MS to omit anti-virus from Vista

The Register ^ | 30 January 2006 | John Leyden

[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. ®

[DAC21]

No problem, plenty of good free AV, Spyware, Anti-trojan
software out there.

[goldstategop]

My modem doesn't work on my Thinkpad 600E in Xandros and because IBM disabled the serial port, I can't boot up with my external serial modem. No way to get online. Xandros won't install the Mwave ACP drivers that are included in the 2.6 Linux kernel. Go figure. And I don't want to have to compile or spend time compiling the Thinkpad utilities to straighten out IBM's goof in turning off certain ports. What's more, the IBM BIOS gives you no way of managing irq requests and turning on and off devices as needed. YIKES!

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

Maybe not. But I am not even running anti-virus software in Mac OSX and I don't intend to in Linux. There's nothing that can harm the computer or mess up critical files.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Paul C. Jesup]

See post 13, none of those programs will be allowed to run on Vista per MS's Vista DRM policy.

[brownsfan]

"I've been fooling around with Red Hat 9 Linux recently."

Try Fedora Core 4. It's not bad.

[goldstategop]

The entire DRM concept sucks. No more hacked ancient software you could have that's still useful. The entire idea of warez is histoire. Redmond is like the Borg Of The Computer Age: "Resistance Is Futile; You Will Be Assimilated."

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[untrained skeptic]

OpenBSD is more secure and stable than Windows.

That's not saying much.

It comes no where near close to what I would consider secure or stable for an avionics application.

[Paul C. Jesup]

The entire DRM concept sucks. No more hacked ancient software you could have that's still useful. The entire idea of warez is histoire. Redmond is like the Borg Of The Computer Age: "Resistance Is Futile; You Will Be Assimilated."

Actually Slashdot.org is the borg, but that's another issue.

Do you realize the ****storm MS is going to create because of this. When a major virus/spyware hits Vista, MS's Vista DRM policy will prevent third party patching to protect viruses/spyware for at least month if not longer, compared to the day or two it takes for anti-virus/anti-spyware programers to catch up and create patches for their programs.

The word of mouth from consumers will hurts sales because everyone will learn none of their old games, programs, freeware , nor hardware work will with Vista.

Most people do not have 2 grand in cash to shell out for not just a new computer, but a monitor and new software.

Keep in mind that legacy compatiblity was a new draw for previous Windows OS's.

MS is making the exact same mistakes that IBM and Apple made in the 80's, and they are going to hurt themselves by it.

[Moral Hazard]

"That's called OS X"

In a previously life it was called BSD.

[Lx]

According to MSFT, they're listening to the beta testers in order to improve quality. If Vista is as good as XP or Windows 2003 in their first release, than it will be a great O/S. If it's better, it'll be a surprise. Both XP and 2003 were rock solid but so was Windows 2000.

I only wish they'd left in the file system based on SQL, otherwise, why upgrade? XP is perfect for my desktop needs and 2003 rocks as a server, cluster platform.

[Lx]

Which is yet another reason to keep using XP. No doubt they'll issue a new version of Office that won't run on XP to force the O/S upgrade. Hell, I'm still using Office 2000 on XP; it does everything I need to do.

[frgoff]

There's more to it than that. Hackers also write viruses for bragging rights, and the fact is, OS X's UNIX roots make it much more difficult to crack than MS software.

Script Kiddies can write viruses for Windows, but you have to know your stuff to write a virus for OS X.

[DallasMike]

If you make the OS bullet-proof you don't need anti-virus protection in the first place...........

Ain't no such thing and never will be.

[dennisw]

I'm sticking with XP. I have hardware that's good enough for it and I know how to protect-->>
antivirus
windows update
antispyware
use FireFox a lot

-->> my computer. I don't need any hand holding. But that's me. Doubtful-newbies, these people should buy an Apple or a Linux computer (cheap at Walmart_on_line) if they are worried about security. Or get solid advice on how to protect their computer though Vista just might make this a no-brainer

[Paul C. Jesup]

I doubt Vista is going to be that good considering all the DRM that is going into it.

See post 13.

[goldstategop]

Funny you should ask. I'm still running Office 2000 and the only addition I made is Office's 2003 One Note. But what I have is fine and there's no need for the latest and greatest in software just to keep up with the Joneses.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

Its the proprietary licensing scheme I object to. Its a milk cow for the MPAA and RIAA and we can watch movies and listen to songs when they allow us to. If we have other ideas, fudgitboutit.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[adorno]

Maybe not. But I am not even running anti-virus software in Mac OSX and I don't intend to in Linux. There's nothing that can harm the computer or mess up critical files.?

OS-X and Linux combined are still minor players in the PC/Computer world. If they were to become large playes, then you would see them being attacked as often as MS. Protection through obscurity works well. If Linux wer to garner just 20% of the PC market, then it would be worthwhile for hackers and virus-writers to bother with it. As of now, it ain't worth the malware writers time. And, you think ther's nothing that can harm the computer or your critical files? Don't count on it.

[RJS1950]

Simply put, there is no "bullet-proof" OS. If you think you have a bullet-proof OS then I invite you to keep on running it without any AV. All software is manmade and is therefore flawed. It is impossible to account for everything that could be attacked within a system.

[adorno]

Script Kiddies can write viruses for Windows, but you have to know your stuff to write a virus for OS X.

Sounds like built in security right there.

If you make the O/S hard to write software for, then who is going to want it in the first place. If scripting or simple software is not possible with the O/S it will remain as a minor player. And minor players tend to ramain secure through obscurity.