According to Reuters, Microsoft is getting set to release free anti-virus software for Windows to compete with the likes of Symantec and McAfee. The software product, codenamed "Morro" after a beach in Sao Paulo, Brazil, is already being tested by Microsoft employees and a trial version will be made available "soon".
Although it is difficult to gauge the effects this move by Microsoft will have over the long term, the announcement appears to have contributed to a recent 0.5% decline in Symantec shares and a 1.3% drop in McAfee shares, while Microsoft's stock price has risen 2.1%. The anti-virus industry generates billions of dollars for companies such as Symantec and McAfee, and Microsoft has always sought to gain a foothold in that market.
The Redmond company's now discontinued OneCare product was one attempt to enter that lucrative market. Although OneCare did generate revenue directly through subscriptions, Microsoft's new anti-virus software will be free to Windows users, meaning that it, like Internet Explorer, could lead to antitrust lawsuits somewhere down the line.
FBR Capital Markets analyst Daniel Ives sees Microsoft's move as "a long-term competitive threat" to other companies operating in the anti-virus space, but he says that in the short-term the "Morro" product is unlikely to make much of a dent in the profits of those other companies.
"Morro" is likely to be targeted to compete with the low end of anti-virus products from other providers, and it will not have much of an impact on sales of full-blown security suites. According to Janice Chaffin, president of Symantec's Consumer Division, "Microsoft's free product is basically a stripped down version of the OneCare product Microsoft pulled from the shelves. A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected."
The free "Morro" service should, according to Microsoft, be up and running by the end of this year. Although it is true that many anti-virus solutions from other providers have long been available free on the Internet for consumers, this move by Microsoft could well create more legal woes for the company, given its legal status as a monopoly.
True but if it’s given away free with the Windows Live suite and not bundled with Windows I don’t think the EU could complain either way could they?
Considering other companies are offering free Antivirus software I don't see how they would have any case as long as MS doesn't include it with Windows.
However, it is still the EU...
most of you are so ignorant...
the eu only problem is when ms bundles the software offering no other option to the average regular consumer
most of you are so ignorant...
the eu only problem is when ms bundles the software offering no other option to the average regular consumer
Example of something that wasn't available to regular consumers? Or is the EU just mad because MS didn't paint a huge sign for them on where to find it?
They just should release it to other nations, problem solved.
The EU is not a "nation". It is a very large group of countries, comprising hundreds of millions of people.
Not releasing stuff in the EU is generally inconceivable for any company.
I have to ask, why is the EU trying to dictate what MS can and can't put in it's product?
most of you are so ignorant...
the eu only problem is when ms bundles the software offering no other option to the average regular consumer
Example of something that wasn't available to regular consumers? Or is the EU just mad because MS didn't paint a huge sign for them on where to find it?
I agree. proof that politicians are absolutely stupid. this has be instigated by corporations
It's the Fox guarding the hen house.
It's the Fox guarding the hen house.
Are you saying Microsoft distributes malware? Where did you hear that? The OS is locked down fine out of the box after XP. They can't do anything about people that choose to disable the security features.
You may be surprised to hear about how effective OneCare has been in recent tests...
It's the Fox guarding the hen house.
Your clueless. MS does not write viruses/malware.
It's the Fox guarding the hen house.
Are you saying Microsoft distributes malware? Where did you hear that? The OS is locked down fine out of the box after XP. They can't do anything about people that choose to disable the security features.
No what I am saying is that they have a OS that has security holes in it still, so for people who write malware, virii, trojans etc etc, can exploit it.
So instead of fixing the OS to stop malware, virii and trojans from getting on it in the first place they just turn around and re-write or change the name of the 40 dollar windows live Onecare and give it away because they sure as hell couldn't sell it.
Tell me why would you use a product like this. Written by a company that can't keep security issues off the system in the first place? Why would you trust them? Because it's Microsoft? Because they said so?
The same thing can be said about the Windows Defender product. That product can't even remove a majority of the malware from the OS once it's on the system and they wrote the OS!
It's the Fox guarding the hen house.
Are you saying Microsoft distributes malware? Where did you hear that? The OS is locked down fine out of the box after XP. They can't do anything about people that choose to disable the security features.
No what I am saying is that they have a OS that has security holes in it still, so for people who write malware, virii, trojans etc etc, can exploit it.
So instead of fixing the OS to stop malware, virii and trojans from getting on it in the first place they just turn around and re-write or change the name of the 40 dollar windows live Onecare and give it away because they sure as hell couldn't sell it.
Tell me why would you use a product like this. Written by a company that can't keep security issues off the system in the first place? Why would you trust them? Because it's Microsoft? Because they said so?
The same thing can be said about the Windows Defender product. That product can't even remove a majority of the malware from the OS once it's on the system and they wrote the OS!
You do realise that any complex, huge, software system will always have security holes and security issues which need to be improved, right? Even the operating system of your choice will have many - maybe more than Windows. The only reason why more of the security holes are explioted in Windows is because of it's higher market share.
Microsoft are improving the security of its Windows operating system with every release. What more do you expect them to do? It would be impossible to create an operating system that can't be exploited in certain ways.
Linux and MacOS are just as vulnerable, if not moreso, than Windows. The worst responder to exposed vulnerabilities is probably Apple, while Linux may be the quickest. If anything, for Microsoft to respond as well as they do with their position in the market is incredible and a sign of a strong team of programmers.
MS actually has an enterprise AV/anti-malware product called Forefront Client Security.
Windows is not full of security holes anymore, and statements like yours have not been true since the pre-XP SP2 era. The majority of recent exploited issues have been in 3rd party products (like Flash, Java, Adobe Reader, etc...) that, if you have a well-configured Vista/7/Server 2008 box, weren't exploitable at all.
Much of the malware out there comes in the form of trojans. The issue with trojans is it doesn't matter how secure the OS is - if the user gives it access, your system is compromised. That's where MS apps like Windows Defender/OneCare (and now Morro) come in.
I have not run live virus-scanning on my machines in years (though I do run the occasional manual scan), and I use the Internet for hours a day, and I have yet to get a virus. How is this possible if Windows was as insecure as you claim?
Those tests are surely "recent" because last time i checked which was couple of months ago OneCare did not perform so well compared to the best on the market.
[edit]
Did some research and seems MS improved OneCare since last time i checked.
Back in February of this year OneCare was still in the middle of the crowd http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/...our-winners.ars though.
That's a big turnover in such a small timeframe.
I'll probably try it when my Bitdefender subscribtion will expire if MS keeps on getting good score with its AV solution.
Last edited by LaP on 11 Jun 2009 - 21:12
No, he's saying Microsoft is an enabler of cybercrime because of the insecure software design practices Microsoft employs.
The latest example being the so-called ClickOnce plugin for Firefox which is silently installed with the .NET framework update. MS doesn't even provide an uninstaller! Nice. Real nice. MS is never going to change, that's why they must be sued to get anything fixed.
And please tell us what in hell that has to do with malware?
Or Avast, for that matter (which I happen to use, after the announcement, last year, that WLOC's days were numbered; I had been a WLOC beta-tester throughout its entire product cycle). Consider that McAfee is the most-bundled AV product by ISPs (especially US-based ISPs). The second-most bundled? Symantec (no surprise there; not only is it a favorite bundleware from Dell and HP, it's also part of the bundleware of most makers of motherboards, especially ASUS). Number three is now Trend Micro (the bundleware of choice for router maker Cisco Systems; they are primarily known for non-business users under their Linksys brand).
Sounds like LOTS of competition (much of it free) in the AV space.
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/...ree-winners.ars
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/...ree-winners.ars
QFT/+1
I had been a beta-tester of WLOC throughout its life (I'm also a beta-tester for Symantec's AV and other utility products, so I can compare them heads-up). Quite honestly, WLOC kicked Norton butt in terms of both false-positives *and* in-the-wild virus protection, and did so in a smaller memory footprint. WLOC has a smaller RAM footprint than even Avast! (which I use now), and is better on false-positives. Avast's advantage (for my situation) is Windows 7 support, which WLOC understandably lacks. (Because of the fact that I was a beta-tester of WLOC, cost/price was irrelevant.)
looking forward to it. onecare was awesome. if it's built just like that AV i'll be stoked!
hopefully they'll have a separate update mechanism than Windows Update for definitions, though.
Gameboy
WLOC's miniscule memory footprint likely has a LOT to do with it; considering what you get, the fact that WLOC uses less RAM than either Avast or Zone Alarm (let alone Symantec or McAfee) and rose all the way to number two (from a standing start; remember, Microsoft prior to the acquisition of Giant Software had NO AV utility history) in terms of effectiveness (trailing only Kapersky) is likely VERY galling (moreso for Symantec than McAfee; Symantec acquisition Central Point Software supplied AV software for MS-DOS 5/6.x, while McAfee supplied the AV software for Microsoft's Plus! 9
Yeah, that stuff wasn't that good. Just run Defrag, and it would warn you that every file has been "modified".
Yeah, that stuff wasn't that good. Just run Defrag, and it would warn you that every file has been "modified".
MSAV for DOS/Windows was supplied by Central Point Software and was a basic version of Central Point Anti-Virus, which was also included in their own PC Tools 7.1; in a rather amusing piece of backstory, Central Point Software was itself acquired that same year......by Symantec.
Indeed it was/is.
Defender is an excellent product too. I've not had anything get past it. Why do you think it doesn't do anything?
It depends on what "malware" you're talking about. It isn't designed to deal with anything but spyware.
I also liked OneCare (which seemed to be in free beta even longer than it was offered for sale). I look forward to evaluating their new product.
Well, it has done a damm good job on my systems so far!
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...er/default.mspx
Why wouldn't you? It's not like having an insecure OS would help them.
Shameful.
Shameful.
Wow, did you say the same thing about OneCare, which was also not bundled with Windows?
What possible bias is there about antivirus software? You either stop it or you don't.
Who knows Windows internals better than MS, when they have access to the source and know exactly how it works?
Remember when Symantec threw a fit because some early Vista betas completely locked them out of the kernel and they couldn't figure out ways to sneak in their code? That's a good thing.
Or would you rather trust the company who made the OS, who probably knows all the innards inside and out, and who has had a good product history with OneCare and ForeFront? Also since it's free, and not bundled, there should be no stupid reason to get upset?
You make it sound like Microsoft is doing bad by trying to protect its users.
The biggest problem with the tune-up tool was that you couldn't customize it (most other third-party tune-up utilities for Windows are at least customizable, though you still have to run them manually). The backup tool rocks; unlike a LOT of others, it supports media-spanning (CDs and DVDs) and -RW media (even DVD-RW); however, until recently, it didn't support NAS or networked backups (it now supports both, and in the background), and it never supported 64-bit versions of Windows (even XP64).
MS should be putting its efforts into fixing the OS so it's not susceptible to malware.
That's exactly what I'm wondering
MS should be putting its efforts into fixing the OS so it's not susceptible to malware.
Isn't that one of the primary goals of Windows 7? Also, wasn't that one of the biggest advancements of Vista?
Anti-Virus should be built in.
The trouble with UAC is that it pops up from user generated clicking even in Win7. Most users just click through the messages and end up with some trojan. There must be a better way.
It is the same world where Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister downwards can commit fraud yet get away with it!
Assuming you're talking about the UK, that's hardly relevant to this topic.
Governments also have a duty to safeguard jobs and prevent companies abusing their positions (I am not suggesting it is happening here, but it *could* have happened, and has happened previously).
Windows Live Onecare let me working on this computer and playing game on this computer when they are scanning, and they are faster than Norton and others.
Gameboy
As regards to Defender though, although I'm a M$ fanboy
'What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50." Would you buy it?'
one word...
Macintosh.
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.