×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft's Free AV App May Be a Non-Starter

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the to-morro-tomorrow dept.

Security 251

CWmike writes "Microsoft is preparing to launch a public beta of Morro, the free anti-malware it announced last November, according to reports. Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare, the software that the free software will replace and Microsoft's first consumer-grade antivirus package. OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 (along with finance app Microsoft Money). John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner, has questioned whether users would step up to Morro even if it was free. 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' he said. 'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50." Would you buy it?' Not surprisingly, competitors have dismissed Morro's threat to their business. 'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner. 'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

251 comments

As long as.. (5, Insightful)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307201)

As long as it doesn't suck as much as Norton (slow, hard to remove), I'll take a look at it. Right now I'm running ClamWin, and I'm looking for a better (free) anti-virus.

Re:As long as.. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307323)

Have to say I am with you on this one. And there is only one free product you can put on business PCs, so the only competitor is ClamWin in that (not small) market.

Re:As long as.. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307405)

AVG Free Edition [avg.com] is pretty good too.

Re:As long as.. (1)

samriel (1456543) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307427)

Yes, but every few months they'll release a new version and the old version refuses to update. At least, that's how it always worked for me.

/mac mini with iAntivirus nowadays

Re:As long as.. (5, Informative)

Zxarr (1109195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307717)

Avast Antivirus [avast.com] is pretty good too. It's free, but you need to register yearly.

Re:As long as.. (1)

gid (5195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308225)

One thing I appreciate about avast is it not treating you like an idiot. It allows you to switch off the antivirus protection fairly easily from the systray.

I'd recommend it, although I have gotten a few false positives from it, but other than that...

Re:As long as.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307753)

Not free for business.

Re:As long as.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28308239)

I think you're not supposed to install that on business PCs.

ClamWin is ghey (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307487)

Nuff said

Re:As long as.. (5, Interesting)

PhracturedBlue (224393) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307599)

According to a-v comparatives:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/corporate-reviews [av-comparatives.org]

Microsoft's AV software is very good. It has low false-positives and generally scored quite well. If the same capability is free, I don't see a reason not to recommend its use. I certainly don't work for a-v comparatives, but they were around before Microsoft was in AV business, and their top rated software changes pretty freqeuntly. I'd call them reasonably unbiased, but judge for yourself.

Re:As long as.. (2, Funny)

GordonCopestake (941689) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308295)

"Microsoft's AV software is very good. It has low positives and generally scored quite well."

There fixed that for you

Re:As long as.. (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308333)

Well, to give Norton some credit, they've been working on their removal procedure and it's now easier to remove.

So (since my boss once said "if you can't say anything good about your competitor, say nothing"), I can now not only say "Norton has a good looking box", I can also say "It's fairly easy to remove it".

Am I missing something? (5, Interesting)

Raindance (680694) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307223)

I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but this summary feels a little over the top.

'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner. 'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"

How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.

Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee. I'm reminded of this [slashdot.org] recent slashdot story-

"'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent.' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent. The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA."

I think something that's free and easy to use can compete very well against this sort of customer abuse.

p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307315)

Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee.

I'm aching for alternatives to bloatware like AVG, actually.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307403)

Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee.

I'm aching for alternatives to bloatware like AVG, actually.

Avira [free-av.com] .

This, of course, is for home and personal use.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307521)

Thanks, I'm giving it a try. I've been using Vista for a few days and I'm getting nervous (the jokes practically write themselves) and think I should have some AV.

Is it worth getting more spam in my gmail spam folder to do some trialware crap and get the premium version? I already have over 10,000 messages in there, what's another thousand or so?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307621)

Is it worth getting more spam in my gmail spam folder to do some trialware crap and get the premium version? I already have over 10,000 messages in there, what's another thousand or so?

Im using the trial version of the premium suite on my new PC (procrastinating on buying it) and I have only gotten a handful of e-mails, only reminding me to purchase it or that my trial is expiring soon. Not too bad, IMO.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

aj50 (789101) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307553)

And will pop up a reminder every two days to inform you that for only 19.95/year you could be using AntiVira Premium.

I got so fed up with it that I'm probably going to end up paying for NOD32 [eset.com]

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307639)

And will pop up a reminder every two days to inform you that for only 19.95/year you could be using AntiVira Premium.

It's non-intrusive though. You click OK, and it goes away. No more for two days. It's preferable to the alternatives that are out there.

I ended up buying a 3 year license for $129.99(US).

Re:Am I missing something? (4, Insightful)

aj50 (789101) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307793)

A huge advert window opens, minimising the fullscreen game that I'm playing to tell me to buy their product.

This must be some use of the word "non-intrusive" which I am not aware of.

Admittedly, I didn't have any problems with it as an anti-virus package, it was much better than bloated "full protection" software packages from Symantec and McAfee but I feel it's cheating somewhat to advertise your product as "free anti-virus" and then use it as a platform to advertise the pay-for versions which just have more features that I don't want.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307867)

It's non-intrusive though. You click OK, and it goes away. No more for two days. It's preferable to the alternatives that are out there.

and then

I ended up buying a 3 year license for $129.99(US).

So, the system works? You bought from them, that's the whole point...

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307557)

I second this.

Blows AVG out of the water, and consistently scores high on virus software comparasions. Latest version seems to cause some performance issues on lower spec machines, but still scans like a champ.

Re:Am I missing something? (4, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307351)

It gets confusing when Norton and McAffe are the evil entrenched duopoly, and Microsoft is the plucky young upstart. Reminds me of the early 80s.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

homes32 (1265404) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307407)

And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.

easy there big boy! recent success? give them a few months until the "new" wears off before declaring it a success. Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor, Surge, Clear Pepsi, OK, Mt. Dew Livewire, [insert freaky ass flavor here], etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it. now where are they at?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

jbeale53 (1451655) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308197)

Mountain Dew Livewire rocked. I know that it was really just a sunkist, but it had that over-the-top sugar taste and caffeine of Mountain Dew. I found it in Virginia a while back, but that's a 70 mile drive just for a soft drink. Now, the grape Dew? I forgot what it was called, but it was ass.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

skornenicholas (1360763) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307593)

Well, the true analogy of a water company handing out a free water filter to all of their customers due to their acknowledged water contamination issue probably wouldn't have gotten the "Micro$soft Sucks!" crowd riled up enough. Honesty, we could all use a little more of it. Oh, and to those of you suggesting Microsoft should just "Fix Windows," they would if ALL third party vendors would work with the Evil Empire and submit all code for review 12 months before releasing it for bug testing AND if virus writers would stop writing new exploits every five minutes, getting the point here sparky? ::Not a fanboy, converted his entire local office to open source and writing this on Fedora::

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308293)

So you're blaming third party vendors for exploits in Windows???

It's not Microsoft's fault all on their own???

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307625)

How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.

Not going to argue with Bing... but in the business market for-pay and free are not always that huge a difference. It depends on the buyer, and what the "for-pay" gets you. There are plenty of companies that absolutely require some sort of support for a given product. In addition to that, there are minimum requirements that the software must meet just to be considered. By the looks of this move, since Morro is going to use an engine from a product that absolutely flopped and died, then chances are Morro will follow. If they announced that Morro was rewritten from the ground up, then it'd be a different story.

Besides, for a company to consider changing the Anti-malware vendor, it would certainly be in their best interest to consider every option possible right? We all know our gripes about Symantec and McAfee, but there are plenty of options out there that are quite good. So, it's up to us (IT personnel) to do fair evaluations for our businesses and to identify the needs we have. I'd be more than happy to evaluate Morro... But it being free doesn't give it much credit to me. I want something that works, works well (yes, there's a difference), doesn't bog down the host, has support, and can be managed. Once the products are identified that fit those criteria, then price becomes a factor.

If Morro can't deliver in the first round (like OneCare), then it'll die too.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Interesting)

VertigoAce (257771) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308017)

Morro (and OneCare) are for unmanaged computers (home users, perhaps small companies). Forefront Client Security is the anti-malware software intended for business use. Both will use the same anti-malware engine, but FCS has all of the manageability and reporting that you would expect in an enterprise.

I don't really see Morro as an attempt to compete in the home anti-virus market (in other words, Morro is not intended to take sales away from any of the other vendors). The real goal is to try to have anti-virus on all PCs worldwide. There are a number of large markets outside the US where few PCs have anti-virus software. And it wouldn't surprise me if the US market has a fair number of PCs where the trial/subscription for whatever the OEM installed has expired.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307651)

p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.

This page [realtechnews.com] places it in more coherent context:

After Microsoft's announcement last year, John Pescatore, a Gartner analyst, wasn't betting that consumers users would use Morro even if it was free, due to the fact that you would be installing one MS product to fix the security issues in another MS product (the OS). And that also, he indicated, was on reason why OneCare wasn't doing so well, either.

"Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products. Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, 'Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.' Would you buy it?"

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307703)

And another one [computerworld.com] :

However, John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner Inc., questioned whether users would step up to Microsoft's free software. Noting that Windows Live OneCare "hasn't made a dent" in market share, he argued that one reason consumers have steered clear of Microsoft's security software was distrust.

"Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products," he said. "Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water, and the water company said, 'Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.' Would you buy it?"

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307723)

I, for one, have never paid for an anti-virus. I have used a wide variety of pre-installed programs, and when their free grace period runs out, I download AVG or Avira or a myriad of others that have since come and gone.

Also, I think it would be foolish for anyone at McAfee or Symantec to dismiss the weight that the Microsoft name carries behind it. To the mass consumer, MS is a known commodity and is known for putting out relatively good (if not overpriced) products. They assume that if MS puts their name on something, it can't be complete crap because the company wouldn't risk taking a hit to their reputation. The mass consumer (read: non-nerd) would be more likely to try out a free security program from Microsoft than try out something free from a relatively unknown company like AVG.

Re:Am I missing something? (4, Insightful)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307739)

what bothers me most about this article is this line

'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,'

At this point, most malware doesn't hack Windows, it hacks your brain. It tricks you into executing it. The only vector that is even being used extensively anymore is Office, Acrobat, and Flash, MS has been phasing out older formats and patching up the holes and Adobe is finally waking up and doing something about their security issues. even in those programs, most of the time a Trojan file is involved.

On top of that, the most recent malware doesn't even need administrative privlages. It simply installs in your user account directory and starts up when you login. I see absoletly no reason why this method of execution wouldn't work in any other OS, Be it Linux, OSX, or BSD regardless of security settings.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Interesting)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307947)

I agree. It's one thing to call out Microsoft for their many mistakes, but it's comepletely different to be so rabidly anti-MS that you start making yourself appear stupid. I really thought this statement kind of shows what kind of an idiot this guy is:

'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,'

Most malware is not something that exploits vulnerabilities inherent in the product, they exploit the easiest vulnerability of all: the user. A lot of what AV programs do is protect stupid users from infecting their own PCs. Really, it doesn't remove any problems in other products...the patches and updates available for free do that. It will look for known malware that exploits those vulnerabilities if left unpatched, however.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

adisakp (705706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308033)

How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.

You forgot to mention bundling. If MS includes Morro by default with Windows 7, then they're instantly going to have the largest AV/AntiMalware share on Windows 7. Just like IE and the browser war. Anyone who wants to compete with free and bundled has to offer a similar product for free -- don't believe me? The last time anyone actually paid for a browser on Windows was probably about 6 months after IE came out for free.

Latest AV-Comparatives report.. (2, Informative)

Henk Poley (308046) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308141)

As much I would like to bash Microsoft from time to time. latest AV-Comparatives report [av-comparatives.org] has them up there with ESET NOD32. With Microsoft you never know if that included some sums of money, but yeah.

Symantec is no longer credible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28308201)

I stopped using Symantec products after they failed miserably in supporting Vista.

They tried to blame Microsoft, and yet their competitors (like Kaspersky) already had vully featured Vista-compatible versions out already.

Symantec's solution was to ship out their broken application and hope nobody noticed.

You gotta love it (4, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307229)

Microsoft, the virtual inventor of buggy bananaware and OS monoculture that enables mass distributable malware gets into the A/V market. Sounds like Typhoid Mary selling antibiotics...

Re:You gotta love it (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307273)

Hey, when you have direct access to the source of infection, you're almost guaranteed to produce the best cures...

Unless you're Microsoft.

Re:You gotta love it (1, Troll)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307431)

I suppose most Microsoft programmers are fundamentally honest, so they surely don't want to produce bad code. But they do, so they must possess a certain degree of incompetence. Do I trust incompetents to correct their own mistakes? If they could, they wouldn't have made them in the first place.

As for management, they are known to rush software out the door with critical bugs and huge inefficiencies because they don't care about good software, they care about sales, and when you work for a monopoly, product quality doesn't matter. Do I trust these people to spend time and money developing a free or cheap anti-virus when the crappy software they propose to fix is forced down consumers' throats anyway? of course not.

Re:You gotta love it (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308205)

What MS possesses for the most part are project managers who ship profitable software. One way to keep your software more profitable is to let your customers do a good portion of your quality control so you can get to market early and fix the biggest problems in a patch later. It shows little pride of workmanship, but it's sound business so long as your product is at least just good enough to sell.

Re:You gotta love it (2, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308307)

I suppose most Microsoft programmers are fundamentally honest, so they surely don't want to produce bad code. But they do, so they must possess a certain degree of incompetence. Do I trust incompetents to correct their own mistakes? If they could, they wouldn't have made them in the first place.

What cereal box did you get your CS degree from? Making a mistake does not make on incompetent. All complex systems have some flaws.

Re:You gotta love it (0)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307421)

The secret to Malware is suckering people into installing what they "think" is legitimate software. It's easier than you think it is and it doesn't matter which OS you are using, but since Windows has the largest market share it's the optimum target. It is not that Linux can't run Malware, it can, but to write such software for such a small target is not worth the effort. Nice troll though.

Re:You gotta love it (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307491)

Getting a virus when receiving an email with a doc file attachment has nothing to do with suckering people into installing software. There are plenty such examples where computer-savvy owners, who aren't suckers, get malware anyway. This [informationweek.com] would not happen if the OS was not to blame otherwise.

Re:You gotta love it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307741)

When people actually use your shitty OS maybe you'll get malware too, freetard.

Re:You gotta love it (1)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307809)

There are times when a steep learning curve is an advantage - I have recently set up Ubuntu on my wife's laptop and I doubt that she would be able to work out how to run malware on her system, even if she were suckered into trying.

Re:You gotta love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307789)

First they ingore you.

Then they watch as you abuse your monopoly position to take them out.

Then you pay the right government officials to get a slap on the wrist.

Then you win.

Shouldn't they just fix Windows? (0, Troll)

yourassOA (1546173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307255)

Microsoft make shitty pay for software do you really want to trust their free software?

Missing something? (1)

terbo (307578) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307267)

"Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"

Hmm?

Bad Analogy (4, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307271)

'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50." Would you buy it?'

This analogy is just dumb. This is a free product. Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying, "Sure, we can remove that for free."

Not to mention 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' which is a stupid point to make about a free product.

Furthermore, MS's security "problems" are over a billion installs. As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own, they've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things.

And finally, "added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation'" is pretty funny from a guy representing a company that actually charges for substandard security technology.

Re:Bad Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307655)

It's even worse than that. Most of the "problems" with Windows are a direct result of negligent, ignorant, or stupid end users. Let me try to fix the analogy.

'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "The smell is coming from your disgusting pipes that you haven't done any maintenance on since 1960. But, we can help you remove it for free." Would you buy it?'

Re:Bad Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307931)

How about:

"That foul smell is all the rotten eggs all over the street and the house we sold you is all nice and shiny, but there are big gaping holes in the walls and the doors and windows don't shut properly. Perhaps we should have built the house better to begin with? Tell you what, we'll wrap the whole place in duct tape for you at no charge."

!Free (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307721)

You have to pay for it. Pay as in speech.

Re:Bad Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28308257)

The paid product being referred to was OneCare. What was that about being dumb?

Missing some info from the summary (5, Interesting)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307301)

I'm surprised a quote from this [zdnet.com] article didn't make it in:

Morro will work by routing all of a users Internet traffic to a Microsoft datacenter, where the Morro application will process the traffic and identify and block malware in real-time, by examining all of the rerouted traffic

How many people want all of their traffic explicitly going through Microsoft?

Re:Missing some info from the summary (4, Insightful)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307467)

How many people want all of their traffic explicitly going through Microsoft?

On the other hand, it might be an effective way to protect users from the likes of Linux, Firefox, etc...

Re:Missing some info from the summary (1)

VulpesFoxnik (1493687) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308169)

I thought thats was Bing is for. It's a "Decision Engine" after all. It lobotomizes you so a machine can do your thinking.

Re:Missing some info from the summary (2, Insightful)

DarthBender (1071972) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307965)

Wow, I was actually thinking to try it until I saw that. That's huge, and something I want nothing to do with.

Re:Missing some info from the summary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28308271)

it sounds like zdnet is very much mistaken. how exactly does microsoft plan to handle all of their users traffic being routed through their server?

Viruses Aren't a Problem in Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307307)

You would have to compile the virus separately for every distribution you want to target.

Linux is totally non-standardized which makes most serious software development seem just not worth the effort.

Once again, Linux's wierd behavior and lack of serious standards has kept it safe from the outside.

Re:Viruses Aren't a Problem in Linux (2, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307331)

Right, there's no way you could have, say, a malicious perl script.

Re:Viruses Aren't a Problem in Linux (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307393)

perl is relatively malicious on its own

Re:Viruses Aren't a Problem in Linux (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307523)

"Right, there's no way you could have, say, a malicious perl script." - by sqlrob (173498)
on Friday June 12, @09:46AM (#28307331)

Agreed, 110%... And, "right, there's no way you could have, say, a malicious javascripted page or malicious javascript adbanner affect Linux either"

(NOT! Mainly because javascript runs everywhere & is the "vector for infection" across any OS there is, via webbrowsers themselves - correct me if I am wrong on this account fellas, but, it's right along the same lines that sqlrob is hitting upon...).

APK

P.S.=> And, as far as the subject-line above? "Yea, right" (sarcasm) again, because these items show otherwise:

-----

Bitten By the Red Hat Perl Bug:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1423201 [slashdot.org]

(Per SQLRob's statement, no less)

-----

Linux.Slapper.Worm:

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2002-091311-5851-99 [symantec.com]

-----

New worm targets Linux systems (Lupper):

http://news.cnet.com/New-worm-targets-Linux-systems/2100-7349_3-5938475.html [cnet.com]

-----

But, then again, because it was said on SLASHDOT that "Viruses aren't a problem in Linux", per the subject-line above (again)?

"Well, heck, those other sources I just put out MUST be lies"... right, Linux Penguins?

Hate to tell you this truth then: "NOT!"

Because the main thing defending Linux vs. these "heinous machinations" is the fact it is less used than Windows (The most used OS on the most used hardware platform for personal computers in x86 that there is, bar-none)...

I.E.-> Security by obscurity, as the saying goes, IS what defends Linux from attacks! IF Linux is ever as widely used as Windows is, you can bank on it that it will be just as oft attacked as Windows is & has been the past decade++ now, because it will be the most used. MacOS X, once it started gaining market share, began to be attacked a lot more than any other *NIX variant I know of, because of it gaining ground... same thing WOULD happen to Linux, should it start stealing personal computer desktop share worldwide.

(Mainly because today's malware makers aren't out to "wreck your machine", as they used to be - now, it's a far more serious game: They're after your personal information & monies (such as stealing credit card #'s &/or other personal info.) OR turning your machine into a zombied DDOS slave, so it can be used to attack others - so, to do that? These malware makers did the LOGICAL thing (from their pov), & that's to attack the most widely used body of systems there is, Windows NT-based ones!) apk

Re:Viruses Aren't a Problem in Linux (1)

parodyca (890419) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307657)

Gee, you had to go back 8 years to find three issues. The first one isn't even malware, just bad programming by the vendor that reduces performance. The next two are specific to Apache web servers, NOT Linux.

If those were the best examples you could come up withm then I guess you succeeded in disproving your own point.

Re:Viruses Aren't a Problem in Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307989)

"Gee, you had to go back 8 years to find three issues. The first one isn't even malware, just bad programming by the vendor that reduces performance. The next two are specific to Apache web servers, NOT Linux." - by parodyca (890419)
on Friday June 12, @10:12AM (#28307657) Homepage

Does it matter how far back I had to go, & no, not all are from "8 yrs. ago", because below also shows otherwise!

So, to prove the subject-line is bullshit? I provided contrary evidence thereof...

However, it appears You need more proofs then, apparently, so here you are/"ask & ye shall receive":

Linux RAMEN Worm:

http://service1.symantec.com/sarc/sarc.nsf/html/linux.ramen.worm.html [symantec.com]

Net-Worm.Linux.Mighty:/b>

http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?virusid=23864 [viruslist.com]

DroneBL Security researchers warn of Linux Router worm (PsyB0t)

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=25399&catid=5 [tcmagazine.com]

Linux ADORE Worm:

http://www.sss.ca/sensible/home.nsf/6481a22be8dfdd19852568c900171fc6/abbbaec934169f6d85256a280054fd31?OpenDocument [www.sss.ca]

New Worm Targets Linux Web Service Holes:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/New-Worm-Targets-Linux-Web-Service-Holes/ [eweek.com]

gicumz worm:

http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/305 [securiteam.com]

Linux malware list (37 Viruses, worms, & trojans on Linux):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses [wikipedia.org]

(Want more?? I'll supply them... & they're not all "8 years back either", don't you OR can't you read & determine dates? Apparently not...)

APK

P.S.=> Better luck next time, because all of your "it's old news" b.s. propoganda doesn't matter, if your subject-line is absolute b.s. - gotta love the Linux Penguin crew around here, with their "straight outta pravda" 1/2 truths they spout... lol! apk

Is that Gartner analyst confused or what? (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307335)

Seriously, his analogy is pretty far off. Let me try: Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, and it's a free service." Not that I have a lot of faith in MS's product quality here, but still, saying that users won't sign for a free service because it's a service they don't think they should have to pay for is a pretty stupid comment.

The water analogy (1)

mattdm (1931) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307365)

The rotten egg odor is coming from sulfur. It's probably harmless in the quantity you're getting, even if you can smell it. Whole house filters that remove the odor are going to cost a hell of a lot more than $50 and require ongoing maintenance, so if the water company offers a service to provide extra-filtered water for a one-time fee, you should jump.

Re:The water analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307435)

Indeed, I was just thinking that 50 bucks for any kind of plumbing work is a steal!

sulfurous water analogy (2, Insightful)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308005)

The water company advertised spring water filtered through volcanic rock from water frozen in glaciers milena ago. We called them and told them about the 'rotten egg odor'. They then offer to license a charcoal filter to us for $50.00 a year, to be fitter on premises at another $40.00. If we used any other charcoal filter, they advised us that we might be violating some other company's patents. They reassure us that if we buy their charcoal filter they will give us patent protection against getting sued by this other company. The water company hold a financial interest in the other company. They don't ever offer to indemnify us against getting sued for getting sulfur in our water. Even though they are the only water company that sells sulfurous water. The media invariable refer to 'sulfurous water', instead of $company sulfured water ?

Re:The water analogy (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308301)

If your sulfur content was too high, you'd have diarrhea all the time you drink it as sulfur is a diuretic. If it's just the smell, then there are many ways to deal with that, including filters at the taps.

For the technoweenies (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307441)

I may not be a big fan of OneCare, but I've got to say this may be a step in the right direction. All too often I'm working on systems that are only a few months old that have been infected, all because the owner didn't notice their AV trial had expired. I'm sure that MS will/should make it easy to remove for those that are tech savy and wish to use their own personal AV package. But for the n00bs and dumbasses out there, this is a good thing to have, just like making Windows Defender a part of Vista.

Not based on Onecare. (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307443)

Supposedly, Morro is based on Forefront Client Security, and onecare has been completely phased out. Considering the poster, I'm surprised that the article didn't say that morro eats babies and killed your dog.

As for Onecare, I had it. It was a great scanner and a firewal. The only reason I got rid of it was because of the onecare circle. in Onecare you had 3 licences. In version 2.5, they developed this Onecare Circle to help you keep track of security on all three copies. and all it would do is scream about this pc being out of date, or scan this pc, or backup this one, or the firewall isn't working on this PC when it was. after two months of that nonsense (since you couldn't shut it offat the server side) I said to hell with this and put avira back on.

Car Analogy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28307451)

I have to use a bad car analogy. If I buy a BMW and it breaks down, I take it to the BMW dealer to work on it. Some people obviously opt for third party repair, but a lot trust the manufacturer, even though it is often design problems that caused the breakdown. I understand that people have unreasonable expectations that their purchases don't have vulnerabilities and will last forever, but the other 95% of the population recognizes that complicated systems need repairs and protection.
I don't know if this will be successful, but to think that it should not be trusted or immediately dismissed is ignorant. That being said, I don't use Microsoft products, largely because I don't like AV. Linux FTW!

No thanks (2, Informative)

ZOMFF (1011277) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307483)

If it's anything as effective as One Care, I'm going to stay away. I received a free 1 year subscription to One Care at a Microsoft event about 2 years ago and ran it until it expired. After removing it and re-installing my previous Symantec product, it detected around a dozen viruses and malware infections that One Care did not notice. Since then I've kept my distance from any Microsoft AV type product.

I always use Antivirus 2009! (2, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307513)

It works on everything I try it on! It works on Windows and Linux and Mac OS X! I just have to go to a web page and it scans my machine and tells me how many viruses I have.

Would be good if it was forced via Windows Update (1)

ssjx (1235532) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307647)

..to computers that don't have any antivirus software on. Same with Defender too... Although AVG and other free antivirus tools are pretty good, a lot of people never think about actually getting and installing them.

Re:Would be good if it was forced via Windows Upda (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308329)

So it can "fail" to recognize my anti-virus software, and sign me up to have all my net traffic routed through Microsoft for analysis? No thank you.

The Microsoft Ethical Problem (2, Insightful)

artgeeq (969931) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307669)

"'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,"' Well, yes. But it is not just that. We already pay for Microsoft product defects in other ways too. Let's say you are doing a major rollout of Active Directory or Exchange. Sometimes, the only way you get a bug fix is to get a support contract from Microsoft or hire a company that has a support contract. Any Exchange administrator of a good size organization can tell you that Exchange has more than its fair share of bugs, and this new one, Exchange 2007, is no exception. Which leads to the question, where is the incentive on the part of Microsoft to produce really good software? Why not just produce mediocre software and then ask people to pay more money to fix it?

Bad analogy (4, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307727)

'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50."

I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc. MS is offering a service to clean them up and does provide free fixes for bugs in their software. Obligatory car analogy, car company sells insurance for breakins and accidents and charges extra. Why not pay for it if the deal is good?

better analogy (2, Interesting)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307811)

"I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc"

Defects in application or 'user error' shouldn't lead to the OS being compromised or the consumers having to pay the sellers more money to fix their defective product.

Re:better analogy (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308255)

"I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc" Defects in application or 'user error' shouldn't lead to the OS being compromised or the consumers having to pay the sellers more money to fix their defective product.

Name a OS where user error can't lead to the OS being compromised. Maybe only in a very locked down system like a kiosk , but a kiosk is not every useful and the user won't have any freedom. If you can install Firefox, you can install a virus. Unless there's a whitelist, but would you trust a whitelist maintained by MS? An alternative is total application virtualization, but given the fact that applications need to talk to each other and be able to access user files make it tough.

The discussion misses the point (maybe) (2, Insightful)

MarcAuslander (517215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28307733)

Infected windows machines are a plague on the internet. Many of these presumably have no useful anti-malware running. Microsoft takes lots of heat, as the comments above prove. So Microsoft decides that trying to sell anti-malware won't work, but maybe giving it away, and I assume bundling it, will get it widely deployed. And take some heat off Microsoft for shipping vulnerable stuff. If this happens, and it works at all, it will be a great improvement to the current mess. To put it differently - it's clearly impossible to make an OS bug proof - so an OS ought to contain defenses against malware out of the box.

Very funny name (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308151)

I wonder how they got the name, sounds a bit like tomorrow or something Spanish..

I found it funny as the word morro in Japanese is how you describe getting a fatal sword thrust to your heart / neck, i.e. "to suffer a fatal blow that hits you right in a critical place" is a way to translate it.

Of course as others note, M$ selling AV is itself a funny proposition.

Why not? (1)

PeeShootr (949875) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308289)

Why doesn't MS just spend the time building an OS that is not as vulnerable to viruses and malware? Since they won't do that, why not just build the AV stuff in at a lower lever so that it is not obvious to the user that they are even running AV? MS likes to sneak stuff in under your nose anyway, why not something that will make the OS safer and more stable? Oh yeah, it's probably because of some conspiricy like they are the major shareholder in Symantec or Norton...

I've got a question for McAfee, Symantec, et al... (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308315)

If I was unwilling to pay Microsoft $50 to buy a product that detected and fixed problems with their other products, what makes you think I'd find it any more palatable to be buying a similar product from you folks?

Don't bother answering, guys. Your response would only make me laugh. You see my desktop hasn't needed any of your products for a good number of years now. In fact, the only Microsoft product loaded on any of our computers is a semi-broken version of XP that now wants to be re-authorized because I added an old SCSI controller to the system. Like that's ever going to happen. (When I get the time, another 80GB of disk space will be available for my daughters to use on Linux.)

Money? Damn! (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#28308335)

OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 (along with finance app Microsoft Money).

Man--I have mixed emotions about this one.
Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform. There's nothing like it for Linux.
I occasionally think about settings up a virtual machine to run Money--but I cringe about paying $125 for an XP license to run a $50 program.

But thank God I'm free from the curse. Now I never have to think wistfully about any app on the Microsoft platform...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...