Microsoft Antispyware (beta) - F.O.C. for the moment...?

[G0AOZ]

Pleased to report that this software zapped an irritating infection of the LOP.COM toolbar, where all others failed.

Since this is a beta version, is it the view of forum members that Microsoft is likely to charge for either the next or future versions?


ROGER - G0AOZ.

 

[Wishdiak]

G0AOZ,

I believe that Microsoft has stated that they will charge for future versions of Microsoft Anti-Spyware, but as always the best source of Microsoft information is microsoft.com.

I'm glad to hear that you were able to remove the infection. Out of curiosity, which other anti-spyware programs had you tried?

Wishdiak
A+, Network+, Security+, MCSA: Security 2003

http://www.wishdiak.com

 

[aquias]

Actually,

Microsoft has announced that the MS Spyware product will remain free. What hasn't been made clear, is whether or an enterprise solution involving the MS product will be free or not.

http://news.com.com/Windows+anti-spyware+to+come+free+of+charge/2100-7355_3-5577202.html

The link is to the story about this product being free of charge.

 

[G0AOZ]

Thanks for replies. I tried the following to remove LOP.COM:-

Adware Away
Ad-Aware SE
CWShredder
Adware Spy
Spyware Blaster

Ad-Aware SE kept it away for about four switch-ons, then it re-appeared! MS Antispyware has kept it away so far.

ROGER - G0AOZ.

 

[Wishdiak]

G0AOZ,

When you say that "Ad-Aware SE kept it away for about four switch-ons", did you shut off System Restore before you ran Adaware?

aquias,

Good to know that Microsoft plans to keep their Antispyware free. I believe that Symantec plans to include Antispyware in future releases of their enterprise Antivirus, so I'd expect Microsoft to do the same.

Wishdiak
A+, Network+, Security+, MCSA: Security 2003

http://www.wishdiak.com

 

[G0AOZ]

No, actually I didn't! Neither did I when I installed the MS software...

ROGER - G0AOZ.

 

[Sympology]

I don't think they could really charge for it....
Imagine "hi here is our software, full of bugs and holes so you'll get tons of spyware. However we have this product that will fix our software, but it will cost you".

It's like saying "Hi buy our new car, it'll pack up after 12,000 miles unless you bring it back and pay a fortune for the service". Never would happen would it?...hold on!!!!!!!!

Stu..


Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[G0AOZ]

Isn't that why companies offer the "after sales warranty" on many products...?

ROGER - G0AOZ.

 

[Wishdiak]

G0AOZ,

I would definately shut off System Restore on all drives before removing any spyware threats, expecially if they keep coming back after removal.

Wishdiak
A+, Network+, Security+, MCSA: Security 2003

http://www.wishdiak.com

 

[JFBouchard]

Hi, microsoft confirmed that antispyware will remain free as part of the "xp experience". However, your copy of XP must be legit. But everyone is legit are they not?

Hope this helps. Please let me know if this resolve your issue

Jeff

 

[bcastner]

I don't think they could really charge for it....
Imagine "hi here is our software, full of bugs and holes so you'll get tons of spyware. However we have this product that will fix our software, but it will cost you".

It's like saying "Hi buy our new car, it'll pack up after 12,000 miles unless you bring it back and pay a fortune for the service". Never would happen would it?...hold on!!!!!!!!

This is an extradinarily offensive and ill-informed comment that has no place in a technical forum.

 

[sysadmin123]

I was part of a webinar and they said yes it would be free for personal use but they would most likely charge for the enterprise edition once they got it ready.


And also I just recently downloaded the 10.0 norton corporate update and noticed it had something in it about spyware removal so this must be out now.

 

[aquias]

Symantec 10.0 does scan the system for known spyware/adware threats. So far, it seems to do a fairly decent job at finding cookies, I haven't had it pull out any programs yet, but I'm also not running it on infected systems.

 

[markso]

Just noticed that my version of the MS AntiSpyware expires on 31 July 2005. It says to contact Microsoft for an updated version. However when you go to the MS web site, there is no mention of an updated version.

When you look into these eyes, I hope you realise, they could never be blue.

 

[bcastner]

It will be here before the Beta 1 expires.

 

[Sympology]

bcastner...why is my post offensive and misinformed?
For some reason we accept that it is perfectly resonable that software should be flawed and I don't believe we should.
Would you accept other expensive items that you have to constantly modify and update to keep working in a safe and secure manner? Maybe you'd like a car alarm that unless you service it every couple of weeks, people can come in and steal the radio.
No I thought not.
I tried to create an analogy with a bit of humour.It's a way of putting across a serious point in a way people that don't use the lingo can understand.

If we were charged for all the bug fixes, software patches and service packs (which MS Antispy effectivly is), do you think that MS would survive with the domination currently has? If most people read the EULA and understood how easy it is for Software companies to get out of so many things (anyone rememeber the preinstalled software fiasco?), then maybe we wouldn't accept these problems so readily. It's a reaction to the flaws and holes in i.e's security that has lead to a backlash and people in their millions downloading Firefox.

You may think I'm an MS basher? On the contrary, I use Xp, have MS office and believe without them, we'd still be stuck at command line typing.
However, I do believe, if you release a product that has flaws in it (if it didn't why do we need MS Antispyware?),then you shouldn't expect to be able to charge for it. MS are not alone in this, in fact, they are proberbly one of the better comapnies for it,many others do charge.

Stu..

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[claudermilk]

FYI, Symantec 9 also scans for spyware. It does about as well as any other scanner; you also have to tell it to go look for spyware in addition to viruses.

 

[bcastner]

StuReeves,

1. I disagree that the Microsoft Antispyware product is a Service Pack. It changes nothing in the OS, for either XP or Win2k.

2. I disagree that it "should" be free. The last three years of EU and US negotiations about IE alone being bundled, much less this product and the OneCare future product in antivirus makes it absolutely clear there is nothing free about this to Microsoft. The legal side alone for antitrust involvement is considerable.

3. I disagree that malware is due to your statement: "hi here is our software, full of bugs and holes so you'll get tons of spyware."

Spyware or malware comes in mainly due to: User actions, such as opening email attachments or blind agreement to ActiveX scripts.

Service Pack 2 for XP at leat offers you the chance to stop them completely, or "prompt" as a middle-level alternative.

What is misinformed in your statment is that ActiveX and .ASP pages are full of bugs and holes. It is a very sad state of affairs that they can no longer be used safely by web page designers or users. But this is not due to "bugs or holes."

4. You are welcome to use any browser, or several browsers. No one denies you that privilige, and most certainly not Microsoft.

5. Microsoft moved into the malware side of things with the purchase of GIANT Antispyware. They have long delayed but will formally move into the Antivirus space as well. You have had no problems paying for third-party products for these same features for years.

But now it becomes, when Microsoft enters this product space, a "Service Pack" and something you demand for free?

I am personaly glad they did something about malware (non-virus), and am personaly happy that they made this offer for free to legitimate licenses of XP. They did not have to. If they had offered this under the plans for this product as both an individual and tied enterprise managed product, they would soon have a market share equal to their OS client and server.

Malware is not an OS issue. While you can "harden" the OS to make it more difficult to install, you can create nothing but sandboxes or limited users, we all suffer from malware. And it is right and decent of Microsoft to decide to finally decide that it is too large an issue to be left with freeware third party tools and very helpful Internet forums to deal with.

Users hurt from the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of script kiddies trying to bring our Internet Access down, or make it unpleasant. There is a very active and alive commercial business to force pop-up ads and other crap on our ability to use the internet.

But the notion that malware is some screw-up in the OS is long past any credibility. Anything one puts out there will be tested in ways that nobody could ever conceive.

Note: the most frequently patched browser since January 1, 2005 for security issues has been Firefox, and not IE.

 

[Sympology]

bcastner
I believe it's best to agree to disagree on this subject as we both clearly have own own views on this and a slanging match will get us nowhere.
Like I side I'm not a MS basher.
The way I look at it is this:
Software to protect your own software shouldn't be at a cost to the end user. It could raise concerns over the credibility of your own product. Although I believe MS have no intention of doing so (they have way to much of a spotlight on them), as they are by far the market share leader, it would be a worring trend that others may follow. Think of it from a skeptic point of view. It you say sell a product (regardless of what it is) and then offer something that will help it run better / safer, there is always the worry, are they making it diliberatly poor in order to sell you this add on at extra cost?
HOWEVER I take my hat of to MS for giving, things that in no way protect the product or could be concieved of having dark intentions (although fee charging rivals will disagree), Media Player is a good example of this.
Of course you could look at it from MS' point of view of a dammed if you do and a dammed if you don't
If you give it away free, then people like the makes of Spybot etc may complain about abusing a monopoly, then on the flip side if you charge for it, you have the skeptics who say, if the software was robust in the first place, it wouldn't need it.
Of cause I go on about a solid O\S but the part of this is a trade off. Do you make it rock solid but a swine to use by novices or do you make it more user friendly and open it up.
In the past MS have swung a long way to features and a user friendly interface, but at the expense of security. MS have freely admited this, that is why they have have embarked on the Trustworthy Computing inititive.
At the end of the day, No OS is secure, free of bugs, holes, etc, so it's best to use whatever tools and knowledge is available to protect it. Of course we could always disconnect from the internet and enjoy life in other ways.

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[MasterRacker]

From a technical and legal standpoint MS did not have to do anything about malware. From a Public Relations and Marketing standpoint they had to give away protection to home users free.

While it's true that all systems have flaws, Windows is suffering from a number of poor design decisions that have allowed too much power to scripting languages and other types of active content. They now have to live with the fallout of those decisions. The "offensive" comment earlier is something I've even seen in respected published magazines int items written by professional journalists. It's a common attitude that has merit.

<sub>Jeff
[purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day

I was not born cynical - I earned my cynicism through careful observation of the world around me.</sub>