Printable View
Think about how this would go over in any other industry.
http://beta.windowsonecare.com/
This service from Microsoft is setup to fix viruses in MS operating systems. LOL. I don't think that the mob would have come up with a better scam. How about fixing the OS so that viruses and worms cannot exploit it in the first place? Naaah, that's not profitable...
--TH13
:rolleyes:
Sweet! Where do I sign? I'm just itching to give m$ some more of my loot!
Anyone know any good lawyers? Class action suit?
I agree, it sounds like a huge conflict of interest to me.
If they don't 'fix' a flaw but they can update the AV signature in their product, is that in their best interest or the customers ? And if they update the AV definitions and do not release a patch for the O/S, is that ethical ? I don't see this as the best way to go, but I'm not driven by $$$.
~Halv
This very same issue came up when they annouced their acquisition of Giant Anti-Spyware. "Do you want to pay for an operating system and support that is more secure, or pay to have problems addressed in fixed proactively?" You can't have both! I'm sure we have an old thread around here somewhere, I haven't searched yet but if I find it I'll link here.
I think it is a potential conflict of interest. There are of course caveats to that, as always. How many of the big worms that have caused us so much heartache (albeit job security) were significant because they exploited known issues that had already been remediated by an official patch/update?
Highlights added by poster
Isn't this what Windows Update Center was supposed to do? And then isn't this what XP-SP2 and the Security Center was supposed to do?Quote:
From the Product Overview page
Are you tired of spending time trying to protect and maintain your computer? Are you worried that you’re still not doing everything you should to keep it safe and running at optimal performance? If your answer is "Yes," then Windows OneCare is for you. Windows OneCare is built specifically for people who don’t have the time or technical expertise necessary to help secure and manage a computer on a daily basis. It is a comprehensive PC health service that goes beyond security to take an integrated approach to help protect and care for your computer.
In MS defense, I have yet to see any pricing or indication that this will be a pay service (yet). I believe they have stated that MS Anti-Spyware will be free...if OneCare is free, then I applaud the effort. If they charge you for it, I'd be wary of paying for a service that might just provide things you are owed through your licensed copy of Windows.
/* EDIT */
I stand corrected (well, I found it myself, but still...)
Quote:
Official Press Release
To address the need for a more comprehensive PC health solution, Microsoft Corp. today announced plans to deliver Windows OneCare™, a comprehensive and simple-to-use consumer subscription service that will provide automated protection, maintenance and performance tuning as an all-in-one package for Windows-based PCs. Windows OneCare is initially being distributed to Microsoft® employees this week as part of an extensive testing and development process before broad public beta availability scheduled for later this year.
The icing on the cake is we QA it for free then pay for it when it's GA. Bill is a genious.
SO now we see why Microsoft brought Giant and the AV company........................................There had to be a pay day:)
You speak that as if you don't think the mob had anything to do with it...all those wise guys have to work SOMEWHERE, now that the DOJ has cracked down on their activities, forcing them to outsource to Columbia, Russia, and what not.Quote:
Originally posted here by thehorse13
<snip>
I don't think that the mob would have come up with a better scam.
<snip>
/me glances at his italian sounding last name, obscured from the AO populace
Quote:
"Fughedaboudit"
-- Guisseppi 'Guido' Sarducci, VP of 'Stuff', Macroshaft Inc.
You know. Stuff. Unimportant stuff. Unimportant, like "I just got shot in the head" unimportant.
Seriously though, there's a reason the US has anti-trust laws; I'm not going to take a position on on the rulings and actions of MS and the US courts in the last few years, but the number one way to keep companies from exploiting the masses is to not pay for or particiapte in this sort of thing. Easy to say, harder to implement.
Aside from how unethical this move is, and how much room it leaves for corruption and lawsuit against MS, im worried that they wont keep up with defs. MS antri-spyware has declined greatley in the last few months, and misses tons of stuff now. I doubt this will be different.
Well this explains why Microsoft have been taking many months to patch their OS, they have been planning this all along... I would bet my every penny that this service will become out of beta and readily available for the release of Longhorn, of course new OS, new holes
Sounds kinda like pharmaceutical companies. There's no money in cures, lots of money in treatments.Quote:
This service from Microsoft is setup to fix viruses in MS operating systems. LOL. I don't think that the mob would have come up with a better scam. How about fixing the OS so that viruses and worms cannot exploit it in the first place? Naaah, that's not profitable...
--TH13
Dont Ford and GM own or have a major stake in the companies that supply the parts for manufacture of their vehicles as well the spare part supply industry.. In some cases you have to dig reasonably deep to find the connection.
It is like in Australia.. the oil companies OWN better that 50% of the (Gas) Petrol outlets, they determine the daily price at 95% of all..
so with those two examples.. now my comment.. Are ALL Viruses due to a weakness in the security in the operating system? I liken what microsft is doing to GM or Ford buying/building a chain of PAnelBeater outlets across the USA, to repair the dents, VANDILISM, and faded paint specificly in their cars. They are in the open in this situation .. rather than allowing the operations being hidden from the general consumer by the conglomeration of company names and ownership circles.
Note: My comment is to put things into perspective, not as direct support to MS.. and the second part of my Comment:
I wont be paying for a MS AV.. nor a MS Antispyware, no matter how good they make it.. I remember problems ppl had with Netscape in win98, IE worked well. but regular probs poped up whaile useing Netscape (well I noticed in the aussie Market), the only reliable way to fix the problem was to use 98Lite ..
oh yeh... IF your AV isnt detecting Viruses..how do you know it is working?? :) (just threw this one in.. not related)
I see the point you make, and appreciate the perspective.Quote:
Originally posted here by Und3ertak3r
Dont Ford and GM own or have a major stake in the companies that supply the parts for manufacture of their vehicles as well the spare part supply industry.. In some cases you have to dig reasonably deep to find the connection.
It is like in Australia.. the oil companies OWN better that 50% of the (Gas) Petrol outlets, they determine the daily price at 95% of all..
so with those two examples.. now my comment.. Are ALL Viruses due to a weakness in the security in the operating system? I liken what microsft is doing to GM or Ford buying/building a chain of PAnelBeater outlets across the USA, to repair the dents, VANDILISM, and faded paint specificly in their cars. They are in the open in this situation .. rather than allowing the operations being hidden from the general consumer by the conglomeration of company names and ownership circles.
Note: My comment is to put things into perspective, not as direct support to MS.
<DEVIL'S ADVOCATE>
:lildevil:<-:o
How many well known viruses have NOT utilized a flaw, deficiency, or lack of security in the product they attack and exploit? We're talking about Viruses here. Specific, malicious code that attacks your system.
If I buy a television, and it turns out that my TV won't receive Stereo sound when tuned to channel 13 because of a bug in the audio processor instructions, even though the sales hype says "better audio, video, and reception capabilities than ever!!!", do I deserve a patch to resolve this issue, or should I have to subscribe to a service-plan to receive any help at all?
</DEVIL'S ADVOCATE>
OK, yes, might be an extreme simplification, but I agree with other comments that this may be bordering on unethical, if not outright criminal. I'm sure the armies of MS lawyers are hard at work, writing Terms of Service to deal with this though. Read a EULA lately? If so, you've put a Lawyers kid through community college, if not an Ivy League school...
Yes, car manufacturers have a stake in parts sales because they sell machines with moving parts. Physics dictate that moving parts wear out and must be replaced. This is accepted fact. I haven't seen an operating system wear out moving processes. :)Quote:
Dont Ford and GM own or have a major stake in the companies that supply the parts for manufacture of their vehicles as well the spare part supply industry..
No, just like not all autoparts fit all cars.Quote:
Are ALL Viruses due to a weakness in the security in the operating system?
A better example would be something like this. You agree to write some custom applications for a client. The applications will be used to secure the client's employee data and track changes to HR related info. You deliver the apps but then the client discovers that by telnetting to port you left open (by accident during your development cycle), they can query all the personal info of all clients. They contact you and you decide that you are going to charge them to fix a hole you left open. What do you think the client is going to say?
The point is that Microsoft delivers a product to market and you expect a reasonable level of quality and performance. When that expectation is not met and the company wants to charge you to fix it, there is a serious issue at hand.
I think that you are looking at Microsoft in the wrong way. Let me ask you this, if your car gets a flat tire after you leave the dealership, you think that dealership is going to replace that tire for free? Hell No... There are known risks when you drive off or surf and to sit there and expect a company to fix it every time you get your flat tire (Virus) is Bull. Take some responsiblity in your own actions is what I say. Stay off of sites like Porn, Hacks, Cracks and so on. Microsoft didn,'t make the highway (internet) they just gave you the car (os) to drive down it. Like how I word it? Dont take this as a bitch out, I'm just giving you a point of view. I do find it funny that MS is offering such a service when finding exploits in there OS is hard enough.
Understood and assume the same from this post, but you seem to be missing the point.Quote:
Dont take this as a bitch out, I'm just giving you a point of view.
"The point is that Microsoft delivers a product to market and you expect a reasonable level of quality and performance. When that expectation is not met and the company wants to charge you to fix it, there is a serious issue at hand."
Using the continued bad analogy of mechanized devices, if you drive off the lot and the motor falls out of the car for no reason, you'd expect the dealer to fix it. Even better, if you punched it off the line and the motor fell out you'd still expect the dealer to fix it because your expectation is that the motor shouldn't fall out of a new car. Same goes if the radio knob fell off the dash even if you pulled it off, chances are that you're going to tell them that the knob should be more durable.
Viruses and such don't just target those out for pr0n and other shady stuff on the net. If that was the case, remediation and security would be a lot easier to manage. Innocent people get clipped all the time. More innocent people seem to be in the sites of MS "offerings".
Very good points, but I dont think that Micorsoft is overlooking the issue that they need to come up with new patches. Yes if the Engine (OS) falls out of the car then yes they need to fix it, but if you have kids throwing nails on the road (Crackers, Hackers) then I dont see how the company is responsiable to come up with a New tire resistant to nails.
For anyone interested, there is a screen shot of a flow chart, attached. It basicaly shows how software developers can say, Not responsible for the out come of their coding. Its taken from a PDF found here:
http://captology.stanford.edu/Key_Co...CACMethics.pdf
Hehehe. That's when they hand over the job to a vendor. In your example, Firestone's puncture proof tires.Quote:
but if you have kids throwing nails on the road (Crackers, Hackers) then I dont see how the company is responsiable to come up with a New tire resistant to nails.
In Microsoft's case, they buy the vendor and then sell you the solution at 3 times the price.
:)
Seriously though, when the vendor promotes itself as security driven and they add firewall services and anti spyware to their offerings, the expectation is that you're getting a secure product. Do you find it odd that MS purchases an AV company and now decides to tell you that they are going to charge you to fix problems caused by viruses?
Interesting I say.
Well...there seems to be two sides to two arguments going on here...
1. Is Microsoft responsible for it's product and it's reasonable maintenence?
2. Is Microsoft responsible for others creating viruses that affect computers not reasonably secure?
As for the first...yes!...if I go to Walmart and buy a defective product...you bet I'm going to take it back and expect a refund! But with the purchase of any product there is a time limit as to how long you have to return it...solution...buy only from those companies or stores that have a return policy.
As for the second part...no!...unless Microsoft is specifically creating viruses to affect their own machines, they cannot be held liable for the maliciousness of others...nor can they be responsible for what sites a person visits or what manner of security, or lack there-of, they have on their machines.
Could Microsoft, with the knowledge they possess now, produce a quality product that is reasonably secure without the necessity of other software? Yes...but they won't...because the mantra they have always lived up to is...
Sell now...fix later!
Eg ;)
the question here should be if MS is responsible for the up keep of their product when holes are over the years. Ordinarily I would say...to an extent. You cannot expect perfect code, and right now they do provide free patches, and all that stuff.
I think the problem only comes into play becase now they are buying a product to fix the holes in their product. this creats a HUGE conflict of interest. This is the problem. Now they have to chose to either spend money preventing a problem or sell a solution to a problem they should have prevented.
You've given me quite a bit of thought. I'm going to open a hardware store. If you ever come in I'm going to tell you the hammer I have costs more because it's better and easier to use.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghost_25inf
Very good points, but I dont think that Micorsoft is overlooking the issue that they need to come up with new patches. Yes if the Engine (OS) falls out of the car then yes they need to fix it, but if you have kids throwing nails on the road (Crackers, Hackers) then I dont see how the company is responsiable to come up with a New tire resistant to nails.
When you come in 20 minutes later because it has broken I'm just going to tell you, "You used a nail that was incompatible with my comanies hammer" and when you get mad, I can say you you can buy MS (MegaStore) nails for just over the price of retail.
Not my fault you went to another vendor for nails, I thought you wanted an integrated solution right? Your fault, not mine, now pay for your **** and get the hell out of my store.
Here is an interesting look into the developpement of the new windows os. It is from the point of view of the developpement teams and so much from the marketing or public relation teams. It makes interesting reading.
source windows itpro
The parts that I found the most interesting are
1: the number of lines of code involved in windows is over 50 million. I think the space shuttle uses about 500,000 lines of code for its computer systems. Given the basic rule of 1 bug in 1000 lines of code, (i am being overly optimistic), that makes about 50000 bugs before testing.
What should be remebered as far as this discussion is concerned is that when the OS is released all the bugs and expliots are there from day one. They are not the result of everyday wear and tear.
Lets retake the car example again. GM brings out a car where when you are driving along at 55 MPH and turn on the airconditioning the air-bags no longer worked. Which would you expect, that GM recall that series of car or that they would say "Well there is a security problem with this series of car but for a small subscription we will fix it for you"? I know what i would look for.
2: how the bugs are treated in the developpement section. I can understand how
Quote:
During the mad dash towards RTM, the heartbeat of the project is the War Room, where the War Team meets two to three times daily, five days a week--six days a week now that Windows Server is in its final days of development. "The War Team goes over reports and metrics to see where the project is at every day," Thompson told us, an understated explanation that did little to prepare us for the horrors of the War Room. "Everything is automated now, but back then we came in and passed around paper reports that showed us how we were doing. There were, maybe, 15 to 20 people in the room. Now it's very different."
It sure is.
For Windows Server 2003, the War Room is run by Todd Wanke, who we eventually found to be an amazingly likeable guy. However, in the hour-long War Room sessions, Wanke rules with an iron fist, asking trusted lieutenants for advice here and there, but moving the process inexorably forward with little patience for excuses or, God forbid, product team members who don't show up for the meeting .
Here's how it works. Every morning at 9:30 a.m., representatives from various Windows Server 2003 feature teams meet to triage bugs. They file into conference room 3243--whose exterior sign has been covered up by a handwritten note that reads "argument clinic"--in building 26. There's a large conference table in the center of the room, but most of the participants have to stand, and the room is always overflowing with people. On the day we attended a War Team meeting--the first time any outsiders were allowed to view the inner sanctum for Windows Server, and only the second time overall during the entire development of NT and Windows--the team progressed through about 50 bugs, most of which were simple branding problems, though I've agreed not to discuss the specifics of any bugs discussed that day. (Because we attended War Room very late in the development of the product, and the biggest outstanding issue was the last minute name-change from Windows .NET Server 2003 to Windows Server 2003.)
Every bug is logged in an incredible bug tracking system, each accompanied by a dizzying array of information about how the bug was found, which customers, if any, were affected, and a complete history of the efforts made to date to eradicate the problem. Wanke moved quickly through the bugs, calling out to members of specific feature teams to explain how the fixes were progressing. If there are one or more bugs in IIS, for example, a representative of the IIS team needs to be present to not only explain the merits of the bug, but whether customers are affected, how the fix might affect other parts of the system, and how soon it will be fixed. This late in the development process, bugs are often passed along, or "punted," to the next Windows release--Longhorn--if they're not sufficiently problematic.
The atmosphere in War Room is intimidating, and I spent most of my time in the room, silent and almost cowering, praying that Wanke wouldn't turn his attention to me or my group. Heated argument and cursing are a given in War Room, and the penalty for not being on top of your bugs is swift and cruel ridicule from the other team members. The most virulent treatment, naturally, is saved for those foolish enough to blow off a War Room meeting. On the day I attended, one feature group had four of its bugs punted to Longhorn because they had failed to shown up for War Room. When someone argued that they should be given another day, Wanke simply said, "F#$% 'em. If it was that important, they would have been here. It's in Longhorn. Next bug."