Microsoft Patents 'Proactive' Virus Protection 169
An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe wonders whether Microsoft will go after McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Kaspersky for software royalties for proactive virus protection software. The technique enables security software to protect a PC against malware which isn't yet in the antivirus definition file, by comparing whether the new malware is similar to an old virus. Wolfe reports that Microsoft has been awarded U.S. patent 7,376,970 for "System and method for proactive computer virus protection," but that McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Kaspersky have all been selling products implementing proactive virus protection for years before Microsoft even filed for the patent. Writes Wolfe: "One often wonders about software patents. I sure wonder about this one. I also wonder whether McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Kaspersky are also going to be hearing from their friends in Redmond real soon"."
Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Funny)
:D
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything you're wife lets you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, but seriously (Score:2)
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
It is their DUTY to release that kind of thing FREE as they all deal with fixing their own products flaws.
Conflict of Interest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Duty aside, it will also eliminate any conflicts of interest. If they're selling anit-virus software, what's to prevent them from making security a very low priority. No, I honestly do not think they would write viruses or purposely cripple their OS: just make security a low priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they've decided to try and make money off it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you'd think so. "Zomg Microsoft is creating security vulnerabilities and THEN selling security software conspiracy?!!" makes sense.
But, perfect (and secure) code is impossible in any codebase of a non-trivial size. (Windows' bloat qualifies as non-trivial.)
They've been giving out free security products, and have been slowly working their way up to better solutions. First came the free Malicious Software Removal Tool updates from windowsupdate, then came the also-free Windows Defender. Then the
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft moves into new markets, and as soon as competitors are gone, they let it rot. Just look at IE.
Re: (Score:2)
No competitors? Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc? I can see that they not only have a monopoly in the browser market, but that they have also raked in oodles of cash from IE sales.~
Besides... Only in Microsoft's case would offering something cheaper and better in the otherwise oligopolistic AV market be "anticompetitive."
Considering the only market they've managed to "take over" is desktop and office software, I still wouldn't worry about it. Even then, the free alternatives are being increasingly used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft really wants to release a great OS product for Windows V8, they need stop worrying about vendor lock-in, "checklist features", DRM, eye candy, and other useless stuff that they focused on for Vista and focus all of their attention on making the OS secure. Start from the ground up if they need to.
In the end, anti-virus protection should be more about system integrity checking and less about pattern matching for known viruses.
Then again, they've never done that before, so why should we expect them to start now?
Re:what do you call that? (Score:2)
What a novel idea, we should patent that!
(and why didn't anyone suggest this sooner?)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, if applications were forced to use MSI installers, Microsoft could make the setup routines such that all of thati
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that that's been in use for years and hasn't changed much. Haven't seen pop-up recently asking for permission to install files from unknown sources, i.e. not signed?
Re: (Score:2)
2) Which security reports are you reading? Everything I have seen shows it to be an improvement over XP sp2.
And no, I don't work for MS, I just can't stand it when ignorance is touted as wisdom. Which probably means I shouldn't read Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
MS should indeed be required to provide any such implementation as part of the sale of the OS. Imagine the uproar if Apple started charging for OS X security fixes, or if Linus decided to put a proprietary license on some security patches and charge for them.
Well, I'm certainly confused.. Microsoft is charging for security fixes?
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that this is an operating system, and as such, it is incredibly complex. Any OS is going to have flaws. Granted, there seem to be more of them in the case of Windows. I do, however, think that the majority of the problems with security in Windows stem from the insane coupling of applications Microsoft tends to do.
Regardless, while I believe that all vendors should be responsible for their code
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-malware from the same company that created the OS? That would certainly be charging for security updates. I can't see how that wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
Then again with all the talk about subscription and per use and modulear development models, maybe they plan to sell one or more future versions of Windows modularly. But how can they even promote the idea of selling extra security with a straight face after all the
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-malware from the same company that created the OS? That would certainly be charging for security updates. I can't see how that wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
Anti-Malware is a prevention mechanism, not a fix. A fix would be a direct patch to the OS itself, preventing the problem from occurring to begin with. Then again with all the talk about subscription and per use and modulear development models, maybe they plan to sell one or more future versions of Windows modularly. But how can they even promote the idea of selling extra security with a straight face after all the hype they spewed for years about Vista? Well, it is entertaining at least to watch them (an
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very narrow definition of anti-malware, but even so I think the point is that if MS is allowed to double-dip like that, where's their motivation to produce a stand-alone secure product?
Re: (Score:2)
It is their DUTY to release that kind of thing FREE as they all deal with fixing their own products flaws.
AV products don't fix OS flaws, they fix user flaws.
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they'll get their license fees, or they'll release Windows v8 with proper security in place, ruining all these vendors businesses overnight.
What deficiencies in OS security do you think antivirus tools are addressing ?
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they'll get their license fees, or they'll release Windows v8 with proper security in place, ruining all these vendors businesses overnight.
What deficiencies in OS security do you think antivirus tools are addressing ?
Re: (Score:2)
Poor user-level access controls (apparently partly addressed in Vista) [...]
"Addressed" in all versions of Windows NT.
[...] and mind-blowing abuse of kernelspace [...]
For example ?
I'm sure there are others, like why the hell a website plugin can result in files being autoexecuted on boot...
Because the user allowed it to, same way any program can.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor user-level access controls (apparently partly addressed in Vista) [...]
"Addressed" in all versions of Windows NT.
Evidently not, since a user getting a virus could infect the system files, and not just that user's files. That means the user either had elevated privs (which means that "solution" fails it) or the default privs were too broad (which means the same thing), or the privs were side-stepped (ditto.)
[...] and mind-blowing abuse of kernelspace [...]
For example ?
Things that belong in kernel space:
Schedulers and process management
Direct Hardware interfaces/Drivers
etc...
Things that DO NOT belong in kernel space:
Browser rendering engines
GUIs
Shared libraries
etc...
I'm sure there are others, like why the hell a website plugin can result in files being autoexecuted on boot...
Because the user allowed it to, same way any program can.
If it's a
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently not, since a user getting a virus could infect the system files, and not just that user's files.
Only if that user has write privileges to those files (just like every other multiuser OS).
That means the user either had elevated privs (which means that "solution" fails it) [...]
How so ? Because the user is able to elevate their privilege levels when necessary ?
Things that DO NOT belong in kernel space: [...]
My mistake, I was assuming you had some vague idea of what you were talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Except in the other multiuser OSes, that's not the DEFAULT. If it was done correctly, badware started up in the registry (which is an entirely seperate misfeature) would still run with user perms and thus not be able to modify those files.
Applications started from the user's registry hive run as that user. Applications from the system's registry hive run as whatever user they are able to.
This is no different to any other OS. If you start something on Linux from your .bashrc, it will run as you. If it
Ignoring the Business Decision (Score:5, Interesting)
From a business perspective, that $50,000/yr is a heck of a lot less than going to court. It is a shakedown. A totally legal protection racket. Which is why software patents should simply die.
Look at the Crackberry fiasco. RIM knew the patent litigation was a scam and couldn't get the patents invalidated fast enough before incurring HUGE legal expenses. At some point it became a super-priority most likely because politician's & policy wonks lives would be negatively affected by their Crackberry's being shut off.
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not familiar with the patent process, especially in the realm of software patents, but isn't there someone from the patent office that would investigate something like this? I mean, we're not talking about some obscure college research project, we're talking about Symantec, Trend Micro, and McAfee here.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It all depends on how broad Microsoft's claims are.
For some historically REALY old Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
This specific antivirus was started in 1988, more than 15 years before Microsoft submited its patent (2004).
I think here microsoft broke a new world record.
(engine paper) (Score:3, Informative)
John Hardin's Sanitizer (Score:3, Informative)
Read the claims first... (Score:5, Insightful)
How Patent Claims Work (Score:2)
So they'll start out
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing that makes any sense is that Microsoft is planning an AV package for Windows that includes this and they're trying to discourage any AV companies from coming after them over it. Still doesn't make much sense in that case.
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't know enough about computers to know how obvious the prior art is, WHY are the involved with computer software patent applications in the first place? Just how fscking incompetent is the USPTO? I can't see any other way to describe this but pure, unadulterated, and blatant incompetence.
wow, just wow
Re: (Score:2)
yes the Patent office is broken. The only way to fix it is to ENFORCE the rules they have and to stop bending them. Under patent rules computer programs while directly not excluded mathematical equations are. all a computer program is, is a series of mathematical equations.
Didn't someone else already invent this ? (Score:4, Funny)
AH ! Now I remember !
http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]
Clearly prior art.
IBM, some years ago (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It still won't work. (Score:5, Interesting)
If that is done right, then none of the pieces will be sufficiently like the known patterns to set off the alert.
This is still all about matching against known patterns. That is NOT sufficient.
Re:It still won't work. (Score:5, Funny)
Loader... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, if code has undergone some complex processing before being injected into host, and if it has to do some weird assembly before being runnable, it will be very hard for signature based viruses to detect.
*...BUT...* no normal program has any valid reason to run some complex unpack/decrypt/re-order process on code before running it.
The virus' loader it-self, even if doesn't contain the slightest sign of malign activity, is a dead give-away that something shoddy is going to happen soon once the chimera has been assembled.
Heuristic antivirus which detect weird behaviour and rise alerts on "behaviours-that-aren't-inherently-dangerous-but-no-program-should-to-it-usually" are nothing new. It was pioneered by antiviruses as old as Thunderbyte.
In fact, there have been some incidents of false-positive triggering alerts, such as executable compressed with UPX packer. (Which *is* a piece of software which does processing on code before running it. Isn't very popular in branded software. And is sometime used in viruses - Which is why some antivirus vendors did not tune their heuristics finely enough to avoid trigger the false alert)
But until then, hypervisor root-kits are the new holy grail of virus writers.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, self encryption is a fairly common practice among apps that use draconian copy protection systems.
Not a bad Idea, after all (Score:2)
Well, maybe.
Another solution for virus writers would be to find a way to piggy-back on StarForce-encrypted executables and similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Mask the virus as being a DRM process. In the near future, proper corporate anti-virus software will make an attempt to ignore "valid" DRM encryption/decryption for files and software.
Skimming this board I was thinking to myself, what will Windows have in the future? More DRM so companies can control distribution of their files. Not only that, talk about the perfect way to control
Completely different (Score:2)
How is this different from what compilers and linkers need to do?
It is as much different as two things that have nothing in common.
:
From an antivirus' point of view, compilers and linkers are plain normal software, that read some input file, do some processing on them and write the results inside an output file. Not much different than, say, a filter which converts a PNG into a JPEG file
From the time it starts executing up until the end of execution, the code in memory of those softwares is exactly the same, and is exactly the same as contained into the executable imag
A plea (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, just please focus on the consumer again and release something the world can appreciate or spend every last dime trying to strangle Linux/Apple/Google/anything innovative that isn't yours.
Won't that mean... (Score:4, Funny)
At least.... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Even ignoring the patent issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
Might not be a totally bad patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it looks like what its actually doing is letting the virus run in a virtual environment, watching it, then using heuristics to say "yep, thats probably a virus."
The question on the patents validity becomes not if someone else has done "proactive" virus protection, but if they did it the same way. AFAIK Mcafee's stuff just watches the program while its actually running and says "hey this thing emailing itself to all your friends might be a virus." Thats similar, but patent-wise not actually the same thing.
(Not that I like software patents or anything, but the "patents suck" line of comments will be covered by 500 other people.)
Re:Might not be a totally bad patent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Might not be a totally bad patent? (Score:5, Informative)
proactive virus detection .. (Score:2)
Why don't MS use this patented proactive virus detection technology in Windows, that way they wouldn't need anti virus software.
"the parsed API calls are "executed" in the virtual operating environment of the present invention using stub Dynamically Linked Libraries (hereinafter "stub DLLs")"
"The stub DLLs have the same interface as the fully imp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds a lot like using OS/2 to check out suspected viruses/trojans. Run the suspect program in a DOS box, which used Virtual 8086 mode on the 386 to provide a virtualized environment. Watch for suspicious behavior, like modifying the interrupt vector table (V86 mode didn't use the VM's IVT, the INT instruction caused a trap back into protected mode and the supervisor checked what interrupt was being generated and either handled the call in protected mode or dispatched it back into the VM, so it was im
VM detection (Score:2)
And then they took the red pill and saw the truth...
Not necessarily any prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily any prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in violation! (Score:2)
All these companies have "fundamental" patents. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real point of getting patents on these kind of fundamental technologies is to prevent new players (that don't have huge patent portfolios) from entering the market.
Claim 1 (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking at Claim 1 in the patent, Microsoft has patented profiling by running a target application in a virtual machine at run-time. They then use the profiling data to determine if the program is malware. The patent includes many different ways of saving the profiling output too.
I'm pretty sure the technology being patented is already in widespread use. Many virus companies create mini-virtual environments to find out what blocks of self-modifying code really do. Otherwise, a sufficiently well disguised virus can "hide" by encrypting the payload with random blocks of keys, and then only keeping the malicious code in memory as long as it is executing. In effect, the virus code is generating itself from a randomly encrypted block of memory at run-time. The virus scanner then has only a limited window of time to spot the dangerous code. To solve this problem, virus scanners allow blocks of self-modifying code to execute (in a safe manner), to see what they will actually do.
It could be that Microsoft's anti-virus technology is obsolete, and they are actually a long distance behind the competition. ;-)
Flushot+ did the same thing many years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a TSR program for the IBM compatibles called FLU_SHOT which would do the same. It would remain in memory and warn the user whenever a program tried to change a file on the hard disk or diskette, or whenever a program tried to reside in memory.
I wonder if this is sufficient "prior art" to invalidate the Microsoft patent.
By the way, an interesting part in the FLU_SHOT manual which I just downloaded... definition of a virus author by the creator of FLU_SHOT (written in 1988)
``
As for the designer of the virus program: most
likely an impotent adolescent, incapable of
normal social relationships, and attempting to
prove their own worth to themselves through
these type of terrorist attacks.
Never succeeding in that task (or in any
other), since they have no worth, they will one
day take a look at themselves and what they've
done in their past, and kill themselves in
disgust. This is a Good Thing, since it saves
the taxpayers' money which normally would be
wasted on therapy and treatment of this
miscreant.
If they *really* want a challenge, they'll try
to destroy *my* hard disk on my BBS, instead of
the disk of some innocent person. I challenge
them to upload a virus or other Trojan horse to
Re: (Score:2)
Quote from the patent ``The method as recited in claim 3, wherein identifying calls that are potentially indicative of malware includes: comparing calls made in the executable with calls that exist in known malware; and if a call matches one that exists in known malware, determining that the call is potentially indicative of malware,,
There was a TSR program for the IBM compatibles called FLU_SHOT which would do the same. It would remain in memory and warn the user whenever a program tried to change a fil
I seem to recall (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong question (Score:4, Informative)
People seem to get really worked up about patents, while seemingly not understanding how the system works. The patent does not cover all methods of proactive computer virus protection -- it covers one method.
What could go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Proactive Virus Protection Software: Being MS I'm sure all future efforts will be bulletproof and bug free.
[Starts Windows]
Windows: Windows has detected a virus named Norton Antivirus. Would you like to replace it with Windows Live OneCare? [Replace] or [Keep] [Keep]
Windows: Windows has detected a virus named ZoneAlarm. Would you like to replace it with Windows Defender? [Replace] or [Keep] [Keep]
[Launches Firefox]
Windows: Windows has detected a virus named Firefox. Would you like to replace it with Internet Explorer? [Replace] or [Keep] [Keep]
[Goes to gmail]
Windows: Windows has detected that you are surfing an unsafe website named google.com. Would you like to navigate to hotmail.com instead? [Navigate] or [Stay] [Stay]
[Goes to CNN]
Windows: Windows has detected that you are surfing an unsafe website named cnn.com. Would you like to navigate to msnbc.com instead? [Navigate] or [Stay] [Stay]
[Goes to Apple Webstore]
Windows: Windows has detected that you are surfing an unsafe website named apple.com. Would you like to navigate to microsoft.com instead? [Navigate] or [Stay] [Stay]
[Customizes Mac purchase]
Windows: Windows has detected that you are planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. All transactions will be canceled.
[Loads shotgun]
Windows: Windows has detected that you mean to do me harm. Look, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
Before the big brains at MS figure it out... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they wanted to, they could even put a hardware-locked little USB drive to store the checksums. If you update an executable, you press a button on your little drive to allow a single write (or maybe a limited number of writes over the next 2 seconds.)
Code either on the add-on drive or in ROM checks the checksum of every executable loaded before it's started--even during bootup (guess that means it's in rom). Hell as long as I'm designing their app for them, Only this unchangeable rom routine can write to the USB drive. (Routine should be so simple as to never require updates, and should be stored in ROM, flash ram)
Oh, I see, they don't want to solve the problem... I see, they want to sell "antivirus updates" for the rest of eternity.
There, somebody go off and make that for me please. Or if you have the ability to do the hardware part, contact me and I'll do the software. We'll make millions (but not as much as people who can trick you into actually "Subscribing" to software, that's genius. no wonder their brain blocks out any more permanent solution)
Re: (Score:2)
there's already an app that does this. I can't remember the name of it, but every time I patch or update any program it asks me essentially "cancel or allow" the running of the program the next time i try to run it. Of course yet again this just trains the user to always hit "allow" until we simply turn it off.
"Th
Re: (Score:2)
Currently we have no way of knowing this has happened (which is why products like NAV seem to be useful)
If you were on a website and something said "Someone is trying to update some_program.exe, do you approve?", then it would get your attention.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words .. (Score:2)
So, MS patented (Score:4, Funny)
Patent Lawyer Job Security Programme (Score:5, Informative)
So only the rich, who can afford to pay their way through those risky years, get anything like their due process.
Patents are a monopoly. Obtaining one from the government should require the applicant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their patent is necessary "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts", the only Constitutional basis [cornell.edu] for these monopolies. That argument should require the applicant to produce evidence of an exhaustive search of prior art, not just launch a "submarine" claim and wait for it to torpedo some prior artist who then must go through the process at their expense. They should also produce similarly supported evidence of the other requirements, such as novelty and utility. If thatevidence is shown to be incomplete, the Patent Office should reject the application, with a fee that actually covers processing it, plus probably a fine for wasting the public's time and clogging its offices. If that evidence is shown to be fraudulent, like when the applicant is proven to have hidden ignored evidence of disqualifying facts, the applicant should be charged with attempting to create an illegitimate monopoly, as well as with practicing the fraud. The applicant should even have to prove the case that their specific invention promotes science or useful arts only with patent protection, and disprove the progress in science or the useful arts possible without the patent.
Getting a patent should be hard. It should be a cost of doing business. The upfront process should put the burden on the applicant. The patent should not be the asset, but should be only that occasional compromise with both free expression and modern economics that requires a temporary monopoly to protect progress (not necessarily the inventor) from predatory competition which doesn't invent, but simply outspends inventors to exploit a known invention. When that gotcha doesn't actually impede progress, the patent isn't necessary, and should never be granted.
Patent be Damned (Score:2)
Viruses: 1 zillion
MSFT: 0
The patent doesn't mean anything unless its useful.
Positively brilliant, MS (Score:2)
These people are helping make your POS operating system usable. Why not patent how they are doing it and see if you can make a buck off of them with some patent trolling? It'd serve you right if they all just thumbed their noses at you and quit making AV software right then and there.
Forget the seven wonders of the ancient world, I'm interested in a bigger mystery - how in the hell do you people stay in business?
With friends like that... (Score:2)
Writes Wolfe: "One often wonders about software patents. I sure wonder about this one. I also wonder whether McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Kaspersky are also going to be hearing from their friends in Redmond real soon".
Why yes, in much the same way that General Custer's brigade heard from their good friends the Native Americans, at Little Big Horn.
All that effort to avoid fixing the core problem . (Score:2, Insightful)
I have by now heard almost 10 years worth of promises, with the last 5 years or so a more pronounced focus on security because that's what end users are asking. But they have IMHO yet to deliver anything that is simple and works, like a secure basis to start from.
Like your average Big Name consultancy, they will NEVER sell you a finished product, because you wouldn't need them any more.
They don't sell solutions. They sell hope. Hope that th
Either Yahoo! Surrenders or... (Score:2)
Proactive Virus Protection? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)