Posted on 01/18/2005 10:56:10 AM PST by holymoly
With Microsoft's acquisition of anti-spyware maker Giant Software, the company seems well-poised to enter the anti-spyware and anti-virus marketplace. At the very least, in combination with its well-publicized secure computing initiative, and the security upgrades in Windows XP Service Pack 2, Microsoft appears to be taking security more seriously ...
Or, the company may simply be using its new anti-spyware technology as a ruse for rooting out and eventually destroying unlicensed copies of its operating system.
Early last month Microsoft announced that it would permit downloads of a beta version of its anti-spyware software from its website. However, users attempting to download the software are informed that "[t]his download is available to customers running genuine Microsoft Windows. Please click Continue to begin Windows validation." The website then uploads an executable file called "GenuineCheck.exe" to the users computer.
The executable presumably scans the OS for the license key, and generates a key code that the user is directed to send to Microsoft. If the key code is for an unlicensed version of the OS, the user is directed to purchase the software online, and is denied the opportunity to download the anti-spyware software.
While I am extremely sympathetic to the needs of software companies to fight the multi-billion dollar problem of copyright infringement, I think it is a bad idea to use security as the hook to do so. The same issue came up when Microsoft denied Service Pack 2 to some unlicensed Windows XP users. This can be the electronic equivalent of automatically disengaging the brakes on stolen cars - sure it will reduce automobile theft (and the sale of stolen vehicles), but at the cost of making everyone less safe.
Spyware and keystroke loggers are increasingly serving as tools of identify theft and fraud, and the cost of these crimes are passed to consumers as a whole - they are not limited to the immediate victims. Viruses, worms and "bots" are used to build DDoS and spam networks. On the Internet, everyone's security is dependent upon everyone else's, so deliberately keeping computers insecure potentially hurts us all.
Of course, Microsoft is hardly required to make anti-viral or anti-spyware software, or to give it away for free. Nobody has a right to this software. And I'm not suggesting that Symantec or McAfee has an obligation to give away its products, or to support pirated copies of their anti-viral software with free definition upgrades.
But what Microsoft is doing is different. It is requiring that, as a condition precedent to being secure, you must establish that different software - in this case, your operating system - be properly licensed. This can be problematic if Microsoft ends up dominating the spyware and anti-viral marketplace the way they have dominated the browser and OS (not to mention the free solitaire and minesweeper) markets. Right now, neither my browser (Internet Explorer), nor my media player (Windows Media Player) nor my Word Processor (MS Word) nor my E-mail server (MS Outlook) disable themselves if my OS is unlicensed. Why only security functionality?
A cynic might posit that Microsoft is using genuine concern about security as a mechanism to collect information about piracy. Even if "GenuineCheck.exe" doesn't transmit personal information back to Redmond - and the company says it doesn't - it unavoidably communicates the user's IP address, which is easily linked to a consumer's name and address by subpoena. I can envision a situation where a person trying to prevent spyware finds something much, much worse - a Microsoft lawyer - on his or her doorstep.
If I had more of a conspiratorial bent, I might even think Microsoft deliberately wants to ensure that users of unlicensed software are left unprotected from malware, so that corporate America can use such programs against the pirates. Consider PC World magazine's recent report that Overpeer, a company with close ties to the recording industry, was using Microsoft's intellectual property licensing scheme to spread unwanted adware through peer-to-peer networks.
Though I am jaded, I am not yet a cynic, so for now I'll assume that Redmond's goals are less Machiavellian. But security should not be held hostage to other things - including the laudable goal of preventing piracy. We are either all secure, or we are not.
I would agree, understanding the prevailing attitudes at MS. They care about MS and optimizing their profits. Period. As time progresses, I think MS will enjoy a reducing percentage of market share, due mainly to its predatory and self-supporting attitudes toward its customer base. I am not saying MS does not have a righ to protect its intellectual property -- they do not have a right, legally or ethically, to deception upon their customer base.
where'd you find that diagram? I don't care who you are thats funny right there.
Right now, neither my browser (Internet Explorer), nor my media player (Windows Media Player) nor my Word Processor (MS Word) nor my E-mail server (MS Outlook) disable themselves if my OS is unlicensed.
Yeah...right now.
I could tell you.
But then I'd have to kill you.
Don't you believe it. Bill would give it all up in a heartbeat for the chance to star in a gladiator movie.
Funny. I never have any trouble downloading upgrades, etc. from Microsoft. Wonder why that is?
Oh, wait...I PAID for my copy of XP. Never mind.
i understand. I've probably said to much by merely asking you where you found it.
For what it's worth, you don't HAVE to do the validation right now. You can skip it and download the program anyway. I don't know how long that will be the case, but it's true right now.
Everyone else gives it away for free. Why shouldn't Microsoft?
"The executable presumably scans the OS for the license key, and generates a key code that the user is directed to send to Microsoft. If the key code is for an unlicensed version of the OS, the user is directed to purchase the software online, and is denied the opportunity to download the anti-spyware software."
So he doesn't actually know what they're doing, but he's willing to criticize MS for his presumptions.
"I did, however, find it mildly amusing that Microsoft would (essentially) employ the use of spyware before allowing XP users to download its' "anti-spyware" software.
"
Nah, not really amusing. Microsoft is giving away this software to its existing customers. But they're making sure that it's "customers" who are getting it.
I used to own a software company...a very small one. Once in a while, I'd get a support call from someone who had never bought the software (I checked my customer database for each support call). You'd be amazed how ticked off these thieves were when I refused them support.
This thread will self-destruct in 10 seconds.
Or you could, you know, just click on "No, do not validate Windows at this time, but take me to the download", and thus bypass the OS check altogether.
This brings up an interesting point. If Microsoft's anti spyware program finds and deactivates such programs, is Microsoft thus providing users with the tools to contravent EULAs, and does that give the spyware manufacturers a DMCA case against Microsoft?
Probably I have missed something here, but the concept is just so sweet......
I would agree, understanding the prevailing attitudes at MS. They care about MS and optimizing their profits. Period.
Why would anyone think MS's motives were less than what is most profitable? Free Enterprise--Capitalism! Protect profits. Isn't that what farming our jobs out of the country is all about?
What about the corporate edition. I know that there is copies of XP Pro corporate that doesnt require activation (for the obvious reason of flooding them with activations for a pc rollout or what not).
How does it handle that?
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.