Microsoft Beta Includes Built-in Virus Scanner 867
Ethereal writes "InternetNews.com reports that Microsoft has begun beta-testing a built-in virus scanner for its Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) that will be included in the final product in mid-2004. The tool is among the operating system enhancements the Redmond, Wash., company is developing as part of its Security Center initiative to rebuff viruses, worms, trojans and crackers. Microsoft will also provide free online training to help developers make the most of SP2's security features, Chairman Bill Gates said at today's RSA Security conference. It's the first time the company has offered training with a Windows service pack release."
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Informative)
Get Grisoft. [grisoft.com]
Virus scanner (Score:5, Informative)
Hardly a big surprise.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Informative)
The ZIP handling features in XP are licensed from WinZip. I'm sure Microsoft is by far and away Niko's best customer.
Re:Good bye Norton and Mcaffee? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:McAffee, Norton? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hardly a big surprise.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not much of a fix... (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft WAS in the antivirus business a long time ago.
Microsoft included "MSAV.EXE" [computerhope.com]--Microsoft Anti-Virus--with MS-DOS 6.0 back in the early 90's.
It was, essentially, a cut-down derivative of Central Point Antivirus, which was actually developed by a company in Israel [victoria.tc.ca], not Central Point. Central Point was purchased by Symantec in 1994, and Microsoft quietly removed MSAV from their OS's when Symantec refused to supply updates and Yisrael Radai [google.com] wrote his now famous paper outlining how it was deeply flawed.
Re:Good bye Norton and Mcaffee? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apple has been doing it for years. (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, I can't even count how many utilities this happened with. I can't think of a really good solution for Apple, though...
I do have to say that including a virus scanner with the OS makes more sense than almost anything else being bundled. It helps patch security holes. It makes it a bitch and a half to pirate Windows (sure, you can pirate it, but you damn well aren't getting any antivirus service -- have fun when the next wave of worms rolls around). It helps Microsoft look good -- instead of Symantec advisories coming out saying "Windows has another worm coming out, buy our AV product", Microsoft says "There was a worm released and we squashed it. Just hit Windows Update."
I'm sure that this thing can be abused and whatnot, but Microsoft could seriously get a lot of mileage out of AV software.
Note that it *is* going to be fun if MS ever fires off false positives, though -- every Windows box on Earth starts going spastic over some innocent package.
This is the second time today that I've felt that Microsoft is doing, if not the "right" thing, something better than their competitors. The world is standing on end.
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Monopoly considerations aside... (Score:3, Informative)
As an example, some anti-virus programs even run their GUI control panels as SYSTEM, which means a local user can exploit them to gain access to the machine.
(Also, BSD firewalling might be in userspace.)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Informative)
RAV Anti-virus (Score:2, Informative)
I've been using the linux version of the software [ravantivirus.com] they bought-out, and it works great.
Re:Virus scanner (Score:3, Informative)
Most AV software alredy does that, and more; why would it need to interface to the operating system?
Because most AV software, although they already do it, do it exceptionally poorly, causing system crashes and other problems for running applications.
If the OS defines the interface and enforces it, the AV software can do its magic in a tested environment, which Microsoft can ensure will not crash the system. If the AV software crashes, it can be isolated and the user warned, instead of it taking down the entire system with a BSOD.
Makes perfect sense.
Re:McAffee, Norton? (Score:3, Informative)
Windows still needs third party software for DVD's (Score:4, Informative)
In order to watch DVD's under Windows, a third party solution (such as WinDVD or PowerDVD) is still required.
Granted, when such a third party-player is installed, Windows Media Player also becomes DVD-enabled automatically, because it will immediately take advantage of the newly installed DVD-related shared libs.
So even if people solely use WMP to watch DVD's, they'll still need third-party software.
Therefore, the same anti-trust argument, as in the case of Netscape, Real and now possibly the antivirus solution providers, doesn't apply here.
The linked article is wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Have a read of the keynote transcript [microsoft.com].
"...and from an antivirus perspective, Windows Security Center can tell me if I have virus software installed, if it's on, and if it's up to date..."
That's all it is - a console designed to bring all security features together in Windows, including any installed AV software. It is not bundled AV software, just a firewall and a console that aggregates all your settings and preferences into one location.
Re:When every user is Administrator (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like right clicking and choosing "run as"?
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bundled with the OS, for free? (Score:3, Informative)
As is expected, OS updates are free, at least for Red Hat and Solaris. You can pay more and be first in the queue, along with other perks (at least, with RHN).
RHN is free, even if you didn't pay for the OS . You can pay extra for extra RHN features (web-based admin, patch tracking, etc.) and to be guaranteed access to patches even if the free servers are too loaded.
Solaris has a URL you can download patches from. It's free too.
Ummm, not thinkin' are ya? (Score:3, Informative)
If they have elevated/system level privileges, and they are poorly written (especially considering they're fucking around with the memory of executing programs) there is the potential for a critical failure/kernel panic/BSOD.
Re:When every user is Administrator (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. In order to have your software Windows Logo certified, it must run correctly under a normal user account, and support "Install for this user only" and, if you're an admin, "Install for all users" options during install.
Windows Installer pretty much comes set up to enable those sorts of installations by default.
Not there in current SP2 Beta (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A virus scanner infected with a virus (Score:3, Informative)
Competition & Monopoly; Alcoa & U.S. Stee (Score:3, Informative)
Antitrust law does not forbid you to hurt your competitors.[*] All competition does that. In fact, that is what competition is. Given a fixed number of customers, any enterprise that tries to attract as many customers as possible necessarily hurts its competitors, who will either lose customers or not gain as many new ones as they would have otherwise. Thus, the competitors will be financially worse off than they would have been had if they had been able to lay their grubby little hands on those customers. Or at least they should be. Competition is supposed to punish inefficiencies and reward efficiency, thereby allocating scarce resources the best/most efficient way possible.
What antitrust law primarily seeks to protect is competition, not competitors. Now, it might admittedly be just a little bit hard to have the one (former) without the other (latter) and much of tension within antitrust law and the debate surrounding it centres on that particular problem: should antitrust regulate structure or behaviour?
In Alcoa[**] Justice Learned Hand stated that it was not the objective of antitrust law to punish efficient companies: in case a party has had a monopoly 'thrust upon it', its position was not unlawful. However, he went on to say:
This so-called Alcoa doctrine placed monopolies under a strict per se-rule: i.e., monopolies were prohibited as such. The issue became one of structure: does an enterprise occupy a position of monopoly (within a relevant market) or not. If yes, unless it can be proved that the company is a mere passive recipient of its monopoly position, it is unlawful.
The Alcoa doctrine was severly critized, notably by Robert Bork in his The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy At War With Itself. Justice Hand seemed to find Alcoa guilty of being nothing more than a better competitor; better at doing business; in fact, Alcoa was being punished for being more efficient. And as the criticism took hold, courts reverted back to an ante-Alcoa, U.S. Steel[#] rule of reason approach centring on the behaviour of monopolizing: simply put, intent + harm. This would appear to be the (established) law today.
Bork and the Chicago schoolers sometimes seem to go futher than that however: one sometimes gets the impression that to them, the existence of a monopoly shows nothing more and nothing less than superiority in the market place. In other words, a position of monopoly is evidence of superior efficiency; efficiency is a valid exculpatory defence as it contibutes to increased consumer welfare[##]. A lot of the defence of Microsoft's monopoly case seems to rest upon this premise. See, for instance, here [aynrand.org] and here [capmag.com]; for a more sober view, see Posner's article Antitrust in the New Economy [lls.edu], in particular, perhaps, pages 8-9.
Neo-classical economic theory and its antitrust exponents (to which Bork and the Chicago-schoolers obviously belong) are not without critics however. See, for instance, this piece [antitrustinstitute.org] by Metzenbaum and Foer in which they write:
Of course you know they didn't write it themselves (Score:2, Informative)
So, those of you who are worried out Microsoft's programming prowess, fear not. Your PCs will be protected by a romanian team with 10 years experience.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:4, Informative)
There's absolutely no financial sense for AV companies in doing this: best-case scenario is that they have to spend money to get a minute advantage that most AV vendors claim *anyway*, worst-case scenario is that the company directors get ripped away from their yachts, mansions, and BMWs to spend time in prison.
Think, before engaging fingers.
RAE Antivirus (Score:1, Informative)