Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security IT

Microsoft Blocks Pirates From Security Essentials Software 291

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Blocks Pirates From Security Essentials Software

Comments Filter:
  • Herd immunity (Score:5, Informative)

    by shipbrick ( 929823 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @07:57PM (#29600343)
    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.
  • Windows XP (Score:3, Informative)

    by Brain Damaged Bogan ( 1006835 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @08:10PM (#29600443)
    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)
  • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @09:08PM (#29600811)

    "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.

  • Re:Herd immunity (Score:5, Informative)

    by blackraven14250 ( 902843 ) * on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @09:13PM (#29600839)

    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.

  • by mister_playboy ( 1474163 ) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @10:49PM (#29601377)

    It is if you are running the RTM and aren't part of the limited group (MSDN, etc.) that has legitimate access currently.

  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @01:00AM (#29602045) Journal

    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 the existing cracks stopped working with new Vista updates (and then I rolled back to XP for a year, and didn't track the crack progress any further).

  • by Shamenaught ( 1341295 ) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:35AM (#29603053)
    ...or they might miss the chance to infect lots of computers with malware! Seriously, it's not like people are going to stop pirating windows.

    The pirates who seed the software, or the people who run the tracker, could conceivably log the IPs of the people who download their windows torrent.

    Scroll forwards a month or two to the next SMB2-grade bug: Bam, the hackers have a list of ip addresses for people who are likely to be using un-patched versions of windows.
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:17AM (#29603195)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...