Microsoft will start fighting spyware/adware
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Microsoft will start fighting spyware/adware

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    256

    Microsoft will start fighting spyware/adware

    Microsoft Acquires Giant, Plans Antispyware Release
    Microsoft today announced its acquisition of New York–based Giant Company Software Inc., makers of Giant AntiSpyware, Spam Inspector, and Popup Inspector. (Microsoft will continue to provide support for users of these products).

    Read more here:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1743165,00.asp
    Sex is like \"Social Security\". You get a little each month, but it\'s not enough to live on.

  2. #2
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    I dunno. The cynic in me cringes at this thought given the issues that IE had this year...
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  3. #3
    AO übergeek phishphreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,324
    Originally posted here by MsMittens
    I dunno. The cynic in me cringes at this thought given the issues that IE had this year...
    I second that. If they can't get their browser right... what makes them think that they can fight spyware? I applaud their efforts... but with as most m$ attempts... I'll wait and see.

    He points out that where Microsoft at one time suggested that the security enhancements in Windows Service Pack 2 would lessen the need for spyware protection, the company now says antispyware will "complement the enhanced security features" of SP2.
    I wonder if that means that they are going to be releasing it as part of the OS? Or, if users will have to pay for it... if its the latter... I'll continue to use freeware.

    Details such as release date and pricing are not yet available. Watch www.microsoft.com/spyware for updated information.
    Why should users have to pay for anti-spyware from a vendor that created a situation that allowed for the OS to become infected in the first place? How many times have we seen flaws in IE that allow your computer to become infected?

    Now, I can understand if they are charging to remove spyware that was intalled by the user... but if spyware is installed via exploting IE or the OS... users should not be responsible to pay for a product to remove the offending malware.

    I'm also wondering if the "anti-spyware" will look for and remove m$ "warez" from computers.
    That could be considered "malware" in m$'s eyes? Doesn't bother me... I use legit software.... *most* of the time.
    Quitmzilla is a firefox extension that gives you stats on how long you have quit smoking, how much money you\'ve saved, how much you haven\'t smoked and recent milestones. Very helpful for people who quit smoking and used to smoke at their computers... Helps out with the urges.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    510
    For additional perspective, we checked in with David Moll, CEO of Webroot Software, makers of Webroot Spy Sweeper, PC Magazine's current Editors' Choice for antispyware. Mr. Moll told us that the acquisition will benefit the antispyware field as a whole by lending it added legitimacy and visibility, and by raising Microsoft's own "security IQ."
    Do you think he figures that Microsofts effort will be half-assed and will drive new customers his way?
    \"You got a mouth like an outboard motor..all the time putt putt putt\" - Foghorn Leghorn

  5. #5
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    Awww... C'mon, don't be so hard on M$.... Think of it as the latest patch for IE...
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  6. #6
    AO's Resident Redneck The Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Micro$oft just wants a piece of every part of the whole computer industry. they want to dominate the world lol. but, we will see how they do...
    Git R Dun - Ty
    A tribe is wanted

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    Know-it-All Master Beaver

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    Hey Hey,

    I would really question this product and it's usefulness.... Mind you how long before we'll be seeing it labelled as an MS product..... I mean initially they said we'd have AV with SP2 and that never happened. This could end up on the backburner for a long long while... and they could just continue to market the current product.... all the while never releasing updates.

    Anyways do you really want to trust a company who say's that to protect your computer you need three things

    1. Use an Internet Firewall
    2. Get Computer Updates
    3. Use Up-to-date Antivirus Software.

    Hrm..... If they were better at OS design I wouldn't need those things.

    1. A firewall shouldn't be necessary... we've seen that proven time and time again by several of the members here.... I've existed for many years without a firewall... The only thing that a firewall assists against is blocking worms that are spreading... beyond that you should have no real need for a firewall in a home environment unless you're a complete tool. As for the worms.. that kind of goes with #2 so I'll leave it for their.

    2. Get Computer Updates... now I realized they've dumbed these sentances down (I mean they added the word Internet in front of Firewall.... See I'd be confused if they told me to Use a firewall.. my car already has one)... But I consider Computer Updates to be Upgrading/Updating the hardware in my PC... Also how up-to-date can you stay when updates are released once a month.... that's rather slow response time.... Compare with the SuSE 9.2 Pro that's running on this laptop... It's got its bugs and holes.... there's no doubt about that... After all it's a new OS.. but I get updates every day.. I don't have to wait 30 days for updates....

    3. How about I use safe computing instead? I don't open viruses that come in email.... Like Mugly... how could anyone be stupid enough to infect themself with that? Do you have no common sense. What's that? Most people don't? That's fine.... the AV is fine for social engineering viruses... But after that how does most malware enter your PC??? Oh yeah.. through holes and problems with the MS OS and Browser software...

    They are adding anti-spyware software for one reason.... They're trying to take the blame off their shoulders.. 'Look we've given you this arsenal of tools to protect yourself... if you're still getting infected it's your own fault.' That's like saying you've got every weapon and type of defense known to man... in addition to an impenetrable fortress. That's all fine and dandy, but if you leave the front, side or even back door open... someone can still walk in and do a lot of damage... That's exactly what happens with MS operating systems... They give you all types of defenses but then they leave the side window open and tell the guards to stand down from their posts.

    Anyways... that's my opinion.

    Peace,
    HT
    IT Blog: .:Computer Defense:.
    PnCHd (Pronounced Pinched): Acronym - Point 'n Click Hacked. As in: "That website was pinched" or "The skiddie pinched my computer because I forgot to patch".

  8. #8
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    Wow HT.... Nice rant.... (You forgot the tags BTW.... )

    1. I use a firewall at home.... Am I incapable of setting up my domain in such a way that it is protected from the public network yet functions perfectly within it's self... No.... But it's a **** load easier to throw up a firewall and run the domain behind it..... Let's be fair from that standpoint.... Then let's look at Joe Public. It's far from "easy" to close all the ports that M$ has open by default so Joe has little hope of protecting himself. OTOH, if the ports weren't open by default then Joe wouldn't be able to network his two computers.... So he wouldn't buy M$ because his buddies have told him he can't network it.... he'd buy something else, equally full of holes as M$, that fills that "hole" that M$ didn't.... So we're back to square one on that argument....

    2. Get updates.... Well, we can argue the semantics of the language all day... It's irrelevant really... The issue you really have is the frequency. Now, IRRC, everyone and their dog were bitching, (nice pun huh? ), about M$ issuing a patch every few days... Now your bitching about them issuing a patch "block" every month.... But you praise SUSE 9.1 for issuing a patch every day.... Where's the equity there? You might also remember that M$ issued an emergency patch mid-month last month.... Doesn't that help to satisfy your "only once a month" issue?

    3. Hmmm.... There's AV for *nix.... ClamAV comes to mind.... People in the *nix world see fit to write AV programs.... Could it be that there are viruses in the *nix world? Of course.... Wherever there are people that will try to exploit computers with malware, regardless of the OS, there will be the requirement to have protection for every OS.... So the advice is good....

    HT.... You and I and many members here are quite capable of doing almost anything they want to lock down their computers.... But we are a "little different".... We are in the 1000th of one percent that can do it or even knows it's important and why.... You can't blame M$ for selling a product any more than you can blame SUSE 9.1 for needing an upate every day..... If you think about it they are becoming synonymous....
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  9. #9
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    Let's see - last time I tried upgrading M$ office, and other M$ products I use, I got inundated by spyware from their site. So M$ swears they're going to start fighting it - ok.

    Percent chances I'll use their antispyware stuff voulentarily? - 0% or less

    Percent chances I'll "trust all downloads from Microsoft.com" - 0% or less

    Percent chances you'll get this anti-spyware package forced on you either in some future windows SP, or windows edition - 100%

    Percent chances you'll get spyware from it? - I'll leave that one as an exercise for the student.
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

  10. #10
    Some Assembly Required ShagDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    718
    Excellent thread thus far - I have a question though.
    I understand it's possible to fortify a computer without the usage of a firewall. Here's my question: Let's say you've closed off all uneccessary ports and processes. You've pinned down all legit processes and ports inherently used therein. How do you control hidden processes that "piggyback" legit processes? Personally, I like the ease at which firewalls allow me to control not only the executables but all components associated with it as well (including hidden processes). Another thing I like is stateful inspection:
    stateful inspection tracks each connection traversing all interfaces of the firewall and makes sure they are valid. An example of a stateful firewall may examine not just the header information but also the contents of the packet up through the application layer in order to determine more about the packet than just information about its source and destination. A stateful inspection firewall also monitors the state of the connection and compiles the information in a state table. Because of this, filtering decisions are based not only on administrator-defined rules (as in static packet filtering) but also on context that has been established by prior packets that have passed through the firewall
    I may be crazy, but this seems like a good thing (being I'm not sitting behind a router either). That's my thoughts on the matter. Any ideas?
    The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - George Patton

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •