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

bettieblu
on Nov 18, 2008
"So, bettie. What was that about you preferring XP to Vista??" ????? Yes I do, when running Windows on a notebook/desktop XP over Vista. I suggest AVG to friends who dont want to spend money. I use on my Windows boxes Symantec Corporate AV, which is night and day different than any Norton product. I get a legal copy from work. SAV is the most non-intrusive AV program I have ever used. It just works AVG will bug you if if it misses a sing day of updates, but its free and good. I have setup One Care (for a friend), it was noisy as well, especially if a piece of software you installed put something in startup, you have to ok it. That whole one care circle constantly has problems as to who is the master and who is backing up who etc, as Johnbaxter stated. Lastly I know someone that lost a big .pst file from Outlook because of a known bug in Onecare that has now been patched. Onecare had a rough start but its probably ok now, just not for me. All this talk from Mike and Waethorn about Apple Security. Both OS'es have known holes. I would say right now Microsoft is faster at patching them. However that is because MS took a beating for so long about holes and how long they took to patch them. IE was a laughing stalk for so long because of the amount of holes and holes MS just flat out refused to patch. Not only were there holes but EPLOITS that led to many famous viruses all on Windows, Melisa, Love Bug, Code Red, Bugbear, blaster and what Windows server/sql IT admin could forget Slammer which crippled some big names for a few days. Then Gates and his famous "trustworthy computing email" in 2002 or 2003, cant remember finally turned MS around. 6 or 7 years later MS is on top of security, but they are still a fat target because of its install base. Say what you want about OS X, its just does not get attacked. UNIX has always been more secure conscious but all operating systems have holes and all get patched. I dont run any AV on my Mac and wont until there is a serious outbreak or exploit. Holes does not equal attacks in the OS X world, at least today. I have also gone for months at a time with no AV on a Windows box as well. With any OS its the user and what he/she does more than anything. If you run Windows XP as a limited user and you have automatic updates on and know enough to understand how malware gets into your system then your fine. I personally have never had a malware or virus problem on a computer that has been mine. I supported Exchange servers and saw Trend for Exchange pickup all kinds of crap coming in on a front end server which is to be expected. I have seen slammer take down some DMZ SQL servers that we could not get to fast enough after Microsoft called us directly. We pulled the network cable out of them and manually fixed them. Also today the traditional Virus is not the real threat anymore. There are layer up on layer of protection now for the traditional virus. For a home user with windows their ISP probably has some form of email protection as does all of the major players, hotmail, google, yahoo. In a corporate world you even more layers, with massive restrictions on what you can install, where you can surf etc. Today is scams, phishing, malware that steals info and hopes you dont know your even attacked. Its more a social thing that in some cases nothing is going to stop it if a user replies to an email asking them to re-enter their password to their bank account. I have seen some emails that are dead on real looking, from big name banks and yet they were fakes. Joe user gets sent to a web page and they dont look at the real URL just the page, that looks just like Bank of America or whatever.
bettieblu
on Nov 18, 2008
"Tried it on both have you? I have. They're pretty much exactly the same" I have tried CS4 on both and they are the same. You will only notice any performance gain if you regularly mess with files that are larger than 3gig. I am thinking the average PS user does not go there. I remember Mike stating there would be mass defections of PS OS X users because CS4 has 64bit support under Windows/Vista. Hahahah what a joke. I wonder how many pro PS users have even upgraded to CS4 on either platform??? The reviews of it only claimed minor feature upgrades over CS3. Its not cheap software even for an upgrade. So you probably only have a small percentage of CS3 users who have upgraded and of that I am going to be that Zero of that minority ditched OS X and went to Vista because of the 64bit support. But that is the kind of BS logic Mike likes to spew.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
bettieblu I said there would be a defection of PROs from Photoshop CS4 Mac to PS CS4 Windows. And, let's see... It's been out in eval for one whole day now... Bozo
bettieblu
on Nov 18, 2008
@maygetsky what was the name of the virus? You say it came from a Word doc, so a Word doc virus, which have been common over they years, somehow attacked the UNIX based OS that is OS X and crashed hard drives? I am sorry with out a name or a link I just cant believe that. Not because I am some Apple fan, but just because all known Word viruses (usually Marcro related) have always attacked PC's because of the Windows OS. I am not saying its NOT possible but it sounds like bunk to me.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
Bettieblu btw: Those "EPLOITS" you think happened because Microsoft hadn't issued patches came after the Microsoft patches were out and only hit systems that hadn't been patched, either by users who didn't bother or administrators who decided they wanted to test the patches for so long that the attack came while they were "evaluating" them. Oh, and the "noisy" bit about OneCare is the firewall confirmation that only happens the first time you run the program and not every time you ran a program that's in startup. Making it up as you go along? Bozo
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
"somehow attacked the UNIX based OS that is OS X " Contrary to what some "UNIX based OS" users mistakenly think, Unix like systems are inherently less secure than Windows NT based operating systems. NO commercial Unix ever got C level or B level certification when the NSA was still certifying software. The Windows NT core OS was architected at the B level, implemented at the C level (B level is too difficult to be practical for use by anyone but military and intelligenc agencies) and certified as C2 compliant. One big reason for the Unix failure at that level of security is it's designed for only limited access control levels (3 categories with rights represented by an octal digits) and even that is only checked at a high level. Windows NT architecture, on the other hand, has granularity of security at the object and call level, a modern ACL architecture and all calls pass through a certified security subsystem. Now, some modern Unix based systems have a modern security system bolted on to them but that's not the same as having it architected into the design.
bettieblu
on Nov 18, 2008
When Slammer hit we got a call from MS and were told to download some emergency patches. I worked at a company that had a very large MS account at the time and so we got a call from MS, even though it was to late for those few servers we had in the DMZ. I felt sorry for those companies that did not rate that kind of support. From what I recall of onecare, the user in question kept getting the pop up when his PC started up from a recent application install. He would cancel the popup and not answer it. When I was at his house I "answered" it and it did not come up anymore. So yes your right, but only partially. The user in question did not know what to do, like many dont and kept getting it. He also had problems because it was loaded on 3 PC's in his house, and that whole circle deal was complaining about contacting the other PC on his network, even though file shares I setup worked fine. We went through uninstalling and re-installing once care on all three PC's and it fixed the problem. Only to popup a few weeks later. Just a quick google shows me the problems are real.... http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsOneCare/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=1747&S... Bozo lol!!! You said you were a program manager for this product, were you the ASSHAT that managed that circle crap? If so bravo, from that MICROSOFT forum it looks like you did a great job. Maybe keep that off of your resume until at least MS ditches the product and people forget about it.
robertsjoe
on Nov 18, 2008
@mgayetsky: "I ultimately found that they all had the same virus that infected other systems through Word documents." I'm just saying what I see. That I don't know anyone running anti-virus software, or have I personally seen any evidence that I should bother with it. Although, your example is amusing - damned Microsoft code is just a virus carrying host! Luckily I don't run any MS software.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 18, 2008
bettieblu When Slammer hit, the patch had been out for a while. That you got a call saying to install the patch only means your people hadn't done it. As for the user "cancelling" the dialog, nice try. The dialog offers three choices, allow the program, block once and ask again, always block. If the user chose "ask again" it's hardly surprising that it asked again. I'll keep OneCare high up on my resume, thank you. It's a product I'm very proud of. The product has a great reputation both for itself and for raising the bar for security products so much that both Symantec and McAfee had to drastically improve their products to compete and, frankly, actual users I've talked to who find out I was on the team gush about how much they like OneCare to the point that it's almost embarassing. As I said: Bozo...
lilserenity
on Nov 18, 2008
Please stop feeding the troll. They're not going to come around to your way of thinking all of a sudden, let them get bored of their own lonely echo.
tayme
on Nov 19, 2008
@robertsjoe - Its amusing to read this entire thread in one sitting and watch you go from saying that NO Mac users have AV software installed; to saying that you don't know anyone using AV software. Typical. @mikegalos - It is equally as amusing reading your posts over the last few days in one sitting. You love to point out people's spelling errors, only to make you own. You love to act offended when a debater lowers themself to name calling, only to do it yourself. Again, typical. The two of you belong together...and I thank you both for providing me some major entertainment. Two thumbs up!!! --tayme
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
Onecare has a great reputation??? It was a joke when it first came out after it failed the VB100 testing. Many people I know bought it free from Amazon (mail in rebate) or for $15 at Bestbuy/Circuit city, both of which offered it at that price 4 or 5 times in the first year. Some stellar reviews. http://reviews.cnet.com/online-software-services/windows-live-onecare/45... http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/28344/review/windows_live_onecare... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1976149,00.asp
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
Mike, I told my wife that the you never call people names as you are a true gentleman, so don't make me a liar, and stop defaming the name of my favorite clown Bozo:) [I had to give you credit for advice that worked out very well, rather than discussing this site with her]. Anyway, OneCare was the best way of ridding my virtumonde virus/trojan that I installed a few months back. McAfee and AVG [fully updated] never even found it, although the sites claims that they do. Some free utilities left pieces too. OneCare got rid of it all. If you all recall, I installed a program called HDD Repair utility v2, then caught the virus. I just see those dead drives and desire to resuscitate. It's still tempting. Must...resist....must...
Waethorn
on Nov 19, 2008
"Because they will not get attacked." "Does not" != "will not", sorry to say. Maybe you should go back to school. "Tried it on both have you? I have. They're pretty much exactly the same." Then you haven't tried manipulating 12Mp raw digital images on it. The 64-bit version is far superior - that is, the version that runs on Vista x64. To say they are the same is an outright lie. Also, when you work on digital images, you aren't working on some 4Mp digital image that takes up only 2MB of space in RAM - that's the JPEG compression working on the file size. The actual image data takes up much more room. If you take an image in a resolution of about 2300x1800 (approx 4Mp), you end up with image data that consumes over 12MB of RAM (24-bit RGB with no alpha). Working with 48-bit RAW images (16-bits per component), the same dimension of image is much larger. Add in transparency and some layer effects, and the CPU will start to choke when you want to adjust the position of something. On a Mac, you have limited graphics card options. PC's just have much better options, since desktop PC's can have better, cheaper video card options than even an overpriced Mac Pro (all iMac's use mobile graphics too, not to mention mobile processors, so they're a joke). Mac versions of the same cards are more expensive too. Then you can add on the benefits of 64-bit, which is Vista-only, and it's a win-win for PC users. On Mac, it's a lose-lose, and a very expensive one at that. A $1000 quad-core desktop PC with a half-decent video card will best the top-of-the-line iMac. And yes - I've worked on large files before. I once worked on a 995MB logo for a company - about 6 years ago in Photoshop 5.5 on a system with only 128MB of RAM. "I have setup One Care (for a friend), it was noisy as well, especially if a piece of software you installed put something in startup, you have to ok it." Sorry, but that's just totally untrue. As Mike stated, it only comes up if it needs internet access - that's standard Firewall stuff.
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
And more OT, last night at a dinner lecture for nuclear Cardiology, two docs admitted that they have 'never experienced any of the problems that they heard about Vista'. One had an iPhone and knows that I'm a Mac user, so we briefly talked about PC's. They both like Vista. [ER doc and a Radiologist]
shark47
on Nov 19, 2008
In other news, one of the pirate ships is down. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_bi_ge/piracy;_ylt=AnzuX8a_waS0... What does this have to do with anything being discussed here? I don't know... and don't care. :-) Just thought the concept of pirates was interesting in this day and age.
Waethorn
on Nov 19, 2008
"It was a joke when it first came out after it failed the VB100 testing." Actually, it passed the first test. It failed the second, and passed the remaining two: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?vendor=VE41 Compared to AVG, which failed half of the tests (22 to be exact), I'd say OneCare did pretty well: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?vendor=VE10 If you're thinking about the AV-comparatives.org tests, go ahead and look at the history of OneCare. Then compare it to AVG, as well as the overrated NOD32. AVG was dead last on more than one occasion, while NOD32 slipped below the top 5.
Waethorn
on Nov 19, 2008
Speaking of pirates, after Fringe last night, Fox News had this info-session about how to get away with music and movie piracy by using P2P software. The guy had something that looked like Limewire or some crap. I only watched the preview, not the newscast - I was busy ripping my CD collection to my Zune.
sjaak327
on Nov 19, 2008
Robertsjoe, excellent troll, you hooked a few. surely you are not serious, otherwise, I'm certainly hoping you're just a normal user, not an admin type of guy, otherwise I feel sorry for the company that employed you, as I haven't seen so much ignorance in quite some time now. I'm an admin type guy, who also happens to administer some OSX machines, all of them with Mcafee Virusscan 8.61, so yes there are macs with AV software. Claiming that OSX is much safer then Vista, is absolutely ludricous. And as pointed out by a few, the number of fixes to Leopard are staggering compared to Vista. But of course we are not talking about the Leopard firewall that is disabled by default ! We are also not talking about Safari, that hasn't got any anti pishing measure built in. I can only hope that Apple is going to put some more attention to security, maybe in a similar way as Microsoft is doing with the security/solution centre, as surely if OSX is going to have more users, the number of problems that have plagued Windows (XP in particular) will also visit OSX, no doubt about it.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 19, 2008
"You love to point out people's spelling errors, only to make you [sic] own. " Oh, the irony. ;-) All in good fun, my friend.
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
Wow a 995meg file, I guess a Mac users would have to upgrade to 2gig of RAM for that file. A Mac user with 4gig and CS4 can probably handle 99.9% of all photoshop tasks out there. If they cant what did anyone do before CS4, on Windows or a Mac????? I am not saying 64bit is not better. I am saying that its not really utilized by 98% of PS users. For those 2% that work with files that are really large and manipulate layers like crazy sure go for CS4 on Vista 64 and throw 8 or more gig in your dual socket/8 core Dell Precision Workstation T7400 that starts at $2200 with one CPU, with two its more expensive than a base Mac Pro!! I would really love to see a real break down of PS users Windows vs Mac, only Adobe can provide those numbers. "Sorry, but that's just totally untrue. As Mike stated, it only comes up if it needs internet access - that's standard Firewall stuff" Ahh Canadian reading strikes again. Mike said.... "The dialog offers three choices, allow the program, block once and ask again, always block. If the user chose "ask again" it's hardly surprising that it asked again." So umm what you said is "totally untrue":) I would assume, using my vastly superior analytical skills, that my friend was choosing "block once and ask again" since I was not there:) When he showed the problem to me I allowed the program and it stopped. I know that took a lot to figure out. Your simply a genius Wae. Do apply that same logic when trouble shooting?? Is mastery of OneCare or should we call it Once Care since is now a dead product, on your resume?
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
whatwo! Looks like Psystar maybe a a sh*t creek without a paddle. I they lose, I wonder what happens to the warranty and support. Sorry for the OT again, it's my day off. Judge slaps down Psystar's antitrust claims against Apple http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081118-judge-slaps-down-psystars-...
lotsamystuff
on Nov 19, 2008
"We are also not talking about Safari, that hasn't got any anti pishing [sic] measure built in." Oops: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10101355-83.html Or as Waethorn would say: WRONG!!!
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
"We are also not talking about Safari, that hasn't got any anti pishing measure built in." Safari 3.2 release a week ago with "anti pishing". Who do you "admin guy" for? Please name one successful attack on OS X. Before you ask I cant for Vista. Vista is way more secure than XP because its default for users is limited access, when using UAC. Only a fool would turn off UAC. Of course UAC/lmited user is the default for OS X/Linux and has been for a long time.
sjaak327
on Nov 19, 2008
"Safari 3.2 release a week ago with "anti pishing". Who do you "admin guy" for?" Wow ! I guess I should loose my job for not knowing this, of course, it's a bit late don't you think ? One week ago... Of course Firefox is a much better browser on that platform for more reasons. The Anti Pishing problem is one example, which now obvious has been fixed, after two years ... Not running Anti virus software on any machine is just plain silly. No matter how secure you might believe an OS to be. It's not about being able to name successfull attacks on OSX, the fact is that it certainly isn't more secure than Vista. It's merely lack of interest than anything else. I would have thought that the two examples that I gave are more then enough reason to believe that Apple isn't taking security in the same high regard as Microsoft is doing since Vista. That major attacks have not occured is besides the point. And as I also pointed out, attacks and virusses/worm written specifically for OSX will become more likely, if the user base would increase in a significant way.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 19, 2008
"Not running Anti virus software on any machine is just plain silly. No matter how secure you might believe an OS to be." I agree, for all the obvious reasons, but mainly because it keeps Mac users from passing on those Word Macro Viruses that don't affect them, but do tend to annoy users of Word for Windows.
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
@sjaak327 Most people completely miss the boat with the use of the "Virus" word. There are still traditional viruses out there the kind that come from email or from copying an infected file to your PC, that will take PC down by destroying some files or turn it into a machine that spews junk trying to infect other PC's ending up in a DOS attack. All successful versions of these type of traditional Viruses have been on Windows PC's. While they are out there layers of AV, from ISP' to users and users getting smart about updates have rendered these types all but useless. In the last 2-3 years the primary method of injecting malware into a system is by user interaction. Users being fooled into clicking on something or just a mouse over on a website, that installes a usually silent piece of malware, that will then steal information from your system or turn you system into a zombie. This again is a Windows problem for the known successful malware problems out there. Why??? Simple Windows XP and below defaults to a users as full Admins. Not only that they dont even require a password. So malware can easily install its self onto a Windows XP box and does. Add to that XP is by far the market share king in terms of desktop/notebook OS'es in use today. So its a fat juicy target. OS X like Vista and Linux run have a default user profile as a limited user. In OS X (as you probably know) everytime you try to install a program or access a system area you either have to put in your password or you simple cant unless you use sudo/su to overwrite a system file. Linux distros I have used , Red Hat, SUSE, and Ubuntu use the same exact methods. Vista pops up UAC for admins that you can ok through and prompts for a password for limited users like OS X/Linux. You can via registry setting/GPO require Vista admins to use a password as well and IMHO this should be a rule that cant be changed. For this very reason OS X will never get hacked like XP has. Can it get hacked, sure not saying it cant, but not the way XP and admin users by default get nailed time and time again. Now a lot of software problems that came with Vista was because of this. Even some Microsoft apps at the time of the Vista launch could not work properly if the user was not a full admin, hence the problems with many corporations still allowing users of XP to be full admins. Microsoft was wrongly blamed for Vista and software compatibility, when it was software that required full admin rights.....hence the solution by many to shut off UAC, which is stupid. It still comes down to facts. Example in August a buddy of mine who has two daughters 14 and 18. Both according to him live on Face Book. The younger one users her mothers XP PC. The older one a Macbook. They younger one got the Facebook Virus or malware in August of this year on her Mothers XP box. They took it in and had the geek squad remove it. The daughter with the Macbook, had no problems since this malware was for the Windows OS. That is what joe consumer sees when considering a Mac and not the details of open security holes etc. Is it right to assume your safe, hell no but that is what they do and we see record numbers of Mac's being sold, even in this economy.
shark47
on Nov 19, 2008
Just like most other threads, this is starting to get silly... And like most other threads, mikegalos will be (unfairly) blamed for it.
Mum
on Nov 19, 2008
OS X malware exists. My friend had a trojan on his MacBook Pro. Not that the AV software I use recognised it.
Waethorn
on Nov 19, 2008
"Wow a 995meg file, I guess a Mac users would have to upgrade to 2gig of RAM for that file." That was 6 years ago. Were there even Mac's that supported 2GB of RAM 6 years ago? "I am saying that its not really utilized by 98% of PS users. For those 2% that work with files that are really large and manipulate layers like crazy sure go for CS4 on Vista 64 and throw 8 or more gig in your dual socket/8 core Dell Precision Workstation T7400 that starts at $2200 with one CPU" Why? Any Core 2 processor supports 64-bit. When you're using 64-bit registers, precision gets higher, and the CPU can process more data in a single thread. Besides, as I mentioned, there are systems shipping with 8GB of RAM and quad-core processors, running Windows Vista x64 for $1000US right now. The cheapest iMac? It's just too pathetic to mention the price and specs on here (I won't embarrass you with the details). Many print magazines are working on much higher resolution (and higher bit-depth) than they previously were. Even my local paper does work in 16-bit component CMYK (that's 16-bits PER component, not 16-bit colour). " would assume, using my vastly superior analytical skills" Never assume. You know what they say about that (more about you than me in this instance). "http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10101355-83.html Or as Waethorn would say: WRONG!!!" http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40203/108/ "the new anti-phishing tools in Safari 3.2 are unreliable and half-baked, to say the least." That says it all. "It appears that Apple rushed the update without the necessary thorough testing." ....and they're doing it again with Snow Leopard.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 19, 2008
Hmmm. Anti-phishing filter in Microsoft Internet Explorer - IE7 beta 2 - January 2006 Anti-phishing filter in Mozilla Firefox - Firefox 2 - October 2006 Anti-phishing filter in Opera - Opera 9.1 - Fall 2006 Anti-phishing filter in Apple Safari - Safari 3.2 - November 2008 Yeah. Over two years after every major competitor's product had responded to a security threat. That's quick threat response... (And, yes, I count other people's public betas as equal to an Apple release since Apple's "no public beta" policy means that their releases are the equivalent of a public beta since they're the first chance for broad compatibility testing)
shark47
on Nov 19, 2008
It doesn't matter whether OS X has viruses. It doesn't matter whether you like One Care or not. In the end, this move is good for consumers. I found One Care to be less intrusive than Avast and AVG and better in terms of performance and less confusing than Sophos.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 19, 2008
shark "I found One Care to be less intrusive than Avast and AVG and better in terms of performance and less confusing than Sophos." Exactly what we focused on. The goals were to make OneCare easy and friendly enough that a casual computer user could handle it (We went through multiple pases in the usability labs and did lots of home visits to watch "regular users" interact with it) and to make it efficient enough that, unlike its competitors at the time, it wouldn't hog the system's resources. Sounds like, in the end, we succeeded well enough to make our design a nearly universal solution as this change in distribution confirms.
JamesRayG
on Nov 19, 2008
robertsjoe, you are a truly clueless troll, as are most apple trolls who just buy computers to spam the internet. Malware on Mac OS X is not a concern because Mac OS X does not have enough market share to justify investment by Malware producers. If Mac OS X had 90% of the market, it would be just as susceptible to malware as XP SP 2 and probably more so than Vista, since Vista has things like ASLR and DEP and Protected mode Internet Explorer, which Mac OS X lacks (go look them up on wikipedia, kid.) Fact is, there is some Mac OS X malware in the wild, but because so few mac users run anti-malware, a lot of them probably do not even know they are infected. Mac OS X was also hacked FIRST in that defcon hacking contest, Vista was not hacked, but Adobe crapware installed on Vista was hacked, so the vista notebook was claimed as well. If you are going to run Mac OS X because of 'security' you might as well run a commodore 64, since it has no malware whatsoever, but again that's only because it's obscure and unusable as a general purpose computer. Again, mac os security is because hardly anyone uses it therefore no one codes malware for it, you can rationalize all day but that is a fact. When Mac OS X gets DEP and ASLR (both, since either one is mostly useless without the other) AND a low privilege browser, then come tell us about Mac OS X security, until then, you're trolling and everyone knows it, so just give it up.
Yawn!
on Nov 19, 2008
>Judge slaps down Psystar's antitrust claims against Apple @mikegalos I told you Mike. The judge had to make first to determine if the counter suit had merit. Yawn! Windows 7 (sp2)
techfan
on Nov 19, 2008
Waethorn wrote: "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'". Yeah I think I'm going to end up doing that. I forgot that the new program won't include the back/restore and tune-up features. I also did my own backups (restoring 100 files in OneCare was hell!) but like that OneCare also offered its own backup. I think the defenitions might be the same. If current OneCare subscribers switch to "Morro," the defenitions should stay the same. Well, I hope.
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
Once care would not be my first choice when looking at this chart.... http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_08.php From this organization http://www.av-comparatives.org/ Next time you fly on say American Airlines or whom ever, if hey offer you a parachute for $39 will you purchase that option? You know if case their mechanics don't do a great job and the plane stops working in mid air? They could say to you "you would not want to be the only one left on the plane in the event of a problem" :) That is the way I feel about buying AV software from MS.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 19, 2008
Yawn! The case had sufficient merit that the judge ruled against Apple's request for summary judgement. Now, the real issue isn't the direct effect of this case but: Will the EU hear the case if it's brought to them? How will this ruling act as precedent for later interpretation of claims agains Microsoft? What will happen in an iPod/iTunes/iPhone case which would be a MUCH stronger case.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 19, 2008
techfan I'd expect the anti-virus and anti-spyware definitions to be the same.
subzerohitman721
on Nov 19, 2008
I'm glad Microsoft made a smart play by discontinuing OneCare and reconstitute it as a free security solution. One Care had its moments but I didn't think it would fly well with a very well established AV market. It just kind of felt like another "Me Too" product to cash in. One Care didn't catch on but perhaps the new "Morro" project will succeed. We'll have to wait and see. @robertsjoe said: "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." Sorry robertsjoe, but the facts do not meet your conclusions or you extremely partisan opinion. OS-X is the least secure operating system on the market. Leopard and Tiger been patched more than Vista or XP in 2008. If anything, Vista has proven this year that interms of security and security advisories, that it is king of the hill. Apple really needs to refocus on security because even newer Linux variants tend to be more secure than OS-X. 1. Just check out the National Vulnerability Database, where both Tiger and Leopard are the top to most vulnerable OSes in 1st quarter 2008. http://nvd.nist.gov/download.cfm 2. According to Secunia, OS-X has suffered from 794 vulnerabilities and 124 Secunia advisories. Vista has suffered from 75 vulnerabilities and only 48 Secunia advisories. http://www.secunia.com 3. Just this year Leopard has been patched over 250 times. Excluding patches for Safari or Quicktime. http://www2.itworld.com/operating-systems/55960/apple-releases-another-m... 4. Top ways to compromise OS-X would be Keyloggers 38%, HackerTool 30%, Backdoor 11%, Worm 8%, Trojan 5%, Rogue 3%, Exploit 3%, and Virus 2%. http://ithreats.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/q1-mac-threats-roundup/ As others would say on here, the facts are the facts. Apple is doing terribly when it comes to security and Vista users aren't as vulnerable as you believe. Perhaps if people did research, back it with fact, then we could have meaningful discussions on here. Just because you believe something is superior, doesn't make it anymore or less secure.
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
Either way gents, free is good. This is one more free service from MS. That's what we in business call added value. Kudos to them. Hopefully Apple will get the idea too. First thing to do is stop charging a gazillion dollars for hardware upgrades. Fortunately, most of the guys in my practice are educable enough to buy 3rd party after I showed or talked them through it. Coffee breaks over. Got to replace an old dead X10 switch with a new Togglelink.
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
@subzero your missing one list/link Actual known successful attacks based on a known security vulnerability. That is where they "what if" becomes "what is". A link to a list of successful attacks that were made possible because OS X was not patched, because Apple had not provided a patch even thought they were aware of it, would be the best list anyone cold provide to prove a point. Short of that its all speculation, unless of course you are currently writing a piece of malware for OS X. Let us know if and when it actually is successful so it can be added to that list:)
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
Since we're OT, and I had one more drop of java left [pun intended], while it seems that you can't argue that OS X is less secure based on the above links, the more meaningful data is infection rates, or how successful an infection is/was. Very few would install the said malicious codec at the blog site noted above, and successful infection is very unlikely. I use 'rate' instead of total infections as Windows greatly outnumbers Mac OS, and rate/incidence would be a best comparison. I a security hole or virus exist, very few would give a crap if only 2 people acquire it, so successful infection rate is really what counts. Otherwise one could easily state that there are 10,000 to 100,000 times more Windows viruses, making it much less secure or much more probable to acquire infection. Now, if you check the success rate with Vista, you may see that the successful infection rate of virus, malware or any security breach is lower than XP. Same goes for Leopard. If a potential exists [I guess you all call them 'threats'], but the likelyhood of infection is nil, then who cares as the probability just won't allow it to occur. Now coffee breaks over.
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
Yo Mike, I turned off the wrong breaker [marked wrong at the box]and my multimeter is broken. Dang, it's in the basement and the switch is on the 2nd floor and no one's home to tell me if the light turned off when I tried a breaker. Dang!
bettieblu
on Nov 19, 2008
Thank you DRWAM for stating reality. I would assume that because of limited users profile types, and market share numbers that both Vista and Leopard have way less if any recorded successful attacks. I would also wager that any known successful attacks on Vista come from jokers that have turned off UAC. Stupid is and stupid does.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 19, 2008
"reality" is that OS X is a VERY vulnerable operating system and Apple has a horrible record of fixing security holes. It's also reality that fewer of the criminals who attack vulnerabilities have bothered going after OS X since they automatically start out with a 96%+ failure rate if they target OS X because of its tiny market share. Does that leave Mac users vulnerable? Absolutely. All it takes is one of the syndicates that launch these attacks (and it isn't teenagers in basements anymore) to decide that it's financially worth it and all those unpatched Macs with no anti-malware are toast.
screechi0784
on Nov 19, 2008
I've used Onecare a coulpe of time and I had participated in the beta also. Loved the product didn't bug down my system as much as other similar products. The only problem I had was that it was subscription. I really hope as I read on this post that Microsoft wound strive away from it after a couple of years. I'm using AVG and it had it's share of problems these couple of days. I just fixed a computer that was misdiagnosed by avg, and deleted the user32.dll. And with the new version 8 it doesn't properly update the virus engine. So I'm really looking forward for this new FREE antivirus from microsoft. As for the mac fans, don't be so confident that OSX is much better than windows; all the patches that I've seen recently has been for more than 10 critical bugs. I haven't seen so many unfixed bugs for windows. Windows isn't OSX but it's not far away from it either. And I think with windows 7 Microsoft will be making a very big step to make windows one of the best OS's out there.
DRWAM
on Nov 19, 2008
Yep screech I just sent this warning to my partners this morning. Some still use AVG: Flawed AVG update cripples Windows XP PCs http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40159/108/ How is the fix?
RunTimeError
on Nov 19, 2008
"Then you haven't tried manipulating 12Mp raw digital images on it.... etc etc ... blah blah.. etc" I certainly have sir. While your hobby, when your not building computers for a living, is hanging out here, and bothering people in stores who are looking to buy a Mac, my hobby (while not at my place of work) is digital media. I do graphics, I do music, I do video. Large files, super large files, huge files even... the only performance difference I have seen from one platform to another with Photoshop is the difference between Vista 32 bit and Vista 64 bit. Sorry, maybe you see different (even though I have a very hard time believing you'd even touch the box a Mac came in for fear of getting the hipness herpes or something). Maybe I'm just crazy. I don't know. Then again, all my media design computers pretty much equal each other when it comes to components... maybe I should stuff more ram in the V64 box ... and upgrade the video card... just to make Photoshop CS4 run a teeny bit faster than it does on the Mac... Then again, maybe not. Everything is working fine the way it is. "And yes - I've worked on large files before. I once worked on a 995MB logo for a company - about 6 years ago in Photoshop 5.5 on a system with only 128MB of RAM." Those were the days :) I remember doing a fairly massive Flash website for a local band on an old K2-500 with 64MB of ram. Flash 4. Yup. I look back now and honestly cannot figure out how I did it.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 19, 2008
Runtime Error, Since the discussion was between the 64-bit Photoshop CS4 (only on Windows Vista) and the 32-bit versions (on both platforms) the fact that you saw a difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions confirms the point.

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