Beta
×

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 Antivirus Briefly Flags Google.com As Malicious

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the quarantine-all-the-googles dept.

Bug 123

tsu doh nimh writes "Computers running Microsoft's antivirus and security software may be flagging google.com — the world's most-visited Web site — as malicious, apparently due to a faulty Valentine's Day security update shipped by Microsoft. For several hours on Tuesday, PC users browsing with Internet Explorer on a machine equipped with Microsoft Security Essentials or Forefront saw warnings that Google.com was serving up a 'severe' threat – Exploit:JS/Blacole.BW — basically that google.com was supposedly infected with a Blackhole exploit kit. The warning prompted users to 'delete' the threat, although accepting the default action appeared to cause no ill result. The episode is more embarrassing than harmful, given that Microsoft is expected to ship antivirus technology with the next version of Windows."

cancel ×

123 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042305)

I got the first comment!!

Re:first! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042817)

And stranger than that, you are not bonch and your post isn't a criticism of Google claiming that they deserve it and Microsoft is right to label them as malicious. What are the odds!

Re:first! (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043127)

And stranger than that, you are not bonch and your post isn't a criticism of Google claiming that they deserve it and Microsoft is right to label them as malicious. What are the odds!

Perhaps Microsoft was right about the Google homepage on the 14th:
- MS Security Essentials is written by programmers/nerds.
- On the 14th, Google had an animated "Valentine's Day" logo.
- The animated logo was an animated female. Innocent and harmless, but female none the less.
- As usual, nerds (or in this case MS Security Essentials, the product of nerds) had no idea how to react to a female.
- When MS Security Essentials determined that the animated female was holding a valentine it panicked.
- MS Security Essentials protected Windows from Google's trojan horse valentine (metaphorically, of course).

Re:first! (1, Insightful)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044621)

I'm still working on the part where a group of convicted Liars, and Thieves [wikipedia.org] are still allowed to do business. But then again, I'm amazed that Criminal Law is second to Torts.

Re:first! (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045129)

If criminals and thieves weren't allowed to do business, what would happen to all the multinational corporations?

Re:first! (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045427)

Because they settled the case. When the Appeals Court and the Department of Justice decide it is okay for Microsoft to do business, it is ok for Microsoft to do business. I guess Microsoft is basing it's practices on the law, and not your opinion. But you can read all about it in the link you posted.

Re:first! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39046645)

Microsoft wasn't convicted. The case was settled with a consent decree.

So legally, no wrongdoing was found. Microsoft essentially agreed to let the government watchdog them for a few years in exchange for the charges going away.

Re:first! (2)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043033)

But when you got it you forgot to mention the irony of their already having shipped useless firewall bloatware which takes up space and no one uses. Microsoft; all your harddrive are belong to us.

Re:first! (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044731)

What bloatware would that be? The firewall in Vista/7 that has pretty damned comprehensive rules based filtering while being easy to use, THAT bloatware? or are you still bitching about a certain 12 year old OS that is going for a record on years of support even though they've passed any legal obligation they had to keep updating the thing, could it be that? Give me a damned break! What's next, you gonna complain that XP which is already 3 generations behind (XP X64, Vista, 7) runs as admin too? Move on dude. Man the world is gonna be full of butthurt nerds when 2014 gets here and XP doesn't get another extension so they will actually have to try to find things in the modern version to bitch about. But don't worry Ballmer is gonna shoot Windows in the face because he wants to be Apple so fucking bad he sleeps with an iPad under his pillow.

As for TFA frankly if that is the WORST thing an AV does color me happy. We've seen dllhost marked as a bug thus disabling the system, we've seen core boot files flagged as bugs thus bricking the system unless you had a second machine to Google how to fix the first, frankly MSE has been so far pretty harmless. That said even though I use it on my netbook and gamer machines I do NOT use it on the machine I actually do any real surfing on because frankly in my tests it doesn't really DO anything. What I mean by that is while it has a pretty decent scanner for downloaded files that is pretty much it, you load up a webpage with malicious code MSE isn't gonna say a word or try to block that site whereas both Comodo Internet Security and Avast Free stop the page from loading. I will give them credit for being just about the lowest resource using on any AV but the flipside is it simply isn't doing much. So while I recommend it for geeks that actually practice safe computing or for machines like my gamer PC and netbook where the only surfing they are doing is checking webmail or going to well vetted sites like this for regular users I simply can't give it out.

Maybe its because it was never really intended to be an AV, it was originally Giant Antispy before being purchased by MSFT, maybe the guys at MSFT got tired of AVs slowing down the system so focused on speed above all, who knows, but for a clean computer in my own tests which involved taking an offlease and hitting every topsite and crapsite I could find then using a disc filled with offline scanners to check the system I found MSE on XP scored horribly, MSE on Vista/7 did better simply because OS protections like low rights mode did most of the work, but in no version of Windows did it stop as much as Comodo IS or Avast Free. Oh and since you seem to hate the firewall so much Comodo IS is not only free for home AND business use but also has its own quite excellent firewall built in, which for those that just want one or the other its as simple as unchecking a box during install. For business users or those that want more finer grained controls I'd go with Comodo IS, for those that want a drop and go solution Avast Free is what you want. MSE? Meh only use it if resources are the highest concern, like say on an underclocked netbook (for those that haven't tried Brazos Tweaker it does rock and added an extra hour on my E350's battery) or a gamer system where you simply aren't doing any risky behavior.

Three words: Norton Anti Virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39045389)

Since every PC you buy has crapware that WILL include that and the firewall, nobody uses the windows one.

And here I thought Windows was the real virus... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042307)

Isn't the real virus actually windows?

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042337)

Fan boys really don't know how to spot a joke...

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042375)

Same as Windows don't know how to spot a threat!

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (1)

Saintwolf (1224524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042853)

ZING!

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042937)

... went the strings of my heart!

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (5, Informative)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042415)

It might have been kinda funny some 5+ years ago when someone first told it. Maybe if I came across it less than once per week, I'd eventually find it kind of amusing again.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042577)

I find it amusing. Probably because all I use is linux :)

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044971)

Indeed, all you use is linux. You definitely don't use your penis with anyone other than yourself too. That much is clear.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042695)

5+ years ago? Somebody first told it the day the first windows AV software shipped.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (4, Funny)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043263)

I think poking fun at Microsoft Google Apple and the whole lot is for the most part almost always funny. Ever considered removing the giant stick from your ass?

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043819)

I think poking fun at Microsoft Google Apple and the whole lot is for the most part almost always funny.

Sounds like you still have some growing up to do.

Ever considered removing the giant stick from your ass?

Such irony coming from a guy with his head up his own ass. Get bent, Trollgrove.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044225)

Learn how to use the <quote> tag, stupid.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044115)

Except that people don't rationally poke fun. They are just corporate cheerleaders for companies they don't work for, compete against, or know anybody who falls into those camps.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044503)

Except that people don't rationally poke fun.

Sure they do. It's a fundamental part of the human condition to make fun of things and joke around. Only on the internet when the jest is directed at $SOMEBODIES_FAVORITE_CORPORATION does this reality ever seem to come into contention.

They are just corporate cheerleaders for companies they don't work for, compete against, or know anybody who falls into those camps.

Maybe loosen the tin foil, man.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044667)

I would say it is more an issue of the current cultural climate that has most people believing that if you couch your very serious statements in the form of a joke it isn't OK for anyone to point out how wrong you are.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044713)

So we need a joke police now to protect the poor underrepresented mega-corps? This website gets stupider and stupider. I see why Taco left.

Re:And here I thought Windows was the real virus.. (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044283)

It's no different than when they "accidentally" (note the word) flagged chrome as a virus before.

Expect these accidents to become more frequent as microsoft panics about google competition.

Apparently this has to happen more than 50 times before people accept that it's not just some magic "mistake".

see http://chrome.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-with-microsoft-security.html [blogspot.com]

They may know... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042327)

...something the world does not know !

There is nothing incompetence cannot achieve! (5, Funny)

coder111 (912060) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042507)

Let's just wait until they block microsoft.com due to some related screwup.

Exploit:JS/Idiots.ASS detected

Aww! (5, Funny)

Cyphase (907627) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042333)

Dear Google,

          Happy Valentine's Day!

                    Your valentine,
                              Microsoft

Oh my god (4, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042445)

I just had an image of Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates going down on Larry Page and Sergey Brin (which by the way, google had to guess at being the right answer for being the founder of google) in a nerd love fest...

My eyes! What has been seen cannot be unseen.

...

...

...

Oh who am I kidding. Fap fap fap fap fap

Re:Oh my god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042731)

The above are all businessmen, not nerds.

Ballmer's a used car salesman in every sense of the term.

Brin's an old Soviet politician, babbling about freeing the people but ensuring that he's more equal than you.

Page is intellectually little more than a conduit from his parents to Schmidt.

Gates takes with his left hand and sells it to you from his right.

As individuals, Ballmer and Brin deserve the greatest respect, because they got where they are primarily on their own effort. They were first class salesmen, and while Ballmer is well beyond his prime, Brin surely has quite a while left in him in this brave new world.

Re:Oh my god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044769)

my mind hates you to an extent rivaled only by my first ex.

Re:Oh my god (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045027)

MMO Quests are like orgasms: You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Sounds like you're soloing this one...

Well, Google did that already to MS.. (5, Funny)

Giloo (1008735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042341)

Google already flagged MS France as malicious 2 years ago: http://gilouweb.com/bordel/google_truth.png [gilouweb.com] (Ce site risque d'endommager votre ordinateur meaning: this website might harm your computer) So I guess it's only revenge ;)

Re:Well, Google did that already to MS.. (5, Funny)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043037)

this website might harm your computer

To be fair, it does host Microsoft software ;)

Re:Well, Google did that already to MS.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044655)

AhahahahahH!HHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahAHAHAHA you're SOOOO FUNNY!!!!11!!

Re:Well, Google did that already to MS.. (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045105)

To be equally fair, so does Google.

Everything's dangerous! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042367)

Since anti-malware programs largely work by looking for known patterns and fingerprints, and the databases of these patterns and fingerprints keep growing steadily, when will we have reached the point where basically every software ever written will fit one of the patterns? :)

Re:Everything's dangerous! (2)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042455)

The feature space which these software look into is astronomically huge. Pattern classifiers just need to look into small areas of the feature space.

It is similar to saying, with trillions of existing stars, will we reach a time where space is filled with stars?

Skynet (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044411)

when skynet becomes self-aware

God damn speed filter

I'm not a cowboy! Sod off you damn Whore Mongers, the damn speed filter doesn't apply to me as I'm a Fast Turtle for damn good reason,.

Needs sanity checks. (2)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042369)

Does this mean that all antivirus makers must start doing sanity checks before releasing definition updates to the public? For example, there was once a definition update for an antivirus program that deleted some critical system file in Windows. Running a scan against a set of known clean Windows files and other popular programs should always be done before a release. Same idea for popular websites.

Re:Needs sanity checks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042877)

> For example, there was once a definition update for an antivirus program that deleted some critical system file in Windows.

That was AVG, which is a persistent offender at this.

Re:Needs sanity checks. (1)

cc1984_ (1096355) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043237)

Re:Needs sanity checks. (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043609)

You act like this has only happened once. [google.com]

Antivirus has detected system files as viruses since the DOS days.

Re:Needs sanity checks. (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045567)

Yes, but AVG also shipped a x32 binary in a x64 release, causing computers to crash.

Otherwise their antivirus was better than what we were using, and was a better price.

Dropped them like a hot rock after that happened... it appears they can't even do basic QC.

Re:Needs sanity checks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044121)

Which is why I uninstall all anti-virus, Defender, etc. because in the end all it does is slow the machine down and cause more harm than good. At a previous job the anti-virus didn't even catch a variant so all machines were infected anyway, and it took the vendor over a week to do anything about it even with our priority support we paid for. Despite contacting them and sending a sample the same day it was useless.

I've never gotten a virus because of safe habits. Not all users have enough knowledge to avoid it but anti-virus just isn't good enough anymore to be of real help.

To be fair (5, Funny)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042371)

in Microsoft's eyes, they are the most malicious threat in existence right now.

Re:To be fair (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042563)

Indeed.

My first thought on reading the headline was "Well, duh".

Arguable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042377)

Aren't all search engines technically spyware? Especially in the case of Google where it tailors your results based on previous browsing history (if you've got that option on).

Note: Yeah, MS made a mistake. Go figure. At least they dealt with it within *hours* instead of a greater span of time and it didn't really have much, if any, negative effects other than mild annoyance on the part of the users. Still preferable to them not having any antivirus.

Did not see the behavior on a Win8 VM (3, Informative)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042389)

Incidentally I was doing a google search from a Win8 VM and did not see this behavior. I _did_ get a notification to update my spyware/malware definitions for Windows Defender as well, so maybe my definitions did not yet include this snafu.

Of course I have updated post Vday, so cannot confirm this behavior now, even with an older snapshot.

Re:Did not see the behavior on a Win8 VM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042549)

It's a bit hit and miss depending on update policies. In my office I was affected, as well as at least one of my colleagues - and we're in tech support.

One of my other colleagues who has just logged on has update definitions (1.119.1924.0) from before the issue - so isn't affected, and when they next update he still won't be affected.

Long story short: It only affects users who happened to have the affected definition update. Amazing, really.

Re:Did not see the behavior on a Win8 VM (2)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043213)

I booted up Win7-64 yesterday so it could run Patch Tuesday and got the Blacole.BW false positive, so I can confirm this.

Apple's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042433)

This is Slashdot, remember? Obviously, it's Apple's fault.

Re:Apple's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043243)

This is slashdot, remember? Obviously, Google deserved it.

AV is not really mature yet (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042437)

I like MS bashing just as much as the next slashdot-poster, but I think here the blame is minimal. AV software based on signatures has a very high probability of doing things like that and testing all common possibilities is very hard or impossible, while at the same time new signatures need to be pushed fast in order for them to be effective.

That also shows that AV software is, at best, a temporary measure. IMO the future is better OS security (and here MS is to blame), better application security (which is a budgetary and an education/knowledge problem).

Re:AV is not really mature yet (3, Insightful)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042605)

AV software based on signatures has a very high probability of doing things like that and testing all common possibilities is very hard or impossible

No basic automated testing of say the top 500 websites and 100 applications to see if they get a false positive is too hard or time consuming. Say they managed to block some local news site that uses some site that uses shitty java-script with adds is a mistake.

That also shows that AV software is, at best, a temporary measure. IMO the future is better OS security (and here MS is to blame), better application security

No this incident is does not prove anything like this, just that software needs decent quality testing.

Re:AV is not really mature yet (2)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042997)

All this really point too, is corporations are really lax when penalties are not applied for damaging mistakes. It seems whoops tee hee, it's just a boo boo is always enough. I bet the whole system would tighten up if they were charged for the costs generated by each and everyone of their mistakes, just like the real brick and mortar world. Ever since it went digital (supposedly to reduce errors) errors are treated like a lame joke and laughed off.

Warranties, we ain't got no warranties, we don need no warranties, I don't have to show you any stinkin warranties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU [youtube.com] (it's all in the EULA, now why does that Mexican remind me of a typical proprietary software company).

Re:AV is not really mature yet (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043409)

If you trust Microsoft with AV software given their track record then you are asking for trouble ...

AV and security is all about trust, and I for one don't trust MS with security, and looking at all the add-ons to MS products to enhance security nor do many many people

MS should be trying to make AV software obsolete, not trying to write their own ..

Re:AV is not really mature yet (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045313)

If you trust Microsoft given their track record then you are asking for trouble ...

FTFY

Re:AV is not really mature yet (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044861)

No this incident is does not prove anything like this, just that software needs decent quality testing.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's merely the 17 billionth confirmation of the overall fundamental failure of the basic idea behind malware signature blacklisting, not proof.

Re:AV is not really mature yet (0)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043209)

Nice apology, dude. From my perspective if Microsoft doesn't have sense enough not to flag the number one web site on the net, why would I want to run their software?

Re:AV is not really mature yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043745)

Trollgrove, fucking asshole, nice to see you're still at it! Look, it's not as if Microsoft purposely flagged this website, or any other websites. You know, most all virus scanners use heuristic analysis, signatures, and a vari...... you know what, forget it. I'll be honest and admit I just don't have the energy to try and teach a retard such as yourself.

Re:AV is not really mature yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044377)

This comment was brought to you courtesy Waggener Edstrom, a Microsoft marketing partner.

We help clients understand who their audiences are and where they can be reached. Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.

http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach [waggeneredstrom.com]

http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients [waggeneredstrom.com]

If your business could use professional reputation management services, please contact us at http://waggeneredstrom.com/ [waggeneredstrom.com] , the digital PR firm of the year.

FTFY

Re:AV is not really mature yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043337)

Personally I think the entire concept of AV software is flawed (and I work in the industry). Ultimately there are only two infection vectors: security vulnerabilities and user actions. Security vulnerabilities can be fixed as discovered, but it's going to be an ongoing struggle as software vendors' track records have proven. The other problem is user education. People want to think of computers as appliances, but they're just not. As long as you can execute arbitrary code then you're going to be susceptible to trojans. Obviously you can be smarter about it (e.g. don't run things like BritneySpearsHot.jpg.exe), but most average people just don't understand the risk. AV software can help you vet some of these things, but there is always a delay between the time a new variant is first discovered to the time it makes it into the AV definitions where you will be vulnerable. Even locked down platforms like iOS have problems with rogue applications, so the walled garden approach is only going to help so much. Linux mostly avoids this due to the culture of trusted repositories and building almost everything from source; those concepts just don't exist on Windows.

Re:AV is not really mature yet (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044119)

So, the best thing they can do is create an AV culture, and 15 years later realize that they can profit from it too?

Re:AV is not really mature yet (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043387)

That also shows that AV software is, at best, a temporary measure. IMO the future is better OS security (and here MS is to blame), better application security (which is a budgetary and an education/knowledge problem).

So.... you're suggesting that the iOS method is the way to go?

As long as it's possible for users to run things with administrative privileges, viruses will have a way in through social engineering. And as long as it's possible to install stuff from vendors other than the OS manufacturer, there will be programs which think they need to run as admin, and users who let them. And the only way to get around that problem is to run a completely closed system, where users don't need to install drivers at all, and where they don't have any rights to run anything with administrative privileges. Even then, virus writers will find a way to harm you, and while it will no longer bring down the system, most virus writers don't want to bring down the system, they want to leave you with a usable system and steal some of your resources.

The sad reality is that AV is needed. It's never going to be a perfect solution, because the virus creators will always find new ways to do what they want to do. But it will still be needed, no matter how heavily you lock down the system.

You can tell it was a mistake (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042475)

It didn't flag apple.com

Re:You can tell it was a mistake (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042483)

Slashdot: Where Anonymous Cowards strut around being smug and hip by blaming the users of Apple products of being smug and hip

Re:You can tell it was a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043919)

But, you're AC.
Oh, god, so am I. Could I be an insensitive clod?

Re:You can tell it was a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39046369)

Slashdot: where Appledrones can't even read before defending their beloved cult.

I didn't see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042513)

I run the full Microsoft stack, visited Google today and never had an issue...

I think (3, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042525)

Microsoft simply confused Valentines Day with April Fools Day

Icing on the cake (3, Funny)

high_rolla (1068540) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042565)

Would have been absolute gold if the message that came up was something along the lines of:

"We're sorry but Google.com has been identified as a threat to Microsoft *cough* *cough*, I mean your computer. We suggest you fix this by going to Bing.com. Would you like us to make Bing your homepage and redirect all future request for Google to Bing instead?"
[Yes] [OK]

Woah! That's BOTH feet hit with the BFG! (0, Troll)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042575)

Since everyone knows Microsoft's Bing uses Google search results - and denies it [blogspot.com] this means users of their own "search engine" are hit too. Spock: "Fascinating".

Re:Woah! That's BOTH feet hit with the BFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043257)

Since everyone knows Microsoft's Bing toolbar has an opt-in monitoring feature that will monitor web browsing habits up to and including Google search results this means I didn't even read my whole link fully before posting snarky comments. Spock: "Fascinating".

FTFY

Re:Woah! That's BOTH feet hit with the BFG! (-1, Troll)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043295)

Perhaps in your scramble to open this months m$ astroturf cheque you never made it to the second sentence: "However you define copying, the bottom line is, these Bing results came directly from Google."

If people you disagree with are paid to do so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044087)

Does that mean that you were paid by Google, since I, in turn, disagree with you?
You're acting really childish with these constant comments to the tune of "You can't be disagreeing with me! It must be an illegitimate opinion!". Just accept that not everyone conforms to your worldview.

Re:Woah! That's BOTH feet hit with the BFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044213)

Yea I'd take "m$ astroturf" comments seriously from a guy whos homepage link is his pro-Android site. Bloody corporate cheerleaders on all sides.

Delete the threat (5, Funny)

inpher (1788434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042651)

So, did anyone manage to delete the threat? Google.com is still running.

Meh, I guess nobody really reads the warning dialogues anymore.

where is the old slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39042681)

the old slashdot would not include the word "briefly" in the title.

I come here for a reality distortion field.

These things can happen (3, Interesting)

MrManny (1026106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39042851)

To be honest, I don't think this is really *that* big of a deal. This can happen. Worse has happened, not only at Microsoft but by other AV products as well. I recall Avast crying out loud over Steam less than a month ago, moving its service into containment. And if I recall correctly, Avast even flagged notepad.exe as a virus once. I specifically mention Avast, because a.) I use it, and b.) it actually scored rather well last time I bothered to look it up in comparative studies.

As long as there are probabilities involved, false positives and false negatives are bound to happen. When it comes to AV, I don't mind if it errs on the side of caution as long as it doesn't happen too often.

Mod me down or call me fanboy as much as you want, but I really don't consider this too problematic, regardless of Microsoft being the "aggressor" here.

Re:These things can happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043013)

All AVs have issues, MSE is sortos the nicest at that. But the story is about MICROSOFT "mistakingly" warning about GOOGLE.

Re:These things can happen (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045555)

I'm a huge Android / Google fanboy and I have no problem with what happened. There are going to be false positives and Microsoft resolved the situation. While it is embarrassing for Microsoft, I highly doubt it was done on purpose. Google changes their home page all of the time and there was an update for Valentine's Day, so it is something that Microsoft may not have been able to catch.

Re:These things can happen (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045709)

but wasn't this a signature update which included a flag targeting the number one search engine used? Even if it were some automated system which somehow generated a diagnostic which flagged google.com, wouldn't you think Microsoft would run tests on this stuff before shipping it out? I think they have the resources and the money to do this.

they have done this type of thing before and landed in court a few times over it but it cost them little compared to what they gained. As they well know, claiming it's a bug and fixing it at a later date keeps them out of court but does the damage intended or damage benefiting them and harming the competitor.

yes, it could be a mistake or a bug but here's the problem: The company putting the software which controls most of the worlds desktop computers is the same company behind this "bug". Are they really not testing this stuff enough so to let these through? And if not, should they really be your desktop OS vendor?

Because of their history of doing this to their top competitors with lengthy periods due for fixing and releasing patches, I would always lean on the side of this being intentional. Incompetence runs up there in second place.

LoB

MS Malicious, that bitch .... (0)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043235)

Most of the /. "Open" community has danced with MS Malicious at one time or another over the past 20 years. US, EU, RU ... Faux-capitalism, if you can't compete any "WhoopsFU" that may help the profit line is legally fine.

Capitalism=Meritocracy+Value: If the best cannot compete, enter the market, and/or is fettered by sector/product protectionist law, plus increases in profits, benefits, pay-packs ... are not attributable to value added, then the national economy is Faux/Pseudo-Capitalism based and must exploit the general public value for private Faux/Pseudo-Capitalist profit.

So, MS Malicious and other Faux/Pseudo-capitalist will always be pleasured by "WhoopsFU."

Note: There are still many real capitalist in the world, but most folks controlling law-writing, economic policy, a/o expounding capitalist values are in fact just Faux-capitalist with a "WhoopsFU" attitude.

"PC users browsing with Internet Explorer" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39043279)

Nice to know nobody was effected.

Re:"PC users browsing with Internet Explorer" (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39046051)

even with the declining market share, there are enough IE users to give BING a nice bump. It's probably time for some nice "independent" research to come out showing how MS BING is gaining market share and this bump will help that study perfectly.

LoB

Interesting beacuse yesterday ... (2)

amcdiarmid (856796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39043373)

I was checking the Site to Zone Assignment feature of group policy. I found this posting ( http://www.grouppolicy.biz/2010/03/how-to-use-group-policy-to-configure-internet-explorer-security-zone-sites/ [grouppolicy.biz] ) where the example was to put google.com (and everything in it) to be the "restricted sites zone."

Re:Interesting beacuse yesterday ... (2)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39046215)

most anyone who bases their profession on only Microsoft software will tote this kind of line. Microsoft targets companies and lets their fans know who are the enemy so you see tutorials like this where the enemy is trashed while Microsoft's software is advanced. Self preservation by those following Microsoft and basing their livelihood on them. Microsoft loves this and designs their partner and developer programs to promote these things.

It is also why these kinds of "bugs" tend to be looked at as intentional by those who've been in the field a while. There's usually nothing to prove it's illegal and only years and years later does illegal activity show up in court docs but usually too late for a case to be filed. IMO

LoB

I'm just glad it didn't lead to further problems (1)

sarbonn (1796548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044085)

This happened to me last night when I was playing a game. I used google to look up something, and that warning came up. So I had them "remove" it. I was concerned because it didn't really give me a lot of information, but when you're left with the choice of removing a virus/trojan and just leaving it there, you're generally going to go for removing it. Reading about it today, I now realize what happened last night. This reminds me of years ago when I was installing some update to Microsoft Internet Explorer, and I received a message along the lines of: "Microsoft Explorer has detected an illegal program. Would you like to remove Netscape Navigator?" Something like that is really hard to forget, even though I found myself laughing at the time it happened.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39044229)

...just 'cause it was faulty, doesn't necessarily make it untrue...

Google is a black hole though, isn't it? (1)

ToiletBomber (2269914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044811)

Microsoft Security Essentials recognized that Google was sucking up all of Bing's patrons like a Blackhole, and sought to remove the threat once and for all by having users 'delete' Google en masse!

Overdue gambit (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39044863)

I am surprised that Microsoft didn't rejigger IE to just block Google altogether about the time Bing was being first promoted. By the time the lawyers got done beating each other to a bloody pulp - even if Google managed a legal victory - there would be millions of users who would have used Bing as the only alternative because they didn't know about the existence of any other browsers than the IE on their Windows desktop.

Re:Overdue gambit (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045059)

Ooh and they could remove "Firefox" search results from bing! That would be brutal!

Nice (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045165)

Valentine's day is just a little to convenient. I wander if there are a couple of developers from both companies chuckling at each other. I know I have pulled pranks on friends and co-workers before. {I would not however want to answer to the boss when my prank hit the news}

SOP for competing products (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045357)

they took out AOL's TCP/IP stack years ago too and low and behold it happened right around the time Microsoft was getting MSN going. The default action for users clicking their AOL links and finding the dialer stopped working was to use the MSN dialer and bring MSN in. It took a court case to get them fix it and that fix was claimed to take months. It was a bug. Right, because they didn't bother to test against the most used TCP/IP stack out there. Google's a target now so stuff like this is just fun for Microsoft.

LoB

Tough Love (1)

Predatory QQmber (1724716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39045803)

Heh, it's just how Ballmer expresses his repressed admiration. Akin to throwing chairs as a sigh of respect.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39046011)

Gee, no antivirus has EVER given out a false positive before huh?? You little MS-hating fruit lovers just enjoy the chance to bash MS.. Does it make you feel better?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>