Windows 8 to Offer Built-in Malware Protection

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I can actually hear McAfee and Symantec crying about this already. Personally, I think it is a good idea for Microsoft to be including free protection for their own products.

Microsoft is including a beefier version of its malware protection in Windows 8. The company is tweaking its Windows Defender tool, which has been part of the last few versions of Windows, by essentially adding some of the more robust features from its free Security Essentials product. Launched in 2009, Security Essentials has garnered generally positive reviews but requires a separate download, while the built-in Windows Defender has lacked certain key elements in its defense against malware.
Click to expand...
 
They have already hit them over the head with thier Safety Scanner.

The MS Safety Scanner has been the most effective rogue remover I've used to date. Things that MWB or SAS could not clean the MS Safety Scanner has done with almost zero effort other than the hour or so the scan takes.
 
Countdown to Anti-Trust lawsuits in Europe... That's the only reason why MSE hasn't been included by default in Windows 7.
 
DarkStryke said:
Countdown to Anti-Trust lawsuits in Europe... That's the only reason why MSE hasn't been included by default in Windows 7.
Click to expand...

They'll probably do the same thing they do with browsers. Allow the user to select the A/V they wish to use from the beginning.

I will be using the MS one as I've been using MSE for over a year with great results.
 
So it just means Mcafee and Symantec have to make a high quality fast product with updates that come out faster!

And that'll be when Pigs grow wings and can fly.
 
Yeah I see this being another Browser wars things. I personally prefer NOD32, but I'm all for built in protection. Maybe then my mom will quit calling me every month when her computer "gets slow." :rolleyes:
 
DarkStryke said:
Countdown to Anti-Trust lawsuits in Europe... That's the only reason why MSE hasn't been included by default in Windows 7.
Click to expand...

That's probably the case, but IIRC MSE was still Live OneCare back then, and it was nowhere near as good then as it is now. Granted even in it's half baked version it still would do more than Defender, but nevertheless.....I'd say that's probably another reason why MSE wasn't included in 7.

What I don't get is how AV companies can claim antitrust over a built in AV, yet firewall companies don't claim antitrust over the built in firewall. Do they just not care, or are AV companies hurting for cash more so that's why they complain? I genuinely don't get this.
 
To add - I'd assume this can be turned off, though really I wish users were given the option at install of whether to include it or not. There's been a few times where I've forgotten to shut Defender off on an install until an update for it pops up and reminds me. ;)
 
Get what you pay for if its free? As anyone should know now, just because MS has a monopoly on the source code doesnt mean they know what they are doing.
 
zero2dash said:
That's probably the case, but IIRC MSE was still Live OneCare back then, and it was nowhere near as good then as it is now. Granted even in it's half baked version it still would do more than Defender, but nevertheless.....I'd say that's probably another reason why MSE wasn't included in 7.

What I don't get is how AV companies can claim antitrust over a built in AV, yet firewall companies don't claim antitrust over the built in firewall. Do they just not care, or are AV companies hurting for cash more so that's why they complain? I genuinely don't get this.
Click to expand...

I think antitrust suits over operating system security features would be a tough sell.
 
EchoMatrix said:
Get what you pay for if its free? As anyone should know now, just because MS has a monopoly on the source code doesnt mean they know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

MSE is a very good product. Better then Mcafee and Symantec put together.
 
"Frankly, it's their own fault," he said in his blog. "The two big security hippopotamuses have had years of opportunity to gobble up the end-user market, and yet still millions of home users were infected by malware, spyware and pop-ups each year."
Click to expand...

+1.
 
TechLarry said:
I think antitrust suits over operating system security features would be a tough sell.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how one (AV) isn't like the other though (firewall) in terms of security.
Technically neither is a requirement.

I don't understand how one can sue [AV] and the other can't (or doesn't) [firewall]? IMHO - throw MSE in with Win8 (but leave the option to turn it off/remove it or not install it). Really how is an AV any more of a security app than a built in firewall? I just don't get it. :confused: :)
 
cyclone3d said:
MSE is a very good product. Better then Mcafee and Symantec put together.
Click to expand...

Use MCE at home and I reciently started using the corporate version (Forefront) at the office.

I've had a few systems that I've removed Norton, installed the MS product, and the scan found malware.
 
DarkStryke said:
Countdown to Anti-Trust lawsuits in Europe... That's the only reason why MSE hasn't been included by default in Windows 7.
Click to expand...
+1

EU is going to be like, "u cant do this *points at IE case*"

Then, that is when uprising all across the earth and Internet occur for an Internet vs EU battle. EU will either immediately back down or increase security in EU by 1000x with tanks and infantry covering places.
 
oh great our OS is safe and secure that now you need it intergrated into the OS? NO Spanks i'll use my Kaspersky till further notices, strange how still Linux doesnt have any viruses,malware issues but sucks cause my games arent linux compatible .
 
fightingfi said:
oh great our OS is safe and secure that now you need it intergrated into the OS? NO Spanks i'll use my Kaspersky till further notices, strange how still Linux doesnt have any viruses,malware issues but sucks cause my games arent linux compatible .
Click to expand...

This makes me want to write a virus for Linux.

The thing with Linux is, is that the people that use it are more knowledgeable then most people who use computers.

That makes it that much more difficult and "not worth it" to target Linux.

If Linux ever became mainstream, it would change super fast.
 
fightingfi said:
oh great our OS is safe and secure that now you need it intergrated into the OS? NO Spanks i'll use my Kaspersky till further notices, strange how still Linux doesnt have any viruses,malware issues but sucks cause my games arent linux compatible .
Click to expand...

You're putting words in Microsoft's mouth when they never said it would be safe and secured. They can only provide as much security they can for the user but the best virus protection is as good as the end-user.
 
Let's see how they feel about this in Europe. Didn't they get in trouble just because they included Internet Explorer with Windows and then were forced to sell a pointless sans IE version?
 
Oh man.... I might actually buy a retail copy instead of continuing to use an academic version!
 
fightingfi said:
oh great our OS is safe and secure that now you need it intergrated into the OS? NO Spanks i'll use my Kaspersky till further notices, strange how still Linux doesnt have any viruses,malware issues but sucks cause my games arent linux compatible .
Click to expand...

You seem like a smart guy, let's apply some logic.

You create virus and malware.

Do you create viruses for the Linux OS when they comprise 2.25% of the market share or Windows when they capture 80%+?

I wonder why there are more viruses attacking Windows users.... hmm...
 
SXO said:
Let's see how they feel about this in Europe. Didn't they get in trouble just because they included Internet Explorer with Windows and then were forced to sell a pointless sans IE version?
Click to expand...

I think anti-virus programs will get a bit of leeway because we've seen how the lack of anti-virus programs have had on manpower to prevent/remove viruses from infected or botnet computers. The EU has alot of regulations into privacy so if Microsoft is assisting in helping the end-user keep their information private, they should get a pass over this.
 
Frankly I don't see the point of Windows Defender or any of these so called "protection" schemes. As long as a browser can run a script surreptitiously and wreck a system there's going to be problems.

No thank you, I'd much rather have the best performance possible and NOT have any of this so called protection slowing down my system. :)

Don't force feed this crap on everyone, allow users if they choose to install it instead. Don't penalize the folks that actually know how to use a computer - safely. ;)
 
I'm a massive fan of Security Essentials. I only used sporadic on-demand scans for years until that product came about.
 
fightingfi said:
oh great our OS is safe and secure that now you need it intergrated into the OS? NO Spanks i'll use my Kaspersky till further notices, strange how still Linux doesnt have any viruses,malware issues but sucks cause my games arent linux compatible .
Click to expand...

OS/2 doesn't have viruses either, doesn't mean its useful these days. ;)
 
I haven't used a Symmantec product in years. They used to lock you into their system and it was a pain to get the roots out if you wanted to use something else.

Microsoft is doing the right thing since they are essentially just fixing their OS. Having it be on an OS level hopefully makes it lighter and more streamlined.

That said, McAffee won't be screaming at all since they will be integrating on an even lower level, into the processor!
 
Well the new product in Windows 8, even though it looks and likely behaves identically to MSE, is still calld 'Windows Defender', which has a very bad reputation. I don't expect many people to use it and I bet MSE is still widely popular, even in Windows 8.
 
Kaitian said:
I think anti-virus programs will get a bit of leeway because we've seen how the lack of anti-virus programs have had on manpower to prevent/remove viruses from infected or botnet computers. The EU has alot of regulations into privacy so if Microsoft is assisting in helping the end-user keep their information private, they should get a pass over this.
Click to expand...

It's a mistake to assume that common sense would apply to this issue, especially with the EU.
 
Rubycon said:
Frankly I don't see the point of Windows Defender or any of these so called "protection" schemes. As long as a browser can run a script surreptitiously and wreck a system there's going to be problems.

No thank you, I'd much rather have the best performance possible and NOT have any of this so called protection slowing down my system. :)

Don't force feed this crap on everyone, allow users if they choose to install it instead. Don't penalize the folks that actually know how to use a computer - safely. ;)
Click to expand...

Then turn that feature off. Nobody is forcing you to use it
 
kidstechno said:
Yeah I see this being another Browser wars things. I personally prefer NOD32, but I'm all for built in protection. Maybe then my mom will quit calling me every month when her computer "gets slow." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

that was my first response. Netscape all over again.

and no your family will still call. that is too much to hope for :p
 
Rubycon said:
Frankly I don't see the point of Windows Defender or any of these so called "protection" schemes. As long as a browser can run a script surreptitiously and wreck a system there's going to be problems.

No thank you, I'd much rather have the best performance possible and NOT have any of this so called protection slowing down my system. :)

Don't force feed this crap on everyone, allow users if they choose to install it instead. Don't penalize the folks that actually know how to use a computer - safely. ;)
Click to expand...

Trouble is, the majority of people aren't tech-savvy and might not even think about installing some security software. For this reason, this type of thing should be installed/running by default with the option to turn it off for those that would want to.

Honestly, if it works like MSE, I wouldn't be turning it off. For a long time I was an AVG fan... then an Avast fan... now I use nothing but MSE on any computer I'm responsible for.

At my last job (technical support for online students), if someone wasn't sure what antivirus they were running, any existing AV software was removed, and I sent them links for MBAM and MSE. If they knew and were dead-set on it, I wouldn't try to convince them otherwise though.

My mom used to break my parents' computer constantly. I replaced Avast with MSE, and I don't think there was ever a problem after that. It is also much more seemless.. none of that "Your virus database has been upgraded" BS randomly. I know for sure since upgrading them to Windows 7 w/ MSE, there hasn't been an issue.

The whole anti-trust thing over an operating system making itself safer and thus making third-party programs obsolete is just crazy. Realistically, by including an anti-virus 'service' into the OS, they are simply making their OS safer/more secure. Will this hurt McAfee/Symantec? I would definitely think so. Should that matter? No. Microsoft shouldn't HAVE to leave their own product less secure simply to allow other security companies to profit. That's plain retarded. Hopefully the EU sees this the same way.
 
Many people don't understand that a very large portion of Windows 'vulnerable' nature is due to all the legacy compatibility they have to keep with each version. Thankfully as we progress further, those old dependencies will be relegated to Hyper-V based VM's, so the core of windows 8, 9 , X will be allowed to focus on current rather then ancient.

Windows is still a largely enterprise driven product, and you still have hundreds of thousands of multi-million dollar companies running XP due to legacy software. At work for example we're stuck on XP because our e-doc system will not work with win 7, and to fix that would require hundreds of thousands of dollars of upgrade & consultant work, with the possibility of breaking the other 30 odd on / off the shelf products that are used by various departments. (GIS mapping, asset tracking, ERP software, call desk, scada integration, etc).
 
spamdie said:
So it just means Mcafee and Symantec have to make a high quality fast product with updates that come out faster!

And that'll be when Pigs grow wings and can fly.
Click to expand...

Personally I can't wait until everyone says"McAfee and Norton WHO".:D They can stay with the Corporations, those two are nothing but resource Hogs,pardon the pun, on most peoples computers. People are amazed once I take Norton off their older machines, how much faster they run, its quite noticeable.
 
Exavior said:
Then turn that feature off. Nobody is forcing you to use it
Click to expand...

This is my point - every time I install 7 I disable "windows defender" and "system restore" right off the bat.

If they put it in the OS so it breaks something when disabled or can't be disabled at all that's bad. It's bad enough dealing with bloatware of a modern OS but when you have something truly of no use running dragging things down, well that's just bad.

If one can keep the bad things out of a network in the first place this would not happen. These kinds of file(s) should never even be reaching a "trusted" network in the first place.

Noscript is nice but can be a PIA and forget about average pc users trying to use the web with it. They will turn it off real fast in frustration. The very nature of how the web works with scripting/forms is its Achilles' heel for prolific delivery mechanisms of malicious "code" to find their way to a user's disk (in unprotected networks) and bad things happen.

Not every household/small business can afford a $10k/yr. security appliance. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top