MS to charge for security?



M
07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm

Don't see this being popular.

Richard Urban
07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
After being stomped by the justice department it would be foolish for them
to "give" away what many other companies charge for. Don't you ever read the
newspapers?

Anti Spyware is different matter. More than 50% of the best products
available are already FREE! Therefore they can give it away without
incurring any close scrutiny.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"M" <H@teSpam.com> wrote in message
news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
>
> Don't see this being popular.
>

BigJim
07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
I think it is great news, now maybe someone with a bundle of money will
start seriously developing Linux to it's Nth degree.

"M" <H@teSpam.com> wrote in message
news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
>
> Don't see this being popular.
>

07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
"M" <H@teSpam.com> wrote in message
news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
>
> Don't see this being popular.
>


Quote from linked article:

"is unbelievable that Microsoft is attempting to launch a service to
charge customers for protection from flaws in its own products."

Uh, so firewalls are only needed for Windows? Firewalls aren't used for
any other operating system, like Linux? So what is the point of
firewall "appliances" that operate independently of whatever platforms
the hosts use in the protected network? So anti-virus software is only
needed for Windows? Hmm, wonder why those AV vendors have *NIX versions
of their products. And, of course, rootkits are only effective in the
domain of Windows (i.e., you're expected to forget on which platform
where rootkits evolved). Malware only attacks Windows? Gee, I wonder
why they would target the largest number of instances rather than going
after the smaller number of Linux installs because we all know
malcontents always attempt to afflict the least harm. Of course, a
user-installed program on Linux by an admin so the program has root
privileges can't possibly do more harm than a admin user-installed
program on Windows.

Geez, give it to them for free (although crippled or limited) for awhile
and they get so used to it that they think it is no longer a privilege
but a right, and that it is their right to have the full or unrestricted
version. You do realize that the defrag.exe you get in Windows is a
crippled version of Diskeeper, yet only idiots scream that Microsoft
should be providing the full version of Diskeeper (but, of course, also
for free). Since WordPad is provided for free then surely Microsoft
should also be providing Word for free. Uh huh.

And, of course, we all know that every software developer is always
eager to lower their bottom line by incurring additional expense for
technical support. OneCare includes "get a live support person on the
phone without paying extra", and you don't think they'll charge for that
extra support in the way of subscription costs?

I suppose they could just bundle their current inbound-only protection
firewall, old Giant coded AntiSpyware (with no enterprise version),
degrade RAV so it provides 85% to 90% coverage that is typical of
freebie anti-virus products, and completely remove the support option to
give you what you already have now which you get for free. But
obviously they wouldn't have to bundle anything since you already have
those free but limited security products. Every time Microsoft adds
more fluff to their OS, a bunch of folks scream "monopolistic marketing"
(despite that the products are crippled or severely limited compared to
3rd party products). So if Microsoft were to offer a decent firewall,
anti-virus, and anti-spyware bundle for free - and also toss in
technical support - and provide it all for free, you think all the other
software vendors wouldn't be suing Microsoft for unfair and monopolistic
business practices?

Greedy cheapskates always rant they should be getting something for free
yet they bitch about Gates getting rich. Yeah, greed, it's only evil
when you're talking about someone else's greed, uh huh.

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
<Vanguard> wrote:

> So anti-virus software is only needed for Windows? Hmm, wonder why those
AV vendors have *NIX versions of their products.

Essentially to offer protection for Windoze computers connected to a Linux
network.

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
"M" <H@teSpam.com> wrote in message
news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
>
> Don't see this being popular.

Maybe they should actually find out what Microsoft OneCare really is before
they start scare mongering stories.
see
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/onecare/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/may05/05-13WindowsOneCarePR.asp

This does not replace the ability to download security patches for our
operating systems from Microsoft.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"M" <H@teSpam.com> wrote in message
news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
>
> Don't see this being popular.
>

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:25 PM
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "M" <H@teSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:uIA07$8VFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39198263,00.htm
>>
>> Don't see this being popular.
>
> Maybe they should actually find out what Microsoft OneCare really is
> before they start scare mongering stories.
> see
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/onecare/default.mspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/may05/05-13WindowsOneCarePR.asp
>
> This does not replace the ability to download security patches for our
> operating systems from Microsoft.

Who said that it did, Mike?

But people that put all of their eggs in MS's security basket better
like their eggs scrambled!

All NoOne Cares does is point out how insecure you bleeding OS is to
begin with.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

07-09-2005, 11:26 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:yw4he.1338248$6l.1054361@pd7tw2no...
> <Vanguard> wrote:
>
>> So anti-virus software is only needed for Windows? Hmm, wonder why
>> those
> AV vendors have *NIX versions of their products.
>
> Essentially to offer protection for Windoze computers connected to a
> Linux
> network.


AV software protects the host on which it executes, not the hosts that
connect to it because it can't do anything over there (unless it is also
running over there but then there becomes the local host on which the AV
runs). AV programs don't protect hosts that connect to you. You are
really concerned about a virus on a Window host connecting to your Linux
host if the virus couldn't also run on your Linux host? So how would
that be different than a Linux host connecting to you and passing on the
same virus that runs under Linux? AV protects you, not them, and them
could be any platform.

--
____________________________________________________________
** Post your replies to the newsgroup - Share with others **
For e-mail Reply: remove "DELETE", add "~VN56~" to Subject.
____________________________________________________________

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:26 PM
<Vanguard> wrote:

> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:yw4he.1338248$6l.1054361@pd7tw2no...
>> <Vanguard> wrote:
>>
>>> So anti-virus software is only needed for Windows? Hmm, wonder why
>>> those
>> AV vendors have *NIX versions of their products.
>>
>> Essentially to offer protection for Windoze computers connected to a
>> Linux
>> network.
>
>
> AV software protects the host on which it executes, not the hosts that
> connect to it because it can't do anything over there (unless it is also
> running over there but then there becomes the local host on which the AV
> runs). AV programs don't protect hosts that connect to you. You are
> really concerned about a virus on a Window host connecting to your Linux
> host if the virus couldn't also run on your Linux host? So how would
> that be different than a Linux host connecting to you and passing on the
> same virus that runs under Linux? AV protects you, not them, and them
> could be any platform.
>
I can't figure out what you're rambling about, but just enough to understand
that you can't visualize beyond a workstation computer like Windoze XP and
really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If a Linux host is running a mail server that serves mail to other clients
on the LAN and those clients happen to be Windoze computers, then indeed an
AV program running on the Linux server can and does scan the incoming email
for viruses before passing the email on to the Windoze clients. You see
this all the time with ISPs and web hosting companies that offer anti-virus
email scanning. Get it?

Similarly, if the Linux server is running FTP services, incoming files can
be scanned on the Linux server for viruses to make sure that any Windoze
computer that downloads a file from the FTP server doesn't have to worry
about downloading a virus.

I'd expect the same would apply to a SMB server, where any files deposited
there are scanned for viruses. Again to protect feeble Windoze computers
that could catch a virus.

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

07-09-2005, 11:26 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:sMbhe.1342827$Xk.768635@pd7tw3no...
> I can't figure out what you're rambling about, but just enough to
> understand
> that you can't visualize beyond a workstation computer like Windoze XP
> and
> really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>
> If a Linux host is running a mail server that serves mail to other
> clients
> on the LAN and those clients happen to be Windoze computers, then
> indeed an
> AV program running on the Linux server can and does scan the incoming
> email
> for viruses before passing the email on to the Windoze clients. You
> see
> this all the time with ISPs and web hosting companies that offer
> anti-virus
> email scanning. Get it?

Yeah, now that you've explained more than a one-line response that
supposedly attempted to encompass everything of what you meant. You're
talking about adding features to a mail or file server program for the
benefit of *whatever* platform connects to it. So are you claiming that
NO viruses actually execute and can harm platforms *other* than Windows?
So is
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/freebsd.scalper.worm.html a
hoax? Um, where did rootkits start (hint: *ROOT*kit)?

The AV software of which you speak is designed to function under those
setups of using a server for transferring messages or files; i.e., the
AV product protects that process. I'm not sure AV software incorporated
or integrated into mail programs actually also protects the host itself
on which the mail program executes. Explain the point of AV software
that is designed ONLY for the Linux workstation (i.e., it is NOT an
enterprise version nor is it a server add-on process for filtering
messages or files). There are non-Windows AV products for servers,
desktops, and laptops. You chose to focus on use of AV incorporated
into a program running on a server.

I chose the larger number of hosts where the AV is used on a desktop
(workstation). I believe Sophos has a workstation version of their
Linux AV program. BitDefender has a Linux version for workstations
(freeware). BitDefender has their Mail Server anti-virus product which,
as you say, protects WHATEVER platform connects to the mail server
process to get messages from there. Does that mail server AV product
actually protect the host on which the mail program executes, or do you
still need to get a separate copy of BitDefender Linux Edition to
protect the host? In any case, there are AV products to protect Linux
workstations and servers.

There are far fewer viruses that target commercial *NIX platforms. The
*NIX community is generally more intelligent than the Windows community,
but that is because they have to be. Windows was designed to be a
consumer OS which highly differentiates it from the history of evolution
of *NIX platforms. There is some social engineering that has been
present in *NIX platforms and their applications that lagged getting to
Windows. But to say or even imply that *NIX platforms are virus proof
is just a flat out lie.

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:26 PM
<Vanguard> wrote:

> "NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:sMbhe.1342827$Xk.768635@pd7tw3no...
>> I can't figure out what you're rambling about, but just enough to
>> understand
>> that you can't visualize beyond a workstation computer like Windoze XP
>> and
>> really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>>
>> If a Linux host is running a mail server that serves mail to other
>> clients
>> on the LAN and those clients happen to be Windoze computers, then
>> indeed an
>> AV program running on the Linux server can and does scan the incoming
>> email
>> for viruses before passing the email on to the Windoze clients. You
>> see
>> this all the time with ISPs and web hosting companies that offer
>> anti-virus
>> email scanning. Get it?
>
> Yeah, now that you've explained more than a one-line response that
> supposedly attempted to encompass everything of what you meant. You're
> talking about adding features to a mail or file server program for the
> benefit of *whatever* platform connects to it. So are you claiming that
> NO viruses actually execute and can harm platforms *other* than Windows?

I said Linux. I can't speak for *other* systems, as I don't use them, nor
keep up with any security issues they may have.

> So is
>
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/freebsd.scalper.worm.html
> a
> hoax? Um, where did rootkits start (hint: *ROOT*kit)?
>
A rootkit is not a virus. And that symantec security response refers to a
worm that affects FreeBSD, not Linux. That news is 3 years old anyways, and
I'm sure FreeBSD has long since been patched for this worm.

> The AV software of which you speak is designed to function under those
> setups of using a server for transferring messages or files; i.e., the
> AV product protects that process. I'm not sure AV software incorporated
> or integrated into mail programs actually also protects the host itself
> on which the mail program executes. Explain the point of AV software
> that is designed ONLY for the Linux workstation (i.e., it is NOT an
> enterprise version nor is it a server add-on process for filtering
> messages or files). There are non-Windows AV products for servers,
> desktops, and laptops. You chose to focus on use of AV incorporated
> into a program running on a server.
>
Because that is the only place I've ever heard of other Linux users ever
using an anti-virus program. I don't know of any Linux users that are
concerned about viruses on their Linux boxes. Even if one did get there,
the amount of damage it could do would be so minimal it would be a
non-issue in terms of the OS itself. Unlike in Windoze, applications cannot
install themselves by themselves and certainly can't affect the OS's main
files.

> I chose the larger number of hosts where the AV is used on a desktop
> (workstation). I believe Sophos has a workstation version of their
> Linux AV program. BitDefender has a Linux version for workstations
> (freeware). BitDefender has their Mail Server anti-virus product which,
> as you say, protects WHATEVER platform connects to the mail server
> process to get messages from there. Does that mail server AV product
> actually protect the host on which the mail program executes, or do you
> still need to get a separate copy of BitDefender Linux Edition to
> protect the host? In any case, there are AV products to protect Linux
> workstations and servers.
>
A virus cannot just run by itself on a Linux system. It would have to have
permission to run. It would have to be run by a user with permission to do
so and if that user wasn't root, there would be no damage to the OS itself.
I don't know what kind of AV products some commercial vendors are trying to
market to Linux users. But I've not heard of any Linux users using such
products or concerning themselves with viruses, unless they were total
newbies coming from the Windoze world and thinking in the Windoze mindset
or running Linux servers with Windoze clients as I stated earlier.

> There are far fewer viruses that target commercial *NIX platforms. The
> *NIX community is generally more intelligent than the Windows community,
> but that is because they have to be. Windows was designed to be a
> consumer OS which highly differentiates it from the history of evolution
> of *NIX platforms. There is some social engineering that has been
> present in *NIX platforms and their applications that lagged getting to
> Windows. But to say or even imply that *NIX platforms are virus proof
> is just a flat out lie.

Well give me some examples - recent ones - where a Linux system has been
brought down by a virus. I'd like to hear about them, as that would be news
to me.

Why don't you go and read this article that dispels much of the Windoze
myths about Linux and security ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#winvslinuxdesign

"Yes, worms for Apache have been known to exist, such as the Slapper worm.
(Slapper actually exploited a known vulnerability in OpenSSL, not Apache).
But Apache worms rarely make headlines because they have such a limited
range of effect, and are easily eradicated. Target sites were already
plugging the known OpenSSL hole. It was also trivially easy to clean and
restore infected site with a few commands, and without as much as a reboot,
thanks to the modular nature of Linux and UNIX.

Perhaps this is why, according to Netcraft, 47 of the top 50 web sites with
the longest running uptime (times between reboots) run Apache. [2] None of
the top 50 web sites runs Windows or Microsoft IIS. So if it is true that
malicious hackers attack the most numerous software platforms, that raises
the question as to why hackers are so successful at breaking into the most
popular desktop software and operating system, infect 300,000 IIS servers,
but are unable to do similar damage to the most popular web server and its
operating systems?"

--
-=[ *Usenet FAQ* ]=-
A. Yes it is. It's called "Top Posting" and frowned on by the Usenet
community.
Q. But isn't that backasswards?
A. If their reply comes BEFORE what they are quoting, they probably use
Outlook Express under Windoze.
Q. How can I tell what OS a Usenet poster runs?


MS to charge for security?