Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Bug Privacy

Will Microsoft Control the Anti-Spyware Market? 77

Posted by Cliff from the profiting-from-their-own-flaws dept.
jasondubya asks: "With all the recent publicity of Microsoft's new Anti-Spyware product, I wonder if there will be any room in the market for other companies? After recent comparisons between with current market leaders showed large failings in their products, do they stand a chance against the behemoth that is Microsoft?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Microsoft Control the Anti-Spyware Market? More

Will Microsoft Control the Anti-Spyware Market?

Comments Filter:

  • BRILLIANT! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by riffzifnab ( 449869 )
    Have people beta test commercial software for free... BRILLIANT!!!!!
    Distribute said beta anti-spyware software with windows updates.... BRILLIANT!!!!!
    Hook clueless users on our anti-spyware software... BRILLIANT!!!!
    Sell the software as a subscription.... BRILLIANT!!!!!
    Sell advertising company's the ability to have us take their software out of our spyware definitions.... BRILLIANT!!!!

    with apologies to Guinness

    • Re:BRILLIANT! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Itsik ( 191227 )
      What's so called BRILLIANT is the fact that now Microsoft can actually profit from their OSs flaws i.e. not bother to fix all the ones that can prevent spyware from getting in to begin with.

      If you want it taken care pay us an additional fee and you'll be "safe". Protection fee?

  • When you control the OS that makes it so easy for spyware companies to slide there software onto your machine.

    What's next? Microsoft and antivirus?

    Not that M$ shouldn't have a role in prevention of these problems. It would be more genuine of them to have a part by opening/improving the OS rather than profiting off of the widespread use of their weak product(s).

    • What's next? Microsoft and antivirus?

      Back in the MS-DOS days, they had MSAV which did exactly that. I'm not sure why they ditched it when they made Windows 95 tho.
    • Look at this as an opportunity.

      M$ has been tooting their own horn about lower TCO (and completely ignoring the facts). Now, if there is a subscription fee thrown in for this new anti-spyware tool, that drives up the TCO -> good for Linux.

      Of course, I am sure that M$ will skew the numbers so that they still have a lower TCO ("Linux causes your server to catch on fire, so you will need a new $2000 server every week -- Microsoft wins"). But this will make it harder.

  • Frankly... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:33PM (#11324346) Homepage Journal
    No. Not a hope. When Microsoft's Anti-Virus product is free (and, undoubtably, be bundled at some point) why would anybody buy or use another product?


    This'll be no different from the Browser Wars. In that case, Microsoft bought Spyglass and used its browser, offering it as a free download. In this case, they bought someone else and used their AV products, offering it as a free download.


    So far, there's not much evidence of any change in strategy. Enough so that several AV vendors are getting definitely twitchy. I'm not surprised. If they survive as long as Netscape did, it would be impressive.


    Oh, and don't expect the regulators to step in, any time soon. It was hard enough getting them to do anything when the Democrats were in office. There is absolutely sod all reason for them to do anything now.


    Finally, look at it from Microsoft's standpoint. They lost a court case in Europe, which harmed their share value and took a small nibble out of their pockets. With security being the current "watch-word", here is their big chance to take back some of that lost value. It'll also hamper European efforts to regulate them, as they can chown() technologies faster than the EU can ban them from doing so.

    • Agreed. 1) Buy some other company's product for below market value. 2) Bundle it for free long enough to drive everyone else out of the business. 3) Start charging 4) Profit!

    • When Microsoft's Anti-Virus product is free...

      Your whole post is about Anti-Virus products, while the story has nothing to do with Anti-Virus products. Yay moderators.

      • viruses and worm are a variety of malware just like spyware. I don't see that much difference between the three, a program that is installed w/o my permission and does thing not in my best interest.

    • Re:Frankly... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shaka999 ( 335100 )
      While I'm no MS fan, doesn't anyone else see that they HAVE do start offering virus and spyware applications?

      MS gets killed for being vulnerable everyday here on slashdot. Now they are trying to put some tools in place to help the standard user and they get beat on for using their monopoly.

      This is a bit different than debating MS adding a media player or even a browser.
      • Yes and no. First, if they'd written the software themselves, it would be very different. They would not be seen as plundering a market, but rather entering it on level footing.

        Second, there's nothing to stop them "locking-down" any installed binary, such that the OS would prohibit ANY changes to those binaries unless the user specifically granted permission. That would kill any viruses that spread by infecting binaries, although embedded code would not be protected this way.

        Third, there's nothing to st

    • When MS has the market dominance in spyware detection and removal, I expect them to sell out like Aluria did (reported in this [slashdot.org] older slashdot post).

      Microsoft used to bundle a virus checker back in the DOS days. Where is it now? Gone. I expect this product to destroy most of the ecosystem and then get dropped for some business reason.

  • In this case... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by avalys ( 221114 ) * on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:33PM (#11324358)
    Obviously, if Microsoft's software is better than the competition's, they will dominate the market. Microsoft usually gets along fine without selling software that actually works, so with that in their favor for once they should do even better.

    The real debate is whether Microsoft will still dominate the market if a competitor gets its act together and produces a product that works better than Microsoft AntiSpyware.

    I think the answer is yes - look at the success of Firefox. Even mainsteam users are slowly learning that there are superior alternatives to Microsoft products. I don't think any new Microsoft product that's worse than the competition will be able to survive long.
    • If it comes bundled with a future release of the OS or a Service Pack, it doesn't need to be better - it just needs to be "good enough".
    • Firefox is NOT a good example. The main reason that Firefox is better is because M$ has done NOTHING to their browser in the past few years.

      When M$ kicks things into high gear, they can add a lot of nice features to a product in a short period of time (meanwhile ignoring security and standards). Browsers are not somthing that they show an interest in right now (but that may change again if IE looses too much share). Spyware IS something that they are obviously interested in. Therefore, they should be a

  • Why not? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:33PM (#11324360) Journal
    They already control the Spyware market, so logically they have the most experience with it...

    Seriously, if MS's Antispyware app DOESN'T fail just as bad as the other products in the long run, then that's some pretty good conspiracy fodder..

    1) Become market leader in desktop and workstation software, but allow tons of security problems to get exploited until the problem reaches epedemic proportions

    2) Develop (or in this case, aquire and modify) additional software to fix the problem you created in the first place

    3) Profit!
    =Smidge=
  • Will Microsoft Control the Anti-Spyware Market?
    From the resounding number of posts from people rushing to recommend it (at this moment 0 of 2 comments ten minutes after /.'s posting), I say it's a definite no. Without any geeks/gurus recommending it - in fact bashing it - they won't gather momentum even if they shove it down user's throats via Windows Update.

  • Yup, just like they control the Anit-Virus market (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:41PM (#11324503) Homepage
    I can't see it. Already people like us are accustomed to running two or three different anti-spyware products each time. I can't think that an MS product will be any more effective over the long term than either of Spybot or Ad-Aware, or the other variants.

    Consequently even if you have MS Anti-Spyware running, you will double check with at least one or two other programs just to be sure.

    Let's not forget that MS even had anti-virus built into an OS at one time, and it disappeared, had backup software built into an OS, and it disappeared, and has at various times tried to undercut outside vendors without success.

    As well, it seems pretty obvious that the Bad Guys are going to find the security holes in the MS product very fast, and begin tailoring their products to exploit them. How fast can MS play catch up?

  • Microsoft provides the avenues through which most spyware operates. By definition, therefore, they have total control over most of the anti-spyware (and spyware) market. Were they to remove the vulnerabilities in their software that allow spyware to be installed (unbeknownst to the computer's owner) they would eliminate the market for anti-spyware. If a user knowingly permits spyware on their machine it should, on a well-constructed system, be simple to monitor and remove.

    Buying risk-control software

  • Microsoft buys a company that writes anti-spyware software and tries to sell the product. So essentially, if I got this right, Microsoft is selling software that protects you from holes in ...the software they wrote? Why doesn't that sound right?

    Yes, I tried the beta and it does have (by far) the best interface of all the anti-spyware products. That doesn't make it an instant winner though. Do people trust Microsoft to protect them? And if so, why didn't they protect us with Windows in the first place?
    • It isn't as effect a marketing tool if they build it seemlessly into the Operating system.

      Like AOL's new Anti-virus shtick, It gives the average user a feature that they can wrap their head around. A system task that lets them feel like they have control over their computing environment.

      holes in ...the software they wrote

      I'd also like to point out that even precious Linux has security holes.
      • I'd also like to point out that even precious Linux has security holes

        Yes, but isn't that tantamount to admitting they wrote something that is broken?

        If I buy RHEL, Red Hat doesn't try to SELL me a product whose sole purpose is to make sure their own poor design decisions are covered. They give me access to their up2date servers.
        • Microsoft Windows users get free access to update servers for security patches and the rare service packs.

          Unless you've managed to purchase some odd windows license/software that doesn't allow you to access the Microsoft's Windows Update servers.

          You even have the option of not installing the updates if you wish.(at this point)
    • > Microsoft is selling software that protects you from holes in ...the software they wrote?

      You're wrong if you think security holes are they main way this stuff gets installed. Spyware usually comes bundled with freeware programs (Kazaa etc) or is installed by social engineering (Your computer may be broadcasting an IP Address!!).
      • Good point, but let's not forget all the wonderful ad ware that gets installed when you visit a website...

        I'm sure Microsoft could do something about that if they wanted to, but their new pop-up blocker really doesn't help all that much.
  • They will also control the spyware market itself.
  • Shouldn't it be Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that their product (which millions would buy no questions asked) is secure from uncaring and spiteful companies wishing to spy on Microsoft's customers? I think this is in Microsoft's and Joe Consumer's interest. I haven't ran Microsoft (notice no M$ or "microshaft") for 5 years but I think this would be the least they could do considering they have they way majority of desktop computers running their software.
  • How much time does it take between:

    Microsoft taking a stand on spyware because everyone griped about it.

    -and-

    Someone griping about it because they are abusing their monopoly by taking a stand on spyware.

    ??

    Wouldn't it be nice if your grandma's computer had a firewall, antivirus and anti-spyware when she took it out of the box? It might give the back of my firewall a break. It probably won't happen though. People will get sue happy as usual with MS. I'm surprised ZoneAlarm and Blackice and those guys
    • You have a very good point. I am not a huge fan of some of Microsoft's business moves but your point is valid. If the path to a secure Windows PC out of the box is a bundled Firewall/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Virus then so be it. It will make it easier supporting the inlaws.

  • It's not about spyware, stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drakaan ( 688386 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:05PM (#11324990) Homepage Journal
    This is an example of a shrewd move on Microsoft's part, and it has very little to do with wanting to control the AV market.

    One nugget of info can be gleaned by going through the process of installing their Spyware removal software. They mention that you have a chance to verify your Microsoft Software is genuine, and they *also* mention that in the future doing so may be *required*.

    Think about that for a second. How many illegal copies of Windows are out there? How much money does Microsoft *not* make on those copies of Windows? They discovered a must-have software product (that I expect they won't charge for, other than the price of a copy of Windows if you're running unlicensed) that they can use to solve most of their piracy woes. It's clever, but I suppose it's fair.

    The diabolical part is that once you install their Spyware removal tool, they have a perfect way to scare the clueless into removing software that they (Microsoft) don't especially like. When I ran it the first time, it identified winPcap and WinVNC (the *client*, for crying out loud!) as spyware and gave me scary warnings about wanting to remove them. It's only a matter of time before OpenOffice makes the list, and a lot of people will either accept the defaults and delete whatever Microsoft Tells them to, or will be unsure about how safe it is to run a given piece of software and reluctantly delete it.

    There are a few companies I trust to give me a decent list of spyware apps to detect, and Microsoft isn't one of them. They don't want to control the AV market or the Spyware market, they want to decide for you about *any* programs you install on your PC.

    • I'm all for getting rid of the pirated copies of Windows/Office/etc.. If OSS is going really make an impact, it will be in providing feature compatible alternatives to commercial offerings, reducing the amount of free market influence that commercial companies enjoy when somebody steals their software.

      I don't even mind them listing 'potentially' unsafe programs as long as they allow the user to select which programs are to remain untouched.

      "Safe" software is a very subjective term. If I noticed winPcap o
    • I blew todays dose of modpoints and now comes a comment with a really important twist to the story! MS's earlier amnesty for folks with pirated XPs who wanted SP2 was not swaying a lot of those underserved, underground users. This may catch some of the less wary users. Great comment.
    • winpcap is needed for xbconnect [xbconnect.com] a tool which lets you play Xbox games over the internet with other people which otherwise you wouldn't be able to such as the first Halo. Since it can still be used for XBox Live enabled games of course they wouldn't want you to have it on your computer.
      From their website: XBConnect is "Next Generation" Game Console Tunnel Software for Windows that allows you to play Microsoft XBox System link, and Sony PSP games over the internet.

  • So let me see if I understand this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xentax ( 201517 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:06PM (#11325017)
    If MS does nothing, it's being negligent (I've seen 'criminally negligent' bandied about before) by leaving the OS so vulnerable to spyware.

    If they *give away* a solution, they're being monopolistic against the existing or potentially soon-to-exist anti-spyware vendors (Norton, CA, et. al).

    If they *charge* for a solution, they're being greedy/capitalistic/whatever by charging for something they should be giving away.

    Sounds like a no-win situation to me.

    But, consider the Firewall situation. MS ships a *basic* firewall, blocks only inbound, not very configurable, but does support Group Policy settings and is thus enterprise friendly.

    This *seems* to have left a market for both corporate and consumer firewall software. Granted, there are both free and pay solutions out there for both.

    Maybe that would please everyone? If MS's solution was free, and reasonably effective, but not quite 'everything to everyone'? It would really NEED to be enterprise-friendly, IMHO, since I really think MS should be on the hook to provide at least some form of protection/removal as part of the OS (like the ICF in XP, the disk defragmenter, hopefully some future Anti-Virus solution as well).

    But, and the end of the day, if Company X can't make a cheap product that does Anti-Spyware better than MS's, there really ISN'T a market that people should be crying about the loss of. Remember, MS didn't drop a billion+ dollars into developing what appears to be one of the better solutions out there; they bought one of the existing product companies.

    Players like Norton and CA (should) be able to compete if there's anything there worth competing over -- be it breadth of coverage (signatures, mutation detection, etc.), ease of use (particularly where removing the nasty self-healing malware is concerned), time to updates when new threats surface, ability to block/blunt new/unknown threats, etc.

    Xentax
  • ...on why anti-spyware is different from browsers or office suites (both of which MS has gained a monopoly):
    • Microsoft might have an opinion or two about which software should be considered "spyware" (a competitor's product that "happens" to end up on their spyware list for a few critical months) and "not spyware" (Microsoft's or their partners' products that talk back home);
    • The extreme example would be that Microsoft Windows natively allowed installation of "approved" and digitally signed software only
  • It used to be that anyone going against MS didn't stand a chance but nowadays everyone is going after what MS has so MS has too many fronts to protect. Gates is just Napoleon or Hitler, one day everyone and everything goes against them and their plans fail, they cave in and suddenly the world is a better place!
    • You have it backwards. MS isn't defending on too many fronts. They are attacking on more and more fronts. They won't have to worry about defending as long as they win. History is filled with great conquerors who attacked on multiple fronts and just kept going. It's quite possible to take your victories to your grave like Qin Shi Huangdi, or Alexander the 3rd (the great). MS isn't even breathing hard yet. Heck, they just expanded their campus in Redmond!

  • They facilitated the whole spyware market, so why should we stop them from reaping the rewards? Go Microsoft!
  • Mr. Cringely seems to think [pbs.org] that Microsoft will tank in its attempt to control the anti-spyware and anti-virus market. I am not quite sure what his arguments are because he doesn't offer any but he promises to write about this extensively in his next column.
  • Speaking of microsofts antispyware thing, anyone see windowsupdate lately? Theres a critical update called "Malicious Software Removal Tool - January 2005 (KB890830)"

    "This tool checks your computer for infection by specific, prevalent malicious software (including Blaster, Sasser, and Mydoom) and helps remove any variants found. You should also use an antivirus product to remove other malicious software that may be present. This tool helps maintain your computer, and its appearance does not indicate that y
  • Microsoft should own the anti-spyware market, and for that matter the anti-virus market as well. Both viruses and spyware are largely a product of Window's poor track record as an OS that can protect itself.

    I think it's nuts that Windows is so vulnerable out of the box that it cannot reasonably be connected to the Internet without a slew of 3rd party software JUST to make to do what it's supposed to do: be an operating system.

    If Microsoft can own the markets, then they will also own the responsibility o

  • Microsoft created this market (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dracos ( 107777 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @06:01PM (#11326859)

    I'm surprised it took them so long to become a player in it, not just the progenitor.

  • Unlike exverything else MS has tried to tie into their OS (GUI, browsers, media players, etc.) - I would REALLY like to see them build SECURITY into their OS. There's really no excuse to all the vulnerabilities to viruses, spyware, trojans, and other forms of malware. After stability, security should be MS's highest priority.
  • Why don't they just lean on spybot and take it over. At least that's what they did during the browser wars.
  • ...the more computer systems will slip through your fingers.

    The Linux installer. The ultimate remover for malicious spyware.

    Bob-

  • When was the last time you found a Microsoft product that worked really well and where there was not a better alternative? MS Office? Na, Wordperfect is my choice. Internet Explorer? Nope, Firefox. Windows? Not really, I only run it because of the apps, and I have FreeBSD on another machine anyway (is that what they mean by "Windows Terminal Services"?)

    It's their rubbish software that lets the malware in. Having a tool to remove it after the fact is kinda missing the point.
  • I installed MS's spyware detection tool through Windows Update ... and I can't find it anywhere. Start menu, control panels. Maybe it's in the security center? Nope. How about administrative tools? Nope. Guess I'll have to search the knowledge base for it or something.

    So they expect average folks to use this how?
  • After all, they already control the spyware market ;-)

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Cheers,
    Adolfo

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close