×

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 Plans To Sell Anti-Virus Software

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the takes-one-to-know-one dept.

Microsoft 830

EvilCowzGoMoo writes "From the makers of our favorite OS comes: Anti-Virus! Yes you heard me right. According to an article on Reuters.com Microsoft is developing its own brand of anti-virus software. Asked if that would hurt sales of competing products, such as Network Associates' McAfee and Symantec's Norton family of products, Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows. My only question is: If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

830 comments

A part of the OS (-1)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445790)

Microsoft is developing software to protect personal computers running Windows against malicious software

We all knew this would come someday.

Is there any software outside of Microsoft's "it's a part of the OS" argument [freeessays.cc]?

Re:A part of the OS (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445836)

It started with the browser, and it will continue until slashdot itself is considered part of the os.

Re:A part of the OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445838)

Is there any software outside of Microsoft's "it's a part of the OS" argument?

Dude, if you're not going to RTFA, could you at least read the damn -- ahh, why am I even bothering?

Re:A part of the OS (5, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445839)

But that would leave Microsoft even more vulnerable to being sued when holes were found in the OS. A virus that hits because both the OS and the Anti-Virus software were defective and made by the same company? It sounds like a lawyer's wet dream.

Re:A part of the OS (4, Informative)

strictnein (318940) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445841)

Ahh! You didn't even read the whole news post! MS isn't going to bundle this!

It's not that you didn't RTFA... I mean... all you had to do is read another sentence or two:

Asked if that would hurt sales of competing products, such as Network Associates' McAfee and Symantec's Norton family of products, Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows.

Re:A part of the OS (3, Insightful)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445877)

Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows ... "for now."

There, is that clearer?

Re:A part of the OS (1)

ash*embers (725483) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445849)

WHAT??? Remember your history. AV was part of DOS once. The question is, why did M$ stop doing it until now? Maybe because they weren't making extra coin on it I reckon.

Re:A part of the OS (5, Funny)

`Sean (15328) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445868)

Microsoft is developing software to protect personal computers running Windows against malicious software

So, what, it deinstalls Windows for you?

They use dto didn't they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445883)

I thought there was a crappy AVP program in Win95/Win3.1x

Re:A part of the OS (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445895)

"Is there any software outside of Microsoft's "it's a part of the OS" argument?"

Yes.

"Nash (chief of Microsoft's security business unit) said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, ather than including it in Windows."

Re:A part of the OS (5, Informative)

ImpiousPunk (763114) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445913)

Like all "Great" Microsoft products, they didn't develop anything. They bought someone up and slapped their name on it. http://www.ravantivirus.com/

Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (5, Interesting)

Jorj X. McKie (323674) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445792)

While I'm not certain that I completely trust Microsoft on this, it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security.

On the other hand, the major effect might just be to introduce a single point of failure/attack. It's certainly possible to argue that the variety of security software in use makes it harder to attack any given system. For evidence, look at the list of processes that the more sophisticated viruses try to stop.

Background: I do not customarily use an on-demand scanner. On occasion, I have loaded up a scanner because of suspicious behavior. My Windows box (patched up to date, firewalled) has had only one virus, a backdoor program that was installed when my daughter clicked a "video clip" that she received in an e-mail, before she understood what a spoofed address was. So I'm not convinced that antivirus software is as necessary as it is built up to be.

Re:Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (5, Insightful)

yabos (719499) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445831)

They shouldn't need a separate program to stop Outlook from doing something stupid. It should just not do something stupid in the first place.

Re:Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (4, Insightful)

colinramsay (603167) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445950)

Unfortunately there isn't a program to stop the user being stupid. No matter which e-mail client is used, they all allow attachments, and without a virus scanner screening those attachments, computer illiterate users are going to get virii.

Re:Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (5, Insightful)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445907)

> Better low-level access, as well as being able to
> intercept attempts by something like Outlook to
> execute arbitrary files.

Yes, because that's such a major improvement over just fixing Outlook itself. :P Maybe financially that makes sense, they get to sell you Outlook AND the anti-virus, but technically speaking it's just plugging holes in the dam.

The only AV software that Windows needs is Microsoft to stop making so many bloody ways to infect the system.

Re:Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445925)

I'd say the _real_ advantage would be that they could force use of an anti-virus package, and maybe force updates, as well. But selling it as a separate package (for anti-trust reasons, probably) negates that advantage.

Re:Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (4, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445942)

" it might make sense to have the antivirus scanner as a part of the OS. Better low-level access, as well as being able to intercept attempts by something like Outlook to execute arbitrary files. Having a unified place to control such actions might help security."

That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen.

Re:Perhaps It Belongs in the OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445968)

The OS may provide APIs to make writing good AV software easier, but just dumping everything in the OS because 'it will have easier access to things' is entirely silly.

Bonus karma (4, Funny)

SeanTobin (138474) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445795)

10 bonus karma points for the first person to write a worm that exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft's AV software!

Re:Bonus karma (2, Insightful)

Coneasfast (690509) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445905)

10 bonus karma points for the first person to write a worm that exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft's AV software!

you say this as a joke, but seriously there are going to be some losers out there who will attempt to find, and exploit vulnerabilities in their AV app.

i think MS is making a big mistake and should leave the virus software to 3rd party developers.

Re:Bonus karma (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445971)

you say this as a joke, but seriously there are going to be some losers out there who will attempt to find, and exploit vulnerabilities in their AV app.

And of those, a number will succeed.

Re:Bonus karma (5, Funny)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445928)

Extra 10 bonus points on top of that if the virus also deletes the Product Activiation data!

"Hello? Microsoft? I need to re-activate Windows and my anti-virus software so I can clean out this virus..."

Business Lesson 101 (5, Insightful)

stecoop (759508) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445797)

what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?

It just goes to show you that business isn't about who's right or who's wrong but who can make it sound good.

paranoia mode enabled. (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445800)

Asked if that would hurt sales of competing products, such as Network Associates' McAfee and Symantec's Norton family of products, Nash said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows.

So? The same thing that happened to WordPerfect is likely going to happen to NAV.

I am more afraid that MSFT will purposefully allow holes to exist in its OS so that more and more people will buy their AV software. Perhaps that's a bit paranoid but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

Re:paranoia mode enabled. (2, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445934)

I am more afraid that MSFT will purposefully allow holes to exist in its OS so that more and more people will buy their AV software. Perhaps that's a bit paranoid but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

You mean like they don't already purposefully allow holes to exist in the OS?

Re:paranoia mode enabled. (5, Funny)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445936)

Exactly - I can see it now:

"There are 10 new holes in Windows XP - but the patches won't be out for weeks, so you'll need to buy the latest AV software from us to protect against it until the latest updates are out."

the illusive second step (4, Funny)

jimi1283 (699887) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445802)

1) make crappy software with holes in it like swiss cheese
2) sell antivirus software
3) PROFIT!!!

Re:the illusive second step (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445873)

I can't tell if this is supposed to be funny, insightful, or informative. Someone mod parent as appropriate.

Re:the illusive second step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445956)

3) PROFITS!!! [fact-index.com] Still funny time after time...

Re:the illusive second step (5, Insightful)

Gaewyn L Knight (16566) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445896)

Sure does present a MASSIVE conflict of interest issue. Let's see... a monopoly... selling stuff to guard their own product from defects.

Reminds me of the Dilbert with the bonus for finding bugs and the comment is "I'm gonna write myself a minivan!"

Plans to != Will (1)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445803)

Nash said that Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows
for now...

Re:Plans to != Will (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445974)

If there IS an application that SHOULD be included with Windows, it's antivirus software. (I should not have to buy some one elses product to keep my initial investment able to run)

Integrated AV (4, Insightful)

CommanderData (782739) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445806)

Maybe Microsoft should just fall back onto it's old standby technique- buy the company. Purchase Symantec and integrate the Norton Anti-virus product directly into the Windows OS!

It would make the net a safer place for the rest of us if they did so...

Re:Integrated AV (1)

Jorj X. McKie (323674) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445900)

According to the article, MS bought this anti-virus technology from a Romanian company. Hmmm.... Don't a lot of viruses originate in Eastern Europe? Perhaps old Bill has bought himself a gigantic Trojan Horse.

Re:Integrated AV (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445947)

Perhaps if we built a giant wooden badger....

Re:Integrated AV (1)

Tajas (785666) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445958)

I thought Microsoft already bought (stole) the scandisk and defragment parts of Norton and put them in the latest version of Windows. I know Defrag in XP is straight from Norton. I wait for the day Microsoft's balloon gets so big it pops in a firery eruption.

Windows rulez! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445810)

It does!

Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445812)

But does it run on Linux? :-) Oh wait...

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445814)

fp?

Extortion? (4, Insightful)

davebarz (546161) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445815)


Sounds like extortion [webster.com] to me.

They make a buggy OS with holes for viruses, and then require consumers to purchase their own AntiVirus to patch them. This removes motivation for producing a secure operating system because the worse their OS software, the more people will buy their AntiVirus product.

It seems like they're trying to figure out a way to charge for bugfixes and incremental updates to their security model, but instead of just selling those fixes like Apple (10.0, 10.1, 10.2--which I understand also have lots of new features), this model actually discourages production of good product in the first place.

Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?

Profit (1)

ziondreams (760588) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445824)

Not sure about this one...MS will probably get plenty of sales from the same crowds that buy windows, office, etc. That same crowd is probably the majority of those who don't update their virus files, anyway. So theoretically, M$ will still be profitable at this venture even if they don't keep up to date with the virus info.

On the other hand, there's lots of people out there that use anti-virus programs...most of which (somewhat clueless consumers) just buy the cheaper of McAfee or Norton at the time. Will M$ provide their version at cheaper prices? What's to draw the said customers away from their McAfee or Norton that they already know and trust?

They did this already (4, Insightful)

z_gringo (452163) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445828)

They used to sell their own anti-virus software, but then they left that market because they felt it was best to focus on their core products, and that other companies who specialized in anti-virus software were better equipped to sell that kind of software.

What has changed since then to make them want to get back in the game?

"Anti-virus program as a separate product from Win (4, Insightful)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445829)

This might be one of the things that they SHOULD integrate!

Whew.. OK, I got that out. Mark me as flamebait or troll if you want, but this should be integrated with Windows. Of course, not everyone will agree, but hear me out first. First, let's put aside the comments that they should build more secure software and that they should be more focused on security than features. The problem is that it's already created and we have to deal with what we (and the 95% of others using Windows) have and not what should have been. The reason why it should be integrated is because if it's being developed by Microsoft, for their own OS, you would imagine that they might have a small niche into what these viruses are going to do and how they would affect the OS. They created the OS, they know the code behind it, and could possibly help prevent more of the "stupid" users who open the email with the "cute" bears. Let's also assume that the AV software was well built with a few minor security bugs that are easily fixable (I said ASSUME :)).

Since Windows has reached market saturation, we really do have to think about the people outside of /. that are not as informed as us. They don't know about certain viruses or worms unless it's on CNN and they are ones to infrequently update the OS (and AV definition files) because they don't see anything wrong with the way it's running now. Virus protection needs to be something that's seamless to these users because they just don't know any better.

*Awaiting flame responses....*

Just wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445832)

Until the anti-virus program starts getting viruses. Or the update mechanism gets hit by a worm.

iPod Killer now this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445833)

Microsoft is just trying to grasp onto the market, people are now realizing that Windows is a horrible OS and switch to Linux/Mac OS X

Ive done so, have you?

Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445834)

It's like leaving Jarod in charge of Krispy Kremes.

A reason to ignore vulnerability warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445835)

Who is to say they won't purposely ignore vulnerability warnings now, just to have some profit coming in from new worms and viruses?

IIRC (4, Informative)

foidulus (743482) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445842)

Microsoft actually made an anti-virus programs back in the days of DOS/Win 3.11. My first computer came bundled with it. However, the only virus I ever got back then(Doom2 death), it couldn't remove. Though it did alert me to the fact that the files grew by 666 bytes(they don't write 'em like they used to, do they). It also had this nice little 16 color doctor you could watch as your files were being scanned.

Off the top of my head... (2, Insightful)

seizer (16950) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445843)

...I can't think of any vulnerability that was widely exploited before Microsoft issued a patch for it. They've usually been fairly prompt in releasing patches to vulnerabilities they're notified of, and those which they discover in house.

That's off the top of my head, the best way to post on Slashdot :-)

Re:Off the top of my head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445946)

"Seizer meet my friend Crack. Oh... you two know each other? You're old friends? Oh... I guess that would explain your post then."

They've usually been fairly prompt in releasing patches to vulnerabilities they're notified of

I could have just asked "What are you smoking?" but that wouldn't have been as fun.

Anti MS jab..... (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445845)

The writer just HAD to get their anti-MS jab in there didnt they. This is /. after all...

At any rate, I'm no pro programmer, but I daresay adding virus defs to a file (seems alot like adding entries to a database to me) and patching a hole, which requires significantly more programming as well ast esting to make sure it doesnt break anything else or cause another vulnerability is much more difficult.

Truly something else (1)

Hybby (776010) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445853)

Oh, the absolute irony of Microsoft writing anti-virus software. What next? Viruses which exploit the anti-virus software?

Other news... (5, Funny)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445857)

In other news, Benson and Hedges plan to open their own crematorium franchise; "You go out smokin'!". Rumours also spread of plans by Mc Donalds to open a gymnasium adjacent to each grease restaurant, and Darl Mc Bride, Steve Balmer and Steve Jobs to co-author book entitled "Altruism: The secret to success!! (subtitled: Empowering your workforce with kindness)"...

This is actually a good thing (1)

ianbnet (214952) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445858)

It was bound to happen eventually, and I for one am actually glad about it.

My guess is a lot of OEMs will start shipping this, and my guess is that Microsoft will force reminders into windows to make sure people keep their definitions updated. so many people with Norton or McAfee don't actually bother to renew subscriptions to the virus definitions, and then wonder why they get viruses.

If Microsoft can at least build reminders into their Windows Update Services, maybe this will help slow the flood.

Maybe.

Seperate, until... (4, Insightful)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445859)

Microsoft said that it would sell its anti-virus program as a separate product from Windows, rather than including it in Windows.

They'll keep it seperate alright... until it's been out for a while and they don't gain any market share away from competitors. Then it'll be silently built in. There, but not enabled. Then it will be enabled by default, but with the ability to disable it. Then it will be so "tightly integrated" with the OS that you can't turn it off or your computer "will not operate properly"!

Hey, it could happen... and has with previous products.

Microsoft's AV Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445864)

Isn't this akin to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse?

That's been the real plan all along.... (3, Funny)

tktk (540564) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445867)

1. Create a fertile ground for viruses with Windows.

2. Sell anti-virus software that 'somehow' works the best.

3. Take over the world.

microsoft is not developing a new product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445869)

remember they bought a maker of linux AV products last year and discontinued their linux support

Anyone remember MSAV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445871)

MSAV was the most pathetic piece of virus removal software (and DETECTION) software to roam this earth.
I hope their new offering is better.

Re:Anyone remember MSAV? (1)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445979)

However it did successfully clean out the FORM.A boot virus I had on my 486 running Win 3.1. Those were the days.

About time! (2, Interesting)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445878)

Just for the record, Microsoft produced an antivirus program back in the DOS 6.2/Win 3.1 days. I, and many other people, wondered why they stopped when they released Win95.

Court is in session... (1)

danielrm26 (567852) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445880)

Goodness. How nice of them to not include it with the OS; that'll keep the lawsuits from competitors down to roughly 3 per minute rather than 150. These guys are voracious. If they do actually manage to squelch their security problems they are going to shake off this Linux issue like a sick poodle.

On a related note, here's an article on why you should consider using an alternative browser:
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news/arc hives/2004 0615_why_you_should_dump_internet_explorer.phtml

Logical Fallacy... (3, Interesting)

bcs_metacon.ca (656767) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445881)

There's a problem with the idea of them selling the AV software separately from Windows... they always claimed that they had to bundle IE because browsing the web was an integral part of the OS experience... well... when you're talking about Windows, having AV software & keeping it up to date is even MORE of an integral part of the experience than web browsing!

Isn't that a conflict of interest? (2, Insightful)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445884)

I would think the more holes for viruses they leave in their products, the more anti-virus software they can sell...

Makes sense.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445886)

It's kind of like a liquor store holding AA meetings.

Speech less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445887)

I am just lost for words.

Brilliant (1)

nearlygod (641860) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445891)

1. Create a problem 2. Sell solution to problem you created 3. Profit As the Guiness guys would say... Brilliant!

Trust issues? (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445892)

Surely if they demonstrated that they made an OS vulnerable to the virus of the day, why should they be trusted to make the software that protects against/fixes said virus?

There are also definite shades of Dilbert here, where the employees who write the software are paid for every bug they remove from the software. It sounds outlandish but MS have demonstrated some pretty evil business practices; might it be possible for them to put a vulnerability into Windows that allowed viruses which could only be combatted by MS Virus Scan - it could be done in a way that means Norton or McAfee could be slapped with the DMCA if they knew the encryption to access the bit of Windows affected by the virus, but it would be a triviality for the virus writer to break said encryption since they're not worried about the law. </tinfoil hat>

Conflict of interests? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445894)

Sounds like a doctor is also the owner of a coffin shop. I am the best doctor in town if I can cure you, otherwise, I sell you a coffin.

A good idea (1)

Karrde712 (125745) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445906)

For what it's worth, a Microsoft-made antivirus scanner might be a worthwhile tool.

Since no one but Microsoft has a clear view of what's "under the hood", so to speak, it would probably be much easier for them to generate a more reliable set of heuristics for identifying new virii before the definitions are available.

and if you believe that... (1)

Roadkills-R-Us (122219) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445909)

"My only question is..." when will they simply include it in the OS, thereby screwing up the folks who've made life with Windows almost bearable all these years? Time after time, MS promises they won't compete with the third parties who helped them survive and thrive, but soon thereafter the new stuff shows up in the OS and the competition either finds a new market really fast, or they die.

It's all well-documented in the trade press over the years.

10 Seconds and counting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445912)

I'm betting the Anti-Virus software simply implodes windoze. Maybe this will be the launch of Microsoft Linux. :-)

Can't you hear the music? Perhaps a Rolling Stones song.... :-D

Thats just funny (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445918)

Can some one please explain one thing... Most of these viruses / malware etc are based on windows bugs which we all know take a while to release. So will M$ Antivirus release an update for a problem that should just be patched?
Sounds like a lot of tail chasing to me and of course in any corp- passing the buck will be the soup du jour.
This is perfect timing for me to finally switch completely to a linux based pc and watch all you win32 bums suffer. You thought that it was tough getting a straight answer out of tech support now???
HA wait till this launches!!!

Conflict of interest ?! (1)

hqm (49964) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445920)

My god, doesn't anyone see the conflict of interest here? WHenever they want to boost revenue in their anti-virus business unit, all the have to do is make Windows more insecure. No wait, that's impossible. Never mind.

A new wind? (1)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445921)

Be fair, maybe this is an honest attempt for Microsoft to clean up its image regarding security. Perhaps we'll see a bit more focus on prevention and faster patch releases in the near future, sort of a two pronged attack. I have no love for Microsoft, and I'm not defending them, but I'm not into kicking a man in the rear while he's trying to zip up his open fly either...

Several questions for Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445922)

1) You created the vulnerabilities. You are already charging us for the patches that are supposed to fix them. Why are you going to charge separately for a tool to detect the exploits?

2) Speaking of charging to fix your vulnerabilities, why aren't you fixing them rather than spending time and money on writing tools to detect the exploits?

3) Why aren't the fixes free after I paid for software that should have worked in the first place?

Extortion Anyone? (1)

platinum (20276) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445923)

By selling a vulnerable piece of software then selling another application to prevent it from being exploited sounds like a protection racket to me.

I've always wondered about this... (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445927)

Microsoft in such a long time never integrated an anti-virus capability into Windows. The virus problem has been existing for such a long time, yet everyone had to go and buy a third party product. I mean, they included a browser, a movie maker, a multi-media, games, all kinds of crap that wasn't that vital for an OS to have. My guess is that they were either too ignorant and stupid or they figured its bad marketing to include anti-viral software - it might imply the main product (Windows) is not secure enough and prone to easy explotation by virus writters (cough..).

The First Horseman. Can anyone recomend . . . (1)

93,000 (150453) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445932)

. . . a good Linux distro for a n00b?

I'm bailing out before the other three arrive.

Conflict of interest?... (1)

Silvertre (472395) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445935)

What's to stop them from purposely leaving holes open in windows just so that their virus software could be the best to guard against it?

Critical updates (1)

0ddity (169788) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445941)

Actually Microsoft is planning on calling the security/critical updates Antivirus software, and it will be updated via Windows update.

no-one would notice except the /. crowd what was really going on.

Isn't this sort of illegal? (1)

Dimes (10216) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445954)

I mean, "official" monopoly or not.....they have one, with a product that is riddled with security problems...which they can't "seem" to fix.....so the solution for its customers is to...."Sell" them AV software!?!?!?!?

Isn't there something inherently wrong with that?

dimes

Pressure for updating AV software (3, Insightful)

mshultz (632780) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445957)

My only question is: If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"

... Because there's a lot more pressure to keep AV software updated as fast as possible. If a user is not happy with the way Norton manages their AV updates, they can switch to McAfee with little inconvenience. But Microsoft is under no direct threat if they wait an extra day, delaying an OS patch, since switching operating systems is a much more serious undertaking.

Microsoft clearly has the resources together to put together a good product- look at Office, for example. They're not idiots, and I'm sure they realize the urgency of issuing timely AV updates. If they made that one of their priorities, they could probably do a very good job at it.

So who did they buy? (1)

BalDown (460966) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445961)

The big question on my mind is who did Microsoft buy to get into the AV market? I mean, look at a lot of their other product expeditions lately. They're just an offshoot of someone else's work that they bought. Can anyone say VirtualPC? Guess we'll just have to wait and see what it looks like...

Conflict of interest? (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445964)

3rd-party developers have long complained that MS developers have access to "secret" API's not shared with the outside world.

Seems like this would be all-too-tempting of a strategy to take with the AV developers, as well. Except in this case it's not only API knowledge, but advance knowledge of security holes discovered by their own developers and testers.

Oh god... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9445969)

I personally beleive that you should find something that you are good at and proftible in doing and stick with it.

Im not knocking Microsoft here. Congrats on trying to deversify, BUT I really do not see this working out to well.

The main reason being is that there are alot of very succesfull and viable AV options out there. Apart from having the Microsoft brand added to the AV Software, it seems as though it will not really bring anything new to the plate.

On a lighter note, it is quite ironic. Microsoft providing AV software for their OS.....

Great. (1)

eztcld (748093) | more than 9 years ago | (#9445975)

Logical progression of 'fail for profit'

software engineering. Practiced by the
most reviled bunch of corporate a$$hats on the
planet.

You've got to admire success, but really
scrutinize people capitalizing on failure.
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...