RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
Bear in mind that (from what I've read) MS are only making this available as an Optional Update (ie. you need to go and manually choose to download it) on PCs where their detection routine has determined no existing AV is in place. In other words, while, by a stretch of the imagination, these *could* be future customers for other AV vendors, it is most likely they are just the majority of home users that don't give a damn or don't know any better. I strongly applaud MS for doing this and urge the AV industry (or parts of) to hang their heads in shame for even suggesting that it's a bad idea. Talk about self-interest overriding the common good! Analogies could be made to branded seatbelts and all sorts of other safety related products. Should the US ensure that few free soldiers are sent to Afghanistan because it would be anti-competitive as the de-facto troop provider to do the mercenary (sorry .. private security) forces out of their lucrative business as a result!? Current and emotive .. always good in an analogy ;o) In terms of future releases of Windows, I'd have no objection to this being added to the first-run startup routine along with browser choice. I'm sure the AV vendors would hate that though as they like their aggressive 1-3 month trial/ransom-ware to be OEM loaded and no mention made of free offerings that might do instead!! a -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 November 2010 19:38 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. True, but there are a plethora of free AV products already on the market. They're not breaking any new ground here. Except those other free AV products are not offered by companies which have a monopoly on the operating system market[1]. The rules are different for monopolies[2]. Plus, they've been providing Windows Defender for a long time, and this is in the anti-malware space (which also has a plethora of free options). To be honest, I've wondered why the other AV companies haven't been making more of a stink about that already. -- Ben [1] US v. MSFT (1998)[3] [2] One may disagree with US anti-trust law/policy, but that doesn't change same in the meantime. [3] One may disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly, but a US Court decided they were, and until and unless that finding is overturned[4], that is how the law sees things. [4] The Conclusions of Law[5] were overturned, the Findings of Fact[6] were not. [5] The decision to break-up MSFT. [6] This includes Microsoft has a monopoly. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin WARNING: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the same and any copies. CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
+1! A huge problme is, folks think that AV and possibly anti-spyware has them secure. Leave an Adobe app unpatched, or don't run your MS Updates, and BOOM! In comes The Bad Thing. First thing The Bad Thing does is, it hides itself from the AV apps. -- Richard D. McClary Systems Administrator, Information Technology Group ASPCA® 1717 S. Philo Rd, Ste 36 Urbana, IL 61802 richardmccl...@aspca.org P: 217-337-9761 C: 217-417-1182 F: 217-337-9761 www.aspca.org The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA ®) and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote on 11/09/2010 10:35:47 AM: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Rod Trent rodtr...@myitforum.com wrote: Not sure about that. Folks have complained since the beginning of time that the OS should be secure, and that Microsoft should do more to secure it. Cool, let me know when they start! ;-) Seriously, though, signature based anti-virus isn't really anything to do with making the OS more secure. I can't say I really blame Microsoft for wanting to get into the anti-virus market. But the whole monopoly thing means they are limited as to how much bundling they can do. Worse (from a anti-trust competition standpoint), they're giving much of their AV product line away for free right now. Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. They might even have good intentions this time around (or it might be Stac Electronics all over again), but that doesn't make their new competitors any happier. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software. com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Rod Trent rodtr...@myitforum.com wrote: Not sure about that. Folks have complained since the beginning of time that the OS should be secure, and that Microsoft should do more to secure it. Cool, let me know when they start! ;-) Seriously, though, signature based anti-virus isn't really anything to do with making the OS more secure. I can't say I really blame Microsoft for wanting to get into the anti-virus market. But the whole monopoly thing means they are limited as to how much bundling they can do. Worse (from a anti-trust competition standpoint), they're giving much of their AV product line away for free right now. Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. They might even have good intentions this time around (or it might be Stac Electronics all over again), but that doesn't make their new competitors any happier. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
Well, on the one hand, this is offered when Security Center finds no AV apps running. OTOH, our HelpDesk found a root kit detector (both VIPRE and MBytes missed one). It is HitManPro. It did NOT detect VIPRE as a running AV application (although the SBAMSvc was running in TaskManager). David Lum david@nwea.org wrote on 11/09/2010 10:02:22 AM: IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software. com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
can of worms Not sure about that. Folks have complained since the beginning of time that the OS should be secure, and that Microsoft should do more to secure it. /can of worms From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
And ... the Security Center will give a list of several A/V vendors to choose from. But it's sure a fine line. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Rod Trent [mailto:rodtr...@myitforum.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:14 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update can of worms Not sure about that. Folks have complained since the beginning of time that the OS should be secure, and that Microsoft should do more to secure it. /can of worms From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
So it will install on an exchange server that's not running a file-level AV? ;-) *** Charlie Kaiser charl...@golden-eagle.org Kingman, AZ *** -Original Message- From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 9:15 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update Well, on the one hand, this is offered when Security Center finds no AV apps running. OTOH, our HelpDesk found a root kit detector (both VIPRE and MBytes missed one). It is HitManPro. It did NOT detect VIPRE as a running AV application (although the SBAMSvc was running in TaskManager). ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
* Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. * True, but there are a plethora of free AV products already on the market. They're not breaking any new ground here. And it if weren't a fact that many people are still without even basic protection, they wouldn't be able to do this. Plus, they've been providing Windows Defender for a long time, and this is in the anti-malware space (which also has a plethora of free options). *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Rod Trent rodtr...@myitforum.com wrote: Not sure about that. Folks have complained since the beginning of time that the OS should be secure, and that Microsoft should do more to secure it. Cool, let me know when they start! ;-) Seriously, though, signature based anti-virus isn't really anything to do with making the OS more secure. I can't say I really blame Microsoft for wanting to get into the anti-virus market. But the whole monopoly thing means they are limited as to how much bundling they can do. Worse (from a anti-trust competition standpoint), they're giving much of their AV product line away for free right now. Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. They might even have good intentions this time around (or it might be Stac Electronics all over again), but that doesn't make their new competitors any happier. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
I *almost* agree with you on that, Carl, but there is the issue of liability. It's one things to offer drivers via Microsoft Update, as there isn't quite the same level of timeliness required as with AV signatures. So, given the compressed time frame, is it wise for Microsoft to bear the brunt of providing AV signatures from other vendors that might have issues at some point? Surely, they've cannot apply the same process for QA and certification of 3rd party signatures as they would for 3rd party drivers, right? (Disclaimers will simply not be enough if a signature turns out to be bad, and they'll still have skeptics who insist that they sabotaged the 3rd party signature in such an event...) *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl *From:* David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
Isn't downloading AV/definitions from 3rd parties the same a downloading drivers from Microsoft? I seem to remember that being a very bad thing from the get go. Jon On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: I *almost* agree with you on that, Carl, but there is the issue of liability. It's one things to offer drivers via Microsoft Update, as there isn't quite the same level of timeliness required as with AV signatures. So, given the compressed time frame, is it wise for Microsoft to bear the brunt of providing AV signatures from other vendors that might have issues at some point? Surely, they've cannot apply the same process for QA and certification of 3rd party signatures as they would for 3rd party drivers, right? (Disclaimers will simply not be enough if a signature turns out to be bad, and they'll still have skeptics who insist that they sabotaged the 3rd party signature in such an event...) *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.comwrote: Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl *From:* David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
That *used* to be a bad thing.I'm sure many people who were burned continue to stay away. In the Vista/Win7 era, I have no problem doing it for desktops/laptops. I don't do it for servers, though. The drivers are provided by the vendors to Microsoft via the WHQL program. If you want/need non-WHQL drivers for something, you will have to go to the manufacturer's site. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Jon Harris jk.har...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't downloading AV/definitions from 3rd parties the same a downloading drivers from Microsoft? I seem to remember that being a very bad thing from the get go. Jon On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: I *almost* agree with you on that, Carl, but there is the issue of liability. It's one things to offer drivers via Microsoft Update, as there isn't quite the same level of timeliness required as with AV signatures. So, given the compressed time frame, is it wise for Microsoft to bear the brunt of providing AV signatures from other vendors that might have issues at some point? Surely, they've cannot apply the same process for QA and certification of 3rd party signatures as they would for 3rd party drivers, right? (Disclaimers will simply not be enough if a signature turns out to be bad, and they'll still have skeptics who insist that they sabotaged the 3rd party signature in such an event...) *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.comwrote: Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl *From:* David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
Why would MS have to deliver signature updates for 3rd party AV? No reason that I can think of. The 3rd party AV products would continue to operate as they do now, only the initial installation is offered via MS Update. That is what the complaining AV vendors are unhappy about. They think their not-free products should be available in the same way. Now, Microsoft could also turn this lemon into lemonade by offering paid 3rd party AV via MS update and collect a royalty for each such delivery. They wouldn't have to collect the money for the product, MS update could just install trialware and it's up to the AV program to convince the user to pay. If the trialware expires then MS update again offers a set of AV choices to the user. Would the user be able to repeatedly install the same trialware? It's up to the AV vendors whether to permit that or not. And MS Update can require a EULA-like acceptance before installing that states Microsoft is not responsible for quality or performance of products not provided by them. Carl From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:14 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update I *almost* agree with you on that, Carl, but there is the issue of liability. It's one things to offer drivers via Microsoft Update, as there isn't quite the same level of timeliness required as with AV signatures. So, given the compressed time frame, is it wise for Microsoft to bear the brunt of providing AV signatures from other vendors that might have issues at some point? Surely, they've cannot apply the same process for QA and certification of 3rd party signatures as they would for 3rd party drivers, right? (Disclaimers will simply not be enough if a signature turns out to be bad, and they'll still have skeptics who insist that they sabotaged the 3rd party signature in such an event...) ASB (My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
My bad... I read past the initial delivery to ongoing signature updates -- which you didn't actually suggest. Okay, so I'm back on the bandwagon. :) *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: Why would MS have to deliver signature updates for 3rd party AV? No reason that I can think of. The 3rd party AV products would continue to operate as they do now, only the initial installation is offered via MS Update. That is what the complaining AV vendors are unhappy about. They think their not-free products should be available in the same way. Now, Microsoft could also turn this lemon into lemonade by offering paid 3rd party AV via MS update and collect a royalty for each such delivery. They wouldn't have to collect the money for the product, MS update could just install trialware and it's up to the AV program to convince the user to pay. If the trialware expires then MS update again offers a set of AV choices to the user. Would the user be able to repeatedly install the same trialware? It's up to the AV vendors whether to permit that or not. And MS Update can require a EULA-like acceptance before installing that states Microsoft is not responsible for quality or performance of products not provided by them. Carl *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:14 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update I *almost* agree with you on that, Carl, but there is the issue of liability. It's one things to offer drivers via Microsoft Update, as there isn't quite the same level of timeliness required as with AV signatures. So, given the compressed time frame, is it wise for Microsoft to bear the brunt of providing AV signatures from other vendors that might have issues at some point? Surely, they've cannot apply the same process for QA and certification of 3rd party signatures as they would for 3rd party drivers, right? (Disclaimers will simply not be enough if a signature turns out to be bad, and they'll still have skeptics who insist that they sabotaged the 3rd party signature in such an event...) *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl *From:* David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
They wouldn't even need to include the installation via WSUS, all they would need to do is put up a page offering and promoting the 3rd party AV products as best-of-breed or how using the 3rd party apps would extend security on a Windows computer. From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:33 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update Why would MS have to deliver signature updates for 3rd party AV? No reason that I can think of. The 3rd party AV products would continue to operate as they do now, only the initial installation is offered via MS Update. That is what the complaining AV vendors are unhappy about. They think their not-free products should be available in the same way. Now, Microsoft could also turn this lemon into lemonade by offering paid 3rd party AV via MS update and collect a royalty for each such delivery. They wouldn't have to collect the money for the product, MS update could just install trialware and it's up to the AV program to convince the user to pay. If the trialware expires then MS update again offers a set of AV choices to the user. Would the user be able to repeatedly install the same trialware? It's up to the AV vendors whether to permit that or not. And MS Update can require a EULA-like acceptance before installing that states Microsoft is not responsible for quality or performance of products not provided by them. Carl From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:14 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update I *almost* agree with you on that, Carl, but there is the issue of liability. It's one things to offer drivers via Microsoft Update, as there isn't quite the same level of timeliness required as with AV signatures. So, given the compressed time frame, is it wise for Microsoft to bear the brunt of providing AV signatures from other vendors that might have issues at some point? Surely, they've cannot apply the same process for QA and certification of 3rd party signatures as they would for 3rd party drivers, right? (Disclaimers will simply not be enough if a signature turns out to be bad, and they'll still have skeptics who insist that they sabotaged the 3rd party signature in such an event...) ASB (My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: Is Microsoft making money on this? No. Are they pushing ads to buy something? No. So I think Microsoft should make a big public splash by offering to provide via MS Update any other AV software that is also free-for-life and doesn't try to sell an upgrade to a paid version once installed. Be that'll shut 'em up quick. Carl From: David Lum [mailto:david@nwea.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update IMO they should offer a choice of multiple vendors if they want to play fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20022148-245.html?tag=mncol;title David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. True, but there are a plethora of free AV products already on the market. They're not breaking any new ground here. Except those other free AV products are not offered by companies which have a monopoly on the operating system market[1]. The rules are different for monopolies[2]. Plus, they've been providing Windows Defender for a long time, and this is in the anti-malware space (which also has a plethora of free options). To be honest, I've wondered why the other AV companies haven't been making more of a stink about that already. -- Ben [1] US v. MSFT (1998)[3] [2] One may disagree with US anti-trust law/policy, but that doesn't change same in the meantime. [3] One may disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly, but a US Court decided they were, and until and unless that finding is overturned[4], that is how the law sees things. [4] The Conclusions of Law[5] were overturned, the Findings of Fact[6] were not. [5] The decision to break-up MSFT. [6] This includes Microsoft has a monopoly. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
RE: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
There's precedent for ever-increasing bundled / standard functionality in an operating system without getting into the whole antitrust thing. Didn't the terminal emulator folks make noise about Hyperterminal? Carl -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Andrew S. Baker asbz...@gmail.com wrote: Dumping a product on the market to force competition out of business is a tried-and-true monopoly strategy, and Microsoft's gotten in trouble for it before. True, but there are a plethora of free AV products already on the market. They're not breaking any new ground here. Except those other free AV products are not offered by companies which have a monopoly on the operating system market[1]. The rules are different for monopolies[2]. Plus, they've been providing Windows Defender for a long time, and this is in the anti-malware space (which also has a plethora of free options). To be honest, I've wondered why the other AV companies haven't been making more of a stink about that already. -- Ben [1] US v. MSFT (1998)[3] [2] One may disagree with US anti-trust law/policy, but that doesn't change same in the meantime. [3] One may disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly, but a US Court decided they were, and until and unless that finding is overturned[4], that is how the law sees things. [4] The Conclusions of Law[5] were overturned, the Findings of Fact[6] were not. [5] The decision to break-up MSFT. [6] This includes Microsoft has a monopoly. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: There's precedent for ever-increasing bundled / standard functionality in an operating system without getting into the whole antitrust thing. Didn't the terminal emulator folks make noise about Hyperterminal? Probably, but they had no money to fight a court battle. The big AV companies have deep pockets, and the big guys and the small guys are willing to work together against the really big guy (MSFT), so legal action is more likely, methinks. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, now, mind you -- just more likely to happen than a lawsuit from the likes of Telix and ProComm. Remember, what the law says is only part of the equation. You also have to be able to afford to pay lawyers (or get enough public interest going for a government suit). -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Re: MS Anti-virus delivered via Microsoft Update
I don't think it will come to a lawsuit for a variety of reasons. Part of Microsoft's problem the first time around was that they compelled (or heavily induced) OEMs to restrict choice. This, plus the relative newness of the Internet at that time (late 90s) meant that most consumers didn't have viable alternatives. Today, everyone and his brother who purchases a machine through HP, Dell, Acer, Gateway, etc, is getting their choice of one or more bundled trialware AV products. Microsoft is primarily covering the bases on those whose subscription has run out and have not renewed, or those who have managed to fall through the cracks. And there are more than enough complaints that they *should* be providing said functionality right in the OS. A lawsuit of this nature will be much easier to defend, and consequently, less likely to happen by the ones who could be most effective at bringing it about. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: There's precedent for ever-increasing bundled / standard functionality in an operating system without getting into the whole antitrust thing. Didn't the terminal emulator folks make noise about Hyperterminal? Probably, but they had no money to fight a court battle. The big AV companies have deep pockets, and the big guys and the small guys are willing to work together against the really big guy (MSFT), so legal action is more likely, methinks. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, now, mind you -- just more likely to happen than a lawsuit from the likes of Telix and ProComm. Remember, what the law says is only part of the equation. You also have to be able to afford to pay lawyers (or get enough public interest going for a government suit). -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
