Microsoft Patents Proactive Virus Protection

[zerologic]

InformationWeek

Patent: 7,376,970

Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) has just snared a U.S. patent for proactive virus protection, which is how security software helps secure your PC when it encounters shape-shifting malware not already in its antivirus definition file. What I want to know is, what does this mean for all the other vendors -- like McAfee,Symantec, Kaspersky, and Trend Micro -- that have been selling proactive protection software for years? Do they now have to pay Microsoft protection; I mean, royalties?

Marinescu's patent:

"The current anti-virus software protection paradigm is a reactionary system; i.e., the anti-virus software is updated to protect a computer from malware only after the malware is released. Unfortunately, this means that at least some computers will be infected before anti-virus software is updated. . .

A substantial portion if not almost all unknown malware that exploits computer vulnerabilities are rewrites of previously released malware. Indeed, encountering absolutely novel malware is relatively rare. However, due to the pattern matching system employed by current anti-virus systems, it is not difficult to rehash/rewrite known malware such that the malware will get past the protection provided by anti-virus software.

In light of the above-identified problems, it would be beneficial to computer users, both in terms of computer security and in terms of cost-effectiveness, to have anti-virus software that proactively protects a computer against rewritten, or reorganized, malware designed for operating systems that make API calls. The present invention is directed to providing such software."

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

Weird, Nod32 FTW!

[EduardValencia]

The current anti-virus software protection paradigm is a reactionary system

That explains you how antivirus software is operating these days,and the difference bewteen this patent and actual anti-virus solutions :D

Welll MS should make lot's of profits with this tech or perhaps antivirus vendors are not interested in applying the tech,since it makes AV products obsolete for Windows

[zerologic]

So who thinks companies like McAfee, Symantec and Kaspersky will be up for a licensing fee from Microsoft now?

[Arkaic]

That explains you how antivirus software is operating these days,and the difference bewteen this patent and actual anti-virus solutions :D

Welll MS should make lot's of profits with this tech or perhaps antivirus vendors are not interested in applying the tech,since it makes AV products obsolete for Windows

Yes, but what about heuristics? Don't they identify virus patterns without actually having an update?

[EduardValencia]

Yes, but what about heuristics? Don't they identify virus patterns without actually having an update?

Yes that came up in my mind a few secons ago,a lot of AV solutions have heuristics tech incorporated,i'm confused now :huh:

[primexx]

ah the failings of the patent system

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

I thought you couldn't patent something already used in the US? Unless Microsoft was already working on this technology before them all and since patent application takes so long, the results just arrived

[EduardValencia]

Perhaps if we have more information we could determine exactly what MS patented,i think this info isn't enough.

[DreadBoat89]

In light of the above-identified problems, it would be beneficial to computer users, both in terms of computer security and in terms of cost-effectiveness, to have anti-virus software that proactively protects a computer against rewritten, or reorganized, malware designed for operating systems that make API calls. The present invention is directed to providing such software."

wonder what that means...

[Brandon Live Veteran]

So who thinks companies like McAfee, Symantec and Kaspersky will be up for a licensing fee from Microsoft now?

Who knows. But Microsoft generally uses its patents "defensively" - I can't really think of any situations where Microsoft makes substantial revenue from licensing patents, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

[zerologic]

Perhaps if we have more information we could determine exactly what MS patented,i think this info isn't enough.

There's a link there that goes to the actual patent. Don't know how much more information you need.

[Brian M. Veteran]

I can't see how Microsoft would be allowed this Patent - considering the technology it describes is already in use in hundreds of products :s.

[Miuku.]

Since it's US only - I don't give a toss :p

Seriously though, this "technology" if you can call it that has so many prior art examples that it would most likely fall over in court if ever contested.

[Caveman-ugh]

I think that I might know what microsoft is about..... a program called "BrowserShield".

In its first incarnation it was just called "Shield" http://research.microsoft.com/research/shield/

BrowserShield was around before microsoft issued out IE7 !

If it is this that they are bringing out bye bye antivirus vendors.

[HappyAndyK]

Woah ! Sure does put MS in the drivers seat here. Would be real interesting to see how the other Security co's react :D

[Long]

Patent Filed: February 20, 2004

[neufuse Veteran]

I thought you couldn't patent something already used in the US? Unless Microsoft was already working on this technology before them all and since patent application takes so long, the results just arrived

I bet they applied for the pattent before it was used elsewhere... the patent system can be so unbelievable show in some instances... I've heard of patents being granted 10 years after it was submitted...