RSSMicrosoft to Squash Malware with 'A1'
By David Worthington | Published January 5, 2005, 1:07 AM
Microsoft's upcoming antivirus/anti-spyware subscription service, dubbed "A1" is going beta. Microsoft Watch is reporting that even while Redmond has remained tight-lipped, it has silently begun to inform partners of its plans for the service. A1 will "secure the perimeter" around Windows, making flaws in its design less significant than in the past.
The news about A1 comes as the first indicator of what form the software giant's much anticipated antivirus solution will take following its acquisition of GeCAD in the summer of 2003. What's more, Microsoft also purchased Giant Company Software last month to obtain anti-spyware technology, and common sense dictates that the software should also turn up in the service.
Windows enthusiast site Neowin.net has claimed that Microsoft's rendition of Giant's technology is code-named "Atlanta," and has produced screenshots that suggest that Microsoft is also developing the software as a standalone application that may be available as a free download. Microsoft Watch has also hinted that some components of both services may one day be baked into Windows.
It is unclear how much A1 will borrow from the lessons learned during Microsoft's shelved PC Satisfaction trial where it bundled third party antivirus firewall solutions, as well as back up and PC health monitoring services into a single interface. PC health monitoring has since been incorporated into Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Microsoft's MSN business unit is gearing up to offer a hosted back up and restore subscription.
Microsoft is not alone in its quest to stamp out worms, viruses and other Windows-related exploits. Like Microsoft, rival America Online is not a security vendor, but has introduced AOL 9.0 Security Edition to protect its customers against malware after examining the scope of the problem. However there is one key difference: AOL's software licenses technology from McAfee.
While Microsoft has done the same in the past with the PC Satisfaction Trial, it is now in the security business itself. Vendors did not return requests for comment on what could be perceived as an intrusion onto their turf, but there are rumblings of anxiety throughout Internet newsgroups that signal a growing unease. BetaNews has contributing evidence detailing the sector's concerns in a previous report where remarks came directly from a leading security vendor.
Further details are not available at this time.
I bet out of a hundred people only 2 uses MacOS, 5 uses Linux, and the rest are on Windows OS.
Windows XP is one of the best OS MS ever developed.
And what kind of country we live in? Capitalism!! To make as much as money possible!! Money talks you know...
Score: 0
|Run under a user account.
Score: 0
|An anti-spyware subscription service. That just sounds like another way of milking inexperienced users who don't know better. If they had any ethics they would just tell everyone about the already-established services.
And if they're going to integrate something else into Windows, they'll have the courts after them they way they were over IE and WMP integration.
Score: 0
|You're gonna talk about ethics when there people out there who actually write these exploits and viruses? Give me a break! Put blame where blame is due.
There is a legitimate problem with security. However, despite the holes in Windows, there are free methods to resolve those issues as well as user-enabled options that can be set to prevent those holes from being problems in the first place. In fact, 10 minutes in Tools > Internet Options from IE can work miracles.
So tell me... is it unethical for a business to charge money for a service that helps protect people who are unable/unwilling to protect themselves? If so, Symantec, McAfee, and every other AV/Spyware vendor needs to close their doors, because they're doing the same thing.
Score: 0
|Hope they don't make it a must-have service and use it an excuse for trojan attacks.
The Indian Blogger
http://labnol.blogspot.com
Score: 0
|As usual, MS will put together a baseline half-baked solution, and 3rd parties will put out something better.
Score: 0
|That's fine by me... prevents antitrust complaints, lol... and it encourages competition.
Score: 0
|If they did beat the competition they'll be sued anyway, so you're probably right. Something is better than nothing, as long as it isn't a process that takes up 30 MB of ram and uses 20% of cpu utilisation, that is...and AS LONG AS MS ALLOWS YOU TO COMPLETELY UNINSTALL (NOT DISABLE!!!) THE FEATURE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE SUED.
Score: 0
|Yep, now MS will be sued since they have their own anti-malware. *yawn*
Score: 0
|Long gone are the win3.1 days where you could edit a simple .ini file to change just about anything in the OS. Now we find WinXP bloated with ugly resource hungry skins, a CD burner licensed from Roxio that took them 7 months after the OS went gold to fix ... even then I don't know anyone that uses it [smart people use Nero]. A firewall that blocks incoming only [leave it to MS to do things half-assed] ... and so on and so on. Someone needs to remind Gates of the "K.I.S.S." rule ... Keep It Simple Stupid !!! Code the OS properly and you won't need any anti-virus or anti-spyware software. Strip WinXP down and whats left is Win2K with a few extra Admin Tools. I've had the displeasure of "testing" a number of Longhorn builds and all I can say is thank god for Solaris and the many flavors of Linux. Get a clue Billy boy ... strip the OS down to the basics and close up the holes BEFORE you layer on all the other useless crap !! I do NOT own any Microsoft stock, and I've advised many to sell what they have because I don't like the direction MS is headed. If they can't code it themselves then they buy it ... and then try and bundle it all into one obnoxiously priced package. The one remaining bright spot is Office, which is available in many different configurations, as well as individual components. You'd think they'd do the same thing with their OS as well.
Score: 0
|"If they can't code it themselves then they buy it"
I'm so over this argument, it's called business practices and most if not all large companies do it...at least the ones with any business sense do.
It's like critising a company for outsourcing "they can't do it themselves, so they hire someone else to do it"
Score: 0
|...or like criticising the Open Source development model for involving more than one developer. "If you can't code it yourself, don't come crawling to the community for help!".
The strength of the Open Source community, and I feel it's a strength that Microsoft are trying to emulate by "buying in" specialised talent, is in their ability to recruity very narrow-focus specialists to work on projects.
Score: 0
|You seem to forget that features don't just come out of thin air... features are created to satisfy the requests and demands of a significant user-base.
You also seem to ignore the fact that features like "themes", while I agree are cutesy and unnecessary, are part of just about every major application on the market thanks to umpteen different media players and browsers that offer the feature... It's not good enough to listen to music or surf the web... we've got to do those things -- IN STYLE! ;)
Bottom line, however, just because YOU don't use the features doesn't mean a majority of other people don't either.
Score: 0
|Agreed... and hopefully, the people making such claims aren't business managers and marketers, because otherwise, I fear, they would be the ones that failed to market their products successfully and then went crying to the department of justice about it. (*coughNetscapeAndRealPlayercough*)
Additionally, I don't think it's a matter of not being able to code it... I think it's more a protection against copyright infringement... if you can't license the existing code from them, and your code would infringe on their copyrights, the only choice left is to buy them out so that the copyrights become yours.
Score: 0
|I wish MS had a plain-jane version of Windows still--well, that they still supported, anyway. But the fact remains, MS wouldn't be providing this service if they didn't think it would help them. You may hate them and their marketing techniques, but hey, they're making more money than we are!
Score: 0
|Yes MS is a LITTLE bloated, but look at MOST Linux installs. Should I use RH and MD both are over 2 gigs after you install half of what you need. Lets see my MS comes on one cd RH and MD both on three. Hmmmm Bloated?
Score: 0
|"Code the OS properly and you won't need any anti-virus or anti-spyware software."
so you want to remove the code that allows you to network to any other computers/servers? or were you saying run the os into the ground so that no one wants to use it and therefore our virus writing friends will have no interest in it?
Score: 0
|Taking into account the statement above of Microsoft using this software to make "flaws in {Windows} design less significant" and the fact that to date Microsoft has done _nothing_ if not a sloppy job of protecting its clients computers, I am not of the viewpoint that it will be a big seller...
But then again, there is Microsoft's fantastic "sell you the lint from your own clothes" marketing. If only the Windows engineers were allowed to be as bright about how Windows is built...
Score: 0
|Oh please... no other company besides Symantec and a handful of other antivirus companies issue more updates and solutions than Microsoft.
Sure, sure... you'll get the "well if they code it right the first time" people who wouldn't know code if it bit them in the rump-roast, but the fact is... Microsoft spent years coding their applications to provide functionality and features that their customers demanded.
Next thing you know, though, malicious people are out there using those features against people, and rather than step-up and say, "Dang, it's my fault because I clicked the stupid link, ran the file, and clicked Yes when it asked if I wanted to sell my soul"... instead we blame it on Microsoft, because it's their product that allowed us to be stupid in the first place.
As for doing "_nothing_" about security... I will simply point out that thanks to Windows XP Service Pack 2, I have seen significantly fewer spyware infections from the start outside of applications that are intentionally downloaded by the user and installed through crapware like "Kazaa" and "Ares" etc.
Bottom line, we can blame Microsoft for allowing us tools and options that allow people to be extremely malicious, stupid, and lazy, but we can't blame them for ACTUALLY BEING lazy, malicious, and stupid.
Score: 0
|Let's use the car analogy...
Automobile manufacturers build in seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, and more, but you won't stop drivers from speeding and reckless driving. As the automobile manufacturers have built features to satisfy public demand, they have also attempted to add safety devices along the way.
You won't stop reckless computer users from downloading spyware and viruses, but you can build in safety devices to help protect the user from their behavior.
Microsoft has been seriously remiss in this area.
Score: 0
|Everyone wants to bash MS all of the time. MS has a better OS it is just well known and used. Every version of Linux that I have ever tried and use all have major security holes yet no one ever points those out. No one really cares. Stop crying if you don't like it, don't use it!
Score: 0
|Well, maybe MS is producing more security updates because there are now over 100,000 viruses designed to spread on windows, but only a handful on Linux, Unix, Novell, and a few dozen on MacOS. Yes, MacOS has had more viruses than any other OS other than Microsoft Windows and MS-DOS. Anyway, read my comment above...
Score: 0
|Is this overlooking the fact that car manufacturers regularly issue recalls on their vehicles for safety reasons?
Nothing these companies do can account for the fact that someone out there will screw it up for everyone else.
Score: 0
|