Free security software? Microsoft is the first software company in the world offering free security software, except for maybe Avast, AVG, PC Tools Comodo, AntiVir etc etc etc.

Paris, 'cause she's always late to the party, too.

Dumb.

One would think that the point of this whole package is to limit collateral damage caused by pirated and not secured Windows machines attached to Internet (i.e. zombies), but this does not seem to be the case.

Of course, users of these machines could have just installed recent service pack + some hotfixes and some free AV (there should be some left on the market) instead of getting package in question, but "every little helps".

"One would think that the point of this whole package is to limit collateral damage caused by pirated and not secured Windows machines attached to Internet (i.e. zombies), but this does not seem to be the case."

Why would one think that would be the point of it? Limiting collateral damage to the rest of the world (though if the rest of the legitimate world keeps their systems secure in the first place, all you're limiting is collateral between pirates, the opposite of what MS want) is all well and good, but what possible business sense is there in spending development time producing addon products for a product people illegally refused to pay for in the first place?

"Ah yes good day sir, I see you stole that car - Here's a voucher for a free advanced driving course and test, paid for by the manufacture, so you can joyride in safety." I dont think so.

OK, so it's not bloat-ware then!

[eyes up]

Are you suggesting M$ Windows gained an advantage by tolerating piracy?

Reg is my statement libel or a truism/free speech?

M$ does this kind of thing when they are trying to destroy perceived competition in a market where they are weak and or despised.

Anti-trust

Anti-trust

Anti-trust

Paris - cause even she understands when something is too big.

Mcafee: updates every day just when you start playing the game you like causing distress.

Symantec: Right-Click uninstall...lol yea right /lockdown computer activated /error flag on startup/shutdown.

Idc if M$ offered free AV with/without WGA i'd rather pay a little for a decent AV like Kaspersky.

Why the negative comments?

Yes, free Antivirus is available, and probably has better detection rates, less false positives etc. than this MS version, but isn't that always the way?

MS haven't released anything new in years, they just emulate something good and bring it to the masses in a half baked, bug ridden release... Once they iron out the bugs they can start charging people for it... Thinking about it, they should have released Vista in the same way.

Thats the world of MS...

Maybe Ubuntu should follow suit, and make an AV suite?

Oh hang on, there are NO viruses or exploits in Linux so its not necessary. :), or at least thats the opinion of every linux user on here that i've seen, but I'm rambling...

Chow.

Why do they keep doing this?

They see a market where some other company is making a few pounds, and MS decides they need that market too. So what do they do?

1. Release crappy version of competitors product. (For free.)

2. ????

3. Profit.

or maybe not

I wonder if it will have secret anti firefox plugins installed?

Hmmm (strokes beard in a wise thinking way)

If the other OSes are not that secure relative to Windoze, i.e. Linux. Why hasn't someone (M$) assembled some code ninjas and launched an attack on Linux systems to kill FOSS? It's not like they haven't used under handed tactics in the past to quell an upstart competitor.

Damn... what did I just do?

140mb of Free security software.....hang on a mo.... I'll stick with Dr Web, even if it does mean shelling out a few quid each year to keep the zombies, slurry and sewage away from my pc.

Because Linux is not and never will be a threat. And do you think Microsoft has the time to spend on searching through badly-commented speghetti code and stepping through an unbelievable number of dependancies to find something to be exploited when they could just continue to sell a usable product.

Okay, let me see if I get this right...

Microsoft has buggy products full of security vulnerabilities. Suddenly MS is on the security scene announcing it has a security product which will protect users from the security flaws in Microsoft's other products.

Thus we should all go with Microsoft's free product and dump the people who really know security. How is this a good idea?

It is pretty simple really... Windows is attacked more because it is the most widely used OS in the world. Why would hackers/pirates/etc. bother creating exploits for an OS that a very small majority of people use?

Sorry if this makes too much sense....

I'm sure it's worth every penny. The old-timers among us undoubtedly remember that this isn't the first time Microsoft is trying to distribute a free AV product with their OS. (MSAV, anyone?) Perhaps they'll get it right on the sixth or seventh time... Nahh, what am I thinking.

More fun stuff about this thing. Take a look at the quality of its Web page on Microsoft's site:

http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials

Undoubtedly, representative of the quality of the product itself...

Also, according to my sources, in order to update itself regularly, it will FORCE Windows Update in fully automatic mode. So, if you prefer to know what WU wants to push on you and decide for yourself whether you want it or not, you'll have to use a different AV product...

If they take customers from Symantec then at least they'll end up with security because Norton is the blind mans antivirus

Of course, if that happens as an inadvertent side effect....

<will be available for users in Brazil, Israel and the US initially>

Great! My licence for F-Prot runs out 24-06-09 & I live in the UK! So it's AVG for me then!

Why has it taken M$ so long to realize their buggy O/S's NEEDS built-in AV?

Oh, no Sir, you need ANOTHER multi-megabyte add-on, so we can slow your PC to 386 speed & force you to up-grade your (perfectly working HW), again!

{Bloke across the road still uses his '60's Ford!}

"but what possible business sense is there in spending development time producing addon products for a product people illegally refused to pay for in the first place?"

Corporate responsibility?

All four of my desktops had legit XP installs, yet *all* have failed GA validation at some point or another, and numerous calls to MS didn't solve the problem, meaning I had to use 'other methods' to get them working again.

Does anyone really trust an MS security product anyway?

<QUOTE> Flame

It is pretty simple really... Windows is attacked more because it is the most widely used OS in the world. Why would hackers/pirates/etc. bother creating exploits for an OS that a very small majority of people use?

Sorry if this makes too much sense... </QUOTE>

This is simplistic. Apart from desktop, a huge number of Linux & BSD systems provide web and database services. The Internet is not run on windows. Then there are the large number of embedded linuxes on devices eg routers, DSL modems etc. If " hackers/pirates/etc" wanted to write exploits for this OS they have plenty of targets. Linux is targetted, especially through web service languages like PHP.

What is vastly different between Linux (&BSD) & windows is the security models. In Windows OSes it is easy to write self-replicating code which can infect whole networks. This is very difficult in any Linux or BSD environment - because of the security models, NOT because of popularity. PS: in the 'hacker' world, there would be a lot of kudos for writing effective self-replicating Linux code - ie a virus or worm. Hasn't happened yet (aside from a few poor attempts).

'There are tons of other sites where you can talk like that, Let's keep Register on the professional level.'

Have you just started reading the comments section, Jimbo lad? Brace yourself for disillusionment - and the manfrommars.

Mines t'one with 'I welcome our new priggish overlord' on the back, and Paris because ...

You are correct in what you say, but people are talking about a free security suite for Windows... I really doubt it is intended to protect surfaces such as ones you describe.

>> What is vastly different between Linux (&BSD) & windows is the security models.

I believe what is vastly different is that windows is an all-inclusive statement. Linux community never compares linux to "Windows Server xxx"). Only... windows. Well, golly gee, you are comparing linux - used PRIMARILY in server environments to XP, Vista, 98, etc. (cause, well, as a workstation it's a POS. Period.) Whine... But.... But... OpenOffice!... Cry. but... but... Flash!

Shut. up. Don't have time to search the world over for an application or applet that already exists for a windows machine Walk into Best Buy to purchase an application for Linux.... pathetic.

Security? As a penetration tester, it's fairly irrelevant. Sure - "PROPERLY secured" Linux boxes take a bit *longer* to hack... in *SOME* instances compared to a "PROPERLY secured" Windows SERVER, but does that make them more secure? I think not... if money is involved, then a few extra days of hacking is a toss. Or, by more secure, were you trying to say that it is unhackable?

haha. hehe.... harharhaha. giggle.

"Malware often spreads because of users not the OS they use."

Ah, rudimentary thinking right there. So it's not really about the OS after all, is it?

Before you answer that, take a moment to chew on the fact that UNIX, and all our *NIX derived friends, were all designed from the very start, from top to bottom, to be multi-user, with separation between user and system. These systems are inherently more (I said more, note that too) secure than any Windows created by Microsoft, as they designed their system to be single-user, from the start, throughout the entire system. Anything they have started since XP and then pushed through more with Vista, and now shoved it further into 7 with some minor 'usability' tweaks, is all afterthought. "Hmm, people are having problems.. guess we need to fix that thing they call an 'issue' some time." it echoes in the boardroom after a long late lunch. Forget about educating the users too, manuals are so passé, right?. Too little, too late guys.

Be realistic about it. Microsoft's lack of vision in the security department still causes endless streams of drama all over the planet, in every home, in every business. Sorry, but that's a cold hard fact. Yes you can secure Windows to a degree, but that's a whole other can of worms right there mate, and you know damn well as I do that it ends in the same answer. Afterthought! after all we're all the user needs right?.

Call me a basher, but I grew up with this crap. I use Microsoft products every day for a good 15 years now, and I sure as hell don't need any glasses to see what's going on here.