Spy Sweeper, the Next Netscape? 256
GenieGenieGenie writes "AP is running a story about Webroot's Spy Sweeper, specifically about the competition it's facing from Vista's bundled anti-spyware. Webroot's CEO David Moll maintains that 'The taking of a second-best product in this space [i.e. Vista's Defender, f.k.a. AntiSpyware] is akin to locking half the doors in your house,' but others seem to think that if Moll doesn't want his company to become a second Netscape, it would 'ultimately [...] need to offer more than just an anti-spyware package.' The interesting issue here is whether this need for broadening the offer would be the case also for other leading companies subject to similar 'bundled-with' competition."
Opportunity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2)
What gets me about all this is why MS is even releasing an antispyware program... wouldn't they be better off patching their own code? Its like someone trying to sell you repairs to their broken product. Yes I know its free - for now.
Re:Opportunity! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Opportunity! (Score:4, Informative)
Let's not forget programs like Kazaa, if it's even still around, which actually REQUIRE you to not only install, but keep the crapware on your system in order to run it.
Defects in the operating system indeed.
Of course, a lot of the nasty crap that gets on your computer without you DOING anything is generally on rathe questionable sites (e.g. Warez sites). This is thanks to lacking security in Internet Explorer, not the OS.
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2, Insightful)
Many programs don't alert you of any of the things they're installing. On, say, OS X, you'd get a security prompt if something tried to modify the system without your knowledge.
Defects in the operating system indeed.
Yes, indeed.
Of course, a lot of the nasty crap that gets on your computer without you DOING anything is generally on rathe que
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Opportunity! (Score:3, Insightful)
So... which OSes are you thinking of that aren't "flawed" ?
Not to mention, how is it a flaw in the first place ? How is the OS supposed to know that the monitoring *isn't* "without the user's knowledge" ?
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2)
Spyware by its very name is not desireable on a computer. No one wants it there, except obviously its makers. The problem that arises is when this spyware is running invisibly, and with no easy way to uninstall it (cool web search anyone?), even assuming the user ever finds out it is there. I'd call the fact that spyware manufacturers can produce parasitic software definetly indicative of defective code.
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2)
The WELL known ActiveX exploits in IE have been there for a LONG time
MS refuses to fix them
Thus how it might be indicative of a defect
And pusposely so
For many people, using a non-Microsoft browser such as Firefox is now a must for secure Web surfing--but most still keep a copy of Internet Explorer around just in case.
http://news.com.com/Planning+to+dump+IE+Think+agai n/2100-1032_3-5388755.html [com.com]
Ex-MislTech
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2)
doing their monopolistic BS they have been pulling for years
It is due to ASP pages not recognizing Firefox and refusing to
work with them, some ppl have made work arounds, but a lot of
the older sites and less open source aware ones have no clue
http://www.asptoday.com/Content.aspx?id=2339 [asptoday.com]
If MS wants to make it a pain, they will, and have in the past
java/j++ comes to mind
Ex-MislTech
Re:Opportunity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-spyware (and antivirus) software isn't protecting from defects in the code, it's protecting from defects in the user.
Re:Opportunity! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:Opportunity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only "wouldn't" I, but I don't.
I do, occasionally (maybe once every 6 months) run the online scanners over my PC. Thus far, no infection has ever been detected.
You would rely solely on your personal computing prowess to prevent and/or remove all infections?
I rely on common sense and the security facilities of my OS to avoid infection in the first place. In particular, I don't execute code I can't verify the source of, I don't run as a high-privilege user for day to day tasks and I filter inbound network connections to my computers.
I will also point out that these are the exact same procedures I follow on *all* the OSes I use.
If you say yes, first I'll call bullshit.
I don't really care what you "call". Ten years of Windows use without a single exploit from malicious code is enough evidence for me that my methods work the majority of the time.
Then I'll ask how you can expect this kind of tech savvy from your average user.
Most malware - or, more accurately, the vector it uses - doesn't require even the slightest level of "tech savviness" to identify. How many people, if someone knocked on their door and said they were from their bank, would hand over a blank cheque and signature specimen for "verification purposes" ? Compare that to how many are happy to hand over their banking usernames and passwords to email and web based banking scams.
One of the fundamental problem, IMHO, is many people are still working under the impression that stuff on the "internet" isn't "real", and that actions online can have genuine consequences out in the real world. My guess is they figure that since Word has an undo button, then everything else they do with the computer can be similarly easily "undone". Malware is going a long way towards rectifying this attitude (one of its few upsides).
Now, with all that said I certainly wouldn't recommend most people go without anti-virus and anti-spyware tools. Particularly since most "normal users", IME, are primarily using the internet for inherently high-risk behaviour (swapping software, documents and other data). However, the simple fact is that neither anti-spyware, nor anti-virus software, is there to protect the user from flaws in the OS (although it may do this as a side effect). It's there to protect the user from flaws in their behaviour. No level of OS security known can protect from the user deliberately executing malicious code.
(I use the word "flaws" here in the context of safe computing practices, not behaviour in general. I don't think for a second people *shouldn't* be doing the things they do with computers that typically lead to malware infection.)
Re:Opportunity! (Score:5, Funny)
"Yeah, you'd better buy our 'protection service,' cause, you know, Vinnie and me would sure hate to see something happen to your computer..."
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not. The cost is hidden in the price of the OS.
This is what irritates me most about MS's offers (i. e. Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer). They have never been, never are, and will never be free. The cost is just hidden elsewhere. "Free" is just an illusion.
Re:Opportunity! (Score:2)
Plus, I'm picking up form context that the utility is just part of the OS, not a separate program you'd think to charge for. Could be wrong, though, didn't read the article.
You joke, but that's a good idea. (Score:2)
It's easy to clean a Linux box (if you should ever get infected). But it is extremely difficult to clean a Windows box.
Re:You joke, but that's a good idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like it's "easy" to be a heart surgeon but "extremely difficult" to be a brain surgeon...
Re:You joke, but that's a good idea. (Score:2)
Re:You joke, but that's a good idea. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't waste your time. (Score:2)
The reality is that I can boot a Linux box with a Live CD and access the hard drive (read and write).
Since most of the system will have been installed via the package manager, identifying what packages were installed should be a simple matter.
Once you know the packages, you know the files, their location and their checksums. Since you booted from a Live CD, you aren't running those apps so they can be sa
Re:Don't waste your time. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no "in theory". (Score:2, Flamebait)
There is no "in theory" about it.
You Microsoft fanboys just don't understand the technology behind a real packaging system.
No, there is not.
You boot with a Live CD.
You mount the drive.
You use "ls -a" to list all the files.
You don't miss a thing. Every file will belong to a package. You identify the package from the file. That tells you the specs for those fil
Re:There is no "in theory". (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It might be a config file you've added or edited, or user data. But apart from that, you're absolutely correct. Windows just has so many places for malware to hide. Windows users don't realise just how transparent Unix/Linux systems are. With a LiveCD you can see *everything*, nothing remains hidden. Makes it very easy to inspect, repair, and/or backup. No need to wipe and reinstall.
Re:There is no "in theory". (Score:2)
Re:There is no "in theory". (Score:5, Interesting)
Your method will work most of the time cleaning up after some peon such as yourself who's just fucked things up, but is is not a wise course of action against a determined, experienced intruder.
You clearly do not understand how package managers work. While you would be able to track the base files installed, you wouldn't be able to do so with files generated files (take a look through
Or You Could Pull a Netscape... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or You Could Pull a Netscape... (Score:2)
netscape products (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:netscape products (Score:5, Informative)
As for Netscape's server products, the webserver was undercut by Apache, and the other stuff (groupware, application server) didn't sell well compared to IBM or Microsoft. Had they been successful with servers, Netscape would probably still be around today.
As for this anti-spyware company, it reminds me about Quarterdeck's bitching when Microsoft took the outragous step of adding a memory manager to their OS.
Re:netscape products (Score:2)
Netscape was founded to sell browsers and the server part didn't come around until late '96 when they started playing around with server software for intranet/internet access. Then in 97 they released thier media streaming push software "Netcaster". It is rumored to be a direct responce to microsoft giving IE away in OEM release windows 95 starting sometime around august of '96. Well it was probably more in responce to the browser wars in general.
Re:netscape products (Score:2)
With a better reference, you could find Jim Clark himself saying this, and of course the IPO prospectus. I don't think Netscape had any intention to sell browser software until they realized that a lot of people wanted to pay for it.
Who is teh best? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, they're the bests and Vista Defender the 2? What about ad-aware, spybots...?
Also, who knew before about this "Spy Sweeper"?
Re:Who is teh best? (Score:2)
Re:Who is teh best? (Score:2, Informative)
"You've never heard of a program" does not directly relate to "Value"
You've probably never heard of ETAP but it's one of the best programs for circuit analysis in utilities.
Re:Who is teh best? (Score:2)
how can you compare a program that works with something so many people come in contact with (spyware) with a program that works with something so very *few* people come in contact with (circuit analysis)?
your `top selling' argument might have some validity to it, but i still think more people know about spybot/ad-aware [google.com]
Re:Who is teh best? (Score:2)
Re:Who is teh best? (Score:2)
Btw, Norton 2006 with their bundled Anti-spyware is pure junk for anti-spyware.
Is that the right way to look at it? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm looking for a good anti-spyware program, and it comes bundled with something that I'm _not_ looking for, then I might instead use something that's not necessarily quite as good but isn't loaded down with other software.
If their software is that much better than Microsoft's, then I'm sure they'll have no problem competing. Honestly most people install spyware without looking at what they're agreeing to, and the people who care about this will be willing to spend the time it takes to install a third party app.
Re:Is that the right way to look at it? (Score:2)
Re:Is that the right way to look at it? (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, AdAware has a really nasty habit. I run it, clean the system, and reboot. When I run it agian, it finds more problems. No matter how many times I run this, it'll still find a few "critical" spyware problems.
Just to test, I installed VMware and WinXP with SP2. I used the Autopatcher program to ensure the
Re:Is that the right way to look at it? (Score:2)
There are a ton of people that bought and installed McAafe and Norton AV tools. They just figure that the more AV they have, the better.
Also look at spyware tools. Most geeks recommend running at least two tools. Spybot and AdAware seem to be the most popular. MS adding AV or anti
They can't be another Netscape (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They can't be another Netscape (Score:2)
Netscape did something, anti-spyware software just fixes MS's mistakes.
There is a differnce.
Re:AdAware Re:They can't be another Netscape (Score:2)
spybot s&d is a much better single-solution choice, although if im cleaning a machine i use adaware, spybot, defender, kazaabegone, x-cleaner, ewido and hijackthis.
Re:AdAware Re:They can't be another Netscape (Score:2)
As for the performance thing, that I dont actually agree with. The author says that you get more performance by mapping files into main memory, instead of doing the IO yourself. If you are writing high performance code you dont map files, because then any pointer deref can cause the OS to swap in the data. Its better to
Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't MS just make an OS which isn't so prone to it?
If they somehow made Vista impervious (without a built in addon or tool) do you think people would be mad at them for killing the competition?
Microsoft steals the lucrative business of fixing Microsofts mistakes. Spyware manufacturers also make money off of Microsofts mistakes.
Just some food for thought.
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, Microsoft is at fault for the security holes that allow spyware to be automatically installed, but factor those out and there's still a need for anti-spyware for the computer-illiterate masses.
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
Yes, it's the user that (unknowingly) installs malware.
No, it's the OS that allows malware to install in suchs ways that it cannot be easily uninstalled.
Wouldn't it be possible to have the OS manage installations, and thus, manage complete uninstalling? The only "drawback" I see is that gray-area "legal" DRMware such as Sony's infamous rootkit wouldn't work either.
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
Most Spyware isn't doing anything special on a system level, it's a judgement call based on the desirability of the software.
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
So how do you propose to identify what code is "spyware" and what code isn't so you can actually apply that principle (not to mention, what "authority" do you think spyware needs that non-spyware doesn't) ?
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
So I click "yes", as obviously, it can't fetch the weather report/news headlines/stock ticker/whatever without it.
Oops, it was a trojan, and now I'm part of a zombie network.
How is the principle of least authority supposed to prevent that sort of thing?
In other words, how is it supposed to be determine what is legitimate
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
No one package to rule them all (Score:2)
Individually, they all
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
Because they can't control who their end users are.
Spyware manufacturers also make money off of Microsofts mistakes.
Spyware manufacturers pretty much all make money off of *user's* mistakes.
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature (Score:2)
This is NOT the next Netscape... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft bundled IE and bullied PC makers into not putting Netscape on the desktop because it wanted to put Netscape out of business. That's a bad thing. On the other hand, Microsoft is bundling anti-spyware software into its new OS to protect its users from a) their own ineptidude, and b)the afore-mentioned crappy software that Microsoft themselves put in place.
Where Microsoft wanted to get into a new market (the browser application) by crushing Netscape, in this case they're just trying to band-aid their operating system's vulnerabilities to (hopefully) lower the amount of user frustration in the future.
I've been an IT guy for nine years, and I've always thanked Microsoft for releasing bad, buggy code. The anti-spyware folks should do the same, instead of being angry that Microsoft is finally trying to fix the problem.
Re:This is NOT the next Netscape... (Score:5, Interesting)
An anti-spyware company suing MS for getting their act together would be the same as a spyware company suing MS.
Re:This is NOT the next Netscape... (Score:2)
A lot of spyware did not install itself, the user purposely installed it. Users need more protection from themselves then they need protection from anything else.
Re:This is NOT the next Netscape... (Score:2)
It's an age-old equation. If you're fixing someone else's product, make what you can and expect to get out of the market when the product gets fixed. Because it will happen eventually.
MS is just doing what Apple started years ago: looking at ways in which users fix their OS and making thos
Re:This is NOT the next Netscape... (Score:2)
No, they weren't. Neither IIS nor Internet Explorer were ever "sold".
Anti-spyware software is little more than a fix for Microsoft's crappy security model that's included in its OS and default browser.
No, anti-spyware software is there to prevent and repair end user mistakes, same as anti-virus software.
OS-level security cannot protect you against 99% of the things spyware does (nor viruses).
Go to bed with the dogs... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are correct though (Score:2, Insightful)
But if can include both better and different services to appeal to customers, they will have a chance. Having a better product alone will not be enough though. Look how dominate IE still is even though it
In the security biz, there's always room (Score:5, Insightful)
With browsers, you want to be compatible. You have a self perpetuating cycle where your browser wants to be compatible to the pages where the page creators want to be compatible with your browser. Thus the widest used browser is the most compatible, and thus "the best" if you want to be able to view everything "well".
The same applies to media players, MP3 players and everything else where all sides involved want to be as compatible as possible.
In the anti-malware biz, it's exactly the other way. You do NOT want to be "compatible" with the malware.
Take a look at antivirus soft and the corresponding trojans, viruses etc. There is almost no trojan today that does NOT try to disable Kaspersky, McAffee, NOD etc. Trying to tear down the WinXP firewall is a given.
I bet my computer against an old ice cone that the FIRST thing that happens as soon as the Windows "Anti-Malware" comes out is that every trojan that could be disabled by it comes with some Anti-Anti-MS-Malware functions, just like they do now with Anti-WinXP Firewall functions.
In other words, there will always be a market for "small" Anti-Malware businesses. For the simple reason that, as odd as it may sound, they will have a higher chance to succeed. Simply by being neglected by the trojan writers.
Second best? (Score:2, Insightful)
Webroot Spysweeper the best? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Webroot Spysweeper the best? (Score:2)
Another P.R. move carried by Slashdot. (Score:2)
It seems to me that Webroot is better at marketing than other software companies. There is no
email (Score:3, Funny)
This is a no-brainer (Score:3, Insightful)
Protection software for MS' anti-spyware software (Score:2, Funny)
Doors locked, now what about Windows? (Score:2, Funny)
His product may lock all the doors in the house, but Windows is still wide-open. If you want a secure house, don't start with a modular home that fell off the truck a few times during transport.
Desperation (Score:2, Informative)
Why this one? (Score:2)
Second Netscape? There are too many to count. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a good thing to quote that "bundled-with" because the term is misleading. No one cares if M$ or anyone else gives away a text editor. What matters is if they make it so no other text editor will work. The Netscape complaint was that M$ strong armed vendors to gain a desktop software monopoly and then abused that monopoly in all sorts of ways to make it a huge pain in the neck to run Netscape on the desktop so that they could steal Netscapes' server market. The tactics included constantly changing the user's defaults back to IE and a combined smear and code breakage like they did with DRDOS.
It's all very nasty and they keep doing it, over and over. They have done it with Office Software to Lotus and Word Perfect, they have done it with backup software, browsers and just about anything you can think of. The people who want to own the worlds computers want to own every piece of it. The developers ran off a long time ago except for a few large companies and even they are looking for a way out. The current fights are over media and, yes, antivirus.
The most obvious result of all of these fights is a decidedly second rate user experience. So many second rate programs have been kludged together, they hardly work. All the hooks and barbs M$ made for others, they have to deal with themselves. Add a bit of DRM and remove the last of the companies trying to patch up your system and you get Vista, the five year development flop. It's kind of like watching an oil filled megatanker fall into the moon.
Information about the DRDOS example can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313031916/www.ki ckassgear.com/Articles/Microsoft.htm
Windoze performance information can be found anywhere Windoze is run. Just wait for them to curse.
I have a question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have a question (Score:2)
http://www.alexaholic.com/digg.com+slashdot.org [alexaholic.com]
Now, you may consider that a bad thing. However, it's a lot like a Neilson rating for a web site. They are not tracking you. They are tracking where you go.
I know it's kinda fucked up. But it is useful.
Also, don't forget that Slashdot itself *is* spyware. Don't belive me? Every page has (at least) two links back to Google for tra
Re:I have a question (Score:2)
My, they are full of themselves, aren't they? (Score:2)
Deep Trouble (Score:2)
They'll be able to insure a place in the "business" market by producing a product that is superior to Microsoft's.
LK
Spyware is unbelievable! (Score:2)
So I end up looking for a spyware program that will get rid of Surf Sidekick - and SpySweeper says it can clean it,
Who cares? (Score:2)
Well, the word is, you'll have to PAY for (Score:2)
Did anyone else read this as... (Score:2)
OK, I didn't really think that.
Oh my god (Score:2)
The modern culture has imprinted on us this concept of "justice" and how if everything is "justified" and "proper" everyone should be happy.
What a damn outright lie!
If Windows doesn't include tools to protect us from malware (part security improvements, part signature based detectors), you can bet people will whine why Windows leaves them more vulnerable than if they bundle something.
But if they bundle, busineses cry fowl about their business bei
Spy Sweeper, the Next Netscape? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of making a quick series of patch fixing the standards support, speed and so on, they decided to drop everything and spend few years rewriting everything from scratch. Their first releases (Netscape 6, 6.2x, 7.x) were bloated, slow to start, slow to render, buggy and damn, they were ugly.
The company's been sold, resold, split, merged, reorganised and what not, and after so many years we got Firefox, which was able to compete again with its 1.0 release.
Was the inclusion of IE Windows important in this development of history? Certainly! However the fact IE4 was a significantly better browser than NS4 and all the crap NS did to themselves was what made the crucial difference.
(yes IE4 was better than NS4, it's hard to comprehend it today, when IE6 is the worst browser of the bunch, but back then the situation was pretty different)
spyware/virus detection is a bug workaround (Score:2)
What does this have to do with a browser?
Vista's Defender, the next Internet Explorer? (Score:2)
Cue IE not supporting standards and the continued lack of such things as PNG support.
Until opensource arrives on the scene and sets
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:2)
No, it has a wide appeal as long as geeks suggest to their families what to install (or install the apps for them). You don't think Joe Average found Firefox by himself, don't you ?
Beside once the snowball is started, it can become really hard to stop.
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:2)
One of my friends, who has no interests in computers at all (other than as a tool), uses Firefox. Installed it himself. You would be surprised.
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:2)
I'm fully aware of that. My point is that the trend would not have started if we didn't started it. If there wasn't geeks to initially push Firefox, there would not be more Firefox installs among non-geeks then installs of Bonzi Buddy.
That's what I meant by snowball. Now that it started, it's going to grow on its own. Same with that potential open source an
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The demise of Netscape led directly to Mozilla.org pissing about for over four years without a stable release while Internet Explorer simply soaked up all the marketshare.
We might have better browsers now, but imagine where we'd be if a) Netscape continued to be a organisation that actually shipped software and b) Microsoft actually had to compete against another browser. We might have a decent Internet Explorer, for one thing, as things stand, Internet Explorer really has retarded web development for years.
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:2)
That leaves the obvious question though of what innovation would Netscape have brought to the market if they hadn't been crushed?
LK
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:2)
Re:Uh, wouldn't we WANT a new netscape? (Score:2, Informative)
Frames, java support, java script support, Plugins, WYSIWYG html editor (wich microsoft still doesn't offer a free one), support for underlining, multi collored tables, font faces, spaces(spacer) were just a few that Netscape was first with.
Re:woah now... (Score:2)
Now - more than ever...
Re:woah now... (Score:2)