Posted on 01/30/2006 11:00:56 AM PST by ShadowAce
Microsoft will omit anti-virus protection in Vista, the next version of Windows, which it plans to ship late this year. As with previous versions of Windows dating back to Windows 2000 at least, Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security.
Jim Allchin, co-president of Microsoft's platform products and services division, told reseller magazineCRN that safety and security, improved user experience, and mobility features will be key additions in Vista. But there will be no anti-virus software, the Windows development supremo said during a questions and answers session with CRN. For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service.
Symantec, though its assisted enquiries from investigators, has said it would rather take on Microsoft in the marketplace than cry foul to regulators over Microsoft's entry into the consumer anti-virus marketplace. McAfee has made no suggestion it's about to object to Redmond's encroachment on it traditional turf, either. So it seems Microsoft has either decided anti-virus technology is better delivered as a service or else figured out that's a better business model to pursue.
We're not sure which because Allchin ducked CRN's question on why anti-virus software won't feature in Vista by saying the answer was "complicated", but not based on technical concerns. Curiously, basic anti-spyware protection - via Windows Defender - will feature in Vista.
Vista will also include a major revamp of Internet Explorer (IE 7), features designed to thwart phishing, and group policy management features that make it easier to control the use of USB devices. Windows' built-in firewall will be revamped to filter malicious traffic originating from a Vista PC as well as ingress filtering, the half on the equation that came with Windows XP.
Allchin said security in Vista is far improved from Windows XP SP2, whose heavily touted security features include technology that has made computer worms (though not Trojans based on the recent Windows Meta File vulnerability) less of a problem. "SP2 was a very good system, but compared to Vista it's night and day," Allchin said.
In a separate Q&A session, Allchin was grilled by Redmond's local paper, The Seattle Times, during which he explained that Microsoft has changed its development program with Vista to include fewer release candidates for the operating system. New community-technology previews, with more frequent drops targeted at different audiences, will speed the development process, Allchin said.
The feature set in Vista has now been finalised and Microsoft's focus has moved on to quality assurance. "Between now and RTM we're doing nothing but listening to usability feedback, improving performance and quality," Allchin told CRN. ®
Legacy AntiVirus technology is useless against today's threats. Legacy AV is based off of 20+ year old threats. Simply put, it can't be updated fast enough and it is always reactive.
If you make the OS bullet-proof you don't need anti-virus protection in the first place...........
That's called OS X
I've been fooling around with Red Hat 9 Linux recently. For all that it's a couple of years old, it's pretty good; it seems a little 'quicker' than the W2K I normally use, but installing drivers and upgrades is still pretty grim. The real problem is lack of Linux drivers from peripheral manufacturers; SANE is a pretty good 'universal' scanner driver but my wife looks at the HP 6300C and wants to know why the buttons on the front don't work any more.
...or izzit SOX?..........
I'm betting that MSFT simply doesn't want to deal with the constant updating required by antivirus software. That and the risk that a nasty virus will get through and really tick off users.
Let Symantec and others bear this difficult burden. I think that's the "business" decision Microsoft is making here.
As someone said, "That way lies madness..."
Yea.
Step one. Remove 99.999% of the features of today's modern OSs.
Step two. Limit device support to a small number of devices that con be supported with simple drivers developed in house.
Step three. Do not allow any third party drivers to be loaded.
Step four. Only allow verified and tested third party software and only give that software a very limited API to interface to the OS with.
You've now got a decent starting poing for making a solid and secure OS.
Add in some rigid design procedures and outside test and verification, and if you're reasonably efficient, you'll only spend a couple thousand dollars per line of code for something arguably solid and secure.
For more information se the D.O. 178 standards for software design used in avaition system.
How interesting. Here is something to think about, given MS's new DRM policy of having to review every third party driver that goes into Vista: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1567076/posts Anti-virus/spyware program developement are going to be dragged to the point where they will go months between driver updates/patches if ever considering third party anti-virus/spyware programers are going to have a difficult time telling the difference between Vista DRM and viruses/spyware.
The realities of the software industry in dealing with viruses and spyware is about to give MS a good hard slap over Vista plan DRM policies and programs.
See post 13.
See post 13 of this thread.
Step 0.5 Install OpenBSD out of the box!
Sounds a lot like MAC OS-xxxxxx.xxxx
Now, if MSFT decides to develop and market its own "Vista-oriented" AV system, now, that's another story. There's potential dollars to be found there.
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.