Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Worms Security Microsoft

Microsoft Begins anti-virus Software Development 199

An anonymous reader writes "From the article: Microsoft's announcement that it will enter the AV market next year, with initial trials starting next week, could be a sign of many things to come, says SecurityFocus's Kelly Martin. " Not unexpected, given their recent purchase.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Begins anti-virus Software Development

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:00AM (#12541732)
  • by Anonymous Coward

    because he can see a scam when he knows one

    i cant wait for the lawsuits/class action to begin !
    • Are you referring to slashdot attempting to monopolize dupe posts, and doing the "embrace - extend - extingquish" thing by creating dupe triplicate posts?

      On another note - I'm seeing "Ads by Google" in the article, and the first two are "No Bible Sunday?" and "Understanding Christians". So now we know - Google's stats prove people running Windows are guillable enough buy into all sorts of monopolistic scams.

    • Elliot Spitzer, the NY State AG, has no cause to get involved in Microsoft's latest (MS-AV) profit center. If you carefully read Microsoft's EULA (and I know that as a slashdotter you always do), no software that Microsoft writes and distributes is "suitable for any particular purpose".

      MSFT has, in fact, fully complied with the FTC regulations regarding the making of false claims, or of false advertising. Their software is gold-plated crap, and they are quite willing to acknowledge that in their EULAs.
  • Masterplan! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Libor Vanek ( 248963 ) <libor.vanek@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:04AM (#12541775) Homepage
    1, Sell OS which enables viruses to spread very easily
    2, Create AV SW
    3, Profit on selling AV SW AND new OS updates! Muhahaha...

    Jeez, we're screwed...
    • 1) Sell OS with lots of vulnerabilities enabling viruses
      2) Create anti-virus software
      3) ???
      4) Profit!!!
    • now they do have an economic incentive to leave the bugs in .... I mean if they spent the money they are spending on this to get bugs found, and top get them out faster we'd all be better off ... instead someone's decided this will be a profit center ... soon enough they'll be putting bugs in and releasing viruses, all because it's good for the bottom line
      • Not only an incentive to produce bugs, but a proof of concept. A business model for the future. Create an entire industry from nothing by domination of another industry, then use your monoply of the first to force a monopoly of the second.

        Anti-Spyware didn't exist 5 years ago. Now it is a flourishing subscription business. This will be the kicker that starts MS as a provider of interlinked services. Office requires Windows requires MS AV requires MS AS requires MS whatever else. And keep up the press
      • 1. The anti-viral software will be made available for XP, but will be built-in for Longhorn (if Longhorn ever happens - we're still waiting).

        2. The subscription cost will be built into the Longhorn price for retail copies.

        3. OEMs will have a choice of becoming .dat file distributors or retailing subscriptions to MS' direct service. Distributors will either have to pay massive up-front fees or massive MS taxes. The initial subscription is mandatory (bundled) either way.

        4. After you will pretty much be forced to pay for this software, you will quickly realize that it is INCOMPATIBLE with your third-party ftp client, web browser, etc. This thing is gonna be tied to IE (probably intentiontionally crippled).

        5. Microsoft, respecting anti-trust laws, will provide an API for you to Microsoftize your Internet applications. The API specs and the library itself will of course be made available for a $10,000 licensing fee and signature on an NDA (Microsoft will disguise this as an effort to protect users' security). The API/library will not be available on OSS-compatible (much less GPL-friendly) terms.

        6. Microsoft will sit back as they rape their userbase, who will believe that Microsoft is doing them a favor; even if they don't, vendor lock-in is a beautiful thing.

        7. Profit!!!!

        Don't tell me you don't see this coming.

        Now if they could just fill in the missing step... wait a minute...
    • by ( 745183 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:41AM (#12542083) Homepage

      Do airlines try to rent you parachutes?
    • Nobody here understands that since the DOJ consent decree, almost no big design decision at Microsoft happens without lawyers involved.

      The most damaging legal argument against Microsoft (and one that was widely hailed by Slashdotters) was that it destroys competitors by bundling products for free in the OS. This is obviously a true charge, as experienced by Netscape, and much of the legal oversight at Microsoft is meant to keep walls up between different business units, to prevent illegal bundling of prod
  • geez (Score:4, Funny)

    by Wordsmith ( 183749 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:06AM (#12541786) Homepage
    MS developing anti-virus software to find the same viruses the company's own shoddy programming allowed to propogate is like the Slashdot editors developing a dupe search to find the same duplicates their own shoddy editing allowed to be posted.
    • I know your trying to be funny - but realize other people take this stance and think it's insightful

      And then you gotta ask --- does MS get the Viruses passing by their desk before it is released to the public --- sort of like our /. editors getting the articles (and having to approve them) before it goes public.
  • by fluffywuffy ( 844881 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:06AM (#12541791)
    But don't pass the cost to your patients ...
  • Resistance is futile (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:07AM (#12541810) Homepage Journal
    I guess the most depressing aspect of this is that I put almost no credibility in most of the statements MS makes. If they are succesful then it will be a weak middling product that probably focuses on protecting MS OS's and applications exclusively, probably will interfere with everyone else's products and will most likely be several years and several releases late. On the other hand it will probably wind up being 'free' as in you don't have to pay for it directly but because it will be cancerously embedded in the OS it will help keep the price of MS products absurdly high. And last but not least, the list of security patches for the AV tool itself will be extensive. Plus you can figure that it will absolutely crash Firefox and Openoffice.
    • You only missed one thing: It will render all other AV programs that actually work, inoperative.

      "it will be cancerously embedded in the OS"
      Which means it can't be turned off or deleted. Kind of like IE was for awhile.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:08AM (#12541815) has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006. has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006. has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.
  • MSAV? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jack_csk ( 644290 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:08AM (#12541816)
    Does it mean our favorite MSAV from DOS 6.22 finally has an update?
    • Re:MSAV? (Score:3, Informative)

      by laffer1 ( 701823 )
      lol.. guess i'm not the only one that remembers Microsoft Antivirus from back in the day...

      My first pc, a packard bell (very sad) included dos 6.22 and windows 3.11 for workgroups. Microsoft antivirus had a dos and windows graphical interface and basically did a checksum test on all the files. It created files to remember what it checksum'd in each directory as I recall.

      It took forever to scan and obviously didn't catch much and had many false positives. Imagine using tripwire to check for viruses exce
  • ..."We knew it was coming."

    Microsoft's tactics can always be worked out by considering what action would show the most disrespect to their users and the least amount of pride or professionalism in their products or services.

    Consider the recent "Thought Thieves" poster.
  • Goals? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sierpinski ( 266120 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:11AM (#12541844)
    Perhaps instead of "getting into the anti-virus market" maybe they should reconsider how they might make the underlying infrastruture less vulnerable.

    There's a reason for user mode and kernel mode. Just because the "system" CAN have full permissions to everything, doesn't mean that it should!

    Besides just think of all the money they can make selling books/classes on how to configure their newfound security!
    • They can make more money by fording you to buy new OSes.

      "This version of windows in unsupported and will no longer receive AV updates, please upgrade to the newest OS"

      Nevermind that you can't load another AV package because the M$ one interferes with it!
      • This version of windows in unsupported and will no longer receive AV updates, please upgrade to the newest OS"

        On the bright side, once your OS falls behind so do the number of virus attacks. Win98 is pretty safe now, for instance, because most attacks only work on XP.

        • Re:Goals? (Score:3, Informative)

          by NetNifty ( 796376 )
          "On the bright side, once your OS falls behind so do the number of virus attacks. Win98 is pretty safe now, for instance, because most attacks only work on XP. "

          In some cases yeah, but I've had some malware (ok not a virus as such, but close) completely kill a Windows 98SE box's network stack after it got in by trying to "patch" the Winsock libraries and assuming it was XP.
          • n some cases yeah, but I've had some malware (ok not a virus as such, but close) completely kill a Windows 98SE box's network stack after it got in by trying to "patch" the Winsock libraries and assuming it was XP.

            Well, I didn't mean go naked. I've got Win98 and am running Opera as a browser, with Zone Alarm as a firewall. Never had a successful penetration or attack; never got any viruses.

            • Never had a successful penetration or attack

              That you KNOW of.

              That's the key point that many people miss.
              • Never had a successful penetration or attack
                That you KNOW of.

                I would know. I've got a firewall, and I can see the traffic passing through my DSL modem. I check the processes running with various tools when something goes wrong; if anything is running it's keeping a very low profile. I don't use IE or OE, basically, the only way somethng could get me is by executing a viral mail attachment, which I haven't been stupid enough to do (yet).

                • Oh, I forgot that firewalls are inpenetrable and zone alarm has absolutely no flaws whatsoever. Perfectly engineered software.

                  I sit corrected.
                  • Oh, I forgot that firewalls are inpenetrable

                    Ok smart arse. Just how do you know for certain I've been compromised? Do you use The Force? I've only been online for 10 years (25 years if you count back on Unix command line at university), what would I know? Obviously I should just throw away my computer and get a job breaking rocks.

                    • Find the part where I said you've been compromised. 'That you know of' doesnt imply certainty.

                      My point is that just because you have a firewall and zone alarm, it does not mean that you are perfectly secure. Every program has its flaws, and the one who understands that is usually better off. Not counting all the ones that spread via user action (like opening virus emails as you mentioned) there are lots of ways to get around protection. Some protection is better than others, but just like in sex, the only
                    • That you know of' doesnt imply certainty.

                      It doesn't imply "certainty". It does imply that I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Don't be disingenuous, you're insulting me. Also, aside from "taking precautions" I do know the symptoms -- unexplained traffic particularly, from the virus propagating &/or sending out spam, which I would see, regardless of software stealthing, on my DSL modem lights. Yes, ninjas could have installed a hardware keylogger; there could be a logic bomb waiting to go of

          • I love your sig, man.
    • Re:Goals? (Score:4, Informative)

      by dioscaido ( 541037 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:14AM (#12542395)
      There's a reason for user mode and kernel mode. Just because the "system" CAN have full permissions to everything, doesn't mean that it should!

      And MS has agreed with this since NT4. Remove your user account from the Administrator group and. surprise, your system is fully protected, and spyware/viruses aren't a problem because executables cannot modify system folders or system registry. In fact, Win2k/Xp/2k3 have much richer access implementations than the unix filesystem protection in vanilla linux distribution -- you'll need to get the ACL kernels for matching capabilities.

      The real problem is the MS marketing dept, which opted to not confuse Grandma and make accounts Admin by default. Longhorn will make accounts limited by default, and in addition when logged in as admin it will drop priviledges of all apps that don't need admin priviledges (like IE), which is pretty cool.
      • Re:Goals? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @10:56AM (#12543519) Homepage Journal
        The ability to run as a limited user is, in my experience, nigh useless. Users will regularly encounter things that require admin priveleges to install, even things like browser plug-ins, and then won't run except as the user they were installed as. This requires temporarily modifying a user's account - always fun - to get them to install and work.

        Even better, some apps won't run except as admin because they try to fiddle bits of the registry and/or filesystem they assume they'll have access to, because "everyone runs as administrator". Games are the #1 culprit here, but a large proportion of general use software has that problem too. It's not Microsoft's fault that app developers are idiots, but it still makes the limited privelege accounts nigh useless. Unfortunately, they can't conjure a long history of least-privelege-by-default so they're stuck with breaking compatibility with old apps (90% of users would equate "need to change user account to run program" with "broken OS") or retaining the current braindead defaults.

        I do agree with you on the fine-grained priveleges in NT, though I wish they were consistently inherited instead of propagated through the filesystem tree. The issue with ACLs is that unless very carefully administrated they tend to become a hideous and unmanageable rats nest where nobody can clearly state what happens in a given case. This is as true on UNIXes with ACLs as it is on NT. I've always been way happier with the groups-within-groups model, which lets you get 90% of the benefits of ACLs with 10% of the complexity. It never seems to have become all that popular, though :S
      • The real problem is the MS marketing dept, which opted to not confuse Grandma and make accounts Admin by default.

        Why would Grandma be confused by having a non-Admin account? Because she wouldn't be able to install most of her programs, and in the case of some particularly egregious software packages she wouldn't even be able to RUN them from restricted userspace.

        The Windows OS has pretty decent access controls, but if the software that runs on it isn't designed to work well with them...

        Longhorn will m
      • And MS has agreed with this since NT4. Remove your user account from the Administrator group

        Perhaps they should DEFAULT it that way instead of relying on the average user (who, I might add with a touch of sarcasm, is a highly skilled computer operator) to take action and turn it off.

        It doesn't take rocket science to figure this stuff out.
  • by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:13AM (#12541849) Journal
    ...when the first virus spreading over the Microsoft Antivirus system is written...

    BTW, will it be free? If not, I'd say, brillant strategy. First sell them system vulnerable to viruses, then sell them protection against them. Microsoft should start charging for security updates downloads too.
  • by say ( 191220 ) <> on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:18AM (#12541899) Homepage

    The point of this security focus article - if you actually read it - is that MS might be going for a subscription-based licensing in the long run. See, you don't pay for Windows, MS Anti-Spyware and MS Anti-Virus, you pay to subscribe to all these, software upgrades and security patches.

    That means MS could: a) make people more aware that they are paying for patches, making it more probable that they will use them; b) be able to roll out new OS upgrades instantly, and avoid having to support WinXP far into the 2020-ies; c) hunt pirates more effectively; and d) make shitloads of cash also on people who don't need cutting-edge updates.

    It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows, and I think there are compelling reasons for Microsoft to make it this way. After all, MS can't live with the fact that many home users still use Win98 (think of all the lost revenue!)

    • This really has nothing to do with the business model of Red Hat.
      The model of Red Hat is to sell services mostly.
      Red Hat does not sell you the apps really (you can make them for free, or rebuild some Red Hat clone for free, cf. CentOS), nor does it sell the softwares (surely not an anti spyware or anti virus).
      You do not pay for security patches or software upgrades either in Red Hat. You pay only for a service that automate the process = convenience.
    • by HuguesT ( 84078 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:39AM (#12542671)
      Sorry, I'm throwing away all of my mod points just to respond to this nonsense.

      This is **NOT** the RedHat model coming to Windows. Redhat's subscription is 100% voluntary. You can still get all of their software, including the Enterprise stuff, without spending a single cent [] in subscription. Redhat's software is GPL, it is guaranteed to remain Free forever.

      With RedHat, you pay if you believe their service actually add value to your business. With Microsoft, if you *don't* pay, your business can't run. Period.

      • Oh, Jesus Christ, please. What I was saying was thayt it was the Red Hat business model - ie. how RedHat makes money - that Microsoft might seem fit. I did not imply RedHat is evil, RedHat is Microsoft, Linux is Windows or anything like it. I said Microsoft might want to earn money by subscription, just like RedHat earns money by subscription. That's the similarity, period.

        Obviously, MS can't earn anything similar to their current cash flow if they gave away their OS for free.

  • Is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voudras ( 105736 ) <{gro.reyalstfiws} {ta} {sarduov}> on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:21AM (#12541918)
    or is microsoft getting into the anti-virus market sorta like self fullfilling?

    I mean really. I guess they dont make enough money just keeping thier products secure
  • 3 words for you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [orstacledif]> on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:22AM (#12541928) Journal
    Conflict of intrests
    • Re:3 words for you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [orstacledif]> on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:31AM (#12541997) Journal
      I see this got moderated a troll for some god unknown reason.
      Ok i better fill it out a little

      Microsoft develop an operating system with bugs which allow worms and viruses and trojans to propagate .
      Microsoft then continue to build an anti virus system to either sell with or give away with the system.
      It is not a troll its a statment of fact , this is a conflict of intrests .
      It would be better if they give it away for free but then that is incredibly anti-competitive and a conflict of intrests still to a lesser degree though.
      if they sell it then they are creating a conflict of intrests because fixing bugs in their OS then becomes something which could detract from sale of the anti virus software.
      it is a conflict of intrests plain and simple , i do not say this to troll only to point out that this is very much an unethical practice .
      • Re:3 words for you (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:49AM (#12542155)
        Don't worry about troll mods. These newfangled mods wouldn't know a troll if it bit them in the ass.

        You know what scares me?
        I thought with Longhorn MS would develop a somewhat virus secure system, that wouldn't need a full fledged AV.
        Now, with this they don't have to. It pretty much means, in the Windows world, it's gonna be more of the same with respect to viruses... You're not safe without a good AV product.

        Can you see how they're gonna spin this one? "We're so commited to our secure computing initiative, we've developed our own AV product, and made sure it "Just Works" with your current operating system!"

        • I certainly hope they get taken to court over this ,as certainly they have no bussiness making an AV product(anti spyware also). This has anti-trust suit written all over it .

          For one its going to kill many AV companys(and not in the way i had hoped for in no viruses )and Its a license to say "Oh no security risk here , its coverd by our virus detection" .

          The european courts have so far stuck to their guns over the previous Anti trust suit and i hope this ones goes through fast aswell . the US courts
          • Last time I checked, it is legal to compete with other software companies. The only time it becomes illegal is if they use their "monopoly" (monopolies are legal, by the way) to leverage their product unfairly. You're basically declaring them guilty before they've even launched the product -- very stupid.

            Offering software to protect consumers... how is that unethical? Oh wait, I get it: it's Microsoft, therefore, everything they do is unethical and wrong. That mind of yours smells squeaky-clean from all th
      • exactly my opinion.

        Perhaps the MS zealots should repeat after me: "The reason there are viruses on Windows is because Microsoft makes faulty software."

        I think the first lawsuits will arrive just days after the Microsoft Anti-Virus release.
      • Microsoft develop an operating system with bugs which allow worms and viruses and trojans to propagate .
        Microsoft then continue to build an anti virus system

        Welcome to the software industry. This is how it works. Most companies these days deliberately withold useful features and bug-fixes for future versions, for which they can charge additional fees.
        • this is exactly why i am a hugh proponent of free open source software.
          i still need to use alot of propritery software for work(alot less than 5 years ago , even a fair bit less than 2 years ago)though but its becoming easier to use open source software for most things.

          If your bussiness model is built around the suport of the software as oposed to the sale of the software itself, the drive is to produce the best and most stable software you can to reduce support incidents .

          If you live on selling the sof
          • probably should say i mean companys that charge for support subscriptions as opposed to per incident , but in the bussiness world paying per incident is possibly not the best idea as its alot more expensive.
  • Longhorn users won't need this.

    See .mspx []

    Imagine releasing anti-virus software on the eve of launching the "most secure version of windows ever".

    With MS-AV it will be even MORE most secure.

  • ...about viruses, it'd be Microsoft.

    Still, I would have expected an .NET developer envrionment before an ANTI-virus application.
  • I installed Firefox 1.0 on my brother's computer months ago (6 months?). I checked his system last night with spybot and AVG AV (just installed AVG to see if it would find anything). Absolutely no spyware or viruses at all. Now, my bro does tons of surfing and so does his wife. They do ebay, email and are all-around fairly regular users. Of course, I also installed a software firewall on their XP system.

    Microsoft already holds the key to an AV solution, and that is, bury IE so the user can't use it
  • wait'n'see (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kd4evr ( 712384 )
    how things turn out. It sure takes them Redmond gang a while to come up with anything, when looking at the purchase-company / product-to-market cycle...

    People have launched a number of variations on the
    "1. massively spread lame s/w w/ vulnerabilites
    2. start seling antivirus s/w
    3. profit?"
    hypothesis. However, this would only turn out to be a correct theory only if the AV s/w worked remarkably well, shifting the virii vulnerability stories focus elsewhere. I wouldn't want to bet a dime on a conspiracy theory
  • RAV Antivirus (Score:2, Informative)

    by smilheim ( 804292 )
    Remeber that MS purchased the Intellectual Property of GeCad which made RAV Antivirus a few years back.
  • Different (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mattmentecky ( 799199 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @08:36AM (#12542034)
    To offer up a different (aka unpopular and hated) perspective, Microsoft isn't alone in the field of companies that offer up an imperfect product or a product that will break with intention of selling more. And they shouldnt be treated like they are some super new-bread of evil, it has been around for a while.

    Technology in industry has come to a point (heck, a while ago) that can produce never-dull razors, lifetime long light bulbs and lifetime appliances (has anyone had a refridgerator/washer/drier last more than 5, 10 years nowadays?) but we see none of these. Why? It benefits a company more to make broken-products or sub-par or eventually-break products than something of quality. Microsoft is no different. I guess thats just Capitalism? More money == 'good'
    • Re:Different (Score:2, Insightful)

      In some cases, yes, but they're all much more expensive than the disposable alternatives.

      Look at the most obvious example of why it's not necessarily a conspiracy keeping these fine products away from you; your computer. IBM, HP, and DEC made some high-end, virtually unkillable, PCs (and two of them still do), but they cost real money. People said that was too much money for a PC, so they bought Dell or Bob's WhiteBoxen instead, and complained when they died early.

      It's not that the company loses fut
      • Re:Different (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TwinkieStix ( 571736 )
        I completely agree. It's all supply and demand. If consumers thought that a longer lasting unit was worth the additional cost, they they would purchase it. It's true that companies are out to make money, but that means that (given competition of course) they need to supply what the consumers demand. It doesn't make them evil.

        Now, Microsoft is a different story. They've been found guilty of monopolizing a market sector, and so they need to be more closely watched and perhaps even regulated. This produ
    • Technology in industry has come to a point (heck, a while ago) that can produce never-dull razors, lifetime long light bulbs and lifetime appliances (has anyone had a refridgerator/washer/drier last more than 5, 10 years nowadays?) but we see none of these. Why?

      i would say it's because there's not much demand for them. there are lightbulbs available that last, while not a lifetime, at least 5 years or more, but most people still buy 30-50 cent incandescent lightbulbs. likewise, while a razor that never
  • This isn't some difficult to understand article like "Random company says obscure technical thing", which when presented different ways may slip past an editor.

    This is "MICROSOFT IS MAKING ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE". It is a simple concept, and a memorable and controversal one at that. An editor could have searched on "Microsoft" or "virus" and seen the obvious dupe. Do a search for virus right now. It is amusing.

    This place has really degenerated to dupes and several nonsense articles. They need new editors
  • Geez,

    It's like an electrician setting your house on fire due to some dodgy wiring, and then offering to sell you a fire extinguisher as your house burns down.
  • As MSFT's market starts to shrink under the rise of Linux and Mac, MSFT has to find ways to squeeze more revenue out of their existing customers.

    This is MSFT casting around for ways to keep their quarterly numbers up. Their numbers come out of your pocket.

  • by vanwl ( 884382 )


    And the next MS Antivirus not only removes known virus from your computer. It goes one step beyond, stopping the use of potential dangerous ways of infection such as: Firefox, ICQ, Gaim, Winamp, etc... XDDD

  • My computer at school has been infected with Windows. Maybe they'll be able to remove it.
  • by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <> on Monday May 16, 2005 @09:49AM (#12542763)
    Note to self: sell all shares in Symantec.
  • By Comparison (Score:2, Informative)

    by Horrortaxi ( 803536 )
    When Ford makes a car that is defective they do a "recall" and fix it so that it works the way it should have worked in the first place free of charge. What suckers! They could have just sold users the "seat belt upgrade" or "ignition switch that doesn't catch fire." The stockholders must be pissed.

    You might be thinking "if a car malfunctions it's a life or death matter but who cares if a computer crashes or gets a virus?" But what if that computer is part of the air traffic control system? Windows (f
    • Keep in mind Ford doesn't have an agreement with each and every customer that says "If it blows up or are maimed by using our product, we are not responsible"...which Microsoft does.

      Ford can't afford to ignore disasterous engineering failures. Microsoft can by writing it off with marketing. Lucky for us most durable goods don't come with shrink wrap licenses right?
  • Micro$oft Windows: What virus do you want today?
    Micro$oft AntiVirus: We charge you extra for locking in.

    I wonder if M$AV will uninstall Windows, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good AntiVirus.
  • by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @11:49AM (#12544042)
    An OS company selling software to protect its OS from malicious software designed to exploit flaws in that OS!

    Can you say conflict of interest! Sure you can!

    Well at least their AV software should work better than other companies AV software. At least I'm assuming that Microsoft SHOULD know where all the holes are...
    • I agree.

      Arguably there is a fine line between detection, removal, and prevention. Will the antivirus software be integrated with WindowsUpdate such that a security patch is applied? This means your now paying for WindowsUpdate. Or perhaps you are getting some premium update service...

      Bill has said a few times he wants to "control the medium" and figure out how users can get charged for anything transactional. Seems like he found a candidate.
  • .. but I welcome Microsoft's entry into the AV marketplace. To put it bluntly, their product cannot possibly be less efficient, more annoying and more costly than Symantec and Mcaffee's offerings.

    I'm so sick of Symantec's bloated product line that I'd gladly switch, especially if this meant I could get out from under their mafia subscription scheme.
  • This is a great business model for Microsoft.

    First create unsecure software that lets the viruses in, then provide virus protection software, and make the user pay for both. Simply brilliant!

  • As I can see, if Microsoft sell a defective product to you, they must fix it for free. Every other industry work like this, if there is a defect there will be a recall.

    Microsoft is just giving away arguments for even more lawsuits against them! How can they be so stupid? What they're trying to do has a name, and the name is FRAUD.

    Microsoft: Hey, look... I got this wonderfull, secure OS, it's called Windows XP! Buy it and your problems with virus and spyware will disapear forever!
    Customer: Oh, really? Here

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford