Ha. Sure. After all, a rattlesnake won't really bite you if you get too close.
Posted on 02/20/2005 5:15:24 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper
If Microsoft Corp. doesn't do more to stem Internet attacks, the company risks further alienating customers unhappy with the multitude of threats already facing its ubiquitous software. Sell its own security products, on the other hand, and Microsoft faces a potential backlash from some of its allies _ the companies that now provide an extra layer of security for its Windows operating system, Internet Explorer browser and other products.
With a powerhouse like Microsoft becoming a direct competitor, they could get squeezed out.
What a quandary.
Last week, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates confirmed plans to sell antivirus products to both consumers and big businesses by the end of the year. But the Redmond company is mum on cost and features.
Speaking at a security conference, Gates also said the company would give consumers a free tool for combating spyware, a pesky and growing threat that can monitor users' activities, hinder computer performance and create other hassles. Microsoft also will sell a more sophisticated antispyware product to businesses.
Executives in the security industry say they believe Microsoft's promise to continue sharing security information and working with other security companies even after it becomes a direct competitor.
Analyst Gregg Moskowitz with Susquehanna Financial Group said both sides have an incentive to "continue to play nice with each other."
The security companies are dependent on Microsoft to make sure their defenses run smoothly, while Microsoft cannot risk having competing security products break down and wreak more havoc on Windows, Moskowitz said.
"A very significant number of people, if they don't have a good security experience, they're going to hold it against Microsoft _ even if they're using another vendor," Moskowitz said.
Still, John Schwarz, president and chief operating officer of Symantec Corp., would rather see Microsoft concentrate on fixing security flaws.
"We believe they'd be better off in focusing on making sure that their platform, the Windows operating system, is less subject to attack," Schwarz said.
Microsoft has worked feverishly to better secure its products, including updating Windows XP with a new firewall and other security measures. But given their widespread use, the products are near-constant targets of attacks that take advantage of loopholes and flaws to hijack computers, steal personal information and cripple businesses.
McAfee Inc. President Gene Hodges calls its new competitor an example of "capitalism at its best."
But he said it will only be a fair fight if all companies have a level playing field in which everyone sells, rather than gives away, products.
Microsoft's move to sell antivirus software appears fair so far, Hodges said, though he said Microsoft's decision to give away an antispyware product could hurt smaller players who can't afford such giveaways.
"We would have rather they entered the market for spyware and competed," Hodges said.
Security companies including McAfee already sell antispyware products, generally charging between $30 and $40, though a few give away versions or trials for free.
Microsoft has downplayed the competitive angle, saying they are simply responding to requests from customers for more protection options. Amy Roberts, a director with the company's security and business unit, said the company is most concerned about people who have no extra protection at all.
Peter Kuper, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, believes Microsoft is most interested in protecting its Windows franchise, not finding a new way to make money.
The security problems are costly and damaging to Microsoft's reputation, he said, and failure to address the threats could drive more customers to competing products such as the Mozilla Firefox browser or Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS computers.
"They're not winning the war. They're not winning the battle," Kuper said. "So Microsoft is saying, `I don't care whether it's free, as long as it's something. That's better than nothing.'"
Kuper isn't expecting Microsoft to immediately snag much market share from Symantec, McAfee and others. But he noted that, while Microsoft may not be looking at security as a big revenue stream, the cash-rich company could easily afford to undercut its competitors.
Symantec's Schwarz said he worries that Microsoft's clout could also discourage smaller security companies from entering the market or staying in it, effectively reducing options for consumers.
Microsoft's prior moves into new markets _ including trouncing browser pioneer Netscape by shipping its Windows systems with Internet Explorer, now such a common target of Web-based attacks _ have gotten the company in hot water with antitrust regulators in the United States and Europe. But for now at least, some competitors say they aren't planning to take this battle to court.
Symantec's Schwarz argues that his company's products will have an edge, especially with business customers, because they protect more than just Microsoft products. And McAfee's Hodges said he's confident his company's reputation will keep customers loyal.
"I'd rather fight Microsoft in the marketplace because we're convinced we can whip them," Symantec Chief Executive John Thompson said at the security conference where Gates spoke. "So this is not about showing up in Washington or whining on someone's doorstep about what Microsoft can or might do."
Finally, a true capitalist steps up to the plate. Eff the McNealy, Andreesen, and Jim Clark weaklings in Silly Convict Valley. These bozos ran into the arms of the Clinton Admin to tell Microsoft to play nice.
Symantec's Thompson sounds like he's taken Microsoft's history into account and included it into his company's biz plan: A plan that seems to exclude the Federal government.
How about an instant death penalty for the scum who create the viruses?
Why can't viruses be eliminated at the ISP level?
I've been using the beta version of MS Antispyware. It seems to work well, and occasionally finds something that AdAware and SpyBot miss.
They're just taking advantage of the holes, inconsistencies, and "features" that microsoft wrote into their software. Go after microsoft for not giving the user the option to DEFEAT all these features that LET viruses/etc. self-activate and run your system.
Better yet: beat yourself up for purchasing and continuing to use software like that.
I'm using it too.
I dumped SpyBot and AdAware because it works so much better and quicker.
Ha. Sure. After all, a rattlesnake won't really bite you if you get too close.
MSFT's original poor design caused the problem in the first place. Now they get to charge more money, to fix the problem they themselves caused. Me? I am going to stick to Unix-derived systems like Mac OSX, Linux, and Solaris.
Now I use Ad-aware and Spyware Doctor and like them both. I've also been trying Kaspersky for the free trial period. All are better than nothing, but I long for an integrated system that doesn't lock up my computer or use up all its resources like NIS 2005 did.
There are still a few instances when spyware undetected by one of these three is not detected by the others. I caught 8 minor spyware files a few days ago with AdAware that MS Spyware missed.
But I confess that at some point some of this will have to come off my computer, because it soaks up too much memory. I ran Spyware Guard until recently, but took it off because it hadn't intercepted anything for several months and it was using too much active memory. I had to turn off Teatimer in Spybot for similar reasons.
It's really annoying that these spyware freaks are forcing everyone's computer to run slower because we need these programs. Plus I need to run Norton Antivirus and ZoneAlarm, which both are major pigs of time and memory.
I use one computer as an Internet gateway that is setup with a strong firewall and uses NAT routing for all the computers connected to it. The computers connected to it are setup as two independent networks with no routing between the two networks. One being my home office and the other being the rest of the house. That way I don't have to run firewall software along with all it's overhead on each machine. Splitting the networks also offers reasonable protection to my home office network from the rest of the house where others are more likely to pick something up from the Web. With NAT routing it is much more difficult to find the computers behind the router from the outside (in addition to the firewall) as they don't have an externally routable IP.
I set the spyware checking program(s) to manual. I only check once in awhile to make sure nothing snuck up on me. So the only performance overhead I have is my Norton Antivirus on the machine I constantly use.
I'm giving the beta MS Antispyware a shot too. So far, no big problems with it, but it does slow some things down a bit - Word documents take 5 seconds vs the normal 0.5 seconds to open with the real-time protections enabled. It would appear that Microsoft still doesn't take the time to do things right and to try to make their stuff more efficient.
I used a Linksys Router as a mechanical firewall for a while, but it became incompatible with my cable provider for some reason and I had to remove it. I've been thinking of trying something like that again, because I'd like to network a few of the other computers in the house. Maybe a different or updated router might do the trick.
That's a good plan.
The only problem I've had so far is that it keeps questioning whether SpamPal is safe when I reboot the computer, and I can't find a place in the settings to exclude Spampal.exe. If it turned up spampal during the scan I could exclude it, but there doesn't seem to be any provision for dealing with this glitch. And although they call it a beta, there doesn't seem to be any way to communicate such minor bugs to the right people at Microsoft.
You ought to check Linksys' Web site and see if there's a firmware update for it that will render it compatible again. Unless it's pretty old, there may well be.
You don't need to scan everything over and over.
Scan only new things that are downloaded (in other words, do it manually).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.