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."
Oh boy (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the morn (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet the anti-virus software companies are really going to like this one.
How long do you think it will take for Symantic, etc to file antitrust against microsoft. 6 months? 12 Months?
How about not making it so easily vulnerable to viruses in the first place. This is like putting a band-aid on a arterial wound. Microsoft needs to get a clue.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Insightful)
How about not making it so easily vulnerable to viruses in the first place. This is like putting a band-aid on a arterial wound.
To make a silly point, that would also put the AV people out of business, except they wouldn't get one last blaze of lawsuit before they went away.
Of course there will still be the hacks that rely on social engineering...
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:4, Insightful)
Boy, Microsoft can't win with you guys, can they? You bitch every single fucking day that there's some security exploit, and when Microsoft addresses that, suddenly you're crying anti-trust.
It really is hard to take anything you guys say seriously when it's all about bringing Microsoft down.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, we tear down MS because they do moronic things. Instead of including a Virus scanner how about just working to make virus infections less of an issue in the design of the OS?
They aren't addressing the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is more than welcome to make and SELL AV software.
But by including it free, if that's what ends up happening, then they are exercising their monopoly (again) to drive competitors into bankruptcy.
And even then it's not so simple. Obviously free software exists. But such software is not built into the OS.
OS + free browser, then + free webserver, now + free AV.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Interesting)
MSDOS 6 had a virus scanner and it was such a pointless, easily circumventable, obsolete, watered down piece of shit that anyone wanting a real scanner had to pay for a real product anyway.
And of course because MSDOS shipped with a broken virus scanner, it meant users got a false sense of security and plenty more viruses did the rounds despite of it.
So while it might seem that shipping a scanner is a good idea for security, in practice it will probably make the situation even worse than it is now.
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Interesting)
You think that it won't be worth it for Microsoft to provide AV service for free? I'll bet it will. All the people pirating Windows will be lacking AV service then...at some point, Microsft is bound to start blocking Windows Update service to pirated copies of Windows.
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
We speak from experience (Score:5, Insightful)
We can speak quite effectively and accurately from experience. Microsoft still manages to produce some of the most insecure operating systems after being in the biz for how many years now. They still manage to bork installations during minor little updates to things like Microsoft Office. Outlook, IE, and Exchange are still some of the most insecure pieces of software available for purchase today. We as IT professionals can speak from experience when we say that Microsoft will not be able to do this without borking something else.
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Funny)
Riiiight (Score:5, Funny)
serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc.. (Score:4, Insightful)
it's good that MS is being proactive (and i don't think they're doing this on purpose -- there is of course legitimate demand for these features), but it's chilling to see how they're capable of slaying entire software industries with the press of a button. this is going to RAPE antivirus/firewall/popup killing companies/industries, even if they have better products -- most consumers, and even a good chunk of small to mid-size businesses, only need a basic virus scanner, for example. and it's pretty fucking hard to compete with OS-preinstalled AND free.
sigh. grab your ankles [yahoo.com].
of course this doesn't apply to all software products, but, what's the incentive to create a clever software product anymore, especially a small but ingenious shareware-type app, if all it takes is for MS to assign a couple of lackeys in MS Research to duplicate your product and then preinstall it with the next version of the OS for free? obligatory examples are netscape and winzip but really they're innumerable.
next on death row: spam stoppers, anti-spyware utils...
they really ought to have split MS up.
-fren
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Bundled with the OS, for free? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see the hand writing on the wall now.
Re:Bundled with the OS, for free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bundled with the OS, for free? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Informative)
Get Grisoft. [grisoft.com]
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
And that guy who invented that polio vaccine, worst of the lot.
I presume you have never used an anti-virus product. I have and I'm happy to pay to clean up the mess that other clueless idiots create with virii and worms etc.
And now with one only analysis done on a virus and no competition to get the fix out how long do you think you will be safe.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, you are being serious. A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics [capitalism.org].
Why is this considered a Troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who can't see past the words anti and trust are missing the point completely. For too long, McAfee and Symantec have produced inferior, bloated, virus scanners. Combine their personal firewall and anti-spam software, along with one of their anti-virus packages, and you've just blown nearly 32 megabytes of RAM on UI enhancements.
NOD32 works so much better, and in a smaller, less bloated interface. Yes, you also have to pay for it, and it's not a well-known big name company. However, you won't find a better anti-virus package on the planet. Check out their awards here [nod32.com].
If Microsoft wants to bundle this stuff with SP2, then I'm all for it. Free, and forced down your throat so the majority of moronic users stop getting their boxes infected by the latest worm-du-jour.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of like what GM does with their OnStar system? And like every manufacturer is now doing with anti-theft devices (immobilizers, etc.)? Viruses in the Windows world is an everyday reality and this is a good step to take, just as vehicle theft is an everyday reality in the automobile world and the ma
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet, when Linus Torvalds offers a free Linux kernel to the world, SCO tells the U.S. Congress (your "Government Gangsters") that Linux is a threat to the security and economy of the U.S. Ironic, huh?
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
The competitive advantage of cars over carriages is that cars are more useful than carriages.
In this case, MS isn't providing a more useful virus scanner or a better product. Their virus scanner will arguably be less useful than existing offerings in the market. However, (and this is where my anticompetitive gripe comes from) they're able to instantly capture a majority stake of any given market just because they own the underlying platform, whereas other vendors are forced to blow millions on sales and marketing and trying to entice consumers to download and install their product. To add insult to injury, MS includes the product for free with the OS, knowing that given a free pre-installed product that's "good enough" the vast majority will be too lazy to look for better alternatives.
-fren
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Interesting)
And splitting up MS wouldn't have done jack squat about this. The OS division would have happilly put in virus and firewall protection and you know why? BECAUSE THAT KIND OF STUFF BELONGS IN THE OS! (WoW). Shoot, we can be grateful they didn't split MS up because then the OS division would be all over the place and wouldn't have to worry about bogus (don't let them improve the product!) BS like this.
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:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Interesting)
My estimate is that 80% or more of the software sold for the Windows platform is 'compensatory': it's stuff you wouldn't dream of having if Windows were as adequate as it should be.
Virus scanners, personal firewalls, trojan eliminators, anti-hacker tools - we're always back to square one: Microsoft let the demons in to start with. As Bill Joy so eloquently put it:
They took systems designed for isolated desktop systems and put them on the net without thinking about evildoers.
Apple Macs come with a built-in firewall, and I don't see anybody complaining over there. They also come with a built-in mail filter, and the same thing applies: no one is complaining. In fact, it all makes good sense.
Your Windows 'cottage industries' are never never never going to enlighten their clients anyway. They're never going to really care for them, and tell them the truth, that the easiest way out of this slaughter that continues every day is to ditch the Microsoft ship. No, they want you to keep using Windows; they want you to keep getting the shit kicked out of you; if you migrated to Unix, they'd be penniless.
The ultimate irony of course is that Microsoft themselves are now mucking with 'compensatory' software - instead of fixing the holes that make such gems necessary in the first place (something they're most likely incapable of doing anyway).
No solutions; just observations. The world goes round.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, it'd be much easier if we just had one program-scanner that'd alert on both viruses and trojan horses, and the better spam products are coming from suppliers who don't have AV products, and fi
Apple has been doing it for years. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bundling is a interesting issue. There really are legitimate reasons why it is better to provide one integrated package, but from a market point of view it just reaks of anti-competitive behavior. Which is another reason why open sourc
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.
Good bye Norton and Mcaffee? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good bye Norton and Mcaffee? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good bye Norton and Mcaffee? (Score:4, Informative)
initial system output... (Score:3, Funny)
McAffee, Norton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting!
Re:McAffee, Norton? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:McAffee, Norton? (Score:5, Funny)
You could use two, it might make you marginally safer, but that just ain't gonna feel quite right...
-- John.
Re:McAffee, Norton? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:McAffee, Norton? (Score:3, Informative)
Not much of a fix... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 fla
Anti-Trust? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anti-Trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because no car maker was a monopoly.
I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included.
IMO, anti-virus software (software that detects known viruses or detects unknown viruses based only on heuristics) is a bad workaround for insecurity, not a security measure.
Too far? Or not far enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too far? Or not far enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
And then again, it might not. One would have to assume that they would do a better job writting anti-virus software than they do writting virus proof software in order believe that this is a good move. Otherwise, everyone will run the bundled AV telling themselves their safe, while hackers (the blackhats) can focus on a single AV program to fool. It just means that the RPC virus needs to disable MSAV before uploading it's payload.
so... (Score:3, Insightful)
When are they going to learn. (Score:3, Interesting)
Chicken and egg (Score:5, Funny)
Ow. I think I just broke my brain.
Monopoly considerations aside... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Ms did this before (Score:5, Interesting)
- After central point died, MS just didn't bother trying another one
- Another anti virus vendor cried "Anti-Trust!" and MS backed down
- None were ready for Win95 at the time
- MS just didn't care
- Any combo of the above...
I can't help but think though, had MS continued with offering anti-virus software, they MyDoom virus (amongst other worms) might have been a fraction of the attack it was...so sad...The more important question..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Will we have the choice to turn theirs off?
I mean, Microsoft is so lax with their security updates, I am not sure if they would create a false sense of security. Also, what if Microsoft detects illegal software? Is this a virus? Will we retain control? Is this a premonition of the TCPA?
OEM bundles... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Quick, quick (Score:5, Funny)
Time to dump your McAfee and Simantec stock as fast as possible.
Isn't that a brilliant scam? (1) Microsoft messes up and makes virus- and worm-prone products. (2) A whole industry develops around the Microsoft flaws like mold on cheese, (3) Microsoft takes over the Microsoft-problem-solving industry.
Brilliant, just brilliant. These guys never cease to amaze me.
Joint press release from McAffee, Symantec & A (Score:5, Funny)
"Holy fucking shit fuck!"
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Virus scanner (Score:5, Informative)
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
Hardly a big surprise.... (Score:5, Informative)
Public Relations (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, give me a fucking break... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft didn't include these items, you'd be the same one fucking bitching that they weren't securing their software good enough.
Re:Oh, give me a fucking break... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Sharecropper Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, the idea is that if you're not developing for an open platform, you're a sharecropper. Your entire existance as a developer is predicated on the fact that you're working for someone else's platform that they own and control. If they decide that they like your product's functionality, they can either buy you out, or simply integrate it into the platform, most likely putting you out of business.
Apple has does this in the past, with Watson & Sherlock, and Microsoft has done this many, many times. Netscape, Winamp, and now Norton & McAfee. Microsoft has a pattern of simply offering a product as an additional download, then tying it into the next version of the OS with no real way to remove it.
What this means for Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, and the dozens of other AV people is not exactly clear yet. But it's a good possibility that many of their employees will be touching up their resumes once this Service Pack gets released. Unless, of course, they sue MS. Either way, I see this as a major strain on their business relationships with Microsoft.
Re:The Sharecropper Analogy (Score:3)
Stop bandying the word "Free" about (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's the only thing Microsoft can do to "make it right". After all, why should third parties be responsible for tracking viruses and such when it's Microsoft's fault for allowing them to exist in the first place?
I am forever telling my customers to buy antivirus software and making sure that their definitions are up to date, this is an added tax that corporations should never have had to pay. It's rediculous that in order to run a Microsoft product less adept users are forced to pay $40 for antivirus software and then $20 a year to keep getting definition updates. It often seems like an added tax that you're forced to pay even after you've already paid Microsoft for the privilege of using Windows.
So good for Microsoft. They've saved the bulk of their customers that much more money per annum and I think it is well past time they did this.
John the Kiwi
Is there really AV included? (Score:3, Insightful)
Burning the MS Bandwagon... All aboard! (Score:3, Interesting)
Shut your gob for once. Please.
*Not all open-sourcers, but you know who you are. You probably just modded me down, infact.
All anti-trust lawsuits aside... (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Linux AV software (Score:3, Funny)
#include
#include
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
printf("scanning");
for (i = 0; i 8; i++)
{
sleep(1);
printf(".");
}
printf("\nSCAN COMPLETE, YOUR COMPUTER IS VIRUS FREE.\n");
return 0;
}
Stripped Versions of Tools - no harm (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand remember Norton Commander? Total Commander has killed it.
Not the first time... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they were stripped down versions of Central Point Antivirus (which later got bought out by Symantec) in much the same way that the later DOS's SCANDISK and DEFRAG utilities were stripped down versions of the Norton's Utilites that performed the same functions...
I don't see why MS would bother to write their own virus scanner this time around, either... I'd think either of the big 2 companies would jump at the chance to license MS a stripped down version of their product, with a convenient "Upgrade now!" button prominently displayed, of course. Or maybe even the full product, but you'd still need a definition subscription from them. Basically, whichever company did it, would put the other one out of the desktop market.
I don't think either big player will go under, though, both McAfee and Symantec have well entrenched server markets... At one previous employer (Gov agency), the inter-departmental flame wars over what (if any) virus scanner to standardize on for departmental email servers reached a 'vi vs emacs'-like level.
When every user is Administrator (Score:4, Insightful)
An obvious first (and large) step would be to not have every user running with Administrator privileges. Has anyone heard of any initiative by Microsoft to change this unfortunate default?
Wouldn't running your everyday apps (e.g. Outlook, IE) as a non-privileged user mitigate a lot of these worms? Some of the worms that just blast off a emails via script would be unaffected, but those that install SMTP servers and other backdoor processes would be stopped.
The current setup seems just like giving everyone a key to your house and then hiring a team of live-in security guards.
Too bad Microsoft's software features are ultimately dictated by their marketing department and not by the user community. I really feel they need to break backwards compatibility, force users (even so-called "Power Users") to use unprivileged accounts, and provide a convenient equivalent to Unix's "su".
Sure, a lot of companies would have to release updates in order to cope with use by non-administrative users, but with the current hype around security these days, I would think most companies would be willing to do so for little or no charge. Most average Joes these days have heard of viruses, worms, etc...I think it would be really bad PR for a company to say, "well, MS improved the security of Windows, and it broke our software." Most, it seems, would rather say, "MS improved the security of Windows and our software is no exception...here's the free update you need."
Hearing the cries of anti-trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Should Windows not come with a firewall because someone else makes a firewall (Zone Alarm)? Should Windows not come with a browser, because someone else makes a browser(Netscape)? Should Windows not come with a TCP/IP stack, because someone else makes one(Trumpet)? Should Windows not include multitasking, a GUI or a memory manager because someone else makes those things? (DESQVIEW, Dr-DOS, QEMM)?
As time marches on things progress. In 1993 it was perfectly acceptable for a computer to require $80 worth of additional software just to browse the Internet. In 1998 you expected to be able to plug in a brand new Windows machine, tell it the number of your ISP, and be browsing the web right away.
Now if the only way you could buy Windows was by also buying Office that would be an abuse. But does anyone complain that a perfectly usable word processor, WordPad, is included with Windows? No, because it's a basic application. It's designed to give the casual, out of the box user the basic functionality they expect from their Windows computer. Windows XP included a basic firewall, the idea being that security was becoming a requirement rather then a luxury and so users should have something out of the box. Now is the included firewall very sophisticated? No. If you want a professional firewall you get one yourself. Same could be said for a lot of other features; you want a browser with tabs, popup blocking, automatic history on open, etc? Get a "professional" browser like Opera. The time has come that virus scanning is a requirement, not a luxury that only the 5% of users with a clue should have. MyDoom spread like wildfire, despite it being an easily detectable virus totally blocked by any version of Outlook updated in the last few years and requiring total user stupidity. MyDoom makes MS look bad because the child like masses expect someone else to take care of them. While some people want a professional virus scanner, the average 90% user wants it to be dealt with from the moment they turn on their Gateway machine.
Yea thats right, use a screwdriver for nails! (Score:3, Interesting)
I am stunned by how incredibly good salesmen they are and at the same time such loosers come to technology.
Microsoft is always wrong, correct? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since that scenario clearly will never happen, Microsoft is instead opting to create a program that will, in theory, eliminate or significantly reduce the threat of viruses and worms on their operating system. The end result of either patching up the OS or creating a good, integrated AV program is the same -- significant reduction of viruses and worms, much to the detriment of existing AV software. What's the big deal?
As much talk as I hear on Slashdot about how record companies are trying to cash in on a dead business model, I'm baffled that is hasn't occurred to anyone that AV companies are cashing in on a business model that, in theory, will completely dry up.
Not my problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I use a number of programs for which Microsoft has "integrated" alternatives. I use ACDSee Classic as an image viewer, I use Nero for burning CDs, I use WinRAR for archiving, I use Mozilla for web-browsing, I use Miranda for IM.
But to get ACDSee to work, I had to wend my way through assorted registry entries to disable the MS integrated version (changing registered filetypes wasn't enough). To uninstall MSN Messenger, I had to fiddle around with an
If Microsoft bundled an AV solution with Windows, and included it in the "Add/Remove Software" selection, as every other application is, or provided an uninstallation tool, I wouldn't mind. But based on track history, I'm going to be stuck with a lump of code taking up at the least disk space, and probably memory space and CPU time, that I don't use, don't want, and can't get rid of.
Warning! (dialog Box) (Score:5, Funny)
This program has not been signed by Microsoft!
It may be a virus...
{Why Microsoft Signing is important link}
(Button "Delete") (Button "Cancel" that ends whole virus scan) (Button "Invite Auditor")
Re:Antivirus software is better served at the rout (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Antivirus software is better served at the rout (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why you are not a Network Engineer.
Re:Tidiest technical solution?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tidiest technical solution?? (Score:5, Funny)
That's right ! Damn those operating systems that can run software !
You do realise the vast majority of viruses exploit nothing more than user gullibility, and that the "code" between the keyboard and the chair is outside of Microsoft's control, right ?
Re:Virus Scanner (Score:3, Insightful)
As at least one comment in every other thread of this story has mentioned: Microsoft included MSAV (MicroSoft Anti-Virus) with DOS-6. This is is not new to them, they are simply bring the idea back. Your comment is entirely incorrect. Quit trolling against Microsoft I guess these days, its pretty common knowledge. Also, you meant to use the word "it's", the contract of "it is", not "its", the possesive form of "it".