What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
82 Comments
- flowctrl, on 01/08/2009, -12/+29Microsoft *created* the desktop security market, with their buggy software. They should indeed offer free anti-virus technologies, and more.
- Murdats, on 01/08/2009, -0/+15I don't think he realises open source != free
- WafflePirate, on 01/08/2009, -8/+23With a history of flaws, serious bugs and notorious for being the target of hackers with everything else it makes, I seriously doubt they're going to corner any market with the word security in it.
- msaleem, on 01/08/2009, -5/+17If their product continues to be as popular as it is (and there for keep getting exploited disproportionately more than other platforms) then yes there is a potential for them to corner the market. Also, am I the only one who sees this ending up as a major conflict of interest? Probably not right now cos the security is free, but in the future, it's very likely.
- doctordbx, on 01/08/2009, -0/+11Didn't think so.
- TheOther1, on 01/08/2009, -0/+11Because they have played so fairly up to this point....
- IamSunstorm, on 01/08/2009, -1/+9The vulnerability count for Mac OS won't start increasing until its popularity makes it worth it. Just because it's slightly more popular than it was before, doesn't mean that more hackers will suddenly care because it's still a smidge compared to Windows.
And keeping tabs, as opposed to say, Windows Update, which already checks with the vendor every day, and is directly tied with WGA? - dawndaemon, on 01/08/2009, -1/+9You said you'd love to hear, so here you go, two very recent ones:
- december: Microsoft Windows GDI Image Parsing Vulnerabilities which allow remote execution
- november: Microsoft Windows SMB Authentication Credential Replay Vulnerability which, as the name suggests, allows unauthorized users to authenticate themselves as someone else.
Cheerio, and start reading more about things you claim to know. - crapuccino, on 01/08/2009, -0/+8No. They do license it for free for home use. As do Avira.
- doctordbx, on 01/08/2009, -0/+7Is AVG open source?
- mdwstmusik, on 01/08/2009, -2/+9Since IE is an integral part of Windows, I think that this counts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28242570/
Dec. 2008 - doctordbx, on 01/08/2009, -0/+6Hundreds, some flops, some big successes. What's your point?
- ihavebeenseen, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7Did the Dukes coner the frozen OJ market?
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -2/+7Wow, I think that there would be a conflict of interest here, Microsoft could, in effect "create" the market for their own security products. and, on top of that they would have an unfair advantage (again) over other security software suites. damn, are they cunning.
- Murdats, on 01/08/2009, -1/+6I wonder how many companies apple, google, ibm..... has bought whose software/hardare was then repackaged and then had some big PR put out,
so what is your point? - inactive, on 01/08/2009, -2/+7Why not just build the OS properly.
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -1/+6Well, it's their OS, they can do whatever they want with it. Apple bundles lots of apps with OSX and people don't complain.
- m00nmaster, on 01/08/2009, -0/+5Let's go with a vehicle analogy. Your car has locks. But an alarm would protect it better. Why should you get the alarm for free because someone can break into your car easily when it's only protected by a lock?
It's probably not a great analogy, but I've never been really good at them. - inactive, on 01/08/2009, -9/+13There is a serious conflict of interest here. If they made their OS secure in the first place there would be no need for this. yes i understand that it is the most popular OS and therefore the most hacks/penetrated but Mac OS X vulnerability count has not increased in proportion to the market share increase, meaning that it is, at least statistically, more secure. I hate to say it as I'm not fond of apple or their fanboys.
It is now in Microsoft's interest to have a steady stream of vulnerabilitys in their software to scare people into paying for the inevitable extra premium level "security" (as opposed to the basic level free one)
It also allows microsoft to keep tabs on windows installs as AV software will check in with the vendor every day and who knows what is being sent back to them. they could possibly even incorporate WGA into this. - joehill, on 01/08/2009, -2/+6The best way Microsoft could help wipe out viruses is to stop producing the Windows operating system.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4For me antivirus ceased to be a primary defense mechanism and became more of a safety net about five years ago. Microsoft's involvement in the market doesn't really change anything for me personally.
- bundwallah, on 01/08/2009, -3/+7Well duh. If it wasn't for the shoddy state of Windows there would be no desktop security market
- doctordbx, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3Since the lawsuit, as if they've had a choice?
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3yeah, but, like I said, the Security industry isn't selling a product.....to protect another one of their own products from exploits. It kind of comes off as hypocritical to sell a producct and extol the virtues of it's security and they sell a security suite for it. and Corporations are not benevolent entities, if it wasn't for laws they would do anything for a profit. and it has been proven time after time that MS has no problem doing underhanded things to improve their bottom line.
- secrity, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3They did the same thing with web browsers
- Dalhectar, on 01/08/2009, -1/+4Did OneCare and Windows Defender destroy the third party security market? Have "security" enhancements in IE7 kill FireFox? Has Windows Firewall kill all the third party firewall products out there?
MS hasn't been able to dent the desktop security market yet, even with the free stuff they already offer. One more "free" product won't help.
While I appreciate the effort MS is making to get Windows to be more secure for the home user not concerned with security, advanced users and the people who rely on advanced users for tech support will probably stick to trusted third party solutions (some free, some paid). - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3RANDOLPH! RANDOLPH!
i'm still not talking to you, mortimer. - Myztry, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3Microsoft could all but eliminate viruses on their platform for business and lay users by allowing the nomination of a white-list trust provider when (or after) installing Windows. Inescapable kernel level control.
Software repositories like download.com already vet and vouch for software. It would be trivially to extend that to a higher level so people can easily ensure they are getting trustworthy software.
Anti-viruses were initially conceived in this manner. It is comparatively simple to maintain a list of known good software then to detect permutations/combinations of encrypted polymorphic bad software.
When a company creates a revenue stream based on bad software, then it is in their interest to perpetuate the problem. The company has a duty under law to it's shareholder. It doesn't have one in that regard to the customer. - 33des, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2They own Antigen, they don't need Kaspersky.
- 33des, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2You could make the same argument for the security industry. McAfee, Symantec, Trend... Wouldn't it make sense for them to "create" the market for their products too? BAck in the day AV vendors were accused of bundling viruses in their builds to prove their value.
- digitalpencil, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3* therefore
- mr5150, on 01/08/2009, -4/+6If Microsoft's commitment to this ends up being anything like Defender for XP/Vista then just give it a miss.
What a joke that turned out to be. - Smurph0404, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3"(which Miceosoft had acquired along with Romania-based antivirus firm GeCAD in 2003)"
PCWorld don't need no stinking editors. - jamesmcginnis, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2wasn't it Billy Valentine who eventually did?
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3well, I don't think that is exactly right, You are replying to the wrong part of my post. There is no problem if a company wants to add extras to their products BUT, If you purposely added flaws to a product to create a market for another product you sell that would be against the Law. and false advertising, unless you put a disclaimer on the box that there have been flaws and exploits added to product purposely. and that would be Corporate suicide.
- cyberfreak01, on 01/08/2009, -3/+5I think the question could be better stated, "Will a monkey ever master the clarinet?" While it might be possible it's not very bloody likely.
- applesd, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3One day Google & Microsoft will own everything & everyone.
- oninbonin, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3"Will Microsoft Corner the Desktop Security Market?"
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. - seltaeb4, on 01/10/2009, -0/+1Considering that the desktop security market wouldn't exist if it weren't for the crapfest known as Windows, they just may come to dominate that market through the power of their own mediocrity.
- hardeep1singh, on 05/02/2009, -0/+1They're not virus free, its called 'Security by Obscurity'.
- jsilver123, on 01/08/2009, -2/+3microsoft, monopolize something?
- KingWrecked, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1"Go ahead and try to keep your nix builds up to date easily with patches and fixes."
I Click on the info bubble that says "updates are available", enter my password and click the update button. Well, actually, I really went to town and added:
00 * * * * /usr/bin/apt-get -y update
05 * * * * /usr/bin/apt-get -y upgrade
to my root crontab using a nice gui called gcrontab. The updates are digitally signed and my PC checks for and applies updates and patches every hour.
Of course, Linux distros have more security advisories than Windows. Windows (as a product) consists of the OS, notepad, minesweeper and a few basic apps. Ubuntu consists of the OS and literally thousands of packages all of which can be automatically updated via apt and all of which are included in security advisories for the Ubuntu product. In fact it's easier to keep an application loaded Linux box up to date, patch wise, than it is Windows.
"MS has done a very good job in recent years securing their products and the December malicious software removal tool is testimony to this"
Then why am I still having to rip viruses of friends and relatives PCs? (restricted accounts and up to date antivirus).
"But hey, it's fun to hate the big dog so keep hating, haters"
It's not a matter of Hate. I run 300 Windows XP boxes on a school network but then I also run Linux servers and admin the whole lot from a Mandriva 2009 desktop. For testing, I use VirtualBox with an image of one of our Desktops. Why? Personal preference and being isolated from the Windows side means I can still function at 100% even if a virus is raping the desktops. I can also isolate my VM and run tests on malware to find out what it's up to. At home I run Ubuntu on a Lenovo laptop. Does everything In need with no drama. Games? That what my 360's for.
From the tone of your post, I can only imagine that you either tried Redhat 5, 10 years back, couldn't get your head round it and still base your opinions on the 5 minutes you tried, or alternatively you haven't tried a Linux distro and just enjoy trolling. - joehill, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1Is this a joke? Everything you've said is exactly wrong. MS's malicious software removal tool is testimony to the fact that they need a malicious software removal tool. There is no such tool for Linux because there is no malicious software to remove.
Name one successful self-replicating exploit in Unix or Linux, any one of you. Just one. You can't, because there isn't one.
We don't hate Windows because it's 'big dog', we choose the alternative because it's just plain better. - joehill, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1No, they're digging you down without leaving a reply because you're not worth their time. You regurgitate lines that have been around for years, since Ballmer first realized that Windows could no longer be logically supported and could only maintain its dominance through misinformation and propaganda.
How exactly has Linux relied on FUD? If you could point out one single claim that Linux has made that was based on an inaccurate fear regarding Windows, I would love to hear it. - joehill, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1stubear, you are really hilarious. You say 'I'd love to hear someone tell me the last major exploit on Windows that was caused by a bug in their system'. Then when someone gives you two examples (out of hundreds), you reply 'yeah, but..., it's not really _that_ bad...'
LOL! Typical Windows retard, your position become indefensible and you retreat to one that is even less rational.
It's not the 'fanbois' that you need to worry about, stubear, it's the security experts with experience running into decades that advise their clients to use anything other than Microsoft products. It's the _designers of the ***** Internet itselft_ who have decided to use Linux and Unix as their backbone. It's all of the most brilliant software engineers on the planet who have decided that Linux and Unix are the platform of choice.
Then there are the stubears of the world who sit around jerking off and playing Counterstrike and whinging about how everyone doesn't think he's cool for using an obsolete operating system. - neilpatmore, on 09/16/2009, -0/+1MS and security? Who trusts MS to take care of their security really?
hxxp://www.antivirusmarket.co.uk - hardeep1singh, on 05/02/2009, -0/+1ur a fool. :-P
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -2/+3Well why not have Microsoft build in a antivirus scanner into their OS?
- hardeep1singh, on 05/02/2009, -0/+1Yeah you are so right. Did you happen to read this when it came out???
Pwn2Own 2009: Safari/MacBook falls in seconds
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917
Windows gets targeted because its more popular sells multiple times more than any of your *nix operating systems. - importfr87, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1Only a few more hours.....
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is