Microsoft discontinuing OneCare, will deliver free security offering instead

Finally.

This is exactly what I said Microsoft should be when it announced that it would actually charge consumers to fix the security problems with Windows. No more:

To address the growing need for a PC security solution tailored to the demands of emerging markets, smaller PC form factors and rapid increases in the incidence of malware, Microsoft Corp. plans to offer a new consumer security offering focused on core anti-malware protection.

Code-named “Morro,” this streamlined solution will be available in the second half of 2009 and will provide comprehensive protection from malware including viruses, spyware, rootkits and trojans. This new solution, to be offered at no charge to consumers, will be architected for a smaller footprint that will use fewer computing resources, making it ideal for low-bandwidth scenarios or less powerful PCs. As part of Microsoft’s move to focus on this simplified offering, the company also announced today that it will discontinue retail sales of its Windows Live OneCare subscription service effective June 30, 2009.

Built on Microsoft’s award-winning malware protection engine, “Morro” will take advantage of the same core anti-malware technology that fuels the company’s current line of security products, which have received the VB100 award from Virus Bulletin, Checkmark Certification from West Coast Labs and certification from the International Computer Security Association Labs. The new solution will deliver the same core protection against malware as that offered through Microsoft’s enterprise solutions, but will not include many of the additional non-security features found in many consumer security suites.

Windows Live OneCare, one of the first all-in-one suites to be launched in the consumer market, includes a number of non-security features, such as printer sharing and automated PC tune-up. By shifting to focus on the core anti-malware features that most consumers still don’t keep up to date, “Morro” will be able to provide the essential protections that consumers need without overusing system resources, and will help more consumers have better protection against online threats.

“Morro” will be available as a stand-alone download and offer malware protection for the Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 operating systems. When used in conjunction with the ongoing security and privacy enhancements of Windows and Internet Explorer, this new solution will offer consumers a robust, no-cost security solution to help protect against the majority of online threats.

So this is good news. Very good news. But I have some concerns about the removal of “non-security features,” unless Microsoft sees fit to deliver them in a separate free offering. Both Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare currently offer excellent tools to reduce the number of programs that start when Windows boots. But Microsoft is removing that tool (Software Explorer) from the version of Defender in Windows 7. And now that Morro is dropping the similar functionality in Windows Live OneCare, there’s no simple way for consumers to perform this vital service.

Also worth reading: A Microsoft Press Pass interview with Amy Barzukas, who is responsible for this new Morrow security tool.

UPDATE: Over five years ago, in July 2003, I wrote an editorial called Microsoft Needs to Offer Free Antivirus to its Windows Customers, in which I spelled out what I thought was a pretty obvious need:

Microsoft has a responsibility to bundle core antivirus technologies in Windows--for free, not for a monthly subscription fee--and that by doing so, the company will prove that it's more concerned about its customers than its relationships with certain partners.

Antivirus technology isn't an optional component anymore--it's more like a crucial part of the engine. If you're connected online, you should have antivirus protection; in other words, the car shouldn't even start unless this crucial component is enabled. This is just commonsense.

Come on, Microsoft, do the right thing. Customers come first.

Five years later and Microsoft apparently agrees.

Now explain to me why this won’t be part of Windows 7. A separate download is OK. But bundled into the OS is much better.

Discuss this Article 109

techdribble
on Nov 18, 2008
"But bundled into the OS is much better." That would be the commonsense approach but if they did this wouldn't they get into anti-trust issues again ?
RaaJ
on Nov 18, 2008
Would this free software kill the AV industry, if it is as good as it is claimed to be? Build this technology into the OS, instead of "bundling it with the OS". Case closed on the anti-trust issues. What will the EU and DoJ sue Microsoft for? Making their product more secure, thereby obviating the need to buy and install a multitude of bloated AV software?
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
A good move. Microsoft were essentially asking people for protection money for the mistakes made in creating such a virus and spyware prone OS. But you're better off with something better, like ZoneAlarm. Free today: http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/sum/index.html
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
Another reason why Vista, and the upcoming Vista 2, are so inferior to OS X. You don't have to worry about, or slow down your machine with anti-virus, spyware and the like software. Superior is right.
kadarzsolt
on Nov 18, 2008
"Now explain to me why this won’t be part of Windows 7" If it was built in with Windows 7 MS would practically nuke the entire security software market: 1. email security is already handled on the server side 2. there is no need for anti-spam protection, as any online service or corporate server can handle that 3. worms are kept away by software firewalls (in Windows) or by routers 4. anti-spyware is part of Windows (from Vista on) 5. browsers are much more secure and can prevent malware installs that were common in IE6 What will Symantec/McAfee/F-Secure (...) do if MS were to include antivir in Windows? They would hang MS management in the courtyard of the DoJ.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 18, 2008
Bravo. The shakedown will finally be over.
geogray
on Nov 18, 2008
RobertsJoe... Please. It is not like Microsoft set out to cause you problems. Advanced software, such as an operating system, is damn near impossible to make or keep 100% bug free or hack proof. If it were-AND Mac OS X were great, then Apple, today, would not have had to release an update to Safari that plugs a dozen holes, four of which were rated very high. Nor would they, just within the last month or so, release an update to OS X that fixed over 40 issues. So, please, send the anti-Windows crap somewhere else.
geogray
on Nov 18, 2008
Sorry, my mistake...that Safari update was yesterday.
jvd897
on Nov 18, 2008
robertsjoe's misguided fanboy comments aside... @RaaJ: "What will the EU and DoJ sue Microsoft for? Making their product more secure, thereby obviating the need to buy and install a multitude of bloated AV software?" Something tells me that this is a bit too optimistic. If the EU were open-minded enough to take the competition's bloatedness into account, they might not have mandated the N editions. Say what you will about WMP, but at least it's less bloated than much of the competition (i.e., iTunes, RealPlayer, etc)!
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@geogray: I know they would not set out to do it. But as an enduser, the beauty of running OS X, is that viruses and spyware is something you don't have to worry about. Having to worry about it is such a drudgery that it's not funny. So many times I've felt sorry for unsuspecting, non-computer savvy, Windows users having to deal with this that it's just not funny. Numerous of which have been ripped of by computer "experts" that rip the off charging large amounts to re-install the OS when they unsuspectedly got a virus. Now, you may say "well they are idiots for getting it. Surely doing something wrong", but the point is that they are just not as tec savvy. Yet, they should still be able to use computers without this burden being dumped on their shoulders.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@geogray: "So, please, send the anti-Windows crap somewhere else." In the end, when it comes to being infested with viruses, Windows wins out. And that's not a good thing to win on. I, and all other Mac users, don't run anti-virus software. That's superior to Windows.
johnbaxter
on Nov 18, 2008
Good move, I think. But I'll miss the fights with OneCare--it took three hours Sunday to get back to letting one of my machines trigger backups from the other, including the amusing situation in which one machine thought (rightly) that it had just backed up to the central backup device while the other (the "hub") thought it needed to be configured and backed up and therefore showed yellow. A restart of the hub machine cured that. I don't use voice commands, or the machines might have tried rather odd antics. And as primarily a Mac user I say: we don't need anti-Windows polemics here.
bettieblu
on Nov 18, 2008
Lol paying to Microsoft to protect you from security holes they have not fixed yet was odd at best. AVG was/is a better solution for many.
shark47
on Nov 18, 2008
AVG has been giving me an error message for a few days now that it's not able to update the software because my internet doesn't work. Nice. I guess all the other applications (including this web browser) didn't get the memo.
Master3
on Nov 18, 2008
robertsjoe is basically being a troll, pure and simple. Most of the kids that infest tech sites pretty much are.
techfan
on Nov 18, 2008
I use OneCare (have used it since about 2 months before it went out of beta) and never had a problem with it. Now though I can't get the damn thing to recognized previous backup DVDs(!) but aside from that it's been an okay anti-virus program. I think bundling the new program would surely bring on the warth of other anti-virus sellers and the DOJ. By making the program as an optional download, it will make it less of a threat to other companies. End-users can decide or not to download it.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@master3: "robertsjoe is basically being a troll, pure and simple. Most of the kids that infest tech sites pretty much are." Yet everything I said about the world of anti-virus and spyware software and having to deal with it on Windows, and in comparisons to OS X, is all true. You can't deny that it's a weight on Windows' and its user's shoulders.
bluvg
on Nov 18, 2008
I wonder if this will be licensed for personal use only, or if companies can use it as well.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
Totally OT: Congratulations to the Microsoft Windows HPC Server 2008 team. Today they broke into the top 10 fastest computers in the world. The Shanghai Supercomputing Center's new cluster running Microsoft Windows HPC Server 2008 is officially the 10th fastest supercomputer in the world with today's Top 500 listing. The system has 30,720 cores (using AMD quad core processors and generated 180.6 Teraflops. More info at http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/microsoft/35913/ and http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/casestudy.aspx?casestudyid=4000003006
Waethorn
on Nov 18, 2008
Ok a couple observations here, and a lot of questions: "What will the EU and DoJ sue Microsoft for? Making their product more secure" Look at the kernel patch guard opening in SP1 for your answer. " You don't have to worry about, or slow down your machine with anti-virus, spyware and the like software." No, it's slow enough already. Keep enjoying your 32-bit kernel. 64-bit versions of Windows have been 64-bit all along, not half-baked like OS X. BTW: Adobe CS4 rocks on Vista x64. On OS X, not so much. ;) "I, and all other Mac users, don't run anti-virus software. That's superior to Windows." No, that's called being irresponsible. No matter how safe you are driving a car, would you buy one without seatbelts? There are speed demons on the road that don't care about your safety. Feeling lucky, punk? .... Ok so some pros: - it's free for consumers - it takes less resources - anything else I'm forgetting? it seems like that's it. some possible cons: - what about central health services like Tune-Up, and backup? - where does the discontinuation of OneCare put the users of the current product as far as automated backup and system tuneups? - where does the discontinuation put small business users that just purchased subscriptions for OneCare on desktop PC's for SBS 2008-based networks? What happens with Microsoft's messaging that OneCare is appropriate for small businesses where Forefront Client Security is not? - what happens to OneCare for Server, which was just introduced recently? general questions: - will this look like Forefront Client Security? It's pretty nice. It's basically Windows Defender with antivirus detection (Defender only scans for spyware) - Windows 7 Action Center looks like the replacement for the OneCare management console as it features all of the stuff that OneCare currently does. So this new solution is just the missing part that's not included in Windows - the antivirus engine?? Mike, how do you feel about this one?
Waethorn
on Nov 18, 2008
"AVG was/is a better solution for many." "AVG has been giving me an error message for a few days now that it's not able to update the software because my internet doesn't work. Nice." At least you didn't get the message saying that Windows doesn't work. That one was a doozy. http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40159/108/ So, bettie. What was that about you preferring XP to Vista?? BTW: Just in case you think AVG does well in AV comparative scores, you should check the last couple of years of test sites. OneCare actually does better than AVG in several. The scores fluctuate a lot though. Even NOD32, which was considered to be the best when it was reported that OneCare did badly, has risen and fallen several times from the top 5. It isn't "the best" by any chance of the imagination. Oh, and the site AV-comparatives.org that rated OneCare so badly and made it a laughing stock for a short time awhile back? It's a website designed as a project by university students. It also carries Google ads, which is reason enough to discredit it. I mean, have you seen Chrome lately?? Uck!
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
"Mike, how do you feel about this one?" Actually, torn. I was a Program Manager on the OneCare team and it's tough to see one of your products transition. My guess is that effectively it just means that much of OneCare has become so much a part of the mainstream that it's more important to see it go out to everyone than to make money off of it. So, sad to see the OneCare brand go away and proud to see one of my products become this universal.
gumpster
on Nov 18, 2008
This new anti-malware offering, scheduled to be released in the second half of 2009, will provide protection from a variety of threats – including viruses, spyware, rootkits and Trojans. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/Nov08/11-18AmyBarzdukas...
geogray
on Nov 18, 2008
RobertsJoe, Ok, the comparison you made between Windows and Mac OS X is not true. Yes, there are 'clickers' who just don't know what's good and what's not do tend to have such problems. That is not endemic of a poorly developed operating system. Most of those 'infections' are done via malicious web sites and could very well affect your beloved Mac OS X. Just because you have not been seriously hit does not mean you won't be. What we are really talking about is sheer numbers. There are probably fifty Windows PC's sold for every Mac. That, more than anything else, makes Windows a very inviting target. As I said before, if Mac truly was superior, then why does Apple do 'point' releases and minor updates to the operating system that are really bug fixes and dirt to plug the holes? Another relatively recent update fixed over 400 bugs, security holes and other problems. 400. I don't think I've had more than a dozen or so applied to Vista since it came out. A dozen may be stretching it, but it has not been that many. And I have not yet heard of a major virus attacking Vista.
geogray
on Nov 18, 2008
Hi Mike, I was a user of OneCare and really liked the suite. The backup utility was very nice and the anti virus did not affect performance. The big reason I went back to AVG was simply price. I got OneCare for ten bucks and just did not want to lay out fifty to 'renew' it. I'm excited that it's going to be free, but am a little dubious about it well. With no financial incentive, I fear Microsoft will just let it die in a year or two. I hope I am wrong. They seem to have stuck by the Live family, I hope they putll an AOL on us.
rtkachuk@shaw.ca
on Nov 18, 2008
@robertsjoe http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2550 "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities" There goes your troll.
surilamin
on Nov 18, 2008
This NEEDS, NEEDS, to be bundled into the OS. Your average user is an idiot, and they will not download it. Paul and I are not fans of applications being bundled into the OS, however, this one needs to be. It is integral to the security of the OS.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
Look at some of the pipe dreams touted by MS.. from Jim Allchin. http://www.betanews.com/article/Allchin_Suggests_Vista_Wont_Need_Antivir... That dream went up in smoke.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@rtkachuk@shaw.ca: Again, it's not needed and we don't use it. Life is better on this side. What don't you understand? Are you a little slow? OS X users don't use it, don't run it, don't need it. When a Windows drone says "yeah but it's irresponsible" it's because they don't know any other way. You live life with viruses and spyware, you'd be amazed to think that others (Linux and OS X users) don't use it.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@geogray: The thing is. OS X users do not, nor do they need to, run anti-virus software. Makes life a lot better and easier. That's a fact.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@weathorn: ""I, and all other Mac users, don't run anti-virus software. That's superior to Windows." No, that's called being irresponsible." Not at all. It's simply because of a more secure OS. There is zero need to run anti-virus software on OS X. I know that's hard to fathom for someone that's been accustomed to feeling threatened every time they boot up Windows. But that's your life. Not that of a OS X user.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
Life with Windows - By Paul Thurrott :) http://windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=42787
Master3
on Nov 18, 2008
@surilamin Let the idiot not run anything, that also applies to the security patches that Apple puts out. I mean, why patch an OS for security holes, if you have nothing to worry about? He is obviously playing a role just to troll this site. The self-righteous Macintwit persona is so transparent.
gorath
on Nov 18, 2008
"Look at some of the pipe dreams touted by MS.. from Jim Allchin. www.betanews.com/.../1163104965 That dream went up in smoke." Actually, that dream didn't go up in smoke. You obviously never read the article you linked to. In it, he reckons that Vista, locked down with the built in parental controls, is secure enough to let his 7 year old son use it, without any AV or similar installed. Nothing has changed in that respect.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@master3: You're just really slow, right? It's not needed. No one runs it on OS X. It's only needs to be an integral part of Windows, not OS X. You're looking it through a Windows user's point of view because that's all they know. Viruses and spyware.
Waethorn
on Nov 18, 2008
"As I said before, if Mac truly was superior, then why does Apple do 'point' releases and minor updates to the operating system that are really bug fixes and dirt to plug the holes? Another relatively recent update fixed over 400 bugs, security holes and other problems. 400." robertsjoe's response: "It's simply because of a more secure OS." Eat your crow, robertjoe.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@Waethorn: Because they do security fixes does not mean I need to run anti-virus software because I'm not gonna get touched by anything that uses it. On Windows, that would not be the case. Hence, one does not need to run anti-virus/anti-spyware software on OS X. It's a waste of time, resources, etc. Try that on Windows and your OS is hosed.
techfan
on Nov 18, 2008
Ha! I just looked at my OneCare's Monthly Report and my current subscription ends toward the end of April :-) Hmm... I wonder what I'll do for the following 2 months after that? I guess I can install AVG until MS releases Morro.
Waethorn
on Nov 18, 2008
"Because they do security fixes does not mean I need to run anti-virus software because I'm not gonna get touched by anything that uses it." You don't need to be attacked by a virus to have your system compomised. Remote access exploits are easily accomplished in OS X. There have been very few security flaws in Windows Vista, and all have been patched. Firewalls don't help you, since exploits are often run off of common port numbers. Calling OS X secure is a laugh. Any security firm would b*tchslap you upside the head for such saying such dribble.
kalewallace
on Nov 18, 2008
I don't think Microsoft could bundle this with the OS and not have the EU ninjas kick down the walls with their antitrust papers. This is pretty devestating to the AV companies. When you can have a free antivirus tightly incorporated into the OS over Norton for $$$, what would you choose. Glad to see @robertsjoe drag in Macintosh-supremacy. Nice article find @rtkachuk...
Waethorn
on Nov 18, 2008
"I wonder what I'll do for the following 2 months after that?" You can still renew OneCare and use it for a full year. They will support it for a full year. They just won't sell it after July 30th, 2009. I'm just wondering exactly how long they'll offer updates after that. They'll continue updating up until at least July 30th, 2010 to make sure current subscribers are able to get updates. I'm guessing engine and antimalware definition updates will be downloaded automatically via the same mechanism as "Morro". One other important question this brings up: Are the definitions the same? Can you use OneCare after that with the free engine updates?
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@waethorn: "Calling OS X secure is a laugh. Any security firm would b*tchslap you upside the head for such saying such dribble." Any security firm will say what they need to to sell you their product. Security firms arose from the pile of bad code that is Windows. A whole multi-million dollar industry was created because of it. The truth is, OS X users don't run anti-virus or anti-spyware on their machines. If they do, they are wasting time, money and CPU cycles - slowing down their machine. That is the truth of the matter no matter how you want to spin it.
Waethorn
on Nov 18, 2008
"Any security firm will say what they need to to sell you their product." Sorry, but you just don't have a clue. The majority of security firms don't sell anything at all, except for their consulting service. They're the same ones that say that OS X is a joke. Apple "security" is a joke. Sorry, but that's the truth. The sheer number of OS X security updates proves that. The Blackhat conference proved that. MoAB proved that. Paypal proved that when they said not to use Safari (Microsoft said it too). Even Apple proved it by creating a cross-platform cross-scripting bug in Quicktime.
geogray
on Nov 18, 2008
Sigh. I'm not arguing about the whole Mac/Windows thing. I'm just going to say this: Vista is pretty darn secure. IF people actually use the tools from Microsoft-which includes the UAC that people seem to have a problem with and pay attention to it, you probably could run without an antivirus package. If RobertsJoe loves his Mac, then fine. I have no real issue with the Mac itself. From what Paul and Leo Laporte say, the current Macs-most any of them-make damn fine Vista machines. No, I really only have a problem with Mac users who see themselves as superior to us Windows users. It is really tiring. Oh, for the record, and following the Vista hater logic, Leopard is broken. http://halfbyte.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!433AF012736FFD06!1172.entry
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@waethorn: But none of that detracts from the fact that there is no point in running anti-virus software. Don't you understand that? That hardly anyone, and I mean hardly no one! runs it on OS X. And it doesn't compromise their machines at all. Because they will not get attacked. Anyway, I am happy to leave it - we agree to disagree.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
Waethorn As someone who worked in security and who worked with several security firms, you're exactly right. Apple's security is not only a joke but a time bomb waiting for somebody who is willing to piss off the Apple. Right now it's not architecture protecting them or even best practices As an example, iPhone was shipped with only two accounts in the system, both running as root and both with passwords vulnerable to a dictionary attack that were cracked within a week of shipping. It was only good will that kept the iPhone community from being pwned within the first month of shipping. And Apple's treatment of developers is costing them that good will.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@mikegalos: "As someone who worked in security and who worked with several security firms, you're exactly right." Yet they have the better user experience.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@Waethorn, @mikegalos: I guess if one's used to something all their lives, they have a hard time seeing something better. Like Windows users not seeing how much better OS X is. A life of Windows is a life of eating gruel. OS X is like a fine dinning experience.
RunTimeError
on Nov 18, 2008
Little late, but whatever. Waethorn: "Adobe CS4 rocks on Vista x64. On OS X, not so much." Tried it on both have you? I have. They're pretty much exactly the same.
mgayetsky
on Nov 18, 2008
@robertsjoe Just a bit on anecdotal evidence here - many of my colleagues use OSX and are fairly high-and-mighty about it as well. Last May, though, many of them had hard drive crashes and had to drive out to the Apple store and get it fixed. I ultimately found that they all had the same virus that infected other systems through Word documents. Running AVG on my Vista machine, though, caught it without problems. Given this case, explain several things: 1. Was it a good call that these OSX users were not running anti-virus software? 2. Was OSX or Vista more secure in this scenario? I am likely anticipating a response that is predicated upon this being an isolated case, based only on anecdotal evidence. However, why is your experience based on intangible beliefs about security better than the experience of my colleagues with virus-related crashes?

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use