CWmike writes "Microsoft will block users running counterfeit copies of Windows from installing the free Security Essentials antivirus software, said Alex Kochis, director of Microsoft's Genuine Windows team, in a post to a company blog. On-again, off-again debates about the wisdom of blocking security-oriented downloads like patches or defensive software have centered around the argument that Microsoft should protect all users, including pirates, since hijacked PCs threaten the entire Windows ecosystem. In this case, though, one analyst isn't buying that line. 'I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users],' said John Pescatore, Gartner's primary security analyst. 'Those people have many other choices, including free. There are plenty of alternatives to Security Essentials,' he said, adding that that makes a difference. Windows patches, on the other hand, aren't available from anyone but Microsoft."
With vaccination, this is known as herd immunity [wikipedia.org]. Basically, even if an individual is not vaccinated (or virus/malware/etc protected in this case), by virtue of others being vaccinated, there is less chance the non-vaccinated will become infected since there are less people who they are coming into contact with who are harboring the virus. Following with this, the greater the number of immune, the less likely the unprotected will become ill.
I strongly suspect the same concepts would apply to computers, and allowing pirates to have this protection would indeed provide greater security to ALL the unprotected windows users. Thus, the choices for MS are 1) increase security for all users (paying or not) by allowing even pirates to download in order to increase the protection via herd immunity or 2) increase company profit by trying to coerce hackers into buying a copy by not allowing them this download. Since the latter will never happen, all MS is really doing is simply missing an opportunity to increase security because they *think* they can increase profit. Alternatively, maybe they think they are simply teaching those pirates a lesson, but sadly it would be at the expense of others.
Herd immunity works in biology because the distance to travel to another unprotected host is too far or takes too long for the virus to survive floating around. But with networked computers that isn't really an issue, is it? It might take a little longer to scan ports on more addresses but for an automated virus in a computer whose owner isn't patching it anyway, this isn't a big deal. Everyone who thinks they know better feel free to contradict me, I'm just speculating:
More infected machines = more machines doing said attacking
If you have 1 machine infected, you have 50 connections. If you have 10, you have 10 fold the number of connections, which makes it easier for them to find the 25% of machines (that's a steady number) that are unprotected. Reducing the number of machines able to be infected reduces spread rate, which increases security since those who do get infected can get rid of it before it finds another host more often.
In biology, that would be the equivalent of changing the time between the symptoms' appearance and the patient's becoming contagious, assuming symptoms come before someone is contagious. If you have a longer timeframe, the virus is more likely too be killed before it infects someone else. The same applies here, in exactly the same way.
Reducing the number of machines able to be infected reduces spread rate, which increases security since those who do get infected can get rid of it before it finds another host more often.
You forget that geometric progressions don't much care for the spread rate. Let's assume a few things:
1. We want to query every single IPv4 address space (brute force and stupid, since only a little over 2^27, 75%, is actually in use in some fashion). 2. We're going to say that 90% of the machines out there run Windows. Actual estimates vary. 3. If an infection is timed correctly, even an out of band emergency patch will hit less than half [theregister.co.uk] of all machines. So, a worm has 30 days to spread between Patch Tuesdays. 4. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume everyone's bandwidth is a mere 10KB/s bidirectional. 5. Also for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to say that it takes 10KB of data to probe a machine to see if its infected. 6. At any given point in time, I'm going to say only 5% of machines on the internet are accessible (turned on, and can receive connections). I have no factual basis for this -- it's an assumption. So based on 4 & 5, I can make 1 probe attempt per second. Last, a disclaimer -- I do not know much about statistics. If I made a mistake, sorry.
So, in a day, a single machine can probe 86,400 IPs, probing the space in a random fashion. Of those, 64,800 (75%) are "in use" in some fashion. 58,320 (90%) of those run Windows. And 2,916 are turned on and receiving connections. 1,458 (half) are unpatched for the first 30 days of the spread. It manages to infect 2 machines in the first hour it runs (rounded down; is actually about 2.5) The next hour, 6.25 machines are infected, and so on and so forth. In 24 hours, 3.5 billion machines have been probed and infected.
Geometric progressions like this are the reason why statistics like "An unpatched windows machine directly connected to the internet is compromised within 8 minutes" exists. The premise "Reducing the number of machines able to be infected reduces spread rate, which increases security" is not valid -- because the spread rate is almost completely irrelevant. Even if I say only 1 machine per hour is infected, in just over 30 hours we have the same number of infected machines -- even though we cut the rate from 2.5 to 1.
If you want to make a difference -- reduce the window of opportunity; PATCH NOW. The rate is wholly irrelevant.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 30, @09:03PM (#29601139)
Yeah, i keep hearing that repeated. "you are more likely to be infected using cracked software"
I've pirated (and bought) a large variety of software in the last 15 years. And the one time i have ever been infected. it came from a piece of commercial software right on the cd.
The 'pirates' and cracked software are WAY more trustworthy than any company out there. It only takes one or two bad comments to make people avoid using that cracked piece of software. With commercial software it takes thousands of bad installs before it makes the news and people avoid a bad piece of commercial software.
Just having a more tech savy audience the cracked software will be subect to far more scruntity than anything you'd buy off the shelf.
You're implying that cracked software could be evaluated by the 'tech crowd'. I've never seen a cracker release the source code for their cracks.
You are essentially trusting a complete stranger (from the internet no less) with no responsibility, visibility, or accountability, and running an unknown executable. That is not safe.
Even the cracker/warez websites themselves are typically loaded with malware, spoofing/phishing attempts, etc.
Crackers have a reputation to uphold. I trust some cracking groups more than Microsoft, Apple and Symantec. I've "known" some of them since the Amiga-days, and know that they would never risk their reputation by releasing stuff infected with malware. Shady companies do that, not well-known crackers. Fairlight, Razor 1911 and Skid Row has very good reputations, I'd trust them over Google any day.
These "cracker/warez websites" you mention is a different matter, they have nothing to do with the actual crackers - no reputable cracking group has a website where they release their (illegal) stuff, everybody knows that. On a site like that you're just as likely to find infected OSS, anything that they think clueless newbies will download will be infected.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 30, @06:58PM (#29600345)
He's right in that many people who have the tech-savvy to pirate a copy of Windows will know what their options are regarding anti-virus.
On the other hand, how much does Microsoft actually stand to lose when it comes to giving this away?
I'm willing to bet that they ran the numbers... "how much will the bandwidth cost us" vs "how much do we lose in good will by weakening the herd immunity".
Now that would be an interesting (read: evil) spreadsheet to look at:D
I don't know about you, but it seems that people who pirate windows would be the IDEAL people to give this to. I mean, it's a partial market segment you have right there. On one hand they aren't convinced that they want to BUY your product, but on the other hand they are using it - meaning that they are already identified as a very potential customer. I know I may be a bit utopian in my thinking, but wouldn't giving these users a good customer experience (as Microsoft calls it) the best way to convince them that they should in fact go out and buy the software - perhaps not even now, but the next time they upgrade their systems?
I know I may be a bit utopian in my thinking, but wouldn't giving these users a good customer experience (as Microsoft calls it) the best way to convince them that they should in fact go out and buy the software - perhaps not even now, but the next time they upgrade their systems?
No, it would more likely convince them that "hey, I got this great customer experience without even ever spending a dime, why spend money for what I can continue getting for free?" Not that I disagree (or agree for that matter) with allowing pirated users the option to use the software, I just think your logic is off.
I've never purchased a copy of Windows before, but the experience I got from Windows 7 Release Candidate caused me to buy it. I'm certainly not the only one. There are definitely a nonzero amount of customers that can be gained by giving users something they don't feel cheated in paying for.
He's right in that many people who have the tech-savvy to pirate a copy of Windows will know what their options are regarding anti-virus.
Yes because only computer geeks have pirated copies. There's a lot of people out there who don't know that they even have a pirated copy. Computer illiterate people often find help through shady repairmen, friends or relatives. These people come in find that Grandma didn't keep her license key or CD's, but the computer obviously came with XP. So they do her a favor, by reinstalling a pirated copy of windows but they're not there for longterm support.
Microsoft would be just protecting their own reputation when unknowing users of pirated installs are complaining less about Windows instability and others see fewer attacks from zombie farms. If you created a problem such as IE6, you should do everything in your power to solve it rather than ranting about others. Good for karma, good for pocketbook.
John Pescatore makes a good point. AVG, Avast, etc... are all free antivirus. When MS withholds patches, it can lead to stronger botnets and ID theft. However, antivirus applications are plentiful and the money MS will be investing in this thing makes them justified in not wanting to simply give it away.
As much as I hate to say it, I won't blame Microsoft for this move.
Pirating is illegal. Pirates are only ones really complaining. Pirates switch to Linux End of problem and it will takes windows out of the Free OS market.
I don't believe that Microsoft considers itself to be part of any "Free OS" market at all. Maybe they should be.
I can't speak for all linux users, but I hardly consider myself to be a pirate. I use a legal OS: GNU/linux. But, alas, I'm certain that Microsoft would hasten to point out how the license code for the copy of XP that resides in a Virtualbox guest is actually the license code that came with the copy of XP which was OEM'd onto the laptop that hosts that guest and that the EULA was for XP to run o
elephant in the room... what if I want to run XP Pro?
my only option if I don't already have a legitimate copy is to pirate it, given that you can no longer purchase it.
(granted I could still buy Vista with downgrade licence... but I don't want to pay for something I will never use)
The problem is microsoft has a love/hate relationship with the pirates. They have an absolute need for piracy to be possible but not to become attractive enough (in the first world) to become popular enough to eat into their profits overmuch.
Think about it, Microsoft could eliminate 99% of piracy overnight by using harsh copy protection combined with mandatory Genuine Advantage plus a couple of targeted logic bombs launched against a few of the more flagrant pirate copies. Problem is most pirates these days either built their PC from scratch (else they would have been force fed a license) or bought a PC from a pirate. The DIY crowd is too influential to piss off and what they are doing already stops the bulk of the chopshop pirates in the developed world. If they make pirate windows too unstable in the third world where it is popular they simply can't pay so would be driven to look for alternatives.... and would find them.
So this move is easily understandable, it gives the pirates a nudge but won't overly annoy any of the major groups who pirate. The DIY type who pirates Windows because those guys pirate everything just for fun will have little trouble finding cracked copies of whatever they have been using. At all appearances nobody in the secondary markets updates anything on their damned machines already, considering how much crap spews out.
Agreed, Microsoft are like Adobe, they have a love/hate relationship with warez pirates. Adobe actually tolerates piracy to a certain degree, as long as you buy licenses if you do commercial work. When it comes to personal use and learning their products at home, they tend to turn a blind eye. It's good business sense.
Everyone can blab on about herd immunity etc but this seems like denying a stolen car a repair under warranty. Systems are going to be used for attacks, it might as well be the pirates systems and not mine. Security these days is more about running faster than your peers, not outrunning the hackers. Microsoft doing this will put paying customers closer to the front of the race. And I am not a microsoft fanboy so don't write some bs about that.
What will everyone want next? Metadata updates for your stolen music from the record companies? As much as I hate some things about companies, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Except it's not the pirates with pwned machines that suffer, it's whoever the machines are currently targeting. Denying pirates security just increases the size of some Russian guy's botnet and makes life a little nastier for everyone, but it doesn't affect the pirate himself very much.
Of course, this is all assuming the pirated copy didn't come pre-infected...
Giving this software free to pirates is almost a promotion of piracy - if you get same stuff when you pirate, then there is no downside to do it. ll Also, few pirates might feel bad about the fact that their copy is not 'genuine'. And some owners of valid copies might feel satisfied knowing that people who got free ride didn't get the whole package.
Probably not. At bare minimum, this means more botnets members available to spam whatever email accounts you use.
Directly safe? Sure. Same as myself, and a lot of others. But indirectly, this doesn't help anyone but people running botnets. It's far more work to deny security updates to some users than it is to just give them to all users. And it's strategically a poor decision because of the INCREASED risk to the protected machines due to the attacks from the unprotected ones.
If this works, and you push it to everyone, you cut down on spam, attacks on your protected machines, and overall, you make the internet a little better place. And before anyone beats me to it, I know damn well that MS and "make the internet a little better place" don't belong in the same paragraph. Bitterly, I wonder if their goal of destroying the internet had any basis in this decision.
I don't see that many pirated Windows installs but the ones I do see are all from poor people who were given a bootleg XP or Windows 2000 disk with no product code and no questions asked. I mean, fair is fair and Microsoft is selling a product as a business not giving away their OS as a charity but in my experience the people they're hurting are the ones least able to help themselves.
The poor people I'm talking about here are usually seniors with little computer knowledge using out of date hardware and single parent families with few resources. They're not buying new computers and $150 for a Microsoft OS is too steep for their budget.
They're not leet hackers laughing at Microsoft, they're simple folk. One little old lady who had her computer in was completely
horrified when I told her that her Windows was pirated, she literally had no idea. Our policy is we don't help you once we discover your Windows is pirated for the simple reason that we have no way of knowing what has been done to the OS or what has been corrupted or is missing. In that case she came in a couple of months later with a legal Windows disk she'd saved up and bought and I installed it for her gratis. I know the price tag hurt her though but she would have no truck with illegal Windows.
Anyway, my point is that these folks are for the most part clueless and are ripe targets for botnetting since they lack the knowledge to acquire and keep an AV updated on their own. Free Avast and Free AVG are available to them but without handholding they'd never figure out how to jump through the hoops to download, install and set these up. The beauty of Microsoft Security Essentials is that they've made it pretty much self-running and idiot-proof. Like I said in my post yesterday, I'd push it out to everyone not already running an AV if I were Microsoft. It increases the general health of the Windows eco-system, makes Windows more secure and run better as a result, which in turn makes the Windows experience better for everyone and increases the likelihood of Windows purchases down the road through good word of mouth.
The leet hackers have the tools to look after themselves. If it were just them running pirated Windows, I'd agree with Microsoft and say stuff 'em. It's not though and things look a lot different on the bottom of the food chain; it's those most unable to protect themselves who get hurt the most.
She is highly unlikely to be reliant on any industry vertical software or anything obscure like that (she probably just wants a web browser and email client), and would be much better off with a free OS.
"Microsoft will block users running counterfeit copies of Windows..."
No, try this rewording instead:
"Microsoft will block users not running WGA certified copies of Windows..."
It can be non-counterfeit and yet not registered or certified by the Windows Genuine "Advantage" stuff. It can even be non-counterfeit and REJECTED by WGA.
The problem is that Windows is intentionally designed to be easy to crack, as a marketing tool. They wanted it to spread as wide as possible. In former Soviet Union about 99% of Windows are cracked versions.
Now they stop critical updates because they want the bot-nets to grow and make the Internet unusable, because they are losing in the Internet to Google. So they destroy the Internet, and the world is returning to the Desktop.
It is quite possible. For example, I cannot already use the torrent, if I use it, then my provider disconnects me next day for several hours. Crime and punishment.
I begin to see a new meaning in the words: The freedom is not free.
The problem is that Windows is intentionally designed to be easy to crack, as a marketing tool.
This used to be true in older days, and even XP WGA was a half-assed attempt which was trivially cracked, but it seems that things have changed somewhat since Vista.
I recall trying to find an activation crack for Vista that would also enable Windows Update (i.e. let you pass validation online) about two months after Vista was released... and yes, they were there - but installation was quite messy, requiring bootloader hacks and such. I didn't really see it improve for a few more months - in fact, some of t
Is piracy good for microsoft, and bad for linux? If *indows wasn't "free", in practice, would linux have seen more adoption? Should Linux users then help Microsoft denounce piracy, go for the piracy snitch rewards [bsa.org]?
Nevermind the pirates. They get what they paid for. Giving them nothing makes good sense.
What the hell happened to Windows Live OneCare? You know, paying customers?
What does the MSE release say to the people who paid for that Microsoft AV program, among other OneCare services?
The message is pretty clear: "Pay Microsoft and get screwed." Get your OS software for free, because it is nearly free when you buy a new PC. The entire expectation they are building into the market is "Our product and our word is worthless." Releasing this almost seems like an admission that they can't fairly compete in AV products.
Which also says to me "Illegal product dumping." Symantec and CA should sue them silly. This is definitely not a fair way to enter the AV market, not even for the "free" AV's because it absolutely kills their upsell business. I expect DOJ action, or a joint lawsuit on this. A class-action from the OneCare people wouldn't be out of the question either, if they aren't offering refunds to recent purchasers. This release is criminal, in my mind, and utterly undermines the concept of proprietary software that you pay for because it is worth it.
The message to the end-user is: "Our software is not worth buying." The message to the entire security sector is: "Thank you for covering our backsides for all those years, now piss off."
Ugly. This kind of bad faith could (and IMO should) hurt Microsoft. I don't know what they're thinking out in Redmond. They need to rally around the Windows 7 release, not insult vendors and their paying customers.
There might be another, less charitable, explanation for Microsoft's decision. I know nothing certain about Microsoft's real motives so I will be speculating a bit as follows.
Everyone knows that MS Windows is the main host of botnets, zombies, and general malware on the Internet. Hardly a month passes without Microsoft patching yet another "critical vulnerability". Unfortunately there are reasons why MS Windows is more vulnerable than e.g. MacOs, Unix, FreeBSD, or Linux. For one thing, MS Windows (until Vista) was never designed from the ground up for multi-user operation, security was ever tacked on as an afterthought, the architecture of MS Windows with its miriad add-on's (that tend to carry out _system_ tasks) and the (deliberately) tight coupling between MS Windows and MS applications conveniently makes for multiple points of attack, and once a process is suborned by an attacker there is nothing in MS Windows architecture that's designed to contain it or stand in its way. That's why we see so many infected Windows PC's on the Internet.
Oh yes, there are those who hold that e.g. Linux would suffer the same level of penetration had it had the same level of penetration on the desktop but the fact that about 60% of all Internet traffic is handled by Linux machines (which are far less often compromised) pleads against that. It's not exposure that does it but architecture (and the quality of administration, but that's another issue).
So that being the case, what would benefit Microsoft more than to be able to cast doubt on tales of machines being infected and taken over as "Probably pirated copies; legal Windows versions are protected by MS security updates."?
That would give Microsoft a good reply when called out over the insecurity of MS Windows (e.g. when a large organization is considering what OS it should use in the next 10 years).
What do you think? Might I be anywhere near the mark?
MS also blocks pirates from installing an illegal copy of Windows, but yet they do it. I'm sure they can also install an illegal copy of the Security Essentials Software. If they want to.
Unless I am completely mistaken, most botnet infections occur because of user action, not because the computer is allowing remote connections. Linux would be equally vulnerable if unqualified users were using it and installing software on it. When the software they are installing asks for the root password, they would obviously supply the root password, because they are unqualified.
That explains the situation for Windows. Plain and simple, these people using Windows have no business administering a compu
Wow, I went from a +3, informative, down to 0, flamebait. Nice. Despite the swearing, everything I said was true, and you are wrong. LOTS of Windows malware has spread WITHOUT user interaction, thanks to a slew of MS apps that execute code willy-nilly, for example Klez [wikipedia.org] ("The text portion [of the email] consists of either an HTML internal frame tag which causes buggy e-mail clients to automatically execute the worm...") and Sasser [wikipedia.org] ("Sasser spreads by exploiting the system through a vulnerable network port...") and the Kak worm [wikipedia.org] ("...a VBScript worm that uses a bug in Outlook Express to spread itself.")
Your argument about administering Linux and Windows boils down to "Neither Linux nor Windows can be secured 100%, therefore they're equally bad" and that is NOT the case. If Linux or Mac OS X were dominant they'd have SOME problems, but not the amount that Windows has.
That aside, I agree with you when you say security is not an easy thing. However, security comes in layers, and having an OS that's not equal parts mashed potatoes and swiss cheese is a good start. LOTS of the technologies that could have stopped the spread of MOST malware were WELL KNOWN and EASILY IMPLEMENTED at the time needed but MS just sat on their hands and did NOTHING for YEARS. Buffer overflows can take some work to find but MS has made COUNTLESS stupid decisions over the years, like having Outlook Express automatically execute code sent IN ATTACHMENTS (besides displaying/executing bad HTML/JS/etc in EMAIL CLIENTS) and having lots of services OPEN BY DEFAULT.
Botnets are an example of how MS's shoddy code has made everyone's--not just Windows users--lives worse. So, like I said, MS owes it to the world. Again, the guy in the article is saying "I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users]..." but MS is already giving it away for free to registered users so it's not like they're losing sales. All they'd had to pay for would be bandwidth, and there are already a zillion sites that give away bandwidth to deserving downloads--universities, ISPs, etc. Don't you think every single school in the world would host a copy (AT LEAST for their internal users) to keep their own networks safe? Same for every ISP. Large companies would also distribute it internally. There is NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER to this inconsiderate asshole's* argument. (-1, here I come!)
* just to be clear that I'm not flaming the wrong person: "this inconsiderate asshole" refers to John Pescatore as quoted in the summary, not the poster to whom I'm replying.
But perhaps you'd like to manually go get yourself a backbone so that you can demonstrate some strength of character...
Don't like Windows or don't want to pay for it? Then don't use it, get off your backside and spend some time learning about a free alternative like Linux or BSD.
Smart-mouthed idiots like you just give the evil corporations the justification they need to stick on DRM and all manner of protection that make it bad for legitimate users as well.
So please don't expect me to be impressed because when it comes down to it, if you're a pirate then you're a jerk.
Herd immunity (Score:5, Informative)
I strongly suspect the same concepts would apply to computers, and allowing pirates to have this protection would indeed provide greater security to ALL the unprotected windows users. Thus, the choices for MS are 1) increase security for all users (paying or not) by allowing even pirates to download in order to increase the protection via herd immunity or 2) increase company profit by trying to coerce hackers into buying a copy by not allowing them this download. Since the latter will never happen, all MS is really doing is simply missing an opportunity to increase security because they *think* they can increase profit. Alternatively, maybe they think they are simply teaching those pirates a lesson, but sadly it would be at the expense of others.
Re:Herd immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Herd immunity works in biology because the distance to travel to another unprotected host is too far or takes too long for the virus to survive floating around. But with networked computers that isn't really an issue, is it? It might take a little longer to scan ports on more addresses but for an automated virus in a computer whose owner isn't patching it anyway, this isn't a big deal. Everyone who thinks they know better feel free to contradict me, I'm just speculating:
Parent
Re:Herd immunity (Score:5, Informative)
What?
More infected machines = more machines doing said attacking
If you have 1 machine infected, you have 50 connections. If you have 10, you have 10 fold the number of connections, which makes it easier for them to find the 25% of machines (that's a steady number) that are unprotected. Reducing the number of machines able to be infected reduces spread rate, which increases security since those who do get infected can get rid of it before it finds another host more often.
In biology, that would be the equivalent of changing the time between the symptoms' appearance and the patient's becoming contagious, assuming symptoms come before someone is contagious. If you have a longer timeframe, the virus is more likely too be killed before it infects someone else. The same applies here, in exactly the same way.
Parent
Re:Herd immunity (Score:5, Interesting)
The biology equivalent would be if someone sneezed in Beijing and you got the flu in Denver.
Parent
Re:Herd immunity (Score:4, Interesting)
Reducing the number of machines able to be infected reduces spread rate, which increases security since those who do get infected can get rid of it before it finds another host more often.
You forget that geometric progressions don't much care for the spread rate. Let's assume a few things:
1. We want to query every single IPv4 address space (brute force and stupid, since only a little over 2^27, 75%, is actually in use in some fashion).
2. We're going to say that 90% of the machines out there run Windows. Actual estimates vary.
3. If an infection is timed correctly, even an out of band emergency patch will hit less than half [theregister.co.uk] of all machines. So, a worm has 30 days to spread between Patch Tuesdays.
4. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume everyone's bandwidth is a mere 10KB/s bidirectional.
5. Also for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to say that it takes 10KB of data to probe a machine to see if its infected.
6. At any given point in time, I'm going to say only 5% of machines on the internet are accessible (turned on, and can receive connections). I have no factual basis for this -- it's an assumption.
So based on 4 & 5, I can make 1 probe attempt per second.
Last, a disclaimer -- I do not know much about statistics. If I made a mistake, sorry.
So, in a day, a single machine can probe 86,400 IPs, probing the space in a random fashion. Of those, 64,800 (75%) are "in use" in some fashion. 58,320 (90%) of those run Windows. And 2,916 are turned on and receiving connections. 1,458 (half) are unpatched for the first 30 days of the spread. It manages to infect 2 machines in the first hour it runs (rounded down; is actually about 2.5) The next hour, 6.25 machines are infected, and so on and so forth. In 24 hours, 3.5 billion machines have been probed and infected.
Geometric progressions like this are the reason why statistics like "An unpatched windows machine directly connected to the internet is compromised within 8 minutes" exists. The premise "Reducing the number of machines able to be infected reduces spread rate, which increases security" is not valid -- because the spread rate is almost completely irrelevant. Even if I say only 1 machine per hour is infected, in just over 30 hours we have the same number of infected machines -- even though we cut the rate from 2.5 to 1.
If you want to make a difference -- reduce the window of opportunity; PATCH NOW. The rate is wholly irrelevant.
Parent
Re:Herd immunity (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, i keep hearing that repeated. "you are more likely to be infected using cracked software"
I've pirated (and bought) a large variety of software in the last 15 years. And the one time i have ever been infected. it came from a piece of commercial software right on the cd.
The 'pirates' and cracked software are WAY more trustworthy than any company out there. It only takes one or two bad comments to make people avoid using that cracked piece of software. With commercial software it takes thousands of bad installs before it makes the news and people avoid a bad piece of commercial software.
Just having a more tech savy audience the cracked software will be subect to far more scruntity than anything you'd buy off the shelf.
Parent
Re:Herd immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
You are essentially trusting a complete stranger (from the internet no less) with no responsibility, visibility, or accountability, and running an unknown executable. That is not safe.
Even the cracker/warez websites themselves are typically loaded with malware, spoofing/phishing attempts, etc.
They have a bad reputation for a reason.
Parent
Re:Herd immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
These "cracker/warez websites" you mention is a different matter, they have nothing to do with the actual crackers - no reputable cracking group has a website where they release their (illegal) stuff, everybody knows that. On a site like that you're just as likely to find infected OSS, anything that they think clueless newbies will download will be infected.
Parent
I agree with Pescatore, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
He's right in that many people who have the tech-savvy to pirate a copy of Windows will know what their options are regarding anti-virus.
On the other hand, how much does Microsoft actually stand to lose when it comes to giving this away?
I'm willing to bet that they ran the numbers... "how much will the bandwidth cost us" vs "how much do we lose in good will by weakening the herd immunity".
Now that would be an interesting (read: evil) spreadsheet to look at :D
Re:I agree with Pescatore, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I agree with Pescatore, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I may be a bit utopian in my thinking, but wouldn't giving these users a good customer experience (as Microsoft calls it) the best way to convince them that they should in fact go out and buy the software - perhaps not even now, but the next time they upgrade their systems?
No, it would more likely convince them that "hey, I got this great customer experience without even ever spending a dime, why spend money for what I can continue getting for free?" Not that I disagree (or agree for that matter) with allowing pirated users the option to use the software, I just think your logic is off.
Parent
Re:I agree with Pescatore, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's right in that many people who have the tech-savvy to pirate a copy of Windows will know what their options are regarding anti-virus.
Yes because only computer geeks have pirated copies. There's a lot of people out there who don't know that they even have a pirated copy. Computer illiterate people often find help through shady repairmen, friends or relatives. These people come in find that Grandma didn't keep her license key or CD's, but the computer obviously came with XP. So they do her a favor, by reinstalling a pirated copy of windows but they're not there for longterm support.
Enlightened self interest (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft would be just protecting their own reputation when unknowing users of pirated installs are complaining less about Windows instability and others see fewer attacks from zombie farms. If you created a problem such as IE6, you should do everything in your power to solve it rather than ranting about others. Good for karma, good for pocketbook.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. MS gives out free security tools, we don't sue them for making the stuff insecure in the first place when the zombies DOS our servers.
I sort of agree (Score:5, Insightful)
John Pescatore makes a good point. AVG, Avast, etc... are all free antivirus. When MS withholds patches, it can lead to stronger botnets and ID theft. However, antivirus applications are plentiful and the money MS will be investing in this thing makes them justified in not wanting to simply give it away.
As much as I hate to say it, I won't blame Microsoft for this move.
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
And, if your hacked bootleg Windows system went online to pay for a legitimate key, that would be "priceless".
Get Microsoft out of the free OS market. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pirating is illegal.
Pirates are only ones really complaining.
Pirates switch to Linux
End of problem and it will takes windows out of the Free OS market.
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates do it for games and movies. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who exactly are the going to be blocking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone running pirated versions of the OSs eligible for MSE will probable have cracked WGA, and will be able to install this if they wish.
A good way to punish pirates (Score:2, Insightful)
...and allow for the propagation of viruses at the same time.
This OS will self destruct in 5, 4, ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows XP (Score:3, Informative)
my only option if I don't already have a legitimate copy is to pirate it, given that you can no longer purchase it.
(granted I could still buy Vista with downgrade licence... but I don't want to pay for something I will never use)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
granted I could still buy Vista with downgrade licence.
Granted I could still buy Vista with a upgrade license .
There, fixed that for ya!
Piracy love/hate (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is microsoft has a love/hate relationship with the pirates. They have an absolute need for piracy to be possible but not to become attractive enough (in the first world) to become popular enough to eat into their profits overmuch.
Think about it, Microsoft could eliminate 99% of piracy overnight by using harsh copy protection combined with mandatory Genuine Advantage plus a couple of targeted logic bombs launched against a few of the more flagrant pirate copies. Problem is most pirates these days either built their PC from scratch (else they would have been force fed a license) or bought a PC from a pirate. The DIY crowd is too influential to piss off and what they are doing already stops the bulk of the chopshop pirates in the developed world. If they make pirate windows too unstable in the third world where it is popular they simply can't pay so would be driven to look for alternatives.... and would find them.
So this move is easily understandable, it gives the pirates a nudge but won't overly annoy any of the major groups who pirate. The DIY type who pirates Windows because those guys pirate everything just for fun will have little trouble finding cracked copies of whatever they have been using. At all appearances nobody in the secondary markets updates anything on their damned machines already, considering how much crap spews out.
Re: (Score:3)
You're kidding, right? The whole DIY crowd could disappear off of the face of the earth tomorrow and Microsoft wouldn't even notice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Disappear - yes, they may not notice. Start telling everyone that WinXP is insecure and actually have a proof - damn they will care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, Microsoft are like Adobe, they have a love/hate relationship with warez pirates. Adobe actually tolerates piracy to a certain degree, as long as you buy licenses if you do commercial work. When it comes to personal use and learning their products at home, they tend to turn a blind eye. It's good business sense.
*Takes stolen car to dealership for a repair* (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone can blab on about herd immunity etc but this seems like denying a stolen car a repair under warranty. Systems are going to be used for attacks, it might as well be the pirates systems and not mine. Security these days is more about running faster than your peers, not outrunning the hackers. Microsoft doing this will put paying customers closer to the front of the race. And I am not a microsoft fanboy so don't write some bs about that.
What will everyone want next? Metadata updates for your stolen music from the record companies? As much as I hate some things about companies, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Re:*Takes stolen car to dealership for a repair* (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this is all assuming the pirated copy didn't come pre-infected...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get your point, but I'm just sayin
mind play? (Score:3, Interesting)
Giving this software free to pirates is almost a promotion of piracy - if you get same stuff when you pirate, then there is no downside to do it.
ll
Also, few pirates might feel bad about the fact that their copy is not 'genuine'. And some owners of valid copies might feel satisfied knowing that people who got free ride didn't get the whole package.
OH NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OH NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not. At bare minimum, this means more botnets members available to spam whatever email accounts you use.
Directly safe? Sure. Same as myself, and a lot of others. But indirectly, this doesn't help anyone but people running botnets. It's far more work to deny security updates to some users than it is to just give them to all users. And it's strategically a poor decision because of the INCREASED risk to the protected machines due to the attacks from the unprotected ones.
If this works, and you push it to everyone, you cut down on spam, attacks on your protected machines, and overall, you make the internet a little better place. And before anyone beats me to it, I know damn well that MS and "make the internet a little better place" don't belong in the same paragraph. Bitterly, I wonder if their goal of destroying the internet had any basis in this decision.
Parent
Wrong title (Score:3, Insightful)
Not hurting leet hackers, but fools and poor folks (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see that many pirated Windows installs but the ones I do see are all from poor people who were given a bootleg XP or Windows 2000 disk with no product code and no questions asked. I mean, fair is fair and Microsoft is selling a product as a business not giving away their OS as a charity but in my experience the people they're hurting are the ones least able to help themselves.
The poor people I'm talking about here are usually seniors with little computer knowledge using out of date hardware and single parent families with few resources. They're not buying new computers and $150 for a Microsoft OS is too steep for their budget.
They're not leet hackers laughing at Microsoft, they're simple folk. One little old lady who had her computer in was completely horrified when I told her that her Windows was pirated, she literally had no idea. Our policy is we don't help you once we discover your Windows is pirated for the simple reason that we have no way of knowing what has been done to the OS or what has been corrupted or is missing. In that case she came in a couple of months later with a legal Windows disk she'd saved up and bought and I installed it for her gratis. I know the price tag hurt her though but she would have no truck with illegal Windows.
Anyway, my point is that these folks are for the most part clueless and are ripe targets for botnetting since they lack the knowledge to acquire and keep an AV updated on their own. Free Avast and Free AVG are available to them but without handholding they'd never figure out how to jump through the hoops to download, install and set these up. The beauty of Microsoft Security Essentials is that they've made it pretty much self-running and idiot-proof. Like I said in my post yesterday, I'd push it out to everyone not already running an AV if I were Microsoft. It increases the general health of the Windows eco-system, makes Windows more secure and run better as a result, which in turn makes the Windows experience better for everyone and increases the likelihood of Windows purchases down the road through good word of mouth.
The leet hackers have the tools to look after themselves. If it were just them running pirated Windows, I'd agree with Microsoft and say stuff 'em. It's not though and things look a lot different on the bottom of the food chain; it's those most unable to protect themselves who get hurt the most.
Re:Not hurting leet hackers, but fools and poor fo (Score:5, Insightful)
She is highly unlikely to be reliant on any industry vertical software or anything obscure like that (she probably just wants a web browser and email client), and would be much better off with a free OS.
Parent
Non-WGA does not mean counterfeit (Score:5, Informative)
"Microsoft will block users running counterfeit copies of Windows..."
No, try this rewording instead:
"Microsoft will block users not running WGA certified copies of Windows..."
It can be non-counterfeit and yet not registered or certified by the Windows Genuine "Advantage" stuff. It can even be non-counterfeit and REJECTED by WGA.
Pirates? (Score:5, Funny)
The freedom is not free. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that Windows is intentionally designed to be easy to crack, as a marketing tool. They wanted it to spread as wide as possible. In former Soviet Union about 99% of Windows are cracked versions.
Now they stop critical updates because they want the bot-nets to grow and make the Internet unusable, because they are losing in the Internet to Google. So they destroy the Internet, and the world is returning to the Desktop.
It is quite possible. For example, I cannot already use the torrent, if I use it, then my provider disconnects me next day for several hours. Crime and punishment.
I begin to see a new meaning in the words: The freedom is not free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that Windows is intentionally designed to be easy to crack, as a marketing tool.
This used to be true in older days, and even XP WGA was a half-assed attempt which was trivially cracked, but it seems that things have changed somewhat since Vista.
I recall trying to find an activation crack for Vista that would also enable Windows Update (i.e. let you pass validation online) about two months after Vista was released ... and yes, they were there - but installation was quite messy, requiring bootloader hacks and such. I didn't really see it improve for a few more months - in fact, some of t
Piracy - good for windows, bad for linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait. What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevermind the pirates. They get what they paid for. Giving them nothing makes good sense.
What the hell happened to Windows Live OneCare? You know, paying customers?
What does the MSE release say to the people who paid for that Microsoft AV program, among other OneCare services?
The message is pretty clear: "Pay Microsoft and get screwed." Get your OS software for free, because it is nearly free when you buy a new PC. The entire expectation they are building into the market is "Our product and our word is worthless." Releasing this almost seems like an admission that they can't fairly compete in AV products.
Which also says to me "Illegal product dumping." Symantec and CA should sue them silly. This is definitely not a fair way to enter the AV market, not even for the "free" AV's because it absolutely kills their upsell business. I expect DOJ action, or a joint lawsuit on this. A class-action from the OneCare people wouldn't be out of the question either, if they aren't offering refunds to recent purchasers. This release is criminal, in my mind, and utterly undermines the concept of proprietary software that you pay for because it is worth it.
The message to the end-user is: "Our software is not worth buying." The message to the entire security sector is: "Thank you for covering our backsides for all those years, now piss off."
Ugly. This kind of bad faith could (and IMO should) hurt Microsoft. I don't know what they're thinking out in Redmond. They need to rally around the Windows 7 release, not insult vendors and their paying customers.
--
Toro
This Pescatore guy .... (Score:3, Funny)
seems a bit fishy to me ....
A way to defuse the security criticism on Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone knows that MS Windows is the main host of botnets, zombies, and general malware on the Internet. Hardly a month passes without Microsoft patching yet another "critical vulnerability". Unfortunately there are reasons why MS Windows is more vulnerable than e.g. MacOs, Unix, FreeBSD, or Linux. For one thing, MS Windows (until Vista) was never designed from the ground up for multi-user operation, security was ever tacked on as an afterthought, the architecture of MS Windows with its miriad add-on's (that tend to carry out _system_ tasks) and the (deliberately) tight coupling between MS Windows and MS applications conveniently makes for multiple points of attack, and once a process is suborned by an attacker there is nothing in MS Windows architecture that's designed to contain it or stand in its way. That's why we see so many infected Windows PC's on the Internet.
Oh yes, there are those who hold that e.g. Linux would suffer the same level of penetration had it had the same level of penetration on the desktop but the fact that about 60% of all Internet traffic is handled by Linux machines (which are far less often compromised) pleads against that. It's not exposure that does it but architecture (and the quality of administration, but that's another issue).
So that being the case, what would benefit Microsoft more than to be able to cast doubt on tales of machines being infected and taken over as "Probably pirated copies; legal Windows versions are protected by MS security updates."?
That would give Microsoft a good reply when called out over the insecurity of MS Windows (e.g. when a large organization is considering what OS it should use in the next 10 years).
What do you think? Might I be anywhere near the mark?
As if they can block them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless I am completely mistaken, most botnet infections occur because of user action, not because the computer is allowing remote connections. Linux would be equally vulnerable if unqualified users were using it and installing software on it. When the software they are installing asks for the root password, they would obviously supply the root password, because they are unqualified.
That explains the situation for Windows. Plain and simple, these people using Windows have no business administering a compu
Re:I've got one (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, I went from a +3, informative, down to 0, flamebait. Nice. Despite the swearing, everything I said was true, and you are wrong. LOTS of Windows malware has spread WITHOUT user interaction, thanks to a slew of MS apps that execute code willy-nilly, for example Klez [wikipedia.org] ("The text portion [of the email] consists of either an HTML internal frame tag which causes buggy e-mail clients to automatically execute the worm...") and Sasser [wikipedia.org] ("Sasser spreads by exploiting the system through a vulnerable network port...") and the Kak worm [wikipedia.org] ("...a VBScript worm that uses a bug in Outlook Express to spread itself.")
Your argument about administering Linux and Windows boils down to "Neither Linux nor Windows can be secured 100%, therefore they're equally bad" and that is NOT the case. If Linux or Mac OS X were dominant they'd have SOME problems, but not the amount that Windows has.
That aside, I agree with you when you say security is not an easy thing. However, security comes in layers, and having an OS that's not equal parts mashed potatoes and swiss cheese is a good start. LOTS of the technologies that could have stopped the spread of MOST malware were WELL KNOWN and EASILY IMPLEMENTED at the time needed but MS just sat on their hands and did NOTHING for YEARS. Buffer overflows can take some work to find but MS has made COUNTLESS stupid decisions over the years, like having Outlook Express automatically execute code sent IN ATTACHMENTS (besides displaying/executing bad HTML/JS/etc in EMAIL CLIENTS) and having lots of services OPEN BY DEFAULT.
Botnets are an example of how MS's shoddy code has made everyone's--not just Windows users--lives worse. So, like I said, MS owes it to the world. Again, the guy in the article is saying "I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users]..." but MS is already giving it away for free to registered users so it's not like they're losing sales. All they'd had to pay for would be bandwidth, and there are already a zillion sites that give away bandwidth to deserving downloads--universities, ISPs, etc. Don't you think every single school in the world would host a copy (AT LEAST for their internal users) to keep their own networks safe? Same for every ISP. Large companies would also distribute it internally. There is NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER to this inconsiderate asshole's* argument. (-1, here I come!)
* just to be clear that I'm not flaming the wrong person: "this inconsiderate asshole" refers to John Pescatore as quoted in the summary, not the poster to whom I'm replying.
Parent
Re:Oh, how nice! (Score:4, Informative)
But perhaps you'd like to manually go get yourself a backbone so that you can demonstrate some strength of character...
Don't like Windows or don't want to pay for it? Then don't use it, get off your backside and spend some time learning about a free alternative like Linux or BSD.
Smart-mouthed idiots like you just give the evil corporations the justification they need to stick on DRM and all manner of protection that make it bad for legitimate users as well.
So please don't expect me to be impressed because when it comes down to it, if you're a pirate then you're a jerk.
Parent