| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MS mulls charging for anti-spyware app | |
|
||
| Time: 08:34 EST/13:34 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Microsoft is leaving its options open on charging for full versions of anti-spyware and virus disinfection tools. Speaking in London yesterday, Detlef Eckert, chief security adviser for Microsoft EMEA, revealed there will be a second beta of Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware application. However, the company remains unsure how the product will evolve from then on. "It could evolve into a consumer or enterprise product. There could be a basic and plus version," he said. The first beta of Windows AntiSpyware is free of charge, as is recently-released Microsoft Windows malicious software removal tool. Will users be prepared to pay extra for tools from Microsoft to clean up the malware mess that is almost the exclusive preserve of the Windows desktop? Eckert thinks that they might - although he emphasised that Microsoft has made no firm decision. "Users value investment and there is a willingness to pay for it," he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:59:52 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1868 (141.133.152.114) at 1/27/2005 9:07:44 AM |
|
I know it's not MS's fault that spyware exists, but Users are becoming more and more afraid to go online and go shopping online. Microsoft should offer consumers a completely full free version and bundled the updates into windows update. Microsoft should then consider charging for an enterprise version with all of the group policy and active directory hooks included.
Microsoft do right by the users of your software, give it away completely free, the full version and been seen in a positive light as helping to rid the world of spyware. My 2 cents. |
| #2 By 8556 (12.217.161.186) at 1/27/2005 10:31:00 AM |
| Well said Zeo01. Additionally, if MS charges consumers for Microsoft AntiSpyware, right or wrong, there likley will be class action and other lawsuits hitting them from around the world. Lawyers love catch-22 situations. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 1/27/2005 10:41:23 AM |
| This whole mess could have been avoided if MS made a security conscious decision to not make the default user an admin. |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/27/2005 11:58:10 AM |
| Exactly, Zeo... Microsoft would be ridiculed if they charge for this software, and rightly so (Adaware, etc. are freebies for personal use as well). In this case, I don't think there are too many that would argue against Microsoft bundling the software with the OS, turned on by default (and I think they learned their lesson with their XP firewall that it should be turned on by default). Lavasoft et al may disagree, but Microsoft should be able to offer fixes for their own software for free. Charging for those fixes... that would be a mistake. Spyware can make a machine nearly unusable. |
| #5 By 6859 (206.156.242.39) at 1/27/2005 12:49:00 PM |
|
If MS gives it away, they open themslves up to potential lawsuits by manufacturers that will be shut out because they charge for their antispyware; if they charge for it, people will moan that they don't really care and are just money-grubbing and evil.
MS can't win in that situation. The problem with the default admin user scenario, as talked about, is that there isn't quite enough granularity of control on permissions. A user on a multi-user Windows XP Professional installation has no rights to the CDRW drive unless he's an administrator. That's plain wrong. MS should move that to Power Users. I've had to deal with that plenty of times, it sucks. |
| #6 By 2960 (156.80.64.60) at 1/27/2005 1:39:44 PM |
|
They can mull themselves right on out the door :)
As I see it, this is their cork for their holes. It's a security update if nothing else. TL |
| #7 By 1868 (141.133.152.114) at 1/27/2005 2:30:28 PM |
|
Antivirus and Antispyware tools and a host of other useful tools would be part of the operating system is Microsoft was allowed to be competitive, however Microsoft can never integrate antispyware, and antivirus tools into the OS because of stupid Antitrust regulations.
I'm sorry Mcafee, Norton, and the other 40 Antivirus companies that are out there, you can still sell your product but Microsoft should be able to as well, and Microsoft should be able to innovate by integrating Virus and Anti-Spyware tools into the core OS. That's not to say that those couldn't do it better, but Antitrust law ruins Microsoft's ability to innovate new tools into the heart of their OS. I hate how the government meddles with business. Further, Microsoft may have to actually charge for subscriptions to its antispyware tools just to comply with the government's rules. If that is actually the case Microsoft should come out and say publically that they can't provide technologies that would benefit their customers because of government red tape. These tools and technologies, antivirus and antispyware, should be included in the base OS image just like disk defragmentor, scandisk, and wireless networking tools are. This post was edited by Zeo01 on Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 14:30. |
| #8 By 11131 (64.132.138.66) at 1/27/2005 2:35:01 PM |
|
#3 By tgnb
"This whole mess could have been avoided if MS made a security conscious decision to not make the default user an admin." It does not matter if they are admins or not. In our corp environment, the user's are not admins and are locked down so that they cannot install apps (or even change their homepage) but the ad-ware still get installed on their computers and their homepages still get changed even though it is greyed out and they can not change it themselves. Once their homepage gets hi-jacked they cannot even change it back because they don't have the rights to do it but yet some rogue website does have "rights" to change it and even install apps that the users do not have the rights to install (thanks to MS's insecure browser/OS). Alister |
| #9 By 7711 (68.39.157.214) at 1/27/2005 3:43:19 PM |
| So why not do what Ad-aware and Spybot do? Theyshoulf have a lite or SE edition that's free for personal use and a "professional" version that's more full featured and charge for that. |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/27/2005 3:56:36 PM |
| #16, because many would argue--I think rightly so--that they'd be charging customers for a fix for their own product. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 1/27/2005 4:04:33 PM |
| al_friend while you describe another contributor to this mess (mainly unpatched holes in IE) I don't believe this to be the overall main purpetrator. The only way spyware can install on a computer where the user doesn't have admin (or power user) rights is by spyware exploiting bugs in the software that essentially lead to system compromise. |
| #12 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 1/27/2005 4:53:36 PM |
| tgnb: The user has to be able to install the application somehow, and if they can install their applications, they can install their spyware.... it doesn't matter what security level is the default. |
| #13 By 7711 (68.39.157.214) at 1/27/2005 5:00:17 PM |
| #17...is it MS's fault that users are idiots and will install anything free? Granted, the scumware makers are truly at fault, but the users have to be more aware as well. |
| #14 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/27/2005 5:29:42 PM |
| #22, dream on--it won't happen. Have you seen some of this stuff? I have sympathy on users, because some of it is downright nasty. The education level is just not going to be good enough. What are the stats, something like 80% of PCs are infected with spyware? I wouldn't doubt it... and you just can't call all 80% of those users "idiots." |
| #15 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 1/27/2005 8:57:49 PM |
|
CPUGuy, for an average user, installing new software isn't an everyday task. So a user will notice much easier that a program is trying to be installed, if the user is prompted for a password. Yeah of course it will still install if he give it. But since a normal user doesnt often install software, having to enter that password will much more likely make him question what the hell it is that is trying to be installed.
But why am I even explaining this to you. Do you really want to argue whether or not the default user being admin is insecure and why? This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 20:59. |
| #16 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 1/27/2005 10:26:58 PM |
| Hiply: Are you suggesting that it is impossible for an application to be piggybacked in Linux? It's no different than installing any other application, the installer just doesn't tell you that it is installing this crap software, except perhaps in the EULA. |
| #17 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 1/28/2005 10:04:56 AM |
|
#22,
The worst infections I've seen these days are via drive-by installs through holes in IE. The user never see's, hears or knows it ever happened. There's always evidence of Kazaa, Smiley's, or other infected software installs. I do see them, but not in the majority of cases. The majority of cases I see are quiet installs the user never even knew about. TL |
| #18 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 1/28/2005 4:10:02 PM |
|
Tech: for something to get installed via IE the user has to accept it, they have to say yes, install this software.
Now, maybe the cracker took advantage of a hole in IE that allows full access to the computer, but that is generally not spyware, and more likely stolen/deleted info, messed up system, etc... |
| #19 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 1/31/2005 11:02:58 AM |
| Installing Software is not a common everyday task for average computer users no matter how LinuxIsTheft would like us to think so. Its absurd to suggest that the primary user should be an admin. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:59:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
