Microsoft's plans to improve the security of Windows through the purchase of an anti-virus company almost a year ago appear to be stuck in limbo. The software giant entered the AV market with the surprise acquisition of little known Romanian AV firm GeCAD Software for an undisclosed sum in June last year.
At the time Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support for third-party antivirus vendors. "The knowledge and experience acquired from GeCAD will contribute to Microsoft's understanding of how systems are attacked, enabling Microsoft to more effectively focus on platform improvements," it said.
Speaking at the recent Infosecurity Europe show Jonathan Perera, Senior Director at Microsoft's Security Business and Technology Unit, said the company is not ready to announce a product strategy for GeCAD almost a year after the acquisition. GeCAD's technology is been used in programming interfaces to make it easier to plug anti-virus software into Windows, he said.
That covers "extending support for third-party antivirus vendors" but it doesn't cover the "platform improvements" Microsoft promised. Since the purchase of GeCAD we've had Blaster, MyDoom, NetSky and now Sasser so Microsoft is not exactly short of reasons to push on with improvements. So why the apparent lack of progress?
View: Story @ El Reg
At the time Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support for third-party antivirus vendors. "The knowledge and experience acquired from GeCAD will contribute to Microsoft's understanding of how systems are attacked, enabling Microsoft to more effectively focus on platform improvements," it said.
Speaking at the recent Infosecurity Europe show Jonathan Perera, Senior Director at Microsoft's Security Business and Technology Unit, said the company is not ready to announce a product strategy for GeCAD almost a year after the acquisition. GeCAD's technology is been used in programming interfaces to make it easier to plug anti-virus software into Windows, he said.
That covers "extending support for third-party antivirus vendors" but it doesn't cover the "platform improvements" Microsoft promised. Since the purchase of GeCAD we've had Blaster, MyDoom, NetSky and now Sasser so Microsoft is not exactly short of reasons to push on with improvements. So why the apparent lack of progress?
View: Story @ El Reg
"Getting wider buy-in for the project wasn't just about ROI, it was about fitting in with the values we seek to embody as an HR consultancy. Having said that we've seen a 10% increase in billable hours with our consultants, as they have been able to utilise that dead time that traditionally existed when travelling."
Nigel said that the technology had personally benefited him recently. He explained: "I flew from London to Manchester and spent an hour catching up on all of my correspondence. This meant that when I arrived at the meeting I was up to speed with all the developments. We're now developing profiling tools that will see staff issued with Windows Mobile-based devices or laptops depending on how they work."
Shouldn't MS know by now how their OS is attacked?
not everyone knows everything, not even microsoft.
STV
To me patches are good. They indicate that a problem is being solved.
While the number and frequency of patches aren't relevant to AV, per se, the fact that STV pointed out that everyone updates and fixes their software shows that people aren't perfect. Flaws will get by.
In fact, the biggest problem in virus and worm propogation is people! The compromized systems are rarely the ones that are kept updated.
STV
...care to explain, what you mean?
STV
Syrian Television
Scottish Television
Star Trek: Voyager
Straight to Video
come on, which one seems to be the likely one?
STV
My apologies. Here is what I mean:
Oh my ****ing god, STV.
it is Star Trek: Voyager
STV
Perhaps that is what the final line of the article referenced when it said
So why do you care?
All you worshippers at the altar of Open Source keep telling us that Linux is totally secure and invulnerable to attack—unlike the spawn of the Great Satan Micro$haft.
Why would a totally secure OS need antivirus protection in the first place?
All you worshippers at the altar of Open Source keep telling us that Linux is totally secure and invulnerable to attack—unlike the spawn of the Great Satan Micro$haft.
Why would a totally secure OS need antivirus protection in the first place?
First, there is no need to jump in with a hostile tone for no reason...
Secondly, as any admin of a mixed network will tell you, you use anti-virus on a Linux mailserver to protect those Windows machines connected to it that may be unpateched and vunerable (laptops seem to be expecially prone to this, as some users don't boot up but a few times a year).
So, just step back a bit, take a few breaths and chill... Your question was valid, but the tone was unnecessary.
The question wasn't meant to be a valid one.
My purpose was to launch a totally uprovoked, unwarranted, and pointless attack on the Open Source community for no good reason.
Just trying out my troll skills in case I lapse into a state of total insanity.
I belive MS are only doing what they are doing with Win Firewall just to limit the amount of attacks that are going about that home users dont know about.
I cant wait for MS to add a basic AV scanner to warn home users of threats.
nothing like McAfee just to warn them.
dont flame me, i just want somthing that i can say you were warned by Windows kind of thing
Wasn't that IBM Antivirus?
Copyright 1993 Central Point Software
but it depends if they ship it with their os' , if they do you can be sure symantec and and the makers of mcaffe and the sorts will go
"aahh excuse me.. anti competition" in some country and yet another case will begin
When attacks move to linux... then cause more damage.
You state an inflammatory opinion with nothing to back up your claim.
You draw a conclusion out of thin air.
Obviously, you are trolling here...
so...what can they do?
1) include it with the OS.
2) include it with their shrink-wrapped, boxed OS, and send the OEM a non-AV included OS version.
3) sell it in stores
4) make it a free AV
those are th ones that i can think of off the top of my head.
STV
First order of business was to put a halt to RAV's Linux & Novell products.
STV
Now, they are sort of stuck. If they add AV into Windows, they will get sued. If they don't people will bitch and complain that they aren't doing enough. Surely, they were aware of this situation before buying the company.
It is one area where I feel sorry for Microsoft's prediciment (arguing about who's fault they are scrutinized aside). They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. :|
see my post below on a possible solution
please have something to add on your next post.
all i can say, is that if they do plan to sell it in stores, I will have to check it out, if the price is right. I use norton, but that costs a lot when you buys it in stores. so, if it is cheap and proves its worth then ill use it, plain and simple.
but i dont think that they even know how they can use it without getting screwed by some other company (like someone said, damned if they do, damned if they dont).
STV
STV
As for the Linux/Novell arguments. Well for one: there are lots of companies that offer gateways for email servers and such and most companies will use them. I don't see this buy out of this AV company effecting much that way.
excuse me? what was that?
I don't remember Firefox, Opera or Mozilla even supporting ActiveX, let alone automaticly running software without the user knowing.
Just a little comment, something that every anti-virus software forgot... cleaning the registry after easing a virus... At my job, I saw like 20 laptops a day all infected and when I finished scanning with whatever anti-virus, I gotta scan the registry and find those registry key that aren'T supose to be there because of the virus...
The Security Center in SP2 came from the PC Satisfaction Trial, sans the anti-virus.
What were the specs on your Pc, because it ran fine on mine. The only complaints I sent to MS were their idiotic use of suggesting how to backup your PC. Not everyone wants to waste a blank CD every week to backup your PC.
IE, Media Player, Firewall, burner software, compression software, all bundled with Windows and I don't use them. If they bundled an AV product I wouldn't use it either.
I prefer to use software that I wish to use and although I'm glad they incorporate those features its nice to have an alternative.
How would making it easier for 3rd party AntiVirus software to find viruses violate an AntiTrust law?
From my understanding, Microsoft isn't even planning to have an AntiVirus (although I am telling them that they should intergrade a basic definition only AntiVirus that updates inself automatically with Windows for the people who don't care enough to buy an AntiVirus and keep it up to date), Microsoft is planning on making it easier for 3rd party AntiViruses to kill viruses.
lets face it, the os needs built in av support, but microsoft know if they just bolt one in whether that's their own, or a 3rd party's straight out of the box some whining bitch will complain about it. The only solution is to make it open - but also to provide their own engine to plug in to it.
a bit like how dvd play back in media player operates, but better obviously.
Also, I think it would be as simple to disable/bypass as the included CD-R software in XP.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.