MS Adds Security Suite To Update Service, Antivirus Rival Objects 324
CWmike writes "Microsoft has started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by US Windows users when they fire up the operating system's update service, and antivirus rivals are crying foul. 'Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition,' Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro, said on Thursday. 'Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned,' she added. 'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update. Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering the software via Windows Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player. But most users won't understand the distinction."
No need to fuss (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And Any good Linux administrator knows that you can rely on a Microsoft Product alone to acquire virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems.
Re: (Score:2)
(er, to clarify. by customer box I mean 'dedicated server' or whatever that is fully under their control, and you get to clean up the mess)
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Informative)
... any good Linux administrator has handled customer boxes that have been thoroughly rooted, tossing your argument out the nearest window.
Is that really true though?
There is the argument that Microsoft is a larger target due to their market share and this is why there exists more 0-day exploits against their platform. To be more fair, Adobe shares a pretty large portion of that responsibility too.
However, all things being equal, I think Linux does have a greater level of security out of the box than any Microsoft product. I am not going to present a reality distortion field, like there is often around Apple, and say that there exists no 0-day exploits against Linux as a platform, but to say Linux and Microsoft are equal in this regard is just not true.
Most of the Linux boxes that I have seen that are rooted are due to poor management (open SSH with very weak passwords, failing to review logs, etc.), and not actual exploits. Once again, I am not saying that they don't exist, but there are fewer of them.
It's popular to bash Microsoft, and the poster you replied too was rather flippant, but all things considered I think it is a fair statement to say that Microsoft has been lackadaisical in their approach to security and Linux is inherently more secure.
In my mind, this makes rooted Linux boxes an oddity and a statement against the Linux sysadmin. Lazy sysadmins can setup a Linux box to be rooted in no time at all. MS syadmins on the other hand, have a harder job to perform and even a great sysadmin can find themselves facing a nasty 0-day exploit against their systems regardless of well they update and maintain their systems.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I can't stand a lot of what Microsoft does, Security Essentials is not a bad program all in all. It's certainly more lightweight that than travesty from Norton and more reliable than the other "free" or "semi-free" AV programs. I still prefer F-Prot because it's the king of small footprint AV, but I have no problem with Security Essentials, and if it's part of Windows Update, I'm assuming that soon enough we'll be seeing in WSUS, which, when combined with the GPO software installation facilities in AD, will replicate the high-end corporate AV.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Informative)
I'm assuming that soon enough we'll be seeing in WSUS, which, when combined with the GPO software installation facilities in AD, will replicate the high-end corporate AV.
No you wont, the product you are talking about is named forefront and it is not free it cost about 2000$ per server and 15$ per client
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, in some ads MS ran a few years back, they touted Forefront as one of the only security solutions which offered guaranteed protection against zombies.
This alone makes their offering worth the price of admission.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Funny)
IIRC, in some ads MS ran a few years back, they touted Forefront as one of the only security solutions which offered guaranteed protection against zombies.
I still want a shotgun...
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
For the Friends and Family crowd, I now always uninstall what they have and replace it with MSE. Not only is it free, but it's been rated as the best and the updates happen automatically. It's so much lighter weight than Symantec and Norton that people tell me it's like a brand new computer.
I have not had a single callback about any problems.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Insightful)
Same here. It's better, faster, and less ad free than AVG, Avast, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's definitely better than AVG, especially the older (7,8&9) versions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen Norton's recent offerings in person. They're still a dog. Sorry, Norton sucks. But what do I need to tell you, a goddamned shill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Symantec have two levels of offerings.
Their enterprise AV (Symantec branded) is outstanding.
Their soho AV (Norton branded) on the other hand is a salty bag of balls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Informative)
This is only being suggested to people with no anti-virus solution on Windows. Those people likely don't know what they're doing.
And actually, I'd recommend Microsoft Security Essentials over Symantec, McAffee, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's an optional package, not like it's rolling out automatically. I don't see a problem here.
The whole thing is particularly funny given that I dislike the antivirus industry in general.
You are mistaken (Score:3, Insightful)
Since MS, has never offered such a product before, I can't see how *anyone* would "know that you can't rely on a Microsoft product alone to solve your virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems".
Considering I've run for well over a decade without ANY such product -- and doing so solved my 'problems' (non-existent) just fine, then how can adding such a product not create benefit (providing one doesn't mind the inevitable hit in performance for real-time/on-access scanning malware scanning.
It's networke
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't this both optional and free?
I don't see the problem at all. It's not like IE, which was free and mandatory (it's still free and bundled).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Trend Micro's beef with the issue is not that Microsoft has the security suite, but that it's including it in Windows Update. Given a choice between just "updating" your machine to install the security suite and forcing people to go search for other options, people are going to go with the update. Further, by putting it in with the updates it gives people the sense that they need it as part of a fully patched system, when it's not necessary and there are competing products that may be better.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
i guess i have no sympathy for them. and as much as i normally don't like MS i guess i am on MS's side for once.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Most of Microsoft's anti-trust trouble, at least in the US, had nothing to do with bundling the browser anyway. It gave them more trouble in Europe, but here the problem was MS was threatening PC retailers who wanted to bundle other browsers (namely Netscape) with their systems.
That's anti-competitive behavior, and we have laws against it. Europe reacted more harshly and forced MS to not ship Windows with a default browser. It ships with IE, but you have to set it as your browser of choice first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel exactly the same way. Antivirus manufacturers are making a buck off Windows' insecurity. Nothing wrong with that, they were filling a need. But they also don't have any moral grounds to complain when Microsoft tries to improve said security.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
Correct, but Microsoft waited until a market had built up around the insecurity of Windows before they introduced a product of their own. Since they did not proactively address security, they are legally obligated to compete in the market they created on a level playing field with other companies already in that market. That means if they use Windows or products bundled with Windows to provide an advantage for their security suite, they are legally obligated to provide the same to competitors. Where do the other AV vendors sign up to be included in Windows update?
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that MSE is better than nothing (and possibly better than competing anti-virus software), I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place. It's like having a screen door for a submarine, then offering optional window panes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that MSE is better than nothing (and possibly better than competing anti-virus software), I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place. It's like having a screen door for a submarine, then offering optional window panes.
Well part of the problem is users are stupid enough to download crap that has trojans in it. No amount of OS hardening can prevent a user from deliberately installing malware.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place. It's like having a screen door for a submarine, then offering optional window panes.
How, exactly, would that work? In Win7 and Win2008r2 MS has basically caught the competition in terms of security. There isn't a lot of stuf running by defaut (especially in the server OS), there aren't many ports open, you need to elevate to admin rights to do most dangerous things.
There's simply no way for a consumer or "power user" OS to prevent the user from being tricked into installing malware. If you allow the user to install software at all, social engineering does the rest. Also, no one (beside
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree that MSE is better than nothing (and possibly better than competing anti-virus software), I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place.
They can't. The problems that need an AV to solve are in the user, not the software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i can see a few specialty add on products, but you still expect your house/car to have basic locks.
This is what MS has been missing the whole time, they are just now adding the deadbolts. previously the door just hung open and you relied on a separate security guard to keep people out, that security guard doesn't have a right to complain that you are now building houses more secure with deadbolts. but that also doesn't necessarily mean you can't still hire that security guard for added security.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Except its listed in the Optional section, which is completely ignored if you just keep clicking next on Windows Update like 99% of people, and it only shows up there at all if you don't have any other AV installed. Seems fairly reasonable to me (and I truly fucking hate Microsoft and everything they do).
Re: (Score:2)
Its including it for people without any security software already.
If Trend Micro's crap didn't get bought by the sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Huser already, odds are pretty low they will at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine why they'd be having trouble getting more customers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an optional update, which means it won't actually autmoatically install. The user has to manually check for updates and select the optional ones they want.
It's also a really stupid thing to complain about, as if providing another avenue for downloading MSE is really changing anything. It's on the web; Windows comes with a web browser. It's one of the options recommended by Security Center for systems without AV. It's free no matter how you get it; they aren't adding cutting the cost or letting some peo
Re: (Score:2)
Further, by putting it in with the updates it gives people the sense that they need it as part of a fully patched system, when it's not necessary and there are competing products that may be better.
Except that there are the essential updates, which are selected by default, and the optional updates which are under a completely different list (you have to click a button to even display them).
Most people ignore the optional updates, and this shows up under the optional updates.
Again, what's the problem? Microsoft is putting out something to reduce the number of malware infected machines out there and people are upset? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the article, it says that it won't pop up unless you either have no AV product, or the AV product is expired. And even then, you have to manually browse windows update to see optional updates.
It's not like you're going to turn on your PC, and all of a sudden it's on there out of the blue.
Speaking of things that go without saying... (Score:4, Funny)
But most users won't understand the distinction.
Outside of some very specialized applications, that sentence could apply to almost any software.
Ozzy (Score:2)
This Space For Rent (Score:3, Interesting)
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
Or is that how Security Essentials got there and the people "crying foul" are just sore that they'll have to pay, too?
Re:This Space For Rent (Score:4, Insightful)
Because anti-virus companies make software so bad, even Microsoft doesn't want the association.
I think SE got there because MS learned something from the Browser anti-competitive issues.
Or better yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
How about an App Store?
/cue delusional whining about App Stores being the start of a slippery slope to concentration camps and lockdown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the one in Windows 8?
From what I've read, Microsoft is planning to have a Marketplace for installing applications in the next version of Windows. This will be nice because I can either tell people to only install software from there and nowhere else. In businesses, group policies can be set to enforce this. Result: One major vector for infection gets sealed.
I'm all for application markets, provided it isn't locked down to a single vendor. The OSS market has used repositories for decades, and t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Security Essentials is free.
It's also better than Trend Micro's AV, so you can see why Trend Micro is angry.
Instead of improving their product to compete, they whine, even though Microsoft has done absolutely nothing wrong here (and frankly, a lot of good if it gets people who don't have AV to install something).
MSSE is certainly no the best AV out there, so there is plenty of room for competition.
Re: (Score:2)
So Microsoft should add a link to Trend Micro's product, and a column with a star-rating.
It'd cost them nothing but time to write the disclaimer.
Oh, the outrage! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or funding the people writing shitty Windows code...
Re:Oh, the outrage! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news Trumpet Software is suing Microsoft for including a TCP/IP stack in Windows.
i actually like this (Score:5, Informative)
forefront and MSE are actually pretty good (MSE being built from forefront).
Their foot print on a system is quite reasonable (unlike many av suites) they do a good job of doing what they should do and staying out of the way. We all pay the price of way to many totally unsecured systems connected to the internet. FTFA the update only appears when no security software is detected on the system, So this will be being offered to users that would otherwise have no av protection at all.
I can see where MSE being offered free (and now offered via windows updates) would make other av vendors unhappy ..but f*ck them far to many of the consumer orientated av offering are just terrible bloated piles of junk.
They all need to shut up (Score:2)
Their suites offer more functionality, and if they are coded well are faster and have better detection rates. MSE is good stuff and I happily recommend it to anyone who needs "free" to be the price point. However there are plenty of good suites out there that improve upon it. If you look at AV comparatives you'll notice the good ones have better detection rates, and faster scanning. Then, of course, the full on "security suites" offer things like nicer firewalls and so on. I like MSE, but I pay for ESET Sma
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Win7's firewall is almost identical to Vista's, but yes, they are quite good (XP's is much better than nothing, but a long way from good).
Re: (Score:2)
Windows has had a decent firewall since XP SP1.
The GP said he likes the security suites because they have nicer firewalls, not necessarily better ones. Some firewalls make management a lot easier than Windows Firewall does, so I can see the point, but I have to wonder what you're doing if your firewall management is a major hassle.
i actually like this too (Score:2)
IE4 was actually pretty good.
Its footprint was quite reasonable (unlike Netscape Communicator 4). It does a good job of rendering all web pages I visit, and faster too. We all pay the price when WWW innovations were being dictated only by a single browser, and I did not want to see yet another Geocities page with blink tags all over.
I can see where IE4 being offered free (and then being offered via Service Releases) would make Netscape unhappy .. but f*ck them, Netscape is just a terribly bloated pile of ju
Re: (Score:2)
It also seems worthwhile to note that AV vendors are not entitled to their businesses. They're running a business model that's largely dependent on MS Windows being horribly insecure, and insofar as Microsoft improves security, they're always going to lose out.
Really, I shouldn't need to buy a security suite in order to run my computer securely. Any security measures *should* be part of the OS.
Good for Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm no MS fan, this is a good thing. Note: they only add MSE if no other virus checker is present. MSE actually does a pretty decent job, and it is a lot less intrusive than version McAfee, Norton, etc. available to private users.
Microsoft has a vested interest in improving the security of Windows without disturbing the rest of the user experience. Their motivation for MSE is roughly the same as the users'.
It has always bothered me that the interests of Norton, McAfee and the rest are not aligned with the user. You want a clean, fast machine. They want to sell you AV subscriptions. Which means they want to convince you how necessary those are. False alarms are fine, as are in-the-face dialogs and interruptions to remind you what a wonderful piece of crapware you have on your machine.
Re:Good for Microsoft! (Score:4, Interesting)
GOOD! (Score:4, Informative)
In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there.
Plus it's FREE. FREE!
Re:GOOD! (Score:5, Funny)
1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected"
2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
I dunno.... seems like there's something missing from this specification.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected"
2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
I dunno.... seems like there's something missing from this specification.
FYI, it once caught something that Symantec missed.
It isn't stellar, but it does work at least as well as the rest do.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, AV's only fix things that are well known anyway, so as long as it's a functioning AV it isn't that much worse than anything else out there.
On that score, MSE is pretty good anyway, so it's a no-brainer for home use.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloatware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of nod32, especially on my work domains. The AV has always rated very well, with good detection, reasonable footprint and speed. The management functionality for the domain is ridiculously comprehensive and flexible.
Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
The only reason they are bitching is they want the money for charging what MS is giving away for free. MS *should* have provided better protection for their operating system years ago, and AV companies have had a free ride overcharging for something that should be a core part of the operating system. Now that MS is finally making security a part of the OS and not an add on product, the fear mongers of the AV word are having kittens because their gravy train has been derailed.
Security should NOT be conside
Re: (Score:2)
Security should NOT be considered "separate" from the operating system. Not to be cliche, but ask any Linux admin....
While I do agree with the sentiment, I'm not aware of any Linux with kernel-level AV.
Re: (Score:2)
While I do agree with the sentiment, I'm not aware of any Linux with kernel-level AV.
I don't run any AV on any Linux box at all, as it isn't needed. Because it is on Windows systems, it is needed and has been for a long time, due to the design, popularity and vulnerability of Windows. In other words, you can't compare a single aspect of security between the two, and instead consider general security as a whole. MS has gone as far as having hooks in the OS for AV, demonstrating it is designed for this typ
Re: (Score:2)
You don't run AV because you're not under a severe enough attack - NOT because you'd be adequately protected if you were.
I realize I don't need to tell someone like yourself this, but you're omitting it, and I think it harms your position. Despite Linux's design, it can and does fall under attack, and it receives continuous security updates as a result of that. Were the attacks to expand into the ferocity that they do in Windows, you'd need to add AV.
Security Is an Essential System Service (Score:2)
When I buy Windows, it should include virus protection that works - and continues working for at least a couple years without my paying any additional costs. Viruses exploit software defects produced by Microsoft. They are Microsoft's fault. Microsoft should bear the cost of protecting me from them. It's obvious that MS will not ship products that are inherently safe from viruses due to bad programming. So MS must ship an OS that includes an effective virus protection system to protect it as an extra layer.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft should be responsible for helping - and forcing, and charging - Adobe and other ISVs for keeping the MS virus protection up to date.
"Better" isn't good enough when it's not good enough. Proof is the fact that PCs are full of viruses, even when their users don't do anything wrong.
The best Windows protection... (Score:2)
Sounds like a move in the right direction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know much about WIndows, I've heard it has improved since Windows 3.1 and that's about it. I am used to GNU/Linux distributions giving me all the latest software when I apt-get update or emerge sync;emerge -uv world or yum update or whatever. I never go to some website to get or update some piece of software, the OS has some feature which lets me do that. If Windows Update would be able to do something like that then it sounds to me as if it's a very good thing. Perhaps not so good as long as it only lets you grab Microsoft software, and it would likely be hard for them to add too much other software being that Windows typically means non-free software, but still.. this sounds to me like a step in the right direction. But as said, I don't really know that much about the Windows world.
So you haven't a clue about recent Windows or how windows update works, but you opted to chime in anyway? Go crawl back under your Linux rock. Redhat 6 sucked, so it must still suck....
I hate Microsoft, but this is a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really understand why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to include their own security software. Microsoft should purposely leave end users high and dry when it comes to something as important as computer security (something that the OS should take care of) for the sole reason that they don't have even the slightest edge against the competing security software makers?
This reminds me of a year or so ago when there was opposition from security software groups against Microsoft because they closed up access to a few things that those groups used for their antivirus software. Something that no one really should have had access to in the first place. You can't cry that Microsoft software isn't secure and then cry foul when Microsoft actually works to improve security.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're presumably referring to PatchGuard, the protection Microsoft implemented on the x64 version of the Vista kernel (about 4 years ago, actually). Symantec and McAfee threw hissy-fits over the inclusion of anti-rootkit protection that also happened to block their rootkit-like method of hooking into the kernel. After much whining and threatening of lawsuits, MS relaxed the protections such that the kernel could still be modified, provided the modifying code had a trusted digital signature. This is a lot w
Which part of "optional" is objectionable? (Score:2, Insightful)
From TFA: Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update
Items in the optional section aren't automatically downloaded or installed, nor does a user even see them unless he/she clicks on a separate button to view the optional updates. MS is offering an optional & free program to protect users from Malware, and a user has to go out of his/her way to see and select that program before it'll be installed, and it's only offered to users who don't already have another AV progr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And MSE is only given as an option to people who don't have AV yet.
What's the friggin problem? Trend Micro is angry that MSE is giving AV to people who haven't bought their shitty AV product yet?
Give me a break.
I suppose we should ban all free AV software too right? I mean, for heaven's sake, all you have to do is go to their website and download it! People won't know that they need to spend $50 a year on AV software! Also, it's a known fact that the more an AV slows your machine, the better it is prote
The rules are different for Microsoft. (Score:2)
Microsoft should have been divested when the court had the chance.
Seen this before (Score:2)
I remember a similar discussion when Microsoft added a TCP/IP stack to windows, the vendors like Winsock were really upset.
I'm not sure if I see a difference here, but anyone who used TCP/IP before it was added into the OS knows now what the correct choice was.
Well, I'm ambivalent. (Score:2)
I don't like Microsoft's market tactics, but the sooner they make the "Security Ecosystem" redundant the better.
We Linux geeks know how nice it is to not have to deal with dozens of "security" vendors.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
" the optional download list seen by US Windows users"
Apparently they're not daring to pull that off in Europe, but in the US its fine.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Please Read the Summary...
If Windows update detects you have no Anti Virus package installed, it adds the Microsoft Security Essentials as an OPTIONAL download that you can CHOOSE to have.
Just like the Browser Election ballot Europeans got (Which listed many alternatives to Internet Explorer) it's the user's Choice to install the software or to acquire Anti Virus software on your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Explorer is already an optional feature, just enabled by default on most builds. Systems that don't have it can already get it as an optional download. New versions are already available as an optional update on Windows Update. How exactly is adding one more optional update supposed to be a problem? It doesn't install automatically or anything.
Re:When Apple will be forced to "unbundle" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Waaambulance. (Score:4, Informative)
I have tried many other products. On the consumer level, there is really no significant benefit the other guys have over MSE that makes it worth the cost per year. The only product I'd probably recommend would be Sunbelt Software's offerings because their products are good at delousing a machine when it can't be taken apart and fixed by someone with a clue. Suites [1] are a different story, but antivirus products alone, there isn't much anyone else has that MSE doesn't on the consumer level.
Enterprise-wide, different story. Products like Forefront or Symantec Endpoint Protection provides far more than just a "virus condom". As an IT guy, I can have it to stop "hacking tools" such as most serial number grabbing utilities, have it lock out USB flash drives, give me comprehensive reports from the Windows side of the house, hook with NAC to ensure that if a Windows box doesn't have AV, it doesn't get connected (for CYA reasons rather than technical), and loads of other stuff that matters in business.
So, on a personal level, I would just be content with MSE. If an acquaintance called up saying, "OMG, my computer is infected", I'd tell them to download Sunbelt Software's offering and let it attempt to clean the machine. If I were running a business, I'd spring for SEP or Forefront because of the enterprise level features.
[1]: Antivirus + firewall "suites" are pointless in any Windows version post 2000. Want a firewall? Get a hardware router, so blackhats don't have a small window of attack when a machine starts up or shuts down, and the software "firewall" isn't loaded and hooked into the IP stack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it IS unfair competition itself. it was what was done with ie against netscape, and media player against others.
Not quite. Media player and IE come pre-installed on your machine but this is explicitly labeled an optional download. Being part of the "optional updates" means it will be presented to users as an option. They will not be in any way forced to download it and in fact will have to go out of their way to deliberately check the box to get it, something most people (i.e. my mom) probably won't do assuming they even realize the option exists.
Actually major media player updates (e.g. version 11 if you have ve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess its unfair competition that Unix/Linux started with a security model with prevented the rise of a virus problem so terrible that an industry was created around fixing issues that the os vendors/projects should have prevented. Man, I guess Cisco should sue the pfSense for allowing people to build security/gateway boxes every bit as capable as an ASA, only tens of thousands of dollars less.
If the EU "fixed" this situation, which perhaps one of the most sensible moves by Microsoft EVER, it will be rea
oh god. (Score:2)
software that accepts input from user will always be susceptible to viruses. it doesnt matter whether its linux, or it is windows. because the most exploitable system is windows, they are concentrating on that and having an easy time. if, it had been linux and it was much more tougher than windows as it is, they would just spend more time, but exploit it too.
please, dont come and post with shitty arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I largely agree. They're doing the right thing here. If people need this free thing, they'll be prompted to go get it. That's in the customer's best interest, and if they didn't do it, they'd catch hell over that, too. In fact, they HAVE been catching it for their security situation for the past decade or more.
Re: (Score:2)
wiki argrees [wikipedia.org]