MS to ship anti-virus product for XP SP2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spacen Jasset
  • Start date Start date
Spacen said:
MS to ship some form of anti-virus product for XP SP2

http://internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3317211
Click to expand...
That some form is probably based on the IP M/S bought from GeCad (RAV
anti-virus technology). It will be intersting to see how SP2 reacts for
those users who wish to use their own 3rd party PFW and AV untilities.
Will simply disabling the M/S supplied features cause conflicts? Can
they be uninstalled? Stay tuned for the fun.
 
optikl said:
That some form is probably based on the IP M/S bought from GeCad (RAV
anti-virus technology). It will be intersting to see how SP2 reacts for
those users who wish to use their own 3rd party PFW and AV untilities.
Will simply disabling the M/S supplied features cause conflicts? Can
they be uninstalled? Stay tuned for the fun.
Click to expand...

Yes, there have been fixes ( or adjustments ) made to it because of
incompatibilities:

"Already, there are some signs of incompatibility with third-party security
software vendors like McAfee and Symantec (Quote, Chart). The newest
offering includes a fix to a VSHWIN32.exe error found with McAfee Enterprise
VirusScan 7.1 users. " - from the article.

It can't make the AV-vendors happy. But perhaps it's a good way of curbing
viruses sooner because people will have an AV product installed without them
doing anything. Anti-trust ruling anyone?
 
I have installed the SP2 beta 2082 (the newest public). And I can't
see a sign of a AV-product in it.
jari
Click to expand...
All I can say is that is scary that Microsoft is going after this. If
they'd set the defaults properly for their software, fix the
vulnerabilities before they ship their products, instead of rushing the
product out because they have named their software, they wouldn't need
it.

I guess that's another reason for me to setup an old pc & start playing
with Linux.
 
Spacen Jasset said:
Yes, there have been fixes ( or adjustments ) made to it because of
incompatibilities:

"Already, there are some signs of incompatibility with third-party security
software vendors like McAfee and Symantec (Quote, Chart). The newest
offering includes a fix to a VSHWIN32.exe error found with McAfee Enterprise
VirusScan 7.1 users. " - from the article.

It can't make the AV-vendors happy. But perhaps it's a good way of curbing
viruses sooner because people will have an AV product installed without them
doing anything. Anti-trust ruling anyone?
Click to expand...

The executable file's name is probably something like:

xpavexe.txt or msavexe.zip
 
Geese_Hunter said:
(e-mail address removed) says...

All I can say is that is scary that Microsoft is going after this. If
they'd set the defaults properly for their software, fix the
vulnerabilities before they ship their products, instead of rushing the
product out because they have named their software, they wouldn't need
it.
Click to expand...

then you obviously don't understand the virus problem... if they did
what you described it would not eliminate the virus threat, only reduce
it (and to what degree is unknown)...

the existence of viruses does not depend on vulnerabilities or lax
default settings, viruses are a feature of *all* general purpose
computing platforms, regardless of which operating system is used, what
vulnerabilities are available, or how secure the defaults are...

so long as we use general purpose computers we will have to deal with
the threat of viruses...
I guess that's another reason for me to setup an old pc & start playing
with Linux.
Click to expand...

i trust then you'll come back here and ask us what the best anti-virus
for linux is...
 
then you obviously don't understand the virus problem... if they did
what you described it would not eliminate the virus threat, only reduce
it (and to what degree is unknown)...

the existence of viruses does not depend on vulnerabilities or lax
default settings, viruses are a feature of *all* general purpose
computing platforms, regardless of which operating system is used, what
vulnerabilities are available, or how secure the defaults are...

so long as we use general purpose computers we will have to deal with
the threat of viruses...


i trust then you'll come back here and ask us what the best anti-virus
for linux is...
Click to expand...
Obviously you missed my point. They have been putting out shoddy
products, & probably another shoddy product they will produce, & there
will be people relying on that product alone just as many people are
relying on Internet Explorer without a firewall or spyware installed, or
the people that are still using Microsoft's Java program that they have
remove from the SP1.
They have enough trouble keeping up with new programs that they are
coming out with & making patches for their current software. And you can
bet that people will write more virus codes trying to break through
Microsoft's AV program.
Let's face it, they are the closest thing to a monopoly that there ever
was & now they are going to try & put AV companies out of business, then
in XX # of years after they put enough companies out of business they'll
charge for their AV program.
 
I installed SP2 (Beta) build 2082 Express last night on my XP Home Edition
pc. It has several new features such as the "Security Center" which
analyzes, monitors and enables security features such as firewall and AV
protection whether it is third party or not. It failed to detect my Norton
2004 Pro AV product and failed to detect my Sygate 5 Pro firewall. The new
IE has a built-in popup blocker. The GUI is tweaked for simplicity and I
really liked the new look in some areas.

I did not see any place to install any included AV product. There was a
"Recommendations" button for both AV and FW options. I have read that the
included AV and FW choices will be trial versions. Hope this helps. BTW
after having a tour of XP SP2 I simply did a System Restore and was right
back where I was prior to the SP2 install since it sets a restore point.

I found XP SP2 on a newsgroup titled
news://alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.ms-beta which is a 1M file that downloads
the SP2 from MS to your PC. SP2 is about a 100M file.
 
Geese_Hunter said:
(e-mail address removed) says...

Obviously you missed my point.
Click to expand...

i don't think so... you expressed a) a fear of the ms anti-virus
product (can't say i can blame you for that) and b) the opinion that it
wouldn't even be necessary if ms produced better software - which
belies you misunderstanding of the virus problem... we'd still need
anti-virus tools even if they didn't produce crappy software
They have been putting out shoddy
products, & probably another shoddy product they will produce, & there
will be people relying on that product alone just as many people are
relying on Internet Explorer without a firewall or spyware installed, or
the people that are still using Microsoft's Java program that they have
remove from the SP1.
Click to expand...

all of which falls under the heading of "red herring"... you may have
meant to express the opinion that msav will turn out to be a piece of
crap, but that's not what you originally said...
They have enough trouble keeping up with new programs that they are
coming out with & making patches for their current software. And you can
bet that people will write more virus codes trying to break through
Microsoft's AV program.
Let's face it, they are the closest thing to a monopoly that there ever
was & now they are going to try & put AV companies out of business, then
in XX # of years after they put enough companies out of business they'll
charge for their AV program.
Click to expand...

microsoft wasn't able to dominate the anti-virus market the last time
they acquired and released anti-virus software bundled with their OS,
what makes you think they'll manage it this time?
 
then you obviously don't understand the virus problem... if they did
what you described it would not eliminate the virus threat, only reduce
it (and to what degree is unknown)...

the existence of viruses does not depend on vulnerabilities or lax
default settings, viruses are a feature of *all* general purpose
computing platforms, regardless of which operating system is used, what
vulnerabilities are available, or how secure the defaults are...

so long as we use general purpose computers we will have to deal with
the threat of viruses...
Click to expand...

But with Windows, users have been hit with a huge number of malware
problems unnecessarily. The OP is correct IMO in expecting that
vulnerabilities be taken care of before a product is released. He's
also correct in expecting that a product be _far_ safer to put on the
internet with default settings. Network settings are needlessly unsafe
by default. And users should be forced to opt for services and
"features" rather than having them enabled by default.

Outlook and OE have always been huge mistakes, as some third party
email and newsgroup apps have shown. There should never have been a
possibility of infection by merely reading a email. There should never
have been a possibility of executing or launching a email attackment
from within the email app.

IE has been an endless mistake with an endless series of
vulnerabilities and patches.

There should never have been the possibility of macro viruses and
embedded object Trojans IMO. Or at least, if people want certain
features, they should be accompanied with malware warning messages
when the option is selected.

Note that I'm not saying that some form of antivirus can be or should
be avoided. But rather than including an av in Windows, I'd much
rather see M$ pay _real_ attention to the malware problem and come out
with a sane version of Windows.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
then you obviously don't understand the virus problem... if they did
what you described it would not eliminate the virus threat, only reduce
it (and to what degree is unknown)...

the existence of viruses does not depend on vulnerabilities or lax
default settings, viruses are a feature of *all* general purpose
computing platforms, regardless of which operating system is used, what
vulnerabilities are available, or how secure the defaults are...

so long as we use general purpose computers we will have to deal with
the threat of viruses...
Click to expand...


But with Windows, users have been hit with a huge number of malware
problems unnecessarily.[/QUOTE]

i didn't say otherwise...
The OP is correct IMO in expecting that
vulnerabilities be taken care of before a product is released.
Click to expand...

again, i didn't say otherwise...
He's
also correct in expecting that a product be _far_ safer to put on the
internet with default settings.
Click to expand...

yet again, i didn't say otherwise...

lets cut to the chase, what i did say is that his statement that the
anti-virus wouldn't be needed if microsoft did a better job with the
rest of it's offerings was false... his reasoning was flawed and i
showed where the flaws were... i didn't say microsoft was doing a good
job or that windows was already safe...
 
Bitstring <je9%[email protected]>, from the
wonderful person kurt wismer said:
lets cut to the chase, what i did say is that his statement that the
anti-virus wouldn't be needed if microsoft did a better job with the
rest of it's offerings was false... his reasoning was flawed and i
showed where the flaws were... i didn't say microsoft was doing a good
job or that windows was already safe...
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one. The only way to eliminate the need for AV
software is to put the whole OS in ROM and stop the users from being
able to install =anything=. Or we could change human nature and
eliminate stupidity. Hmm, guess the AV writers (MS, or otherwise) are
pretty safe then.

MS could certainly have made things harder (and recent releases have),
but users rapidly adapt to switching off the 'don't save attachments'
OE6 feature, and manage to install 'certified' porn diallers, and share
their whole C: drives via Kazaa with gay abandon.

MS can (should) prevent 'buffer overrun' vulnerabilities, and suchlike.
Preventing 'install this wonderful new MS patch/utility/game, click
below'
is not really an MS problem.
 
My thanks to you for the info. I'll most likely take an old laptop I have
and install XP and go from there.

Duane :)
 
That's not what it says !

"The tool, which checks for third-party anti-virus and firewall software and lets users know
whether it is enabled or not, is among the operating system enhancements the Redmond, Wash.,
company is developing as part of its Security Center initiative to rebuff viruses, worms,
trojans and crackers "

Dave



| MS to ship some form of anti-virus product for XP SP2
|
| http://internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3317211
|
| --
| ---------------------
| http://mantrid.freeshell.org
|
|
|
 
Spacen said:
It can't make the AV-vendors happy. But perhaps it's a good way of curbing
viruses sooner because people will have an AV product installed without them
doing anything. Anti-trust ruling anyone?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think M/S would have been so stupid as to not
research this. Anyway, this is NOT an example of an anti-trust issue.
M/S isn't buying up the competition for AV or security software; it's
merely adding resources so that it (theoretically) now has some in-house
expertise <snicker>. Well, as expert as they are likely to get....
 
It can't make the AV-vendors happy. But perhaps it's a good way of curbing
viruses sooner because people will have an AV product installed without them
doing anything.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiight. Without users having to do anything. 'Cause users are *so*
good about downloading Windows patches and service packs, right? :-)
 
Jari Lehtonen said:
I have installed the SP2 beta 2082 (the newest public). And I can't
see a sign of a AV-product in it.
Click to expand...

That's because the early version of the report was incorrect. A subsequent
correction to it now states:

Corrects earlier version which incorrectly stated SP2 would include a
built-in virus scanner. The offering actually includes a pop-up monitor
that checks the settings of third-party anti-virus and firewall
applications, and allows users to modify them if necessary.
 
Back
Top