opened to rock-solid reviews and has effortlessly claimed about half the market share of Linux on the desktop. Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com]
The geek knows all of this intellectually, but he can't process it emotionally. It is easier to live within the bubble.
I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.
Windows Firewall wasn't designed for the techie.
It was designed for the user relentlessly nagged by requests to approve outbound access for the obscure subroutines of programs that already have his permission to access the net.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People forget (or weren't alive yet) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel can't run on (no hardware support for "root" on a 8088)
Not exactly accurate. For starters, Windows NT 3.1/3.5 also ran on Alpha and MIPs, not just x86. More importantly, Windows didn't take off until the 386 came out (and i386 is still the basis for much code, including Linux). Almost no one ran Windows on a 286, and virtually no one on a 8086/8088.
Code originally designed to run on a 8086 and
Probably Pretty Good (Score:5, Insightful)
With all that talent, resources, and internal knowledge they should have a slam dunk. Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood. It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner, or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component.
It makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
That operating style is especially well suited to AV software, because it is a job that can be easily broken up and handed out to different programmers, and catching all the viruses is a job that can be easily helped if you have a lot of programmers and testers. It makes sense that Microsoft would write good AV software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I have to quibble with the ASP.NET comment. Bash Microsoft all you want but get your facts straight.
ASP.NET is not primarily an HTML/Javascript wrapper. Its purpose is much more ambitious than that. I would argue that the greatest strength of ASP.NET is providing an easy method for a web developer to utilize the .NET framework. Yes, its complex but so are the enterprise-class applications I build with it. Some of us build things more complicated than a blog publishing platform. And thus we need more rob
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
But the fact that all I need is a screwdriver does not lessen the value of having a well-stocked toolbox. The first time I had to create a web application that could consume and perform complex recursive logic on XML files created by a mobile application framework, I didn't have to wonder whether
I'm not going to sit here and tell you there aren't things about
By the way, I'm the Anonymous Coward that posted above. I just created a new Slashdot account so now I can be a Well-Known Coward.
Parent
MS still has superb programmers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always been this way. Microsoft rests on their laurels until an upstart company starts making money at their expense. Between Mac, Linux, and the insane proliferation of general crapware, MS has a real image problem on their hands. Luckily for Microsoft, the best and the brightest can be wooed by the kind of money they're able to throw around. When they throw their top programmers at a job, the results are stunning, just witness the turnaround from early Vista to the current beta of Windows 7.
Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers. Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.
Re:MS still has superb programmers (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many AV suites already released for free - Avira, AVG, Comodo, etc. Avira is much more popular than paid AV suites around here.
Parent
Great if you're living in one of 5 countries... (Score:3, Interesting)
directed self-interest (Score:3, Insightful)
A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes. It creates a lot of extra work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:directed self-interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Any computer consultant worth his salt won't get drawn into silly squabbles over OS/platform/software/language/etc., and will recommend the *best* solution for the client. Don't ever let bigotry blind you...
I describe myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Unix proponent (24 years now), but I run Windows on my desktop machines, and have recommended Windows on many occasions, including some large-scale Fortune 20 deployments, where it made more sense. (For servers, I avoid Windows unless the app environment really needs it or runs markedly better there, but there are still a good number of those situations. Given my druthers, I design new systems around open source technologies, mostly because of the lifecycle cost savings. Auditing all those licenses is a non-trivial cost and PITA, not to mention acquiring them in the first place - and avoiding licensed software makes leveraging cloud computing *much* easier...)
Windows certainly has its faults, and I'm a big critic, but it also has its place, and for a good number of things (even some server-based things), Windows is the best choice - sometimes by a good margin.
Parent
It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should not be making antivirus software. It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.
The OS has many fundamental problems, some of which cannot be resolved without redesigning the core internals which would render all older software incompatible any newer version of the OS. This sort of problem was identified long ago, but it was decided that the cost of change would be too great, the burden on third party software vendors too heavy and ultimately, it would be too slow to adopt and migrate for all users. And the longer they wait for this eventuality, the more expensive and prohibitive it becomes to make such important changes.
If this sounds like the U.S. moving from Imperial measurements to the globally accepted Metric system, you wouldn't be alone in this observation.
Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it. And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything. But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here. Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?
Re:It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do thi (Score:5, Interesting)
Its a social problem, not a technical one.
All UAC did was train people to press "Yes" on every dialog even more zealously than before. A system based around asking important questions to people who neither understand or care is not a good one. sudo works because everyone using it does care.
What MS is doing here is clever IMO. Instead of trusting the user to not do anything dumb, they've instead given them a big "Press me to fix your computer" button to wail on. People will see their computer is being slow, hit the button and hopefully the problem will be fixed.
Parent
About time (Score:3, Funny)
When you consider all the extra crap they ship with their OS, including something that is actually useful like this should have been done 10 years ago.
Only protection against files? (Score:3, Insightful)
'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,'
Aren't there other attacks besides file-based ?? This sounds rather silly!
Stephan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people will download and install anything? Even OSX was hit recently with people pirating the iwork suite.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad apache proves you wrong.
This is an old, tired and false argument. If any OS had the holes windows does it would get exploited like mad.
Parent
Re:Maybe, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Viruses don't target server environments. That's pretty much by definition - as they require active user interaction to spread.
Exploits are a different thing, but, really, have you looked at vulnerability stats in Apache vs IIS6/7 lately? Try it, you might be surprised.
Parent
Re:Maybe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has had much more patches over the year and I'm not conviced that an actively developped open source project like this is more vulnerable because more holes are found. That might be a sign that it's easier to locate in apache than IIS but does not mean they are non existent and unknown to the wrong people in IIS.
To sum it up: you don't care about any numbers I might show you, you just firmly believe that Apache is more secure, simply because it's OSS.
So, is there any point to discuss it further, then?
Parent
Re:Maybe, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Oh wow 1 flaw, BFD."
Well, you have to add them all up you see..
Parent
Re:Microsoft Hate (Score:4, Informative)
A real shell?
Having to install cygwin is kinda a pain. No powershell does not count.
Way to craft your requirements in such a way that they're impossible to meet. What is a "real" shell? And what features does your "real" shell require that PowerShell doesn't have?
Let me guess, a "real" shell is defined as "a shell that Microsoft is not currently shipping."
Parent
Re:Microsoft Hate (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to a "real" office suite being defined as one that is compatible with Microsoft Office?
Parent
Re:Microsoft Hate (Score:5, Interesting)
Try using it.
1.
A shell that uses objects is asinine.
It looks like a bunch of java idiots tried to make a shell. If I wanted objects I would use a programming language, this is supposed to be scripting.
2. No ssh, lame.
3. does not support anything like authorized_keys.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows Defender? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent