Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

199 comments

Start the week with a dupe (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541732)

Re:Start the week with a dupe (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541827)

Its not a dupe its a virus.

Re:Start the week with a dupe (2, Interesting)

ThogScully (589935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541895)

What's worse is that the editor clearly did search for past postings regarding Microsoft's Anti-Virus initiatives to find the story that announced their purchase. And apparently that search didn't turn up the past article of which this is a dupe.
-N

Re:Slashdot search sucks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542137)

That is probably because slashdot only supports OR searching. If you search for microsoft antivirus you are really searching for Microsoft OR antivirus. Google isn't any better as you could have to search through several hundred results to find the dupe.

Re:Slashdot search sucks (2, Informative)

cr4p (883824) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542453)

Really? [google.com]

No kidding... (3, Insightful)

koko775 (617640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542583)

It's a rare thing for me to be able to find something I'm searching for, and I often find that my searches come up with irrelevant results. IMO the search needs some rethinking.

Re:Start the week with a dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542062)

Not only that, it was even noticed back in that [slashdot.org] thread that the article was a dupe.

This pre-recogntion of dupes could be the scary beginning of the third coming of the redundant dupe wars.

Stay awake people, this could get nasty.

Mods: Don't mod down 1st "It's a dupe" post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542532)

Moderators, please don't mod down these posts. To those people who come across these discussions, it's worth noting that more discussion on the exact same subject happened elsewhere. Plus, those discussions might have more value to them, since most of Slashdot saw the story the first time around and concentrated on it then, even if the Slashdot editors don't follow the stories as closely as the readership.

Now we are really (-1, Redundant)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541743)

screwed!
-nB

friggern 2 min timeout. Should be 2 min per thread.

Re:Now we are really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541805)

How is the second post of a thread redundant, when the first post complains of a dupe?
-nB

Re:Now we are really (5, Funny)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541900)

All Slashdot posts are redundant by definition, since only certain stories are posted on Slashdot to begin with, and all of the comments are repeats from some earlier post. In about 15 years, the only moderation you will see is redundant...redundant...redundant, cause there will be no new stories by that time. This will be the sign that the Singularity is upon us, as Slashdot posts begin to come from an artificial intelligence faster and faster, then comments, then redundant moderation, then posts, then comments, then redundant moderation, then posts, then comments, then redundant moderation...eventually the virtual world is filled with Slashdot posts moderated redundant...

Such is the fate of mankind.

Re:Now we are really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542128)

ha! but this kind of post is not redundant, mainly becuase it's a meta-post. Which means that only meta-posts will not be redundant -- at least until every post will be meta-redundant... Have meta-redundant-moderated today?

so when does Elliot Spitzer get involved ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541753)


because he can see a scam when he knows one

i cant wait for the lawsuits/class action to begin !

Re:so when does Elliot Spitzer get involved ? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542179)

Are you referring to slashdot attempting to monopolize dupe posts, and doing the "embrace - extend - extingquish" thing by creating dupe triplicate posts?

On another note - I'm seeing "Ads by Google" in the article, and the first two are "No Bible Sunday?" and "Understanding Christians". So now we know - Google's stats prove people running Windows are guillable enough buy into all sorts of monopolistic scams.

When it'll help him run for higher office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542190)

Once Spitzer figures out an angle where he can use this situation to help him get elected to higher office, he'll be all over it like purple on a grape.

Why is there a picture of a Caterpillar? (-1, Offtopic)

TAZ6416 (584004) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541759)

Is that meant to me a worm at the top of the page then?

Jonathan

Re:Why is there a picture of a Caterpillar? (1)

sydsavage (453743) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541943)

Re:Why is there a picture of a Caterpillar? (1)

robby rat (829049) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542101)

thanks dued now i have another wrom in my computer.

ok

bye

Ridiculous! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541760)

This is getting ridiculous. Is it just me or is the amount of dupes posted on /. seriously increasing?

Re:Ridiculous! (2, Funny)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541814)

It's just you...

+5 SUCKING UP TO EDITORS - MOD UP PARENT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541864)

if that's not a karma whore, what is!

Oops.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541818)

I read that as dopes not dupes. Though guess the editors could be dopes, so statement still stands true

Re:Ridiculous! (2, Funny)

QMO (836285) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541891)

It is you. You're increasing. I hope you know what it means when a person is increasing.

APRIL FOOLS!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541763)

Man that year went fast!!

Masterplan! (4, Funny)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541775)

1, Sell OS which enables viruses to spread very easily
2, Create AV SW
3, Profit on selling AV SW AND new OS updates! Muhahaha...

Jeez, we're screwed...

You meant this? (2, Funny)

Freggy (825249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541802)

1) Sell OS with lots of vulnerabilities enabling viruses
2) Create anti-virus software
3) ???
4) Profit!!!

Re:You meant this? (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541869)

Yeah - but step 3. == step 4. ;-)

Re:You meant this? (1)

DemENtoR (582030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542241)

3) Create viruses & exploits.

But seriously ... (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541940)

now they do have an economic incentive to leave the bugs in .... I mean if they spent the money they are spending on this to get bugs found, and top get them out faster we'd all be better off ... instead someone's decided this will be a profit center ... soon enough they'll be putting bugs in and releasing viruses, all because it's good for the bottom line

Re:But seriously ... (1)

akadruid (606405) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542043)

Not only an incentive to produce bugs, but a proof of concept. A business model for the future. Create an entire industry from nothing by domination of another industry, then use your monoply of the first to force a monopoly of the second.

Anti-Spyware didn't exist 5 years ago. Now it is a flourishing subscription business. This will be the kicker that starts MS as a provider of interlinked services. Office requires Windows requires MS AV requires MS AS requires MS whatever else. And keep up the pressure on the OEMs, schools and governments that are selling MS Windows + Office for them. Once you've got people over the hurdle of paying monthly for software, you can do anything.

You gotta admire them. It's beautiful in a sick kinda way.

Re:But seriously ... (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542080)

...MS doesn't have to spend any money on bug-finding - they are so famous and awe-inspiring that people will pay them money to find their bugs. People being their customers I mean.

Microsoft business model (4, Insightful)

infernalC (51228) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542165)

1. The anti-viral software will be made available for XP, but will be built-in for Longhorn (if Longhorn ever happens - we're still waiting).

2. The subscription cost will be built into the Longhorn price for retail copies.

3. OEMs will have a choice of becoming .dat file distributors or retailing subscriptions to MS' direct service. Distributors will either have to pay massive up-front fees or massive MS taxes. The initial subscription is mandatory (bundled) either way.

4. After you will pretty much be forced to pay for this software, you will quickly realize that it is INCOMPATIBLE with your third-party ftp client, web browser, etc. This thing is gonna be tied to IE (probably intentiontionally crippled).

5. Microsoft, respecting anti-trust laws, will provide an API for you to Microsoftize your Internet applications. The API specs and the library itself will of course be made available for a $10,000 licensing fee and signature on an NDA (Microsoft will disguise this as an effort to protect users' security). The API/library will not be available on OSS-compatible (much less GPL-friendly) terms.

6. Microsoft will sit back as they rape their userbase, who will believe that Microsoft is doing them a favor; even if they don't, vendor lock-in is a beautiful thing.

7. Profit!!!!

Don't tell me you don't see this coming.

Now if they could just fill in the missing step... wait a minute...

Re:Masterplan! (4, Funny)

moviepig.com (745183) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542083)


Do airlines try to rent you parachutes?

Re:Masterplan! (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542279)

What'd you think about airlines, where you have to rent a parachute/safe-boat as extra? ;-)

Re:Masterplan! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542138)

1, paste joke from original article in a dope 2, ........ 3, PROFIT!!!!

Re:Masterplan! (1)

Marthisdil (606679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542342)

Wow - posts like this one weren't to be expected. Again, when will you realize that when other OS' become worthwhile to write virii for, then you'll start seeing more and more of them, or are you really THAT naive?

Re:Masterplan! (1)

godlikenerddotcom (839107) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542474)

I think you're missing step 4. 4. Sell AV updates that eliminate the security exploits that the AV software opens up.

geez (4, Funny)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541786)

MS developing anti-virus software to find the same viruses the company's own shoddy programming allowed to propogate is like the Slashdot editors developing a dupe search to find the same duplicates their own shoddy editing allowed to be posted.

Re:geez (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542370)

I know your trying to be funny - but realize other people take this stance and think it's insightful

And then you gotta ask --- does MS get the Viruses passing by their desk before it is released to the public --- sort of like our /. editors getting the articles (and having to approve them) before it goes public.

Physician, Heal thyself !! (4, Insightful)

fluffywuffy (844881) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541791)

But don't pass the cost to your patients ...

Re:Physician, Heal thyself !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541855)

If they do what you suggest they'll be sued for anti-trust violations. Around the world. The governments are all pro-malware and identity theft.

A question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542097)

But don't pass the cost to your patients ...

Is there any point in having anti-virus software separate from the operating system other than to charge for a separate product? If you have access to the source code for the application with the hole, what exactly is the point in having another piece of software block the hole?

Can someone explain why separate anti-virus software is a good idea?

Re:A question (1)

TCaptain (115352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542331)

Its a "good" idea for Microsoft because they now have good reasons NOT to plug their security holes.

Think about it, imagine a critical flaw is found in XP or whatever....(you don't have to imagine too hard). Microsoft now has a decision to make:

1 - spend a million bucks fixing the hole.

OR

2 - Say "We're working on that issue" and in the meantime SELL you an AV product to protect yourself, netting 5-6 million in the process.

Which do YOU think they'll go for?

Resistance is futile (5, Interesting)

gelfling (6534) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541810)

I guess the most depressing aspect of this is that I put almost no credibility in most of the statements MS makes. If they are succesful then it will be a weak middling product that probably focuses on protecting MS OS's and applications exclusively, probably will interfere with everyone else's products and will most likely be several years and several releases late. On the other hand it will probably wind up being 'free' as in you don't have to pay for it directly but because it will be cancerously embedded in the OS it will help keep the price of MS products absurdly high. And last but not least, the list of security patches for the AV tool itself will be extensive. Plus you can figure that it will absolutely crash Firefox and Openoffice.

Re:Resistance is futile (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541846)

cancerously embedded in the OS

If Microsoft *did* bundle AV with Windows, everyone on slashdot would be jumping up and down saying "Microsoft are being anti-competitive yet again!!". Microsoft have been (rightly) burnt by the fair competition regulations often enough to know that they cannot just bundle this in and need to offer their product so that it can compete on the open market.

That said, many people will use it because it is easiest to take it from the same vendor as the O/S, even if it's not the best solution, technically.

My biggest concern is that MS will use non-disclosed APIs to support their AV, leaving the rest of the market to use the current selection of cludges to make their work. Obviously, this would be unfair and they should be shot if they are thinking it...

Re:Resistance is futile (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541848)

You only missed one thing: It will render all other AV programs that actually work, inoperative.

"it will be cancerously embedded in the OS"
Which means it can't be turned off or deleted. Kind of like IE was for awhile.

... in other news ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541815)

slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.

slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.

slashdot.org has announced that they will begin development of anti-dupe software sometime in 2006.

Re:... in other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542358)

That was amazing. This is the first non-Zonk story in ages, and is a dupe.

Geez, that is Aprils Fool all the year...

MSAV? (4, Funny)

jack_csk (644290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541816)

Does it mean our favorite MSAV from DOS 6.22 finally has an update?

Re:MSAV? (3, Informative)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542172)

lol.. guess i'm not the only one that remembers Microsoft Antivirus from back in the day...

My first pc, a packard bell (very sad) included dos 6.22 and windows 3.11 for workgroups. Microsoft antivirus had a dos and windows graphical interface and basically did a checksum test on all the files. It created files to remember what it checksum'd in each directory as I recall.

It took forever to scan and obviously didn't catch much and had many false positives. Imagine using tripwire to check for viruses except on a dos partition with nothing to check but byte size and maybe the modify date!

It was credited to symantec in the about box I think.

This is nothing new.. just a comeback!

Your memory fails you (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542462)

MSAV was a limited version of Central Point Anti-Virus. It did do checksums but that was so it could check for viruses that weren't in the database--which I don't recall ever being updated.

Re:MSAV? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542396)

Does someone remember this one?

I was involved in an early UK Government initiative to evaluate AV products. At that time, the Government Rep indicated to us that, as a rule of thumb, the evaluation processes proposed would be tested to ensure that they failed MSAV, since that would be a good indication of a suitable evaluation process.

The Register is right when it says... (1, Flamebait)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541821)

..."We knew it was coming."

Microsoft's tactics can always be worked out by considering what action would show the most disrespect to their users and the least amount of pride or professionalism in their products or services.

Consider the recent "Thought Thieves" poster.

Re:The Register is right when it says... (2, Interesting)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542063)

Dear Mods,

Instead of modding the parent down as "flamebait", why not provide some counter examples?

If you can't then it's hardly flamebait is it?

Just GREAT (0, Flamebait)

Matrix9180 (734303) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541822)

A/V software w/ major security holes...

Re:Just GREAT (1)

Matrix9180 (734303) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542411)

FLAMEBAIT? heh, we'll see...

I am so glad (0, Offtopic)

suezz (804747) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541832)

that I use linux - I was so sick of licenses and having to pay the redmond cash cow -

Linux gives me that freedom from being strapped down by them - both in fees and in what I want to do with my computer. I can do what I want with it without having to buy another product or license.

I bought an old imac for my daughter so she could do some of her games but you know we ended up putting linux on it because she liked it better than the Mac OS. Go figure.

Re:I am so glad (-1, Offtopic)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541874)

If your old iMac came with OS9, I'm not surprised. That was terribly unstable. If she had used OSX - especially 10.3 or later - now that'd be surprising.

Goals? (4, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541844)

Perhaps instead of "getting into the anti-virus market" maybe they should reconsider how they might make the underlying infrastruture less vulnerable.

There's a reason for user mode and kernel mode. Just because the "system" CAN have full permissions to everything, doesn't mean that it should!

Besides just think of all the money they can make selling books/classes on how to configure their newfound security!

Re:Goals? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541956)

They can make more money by fording you to buy new OSes.

"This version of windows in unsupported and will no longer receive AV updates, please upgrade to the newest OS"

Nevermind that you can't load another AV package because the M$ one interferes with it!
-nB

Re:Goals? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542468)

This version of windows in unsupported and will no longer receive AV updates, please upgrade to the newest OS"

On the bright side, once your OS falls behind so do the number of virus attacks. Win98 is pretty safe now, for instance, because most attacks only work on XP.

Re:Goals? (2, Informative)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542589)

"On the bright side, once your OS falls behind so do the number of virus attacks. Win98 is pretty safe now, for instance, because most attacks only work on XP. "

In some cases yeah, but I've had some malware (ok not a virus as such, but close) completely kill a Windows 98SE box's network stack after it got in by trying to "patch" the Winsock libraries and assuming it was XP.

Re:Goals? (3, Informative)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542395)

There's a reason for user mode and kernel mode. Just because the "system" CAN have full permissions to everything, doesn't mean that it should!

And MS has agreed with this since NT4. Remove your user account from the Administrator group and. surprise, your system is fully protected, and spyware/viruses aren't a problem because executables cannot modify system folders or system registry. In fact, Win2k/Xp/2k3 have much richer access implementations than the unix filesystem protection in vanilla linux distribution -- you'll need to get the ACL kernels for matching capabilities.

The real problem is the MS marketing dept, which opted to not confuse Grandma and make accounts Admin by default. Longhorn will make accounts limited by default, and in addition when logged in as admin it will drop priviledges of all apps that don't need admin priviledges (like IE), which is pretty cool.

I confused... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541845)

First 'they build' and sell you an inferior OS, and then they'll sell you the stuff to make it secure ?!?

I am confused....why people cannot 'see'....very confused I am indeed.

Wake me up... (4, Funny)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541849)

...when the first virus spreading over the Microsoft Antivirus system is written...

BTW, will it be free? If not, I'd say, brillant strategy. First sell them system vulnerable to viruses, then sell them protection against them. Microsoft should start charging for security updates downloads too.

Sorta like... (1)

tres3 (594716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541960)

Isn't this kinda like a brothel selling Valtrex and Penicillin?

Shooting Themselfs In The Foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541877)

Surely releasing an AV software will just underline the flaws in Microsoft's software. It seems it will be a bit of an own goal. My AV's have information on how to not get re-invected, what will microsoft say, oh yeah you got that trojan because u visited a website that uses an IE exploit on it!

Re:Shooting Themselfs In The Foot (1)

mek2600 (677900) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542296)

I don't think the flaws *could* be further underlined.

Slashdupe (-1, Redundant)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541892)

Once again, this repeated dupe was already talked about [slashdot.org] previously before [slashdot.org] .

Re:Slashdupe... c'mon somebody mod that redundant (1)

kale77in (703316) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542321)

I said, c'mon... somebody mod that redundant.

Do I have to say it three consecutive times in a row?

Much more important point (4, Insightful)

say (191220) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541899)

The point of this security focus article - if you actually read it - is that MS might be going for a subscription-based licensing in the long run. See, you don't pay for Windows, MS Anti-Spyware and MS Anti-Virus, you pay to subscribe to all these, software upgrades and security patches.

That means MS could: a) make people more aware that they are paying for patches, making it more probable that they will use them; b) be able to roll out new OS upgrades instantly, and avoid having to support WinXP far into the 2020-ies; c) hunt pirates more effectively; and d) make shitloads of cash also on people who don't need cutting-edge updates.

It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows, and I think there are compelling reasons for Microsoft to make it this way. After all, MS can't live with the fact that many home users still use Win98 (think of all the lost revenue!)

Re:Much more important point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542270)

It's really just the RedHat model coming to Windows

Except that with Red Hat you have the source, so if you want to stop paying them you can support it yourself or get a 3rd party.

If you don't want to pay Microsoft (for whatever reason) who do you turn to for security fixes?

This is of course true for any proprietary software company, and not just Microsoft.

Re:Much more important point (1)

ookaze (227977) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542545)

This really has nothing to do with the business model of Red Hat.
The model of Red Hat is to sell services mostly.
Red Hat does not sell you the apps really (you can make them for free, or rebuild some Red Hat clone for free, cf. CentOS), nor does it sell the softwares (surely not an anti spyware or anti virus).
You do not pay for security patches or software upgrades either in Red Hat. You pay only for a service that automate the process = convenience.

Is it just me? (5, Insightful)

voudras (105736) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541918)

or is microsoft getting into the anti-virus market sorta like self fullfilling?

I mean really. I guess they dont make enough money just keeping thier products secure

3 words for you (4, Insightful)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541928)

Conflict of intrests

Re:3 words for you (4, Insightful)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541997)

I see this got moderated a troll for some god unknown reason.
Ok i better fill it out a little

Microsoft develop an operating system with bugs which allow worms and viruses and trojans to propagate .
Microsoft then continue to build an anti virus system to either sell with or give away with the system.
It is not a troll its a statment of fact , this is a conflict of intrests .
It would be better if they give it away for free but then that is incredibly anti-competitive and a conflict of intrests still to a lesser degree though.
if they sell it then they are creating a conflict of intrests because fixing bugs in their OS then becomes something which could detract from sale of the anti virus software.
it is a conflict of intrests plain and simple , i do not say this to troll only to point out that this is very much an unethical practice .

Re:3 words for you (4, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542155)

Don't worry about troll mods. These newfangled mods wouldn't know a troll if it bit them in the ass.

You know what scares me?
I thought with Longhorn MS would develop a somewhat virus secure system, that wouldn't need a full fledged AV.
Now, with this they don't have to. It pretty much means, in the Windows world, it's gonna be more of the same with respect to viruses... You're not safe without a good AV product.

Can you see how they're gonna spin this one? "We're so commited to our secure computing initiative, we've developed our own AV product, and made sure it "Just Works" with your current operating system!"

Re:3 words for you (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542428)

I certainly hope they get taken to court over this ,as certainly they have no bussiness making an AV product(anti spyware also). This has anti-trust suit written all over it .

For one its going to kill many AV companys(and not in the way i had hoped for ..as in no viruses )and Its a license to say "Oh no security risk here , its coverd by our virus detection" .

The european courts have so far stuck to their guns over the previous Anti trust suit and i hope this ones goes through fast aswell . the US courts will hopefully also see this as a very big problem and move towards litegation.

Companys can not be allowed to get away with such obviously unethical behaviour.
It sets a really bad example and it cites precident for other companys to do the same.

Re:3 words for you (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542371)

exactly my opinion.

Perhaps the MS zealots should repeat after me: "The reason there are viruses on Windows is because Microsoft makes faulty software."

I think the first lawsuits will arrive just days after the Microsoft Anti-Virus release.

Re:3 words for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542015)

lol, who's the pathetic retard who modded the parent as troll?

Will it be called Irony XP? (1)

tankd0g (875636) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541930)

We used to complain that MS does nothing to protect it's users, now we will complain they don't do it half as well as some other company :)

The ailment and the antidote (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541932)

If on one hand you sell an inefficient product that opens a body to disease and on the other the antidote, all you risk, (outside of your looking like an arrogant and dishonest charletan), is taking twice your customer's money. But this isn't where they're going to lose.

Will not be Longhorn compatible (2, Funny)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541958)

Longhorn users won't need this.

See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/longhorn/security .mspx [microsoft.com]

Imagine releasing anti-virus software on the eve of launching the "most secure version of windows ever".

With MS-AV it will be even MORE most secure.

Why not just have Typhoid Mary sell antibiotics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541965)

Makes about as much sense.

If anyone should know... (1)

amichalo (132545) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541977)

...about viruses, it'd be Microsoft.

Still, I would have expected an .NET developer envrionment before an ANTI-virus application.

The solution has been out for some time.... (2, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12541980)

I installed Firefox 1.0 on my brother's computer months ago (6 months?). I checked his system last night with spybot and AVG AV (just installed AVG to see if it would find anything). Absolutely no spyware or viruses at all. Now, my bro does tons of surfing and so does his wife. They do ebay, email and are all-around fairly regular users. Of course, I also installed a software firewall on their XP system.

Microsoft already holds the key to an AV solution, and that is, bury IE so the user can't use it and install Firefox....

Re:The solution has been out for some time.... (1)

galaga79 (307346) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542280)

While I laud your efforts to spread the gospel of Firefox, stopping people using IE wouldn't greatly the reduce surface area for viruses to get in. Most viruses attack via email or unsecured network ports.

If MS follows the strategy it has used in the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12541985)

Then it's likely that every time you get an update, it will make any competing anti-virus product stop working. Some of us still remember the old rhyme: The code's not done till WordPerfect won't run.

If MS eliminates all other anti-virus vendors then we are put in an interesting situation. We have all heard the rumors that some AV companies have made deals with some spyware vendors and with the government to ignore programs that the vendors don't want scrubbed from your computer and that the government uses when investigating criminals. If there is only one vendor of AV software on Windows, there is only one company anyone has to negotiate with to keep their software from showing up as a virus.

On the other hand, I believe that the security of the computer is fundmentally the job of the operating system. So the software designer in me says that's where it should go. It should be a loadable module of the OS and it should be layered so that it doesn't just look for signatures but for suspicious behavior. It should check the logs for bad behavior, etc.

Finally, I simply will never fully trust any software that is built from sources that I can't inspect. I dont' care if it's the OS or the anti-virus software. I don't believe in security by obscurity. I want to be able to make sure that my AV software isn't excluding some malware because of a little money changing hands. My computer is MY property. If the government want's to know what's on it, I think they should bring a warrant, not plant programs on it.

While I recognize the value of "wiretaps" in law enforcement, I think that establishing a back door through which the government can load malware onto your computer will quickly turn into a backdoor that any hacker can and will use. Whatever technique they come up with, someone will figure it out, steal it, or buy it from some under-paid government worker. It will only leave all of our computers open... kind of like they are now.

I strongly suspect that Microsoft is going to try to dominate the AV market and use that domination to push their "Trusted Computer Model," where, effectively, MS owns your computer and controls what you can and cannot do with it.

All of this reinforces my commitment to never buy another MS Operating System. I only use Windows now because I love computer games and computer game manufacturers have not, for the most part, embraced the Linux market. I wish they'd hurry up and start porting.

wait'n'see (2, Interesting)

kd4evr (712384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542016)

how things turn out. It sure takes them Redmond gang a while to come up with anything, when looking at the purchase-company / product-to-market cycle...

People have launched a number of variations on the
"1. massively spread lame s/w w/ vulnerabilites
2. start seling antivirus s/w
3. profit?"
hypothesis. However, this would only turn out to be a correct theory only if the AV s/w worked remarkably well, shifting the virii vulnerability stories focus elsewhere. I wouldn't want to bet a dime on a conspiracy theory or on any type of a silver-bullet solution.

My bet is different - many Redmond products had flaws and some attempts at new niche markets were downright failures. Hence, I'd bet on an AV product that will fit 'normally' into the S win suite, reducing only part of the problems and introducing some (as typical of any s/w) new issues of its own.

A less safe bet, but not to be dismissed, is the ultimate toll-for-disaster scenario, also mentioned times and again in this discussion.

RAV Antivirus (2, Informative)

smilheim (804292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542031)

Remeber that MS purchased the Intellectual Property of GeCad which made RAV Antivirus a few years back.

Different (5, Insightful)

mattmentecky (799199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542034)

To offer up a different (aka unpopular and hated) perspective, Microsoft isn't alone in the field of companies that offer up an imperfect product or a product that will break with intention of selling more. And they shouldnt be treated like they are some super new-bread of evil, it has been around for a while.

Technology in industry has come to a point (heck, a while ago) that can produce never-dull razors, lifetime long light bulbs and lifetime appliances (has anyone had a refridgerator/washer/drier last more than 5, 10 years nowadays?) but we see none of these. Why? It benefits a company more to make broken-products or sub-par or eventually-break products than something of quality. Microsoft is no different. I guess thats just Capitalism? More money == 'good'

In the year 2006: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12542040)

"Microsoft releases anti-virus code in their latest OS. In other news, Microsoft Windows 2006 self-implodes on install."

Six Sigma (1)

apache guevara (776292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542089)

Firstly, all of us might have our opinions on M$s capabilities but the fact remains (as pointed out in the allusion to the RedHat network) that it definitely makes good business sense to develop an Antivirus software and bundle it with the desktop. And it has its synergies as far as updating the comp is concerned as well with just one update site working for my machine (As long as they dont come up with bloatware SPs for the extended suite of s/ws)

The problem is that everytime M$ has attempted increasing the width of its product protfolio viz unzip built into the shell, the windows firewall and so on, the functionality has always been frustratingly limited. (Probably the fear of more anti-trust suits coming its way or probably because they knew that with previous versions, they neednt have bothered as windows flew off the shelves)

Now they are in a situation where users need a compelling reason to upgrage from XP/2K!!

And frankly Bill and his army should concentrate more on making sure that the multitude of bugs are ironed out in design rather than writing quick-fixes for them after release. Manufacturing went thro the phase of expensive monitoring and fixing of defects before they realized that the most efficient way to go is Six Sigma their processes. Make sure that the defects are so extremely minute that every SP might now actually be a feature improvement rather than a quick-fix!! For a change let users actually want a Service Pack rather than dread the thought of its release.

PS: Forgive the comparison between manufacturing and programming, but the underlying philosophy still stands.

COME ON (duping) (1)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542180)

This isn't some difficult to understand article like "Random company says obscure technical thing", which when presented different ways may slip past an editor.

This is "MICROSOFT IS MAKING ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE". It is a simple concept, and a memorable and controversal one at that. An editor could have searched on "Microsoft" or "virus" and seen the obvious dupe. Do a search for virus right now. It is amusing.

This place has really degenerated to dupes and several nonsense articles. They need new editors.

Thats rich.. (2, Funny)

burritoKing (768156) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542340)

Geez,

It's like an electrician setting your house on fire due to some dodgy wiring, and then offering to sell you a fire extinguisher as your house burns down.

Already done??? (1, Funny)

bcarl314 (804900) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542343)

Funny, I've already run the Microsoft AV program on my windows boxes. It's acutally quite easy.

Go to...

Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt (on winXP) and type:

deltree c:

Then just install your favorite *nix! ;)

Ok, fine, mod me troll. I just couldn't resist.

excellent idea (1)

chrisranjana.com (630682) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542480)

Another money spinner from Bill !

You're not a customer, you're a revenue stream (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 9 years ago | (#12542587)

As MSFT's market starts to shrink under the rise of Linux and Mac, MSFT has to find ways to squeeze more revenue out of their existing customers.

This is MSFT casting around for ways to keep their quarterly numbers up. Their numbers come out of your pocket.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...