MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service 359
user24 writes "MSN reports that Microsoft 'is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better protection for the Windows operating system, which has been vulnerable to Internet attacks.
Windows Live OneCare will protect up to three computers for about 50 dollars a year.'
From the OneCare website: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'"
Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, users can't be patched.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:4, Funny)
There are Nicotine patches to stop smoking,
Birth Control patches for unwanted pregnancies,
so why not Microsoft patches to quit Windows?
Sure they can (Score:3, Funny)
Sure they can - I slap a Mac on 'em. Then they can't click on anything stupid because there is nothing to click on yet that causes harm.
Yes there could be - but it's hard to ignore the plain fact that there isn't.
Like all patches, it may not last forever but it does fix the immediate problem.
Re:Sure they can (Score:3, Funny)
Make it sufficiently profitable and that will change in a heartbeat. There have been exploitable problems in OS X, its not like it's impossible to do. Moving to OS X and staying an idiot user fixes nothing, it delays the inevitable for a bit.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows is a clusterfuck because of Microsoft's poor coding and design choices, not because of users.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:4, Insightful)
Then how can it be possible to run a problem-free Windows installation simply by following a handful of common-sense pointers ?
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:2)
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:4, Funny)
Actually Windows Live OneCare comes withe a trained MS Goon that whacks you on the top of the head whenever you do something stupid. That's the "live" part.
I didn't quite get the "allowing you to have fun" bit though.
In my country (Score:5, Funny)
In my country, we patch them regularly.
- Vladimir
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:5, Insightful)
[sarcasm] Oh, yeah, right it's ALL the user's fault. And *nix allows remote users to make changes to your system without your knowledge or permission whenever you're online too. And let's not forget that ton of Unix viruses that have made the internet nearly impossible to use because all the servers keep failing. And of course, *nix also requires a whole bunch of third-party software to secure it as well. Oh, and all OSes have browsers with Active X![/sarcasm]
Yes, a lot of users are stupid. But if the vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place there would be far fewer problems. If Windows was as secure as OS X -- and sorry, Apple fans, it's not as secure as some other *nix distros -- a virus would be a rare thing simply because it wouldn't have anything to work with. So, yeah, if they fixed it that would eliminate most viruses right there. Despite the stereotypes many would have you believe, there are a lot of Mac users who are just as clueless as the Windows user you're describing, but their systems haven't been compromised because the OS they're using isn't horribly insecure to begin with.
How to secure Windows by yours truly (hope this makes sense; I haven't had much coffee yet):
1. Firewall! Better still firewall + hardware router.
2. Anti-virus. I recommend Avast! for 2k and XP, AVG for 9x. If you want to pay for anti-virus, I've heard NOD32 is the best, with Kaspersky's coming in a close second.
3. Win Patrol [winpatrol.com] prevents many changes fromt aking place without your permission; just scroll down the page for the link to download the free version.
4. If you're using Xp, get xpy [softpedia.com] which can disable a whole lot of Windows problems, such as the remote regsitry severice which allows remote users to change your registry whenever you're online -- yes, MS made it that on purpose and isn't going to fix it -- and Active X, Windows' most infamous security hole. You need to know what you're doing with this program though; if you don't, get someone who does to help you.
5. Be careful. Research *everything* you'd like to install. Check the program's ratings at download sites and do a search on the program's name with a good search engine.
Personally, though, I tend to think Winsdows is hopeless. Patches aren't enough, the system needs to be built from the ground up with much higher security. That means a lot of programs wouldn't even work after that. And would MS provide this as a free fix to all of their customers? Ha!
But speculation is useless. Microsoft is never going to try to really fix Windows; as successful as they've been already, why should they? Especially not when they can make money selling services to protect Windows! Never mind that they should've built a secure OS in the first place like practically everyone else did.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:3, Informative)
Forget firewalls, at least for home networks. The only thing I rely on to make a Windows PC safe from incoming attacks is NAT. Put the box behind a NAT router and only forward ports when necessary. Bang, zero chance of anything getting in and it's relatively cheap, as well. It also makes firewalls (which sometimes tend to cause more harm than good) obsolete.
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
2. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
3. Profit!
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
1. Build an OS that's so hard to use only geeks can use it
2. Charge 50 dollars for documentation/support
3. Profit!
Oh wait, that's Redhat
IBM does it better (Score:4, Insightful)
Love those mainframes.
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".
Perhaps that's too much to ask.
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
"you've got this car, and we have basic locks and alarms installed. It's 20k."
"Now if you want some windows on your car to stop people from climbing through, or the locks to actually work correctly instead of being able to be broken by this simple knife, then you'll have to pay 10k per year."
Doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3)
1. Build hardware which is not always as great as everyone says
2. Charge 200$ for replacing a stupid button
3. Profit!
Re:We've known the second step for ages. (Score:3, Interesting)
Spent the entire day dealing with the CFO's laptop - one of those that happens in a Fortune 100 company on occasion. XP on a Dell decided to stop handling IP - Outlook would seize, IE and Firefox were hosed. Other than a rebuild, the system was screwed. Whole damn thing was tired. Typical fscking Microsoft "This system is more than 2 years old - I'm ready to die" crap. As if SOX regulators thought that way.
Interestingl
In search of the almighty $ (Score:5, Insightful)
Prevention is less profitable than response, thus, they'll never try making a secure system now.
Re:In search of the almighty $ (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In search of the almighty $ (Score:5, Interesting)
If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.
In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.
When I write for Unix/Linux/QNX/VRTX/Anything the hell else, I can be pretty sure that if something goes boom, it IS my fault - and I should take the blame, and if it reflects badly on me, I deserve it.
I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.
Re:In search of the almighty $ (Score:5, Insightful)
yup (Score:5, Interesting)
One - a 2003 server has never crashed - as I mainly leave that happily running Apache, mailserver etc.
One - my big beast has bouts of flakiness - everytime it's down to a flakey driver for some obscure or cutting edge piece of hardware. (a problem MS has attempted to address with signed/unsigned drivers).
Now if a company produces a buggy driver for Windows, you can usually be pretty sure they put even less effort into the linux one (if they bothered at all).
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Batteries not included.
Re:Incredible (Score:2)
I know it seems like nitpicking, but this is a real point. Plenty of people complain about computer software companies, especially Microsoft, selling "maintenance" products -- they act like they're snake oil.
The real thing is: why wouldn't you expect this industry to have maintenance? Pretty much every other industry does, and many product companies also sell a 'verified' maintenance service.
Wrong analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:2)
Except anti-spyware and anti-virrus software isn't protecting you against "inadequate security", it's protecting you against user error - the stuff OS-level "security" can't.
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:2)
User error is a very important source of security problems, but your statement goes way too far. I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet. If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything. With Windows
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't.
I repeat: anti-spyware and anti-virus software aren't there to protect you against "inadequate security". They *may* do this as a side effect, but it is not their purpose.
I suspect you have not extensively used Internet Explorer on a user with administrator rights (MS Windows default) to browse the Internet.
No. Nor would I ever consider doing it.
If you had, you would have collected spyware without agreeing to install anything.
Undoubtedly. But this would be due to software bugs (and, arguably, bad UI), not "inadequate security" - not to mention the foolishness of browsing the web with a high-privilege account.
With Windows XP (original release, no SP 1) just connecting to the Internet from a user with administrator rights, without a firewall, is enough to be infected by worms within a short time.
As is installing many Linux distros and commercial unixes from the same time period. Again, you are largely describing problems caused by software bugs, not "inadequate security". I will agree that the firewall should have been enabled by default from the first release of XP and that services shouldn't be binding to external network interfaces by default - but even without that, all those remote exploits are coming from *coding errors*.
OS-level security - which Windows NT has in spades - can protect you against some aspects of malicious code. However, it cannot protect you against all, or even the most common, aspects of malicious code. That is what anti-spyware and anti-virus software is for.
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
You make a differentiation without merit, except for pure academic theory maybe.
Most security problems are software bugs. The fact that it is very hard to write bug-free software with current tools, technology and methods is one of the main headaches of the security people. I am one. Buggy software and users are what I am most worried about, in this order. False policies, configurations and errors in concepts and m
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:3)
Microsoft is still fixing real "OS security problems" for free via Windows Update.
Anti-malware (e.g. spyware, viruses, etc) is designed to thwart malware that doesn't necessarily rely on OS security problems (which, I repeat, will continue to be fixed for free via Windows Update).
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:2)
Using IE can be attributed to user error as well
Re:Wrong analogy (Score:2)
Following Suit (Score:2)
Mostly I agree with your sentiment here, but on this particular comment, I wanted to note that there's a material difference between buying it from another company and from the same company. In the case of two companies, the first company can claim the things the second company is fixing are not things they knew about or thought of, and in so doing they might have some so
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Incredible (Score:2)
For the same reason I can copy a file till my hard drive crashes or the universe ends. In fact, even when the hard drive crashes, I can load a backup onto a similar hard drive and copy the same file, using the same copy program, until *that* hard drive crashes. My point is, computer software shouldn't "wear out" over
Re:Incredible (Score:2)
....A little late? (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry (Score:2)
You think they'll keep doing that now? (eTrust bets OneCare by miles, imho)
Odd, isn't it? (Score:2)
How MS can sell you a product that they admit is broken, then sell you a subscription service to fix it? Those guys are marketing wizards.
If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.
Re:Odd, isn't it? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Odd, isn't it? (Score:2)
The Microsoft Car (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Microsoft Car (Score:2)
Vista won't be better (Score:3, Insightful)
As you can see from the site http://www.windowsonecare.com/ [windowsonecare.com] they are offering antivirus, antispyware, firewall, performance tune-ups, and data backup and restore. At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.
It's obvious that they wouldn't be launching this service now if it won't also be needed for Vista. This was basically the last reason i needed to switch over to a Mac.
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:2)
Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected.
Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:2)
Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected."
It doesn't mean that at all. Vista is the "fix" in that the default account will be non-admin. Hell, IE w
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:2)
Which three ?
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:5, Insightful)
My original point was that most of what is being offered are dependent on OS deficiencies (i.e. of no value to linux/os x users even if written for those platforms) and the features not dependent on those deficiencies (e.g. automated backup) certainly aren't worth $50 a year.
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:2)
You subscribe to the service. Routine maintenance is automated. Life goes on. One Care is being marketed to non technical end-users who haven't shown the slightest interest in a migration to Linux or the Mac.
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny that slashdotters like to think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, more "tech-savvy" than everyone else, yet they make such idiotic statements like the above with regularity. And some idiot modded the above statement as "Insightful", further damning slashdot's rep. LOL
Spyware generally doesn't rely on OS insecurity.
Viruses generally don't rely on such either.
Trojan horses almost never rely on OS insecurity.
For those that do rely on OS insecurity, Microsoft will continue patching OS insecurity for free with Windows Update (just as Apple does for Macs). For malware that doesn't rely on OS insecurity, anti-malware software (such as Microsoft's OneCare offering) exists.
Re:Actually, A Secure OS Does Prevent Malware (Score:4, Insightful)
Time for some good 'ol Mac advocacy (Score:2)
On a Mac the fact is that you don't need either of those things because no matter how stupid the user is there is nothing malicious the user can click on. You might in the future but why not cross that bridge if you ever reach it, isntead of paying $50 a year right now and risk that it will not even work? Windows has plent
Re:Vista won't be better (Score:2)
Oh yeah, now i remember. Having to count myself amongst those who consider themselves especially deep artistic geniuses in tune with the buddha just because of the friggin computer they use is what has prevented me from getting a Mac up until now. Well done, your post almost disuaded me again but i'm still ordering a mac tomorrow -- the one with the glossy screen that apparently is ruini
Where's the Justice Department when you need them. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm getting old... (Score:2)
It can't be April 1 already! Where did 2006 go?
More automated windows processes? (Score:2)
And to top it off, Windows users have to PAY for that?
Isn't that like having a bank having to pay to have their security system installed by the mafia?
Geeze Mistah (Score:3, Funny)
This is insane! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is insane! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had taken the class, the instuctor would have pointed you towards the maintaince and service contracts that have been part of the consumer marketplace for over one hundred years. He would have reminded you that Windows has ninety-five percent of the home market and self-service Linux less than three.
Good news (Score:2)
Fine with Me (Score:2)
I've said it before (Score:2)
The amusing thing is that this tells you something about the average intelligence of MS users--they know that Windows products (created by Microsoft) are buggy and prone to spyware, viruses, and other threats, yet somehow believe the the same Microsoft who couldn't write a secure OS can somehow write software to "fix" the holes they couldn't be bothered to close when the OS shipped. Sheesh.
Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look at the features most of those come standard with OneCare and the windows equal.
50$ a year for a Fancy All-In-One
Re:Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac (Score:3, Informative)
In short, It is
Someone wise once said (Score:2)
That's a classic move by MSFT. Writte buggy, insecure software. Charge money for it. Sell band-aids that need maintenance. Sell maintenance. Thanks, but no, thanks.
Two Quotes (Score:3, Insightful)
"There's a sucker born every minute." Widely and falsely attributed to P.T. Barnum.
"A fool and his money are soon parted." Thomas Tusser.
MS is apparently hoping that lightning will strike twice in millions of places.
They've said repeatedly that Vista will be the most secure Windows ever, so why would Vista need any additional security software, from the creator of the OS or a third party? Obviously, the answer is that Vista isn't secure, and MS already knows it. They've even thought of a way to turn Vista's lackluster security into a secondary revenue stream.
To which the suckers and fools will gladly contribute.
Classic Moral Hazard (Score:2)
Re:Classic Moral Hazard (Score:2)
What incentive does Red Hat have to make an easy-to-use OS if they are deriving revenue from the very difficulty of the OS (i.e. making money on support)?
BTW, Microsoft will continue to patch OS flaws for free with Windows Update. Anti-malware software is meant to stop malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws.
AYFN??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
place your bets here.... (Score:2, Funny)
no rushing.. no rushing
place your bets here.. place your bets here..
Today's bet: When will MS bring out another paid service to make sure their Windoze Live OneCare service works as expected?
* lon3st4r *
This is excellent (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft just gave Linux, MacOS X, and the BSDs a nice, juicy marketing point. There's no need for the DOJ on this one. Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by coming out and saying that their product simply isn't usable out of the box. If I were RedHat or Novell, I'd jump all over this. I can picture the ads now: "So I need to pay another $50 EVERY YEAR just to keep my computer from getting trashed by viruses? Thanks, but no thanks, Microsoft!"
Re:This is excellent (Score:2)
Everytime MS does something some twit on slashdot comes along and says something like "This will help Linux" or some other crap.
Time to be bitchslapped back to reality. Linux is not ready for the masses just because you can use it.
Re:This is excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lot closer than you imagine. My friend uses Linux (Mepis, specifically) and I don't think she even knows what the command line is. And no, I didn't spend hours configuring it for her, she installed it herself and didn't need to do any configuring because it automatically recognized her hardware and came with mp3, DVD, etc support. My mom used my Linux box and is jealous because all the silly
Support? From Microsoft? FREE? (Score:3, Interesting)
This was my first NT domain. Upgrading from NT 3.1 to the newly released NT 3.51.
Microsoft changed the licensing mechnism in 3.51. I don't recall the details now, but the result was that my network of ~100 PCs was having itermittent login problems. It was annoying, but we were able to live with it while I figured it out.
I called Microsoft, they made some suggestions, we went around a couple of times trying things, and on the third
They should be allowed to charge for this (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Mac OS X user, I am not troubled by things like that, and I cannot be bothered with Windows, but I would be equally upset if Apple one day decided to CHARGE for security features! But they again, that would not be Apple's style, would it?
Same with Linux companies. They would never cha
Re:They should be allowed to charge for this (Score:2)
Re:They should be allowed to charge for this (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that just clicking on an attachment or a link... not even downloading and opening it... can execute malicious code locally is a fundamental design flaw in one of Microsoft's flagship operating system components... the HTML control. Remember, Microsoft went to the wall with the Department of Justice to avoid having this removed from
Al Capone style protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most (all?) antivirus companies have extremely harsh policy against employees writing viruses or other malicious code the software is to protect from.
What is there to stop Microsoft from putting a bug here, a hole there, purposedly, and "discover" it half a year later just to prove how essential the subscription service is to security of a company?
It still is (Score:2)
Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b (Score:2)
Another good way of doing this is to use Ghost, and then physically disconnect the drive you back up to. SATA is good for that.
Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b (Score:2)
How much of a pain in the ass does Windows have to get for people to ditch it?
Re:You know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who owns the software? (Score:2)
Yes. Just like every other bit of non-Public Domain software you didn't write yourself.
Why should I pay to fix their software??
You shouldn't.
Bugger off! (Score:2)
Surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's initial product is defective, malicious people take advantage of the defects to create problems for users, Microsoft then charges users to remove the problems that their defective software allowed for in the first place.
Who you blame for viruses is debatable, but there's no doubt that Microsoft have a conflict of interests problem if they start selling virus scanner software. If they mak
Re:protection money? (Score:2)
This anti-malware software is designed to thwart malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws. Malware that does rely on such flaws will continue to be addressed through free patches via Windows Update.
Re:sell a car, charge extra for the breaks (Score:2)