Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Security

Microsoft Discusses Anti-Spyware Plans 291

Posted by Zonk from the lawsuits-ahoy dept.
LaughingCoder writes "Microsoft has announced their plans for the (currently free) AntiSpyware application, which is now in Beta. It is currently slotted to be bundled with Windows Vista. The end-user has the option of switching it out and using a different vendor's spyware protection if they want." From the article: "Microsoft gave an official name to its software for protecting computer users against spyware. The software, which has been known as Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1, will be called Windows Defender when the finished version becomes available next year, a Microsoft spokesperson said Tuesday. A posting on Microsoft's TechNet Web blog announced the change on Friday and also revealed some details about capabilities coming to the software. The current version of Windows AntiSpyware Beta 1 has 18 million users, the spokesperson said. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Discusses Anti-Spyware Plans More

Microsoft Discusses Anti-Spyware Plans

Comments Filter:

  • can Microsoft do this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:24PM (#13981747) Journal

    Okay, a couple of thoughts:

    • First, Microsoft is announcing this anti-spyware will be free. I'm wondering how could they charge for it? Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas? I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies. (Oh, you want air in those tires? We have an addon, called valve-stems which, for now, we're offering for free.)

      And I know some claim this isn't Microsoft's fault that spyware happens, but it really mostly is. They designed Windows to be as easy and automatic to use as possible, which really is the gateway for much of the malware wreaking computer havoc.

    • Second, is this a step in the direction of violating their consent decree (if that is what the DOJ imposed, I don't remember technically what it was)? They say you can swap out their anti-spyware for any other vendor's, but seemingly putting theirs in place by default, and making it free sounds a lot like a previous browser war to me.

    • Third, assuming this all goes according to Microsoft's plan, and if they do this, and if anti-spyware companies go out of business because their air supplies have been cut off, is Microsoft going to ratchet their price just a wee bit more to cover this cost (I've gotten posts in the past asking for an example where Microsoft's done this -- they don't actually add to their price in an itemized way, but their price for their software/OS certainly hasn't attenuated to the same curve hardware has in the PC industry... and it's not because they couldn't sell it for less and make a profit... it's because they don't have to sell it for less.)

    If I were a anti-spyware vendor, I'd be pissed. (Unless I was the one Microsoft bought out.)

    • Third, assuming this all goes according to Microsoft's plan, and if they do this, and if anti-spyware companies go out of business because their air supplies have been cut off, is Microsoft going to ratchet their price just a wee bit more

      Worse: consumers are left having to trust Microsoft that spyware has not been installed. Microsoft could define as spyware any competitive software or technology it feels threatened by, and it could define as non-spyware its own or partners' software which most reasona

      • Re:can Microsoft do this? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Red Alastor ( 742410 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:45PM (#13982023)
        There could be a compromise. Microsoft make the anti-spyware but it opens the format for spyware signatures. Think of it like Debian repositories. You could add ad-aware, norton or anybody you trust in your source list. They could even sell a subscription to you if they wish.

        But I don't think Microsoft would like it.
    • My Ubuntu system at home came with thousands of programs, with many thousand more available in their repositories. An Office suite is installed whether you want it or not, unless you choose the minimal install, which few people do. The whole thing leaves very room for commercial competition for what runs on my desktop. Whatever someone wants to sell me, I probably already have some preinstalled equivalent on my Ubuntu system. Maybe this is unfair to others who would like to sell me something, but as a user
    • Surely defending against spyware and security breaches should be a primary function of the OS, rather than an application that is built to run on the operating system. People who make antispyware software are making up for a deficiency in an operating system that people already havbe paid good money for. They should have no complaints if Microsoft take it upon themselves to actually fix what's wrong with their operating systems. If Microsoft were somehow 100% successful in defending against spyware &

      • Re:can Microsoft do this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eyegor ( 148503 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:04PM (#13982213)
        Microsoft bundling anti-spyware software with their OS is kind of like a shipbuilder installing an automatic leak plugger in a new ship.

        It'd be better to build it so it didn't leak in the first place.

        • Which ships do, in effect (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Flying pig ( 925874 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:15PM (#13982342)
          Ships have bilge pumps because there are just so many ways a leak can start. In fact, back in the day of wooden ships it was not unknown for the Dutch to fit old ships with wind powered bilge pumps and just keep them pumping so they could be used beyond the normal lease of life. The analogy is not exact, but it is common for any very complex system to have continuous maintenance needs that in theory could be avoided. I'm not justifying MS, just pointing out that your analogy would lead to MS building in the equivalent of automatic bilge pumps, fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, just like you have to have on a ship. Which seems to be what they are at last doing.
      • If microsoft actually goes and fixes the wholes in thier operating system then I have no problem with it. What I would have a problem with, is microsoft just building an antispyware/antivirus application that runs on top of their operating system, just like all the other antispyware/antivirus applications.

    • MFUD - Microsoft Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pvt_Waldo ( 459439 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:11PM (#13982280)
      What a bunch of MFUD! I'm not arguing the merit of the product, I'm arguing the holes in the argument. When I saw the first point I just had to reply (I blame the intarweb's alure)...
      Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas? I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies.
      So, if I go to install some program, and it's got spyware that installs with it, that's bad architecture? Or if deep in the EULA there's a little clause that says I'll get "something extra" when I install, it's Microsoft's fault I didn't read the EULA? Or that it was written by lawyers?
      And I know some claim this isn't Microsoft's fault that spyware happens, but it really mostly is. They designed Windows to be as easy and automatic to use as possible, which really is the gateway for much of the malware wreaking computer havoc.
      Easy and automatic to use. You mean like a Macintosh? Or like Linux is trying to become? If "easy to use" was a criteria then Macs would be swimming with malware.
    • "If I were a anti-spyware vendor, I'd be pissed."

      As a consumer I'd be pissed if Microsoft did nothing about malware. I want them to either fix the core problem(s) or bundle a free desktop app as a workaround.

      It seems like this is a total win for consumers. Sorry, screw anti-spyware vendors. Not all markets were meant to last.
    • Well, John C. Dvorak ranted about this earlier [slashdot.org]. Yeah, I know, it's Dvorak, and I'm not his biggest fan either, but he does have a point: Why correct the problem when you can provide another piece of software to make up for the defect? Think about it. If it's going to cost you $1000 to replace the A/C compressor on your ten year old car, are you going to fork over the money or roll down the windows instead? I'm sure in Microsoft's way of thinking, it's more cost effective not to fix the code but instead

    • Re:can Microsoft do this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by max born ( 739948 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:23PM (#13982453)
      Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment.

      That's just plain wrong. I'm a Linux user and I'm no Microsoft fan but to be fair, spyware isn't Microsoft's fault. If a malicious programmer wants to write a program to say, monitor your keystrokes, or send your computer ads, and a user willingly installs it, there's really nothing Microsoft can do to stop it short of prohibiting the user from running any and all programs.

    • Re:can Microsoft do this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:24PM (#13982466)
      First, Microsoft is announcing this anti-spyware will be free. I'm wondering how could they charge for it? Spyware basically is malware takes advantage of a poorly architected Windows environment, n'est-ce pas? I would think it unseemly to manufacture a product that has deficiencies, then sell a product to protect against those deficiencies. (Oh, you want air in those tires? We have an addon, called valve-stems which, for now, we're offering for free.)

      No, it isn't. While Spyware has used "drive-by-downloads" and other Windows flaws to install itself in the past, today's spyware is almost universally bundled with software that the user downloads and installs. Web toolbars, screensavers, background utilities, file sharing products, and other shareware is frequently loaded with spyware.

      Spyware can be written for any platform. What's to stop spware from modifying your .bashrc? Or your GNOME session?

      Add to that the fact that most software is installed as root, and there is no limit to the damage that spyware-infected software could do. Even your Kernel and bootloader aren't safe.

      Spyware is a problem that can affect any platform. While some spyware is undoubtably based on Windows flaws, spyware bundled with software can affect any platform.
    • On the other hand, remember that Apple includes iLife with MacOS. Bit unfair to prevent MS from including *anything* with the OS.

      A final point would be that I ran my computer for six months this year with XP SP2 and a permanent internet connection. I had no antispyware software installed. When I finally remembered, both Microsoft AntiSpyware and Ad-Aware came up blank.

      'Spose I should point out that I've been using FireFox.

  • Alternatively... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by intmainvoid ( 109559 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:25PM (#13981767)
    Of course alternatively, you could build the OS so that spyware can't install itself [apple.com] silently and start phoning home. Or would that be an anti-trust issue for Microsoft these days, if it put all the anti-spyware/virus companies out of business???
    • While you’re right that you can’t get software to install silently under OS X, it would be trivial to trojan a download, and even to this day, a great many (most?) Mac users will gleefully enter their root password when prompted by any random installer.

      As to the phoning home part, IPFW doesn’t, as configured in OS X, do egress. I run a $25 app [obdev.at] to have real time veto power over outgoing packets. So while the malware situation on OS X is currently infinitely better than that of Winders, I wo
      • While you're right that you can't get software to install silently under OS X, it would be trivial to trojan a download, and even to this day, a great many (most?) Mac users will gleefully enter their root password when prompted by any random installer.

        Yes it is trivial, but so is writing your password on sticky notes on your monitor. If you are given the choice of installing the software with a notification of the OS and prompted for a password then it is clearly the fault of the user for typing it in. Hen
        • Either you missed my point or I wasn’t clear, but I can type this faster than I can go back and check.

          That statement of mine was directed at my fellow Mac users who tend to feel that we are immune from these problems. It could be said that we have a *much* stronger immune system, but we are not actually invulnerable. And a false sense of security and/or bravado amongst our numbers will not do us any good.

          In other words, I agree with you completely.

    • 1. Provide download for Mac OS X
      2. Require user to run installer to run program, as happens on occasion with Mac OS X software
      3. Prompt user for their password in installer, as often happens with installers
      4. Pollute user's Mac with spyware that phones home constantly over port 80
      5. Profit!

    • Re:Alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:27PM (#13982504)
      Of course alternatively, you could build the OS so that spyware can't install itself silently and start phoning home.

      Do not make the mistake of believing that your platform is immune.

      Spyware works on any platform because users are stupid. Almost any user will gladly reveal their administrator password if promised "free screensavers". At that point, all of the access control in the world won't help you.

      No operating system that allows the user to take control of their system is immune from spyware. There are always users who will give spyware whatever permissions it needs to install.

  • Crazy question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:25PM (#13981769)
    This may come off as a crazy question but why would Vista need anti-spyware?

    Aren't they gonna implement a secure user-privilege levels?

    Even if someone does mess up their own home directory, they won't be able to touch system files?
    So theoretically one could log in as an admin and easily remove the unwanted warez.

    Or is Vista going to be more of the same when it comes to file permissions?

    • Re:Crazy question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:40PM (#13981952) Homepage
      Even if someone does mess up their own home directory, they won't be able to touch system files?

      Spyware doesn't necessarily need to modify system files to spy on users. The information in your home directory is the most valuable.

      So theoretically one could log in as an admin and easily remove the unwanted warez.

      Sure, but most Windows users don't even know they have spyware. That problem needs to be solved first.
      • Sure, but most Windows users don't even know they have spyware. That problem needs to be solved first.

        Well, if Windows was not able to get spyware then Windows users would not have any spyware to know about.
      • Oh and I forgot...

        Spyware doesn't necessarily need to modify system files to spy on users. The information in your home directory is the most valuable.

        Right, but most people don't keep items in their homedirectory worth spying on. Most spyware programs don't search your system for xls files or docs for credit card number because it would provide nothing but useless information for the phisers to sort through, but it is when they highjack the browser and then OS to keylog to get your personal banking informa
    • Because spyware is bundled with P2P applications like bearshare or whatever. Or people download some stupid cursors program or messenger emoticons.

  • Yea Right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mysqlrocks ( 783488 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:26PM (#13981779) Homepage Journal
    The end-user has the option of switching it out and using a different vendor's spyware protection if they want.

    Kind of like how XP SP2 didn't recognize Norton Anti-Virus as a anti-virus software and warned you that you didn't have any anti-virus software installed? Symantec had a patch that disabled this warning right after XP SP2 came out.
    • Actually, it warned you that you might not have antivirus software installed, and told you to contact your vendor for an update. Why didn't Symantec make an update available before SP2 shipped? I did the update on the very first day SP2 came out, went to symantec's website, and found an update there right away.

      The real problem here is with Symantec, whose autoupdater often fails. Using even the corporate edition (versions 7 through 9) I often found that even kicking off an update manually would fail to re

  • An "engineering change"? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:26PM (#13981780)

    Making the engineering change from "Windows AntiSpyware" to "Windows Defender" took a lot of careful coordination across our team to ensure that the strings in the UI got changed, the help files all got updated, registry keys, file names and properties, as well as a couple of images all got changed.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Plans!? (Score:2, Funny)

    by darth_MALL ( 657218 )
    Somehow I think they will involve a wheelbarrow and a holocaust cloak....

  • Can this program do it ALL? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dividedsky319 ( 907852 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:28PM (#13981798)
    I've become fed up with the anti spyware programs...

    I've had Adaware detect things Spybot doesn't, Spybot detect things Adaware doesn't detect, MS's program detect things Spybot doesn't detect, etc etc etc...

    My usual course of action to thoroughly cleanse a system is to boot to safe mode, run adaware > spybot > MS antispyware > HijackThis ...

    My question is... will there ever be a program that can detect it all? Becuase so far, I haven't found one.
    • Have you looked at the foxIE suite [getfoxie.com]? The browser plugin is so-so, but the "sweeper" - its spyware seek/destroy widget is pretty impressive
    • My question is... will there ever be a program that can detect it all? Becuase so far, I haven't found one.>

      While I cant say "ever" because well, that would be a pretty strong statement I have to defend, it seems feasible that one product will catch something another product doesnt. Maybe a patch/upgrade/definition came out for MS's before Adawares, or the spyware knows how to bypass SpyBot, but not hijackthis, etc.

      So in the near forseable future...no.
    • From my understanding, Hitman Pro [hitmanpro.nl] uses all those programs under one roof. It's a dutch site for me, but from the download section I see they also offer English versions of them.
    • The serious spyware writers design their programs to try and avoid detection. So, often times things get missed. Bottom line, to keep your computer completely clean either:

      A) Never go on the internet, ever.

      B) Use an OS other than Windows.

      C) Try and get MS to improve Windows so that spyware has limited impact(good luck there)
    • Same for AV programs. Not all AV products can find and clean everything. There is NO perfect programs.
    • In theory this is impossible.

      If suddenly such an überantispyware appeard, that can detect everything better than anyone else, it'll suddenly become "teh new target" that every spyware-writer will try to circumvent. And with so much effort put on this, of course there will be new spyware that won't be detected by it.

      Historically the same has been seen with anti-virus software :
      - When Thunder Byte AntiVirus [knoware.nl] was out, it was THE holy grail of anti virus. It had a heuristic (simulator) engine, whereas other

  • It might make Windows more stable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:28PM (#13981802) Homepage Journal
    But can you trust Microsoft anymore with stopping spyware from installing on your computer? Have they added protection from Sony's rootkit? What will they do with Claria/Gator/GAIN spyware technology that they now have access to?

    Microsoft might remove spyware apps that break Windos, but is their goal to really remove anything that can spy on you, this being the company that's introduced Microsoft Genuine Advantage?
  • don't hook keyboard messages.

    It will probably break alot of code, but one kind of spyware instantly disappears.

    Also, global CBT hooks are probably a bad idea to have around (who uses them for CBT purposes anyway? THAT concept has long since vanished and the things were hacked into a plethora of other uses).

  • I understand that (Score:4, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:29PM (#13981819)
    Back in the day, Ford was willing to sell you a Ford fire extinguisher to go with your Pinto.

  • Trademark Problems? (Score:4, Informative)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:31PM (#13981842) Homepage Journal
    I thought the software title Defender [shockwave.com] was already taken.
  • And I don't mean the tennis courts either. All products that are not OS related, where the OS doesn't rely on them, should be add-on software. I don't know that MS should be broken up like AT&T was, but allowing them to 'push' their add-on software out with the OS is an unfair practice as regards the rest of the software industry that is trying to make a living with that OS.

    Its a bit tricky, because, hell, its MS's OS, why can't they give extra value software? Well, maybe so, but they are so large that
    • So you're saying that by adding value to their operating system, Microsoft is being anti-competitive?

      That sounds a lot more like good old fashioned capitalistic competition to me. If you start losing customers to another vendor (Apple) because their product is better, you improve upon your own product to retain your customer base.

      That said, you can fault apple for doing the same thing by bundling a Mail app, a calendar app, a movie editing app, a photo app, a music app, a development environment, etc.....
    • So you complain that Microsoft is being anti-competitve with their added value programs, and yet you admit that you use a competing operating system? Sounds like the market is working after all...
  • "Microsoft Defender" has an almost patriotic ring to it. I think microsoft purposely does this sort of thing to make people think certain things are more important than they really are... It kinda reminds me of a dumb old man. :-P I have a feeling that they namd Defender as such because they couldnt find anyone to take that job. Who wants to defend Microsoft anyway? :-P

  • The interface is wonderful! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:35PM (#13981888)
    It is possibly the first anti-spyware program to use a joystick. Malicious executables appear as little moon landers and you have to shoot them before they can abduct your good files. I actually look forward to getting infected with spyware, but my thumbs start to hurt after a time.

  • Keep it free. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CDPatten ( 907182 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:37PM (#13981922) Homepage
    The only potential conflict of interest I see is if MS charges for the software. As long as it is free its a GREAT addition to Windows.

    However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry. That is a problem, but not MS's problem. Its a free market issue, and the market will adjust.

    As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.

    All in all I tihnk this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do? MS is making the correct decision to include it in Vista. If they charge extra for it, or turn it into a paid subscription service, that is an entirely new issue. That would be a conflict of issue, and morally wrong, maybe not legally, but it would hurt their business.

    • As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.

      I disagree completely. Markets are defined by products and the flow of money, not by how technolo

    • Re:Keep it free. (Score:2, Informative)

      by MagicMerlin ( 576324 )

      However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry. That is a problem, but not MS's problem. Its a free market issue, and the market will adjust.

      fallacy of the broken window.
      If what you said was really true, we should be paying people to write worms and viruses because it creates all that business when in fact it just diverts resources from more productive things.

      Merlin

  • Just engineer the software properly in first place (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Security:

    Ring 0: kernel level
    Ring 1: apps level
    Ring 2: user level

    There's no excuse for outsiders having install level capabilities on any OS.

    • Ring 0: kernel level
      Ring 1: apps level
      Ring 2: user level

      Microsoft did something similar to this with NT 3.5/3.51, and these releases were quite robust.

      However, for NT 4.0 they moved the display drivers and GUI to ring 0 to increase performance. This created huge stability issues as buggy display drivers (and coincidentally a sub-optimal IP stack) caused NT 4.0 systems to be extremely fragile. The anticipated performance increases were eclipsed by downtime caused by reboots and BSODs. Some of t
    • In a corporate environment that may ring true. Even then, it breaks down entirely if users are able to execute a file which is located at any arbitary location on disk - who says the spyware needs to go through a formal install procedure?

      However, at home (where a lot of these infested boxes are), users need SOME means of installing software.
  • but couldn't they make money from the companies inserting the spyware? If you pay M$, then Windows Defender will classify your program as non-spyware and allow you to keep collecting information.

  • An example of typical Microsoft quality: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:46PM (#13982037) Homepage
    I just tried to update my spyware definitions through Microsoft AntiSpyware. I got an error message: "Could not connect to the internet."

    Somehow Slashdot has no problem, however.

  • How Microsoft got the name... (Score:5, Informative)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:51PM (#13982082)
    It seems someone else was using "Windows Defender" until MS sent in their lawyers [nwsource.com]. Tucked into the agreement was a line making the prior owner give all rights to the "Defender" name to MS. Two weeks later, MS announces the new name.

  • Thank You Sir, May I have another!? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anicca ( 819551 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:55PM (#13982125) Journal
    The mere fact that MS feels the need to include anti-spyware software is because they FIXED NOTHING. It's NT 6, XP repackaged with a snazzy GUI. Rather than find some way to prevent worms, virii, and other malware from getting in, they will be providing 'tools' to fix the OS on an ongoing basis? Sounds like MS users will still be spending countless hours scanning, fixing, restarting...

  • OS design... (Score:3)

    by Dwonis ( 52652 ) * on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:01PM (#13982188)
    Sigh. Does anyone else see the irony in having the maker of the OS release an anti-malware program that runs in user space?

  • In my opinion, the main thing following from the words of Microsoft specialists in the blog, is not the change of name but the fact that the software giant, I think, is about to do the same thing it once did in the browser sector.

    "The engine is now moved to a system service ..." means that anti-malware (anti-virus) solution will be built-in in the next Windows. Why I call it anti-virus? Because like some time before the word "virus" was used for almost ALL malicious programs, now they are trying to call t

  • I went around work installing the program when it first came out, despite setting restrictive rights and other such software on the computers (before I came on, many of the users had admin access when they didn't need it, mainly because some of the software they had purchased was worth shit, and the guy before me didn't want to bother setting things up correctly.)

    While Microsoft AntiSpyware wasn't a catch-all (neither were the other two programs I used in conjunction with it,) it worked out well. Whereas Ad-aware would give you a long listing of individual files with sometimes-useful information if you double clicked on an item, MAS would list the various programs (clumping the files together) and give a threat level, the main things they do (both good and bad) and a few other small tidbits. It's enough information that a regular user would be able to figure out what to do without being overwhelmed.

    I have it on my own Windows machines (though I almost never have to run it myself.)

    However, as has been pointed out, this shouldn't be shipping with Vista. With Linux coming to the forelight, and Macs becoming cheaper, Microsoft should know that they can't do the "There are only 1000 holes instead of 5000, it will be fine" thing they've loved to do in the past. Vista should be secure enough to not need this kind of thing, or it just shows that Microsoft would prefer to pretty up the OS some more and give us the same crap in a different box for another $300 than to actually strive ahead.

    Then again, that's nothing new.
  • OK, yeah. MS hasn't done a good job so far protecting their operating systems from malware. We all know that.

    Still, I'm already sick of reading people's comments about how they should just design their OS better. Of course there are things they can (and hopefully will) do to reduce the risk of malware. Ditching default root privelidges comes to mind.

    End users are still going to compromise themselves, though, with software installs and stuff. Let's face it, as long as Windows is the big target, it will
  • from today, Linux worm: http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/11/08/140203.sh tml?tid=220&tid=106 [slashdot.org] and of course, rootkits don't exist for Linux, oh no: http://la-samhna.de/library/rootkits/list.html [la-samhna.de] MS are trying to do something about security, Vista will not stick you straight in as admin. Shame you /. types can't see passed the end of your biggoted noses. I love Linux, and I stroke my OpenBSD box goodnight, but come on Bill is not the anti christ, XP/VS/SQL/Exchange are all fine products, not everythi

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close