Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software. My main concern is wondering why MS decided to classify this tool as a "critical" update? Isn't this pushing the legal limits of this tool? Should this really be rated "critical" since there are many companies out there with competing products which have been available for some time? Wouldn't this be the same as entering the Antivirus business, and labeling the software as "critical"? In my opinion, this update shouldn't be classified as critical, but that again is just my opinion. :) -- Jake Sallee spark@breathdedeeply.com www.breathedeeply.com Registered Linux User #358012 http://counter.li.org
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 10:14 am, Jake Sallee wrote:
Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software.
My main concern is wondering why MS decided to classify this tool as a "critical" update? Isn't this pushing the legal limits of this tool? Should this really be rated "critical" since there are many companies out there with competing products which have been available for some time?
Wouldn't this be the same as entering the Antivirus business, and labeling the software as "critical"?
In my opinion, this update shouldn't be classified as critical, but that again is just my opinion. :)
I have to agree with you. I use several of the long time tools for this that are available (Lavasoft AdAware and SpybotSD) Actually I very rarly use MS anymore, perfer Linux. I used BitDefender (lInux Console) for virus scanning (it also scans my Windows disc) and rkhunter for other stuff. -- Russ
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:14:45 -0600, Jake Sallee <spark@breathedeeply.com> wrote:
Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software.
My main concern is wondering why MS decided to classify this tool as a "critical" update? Isn't this pushing the legal limits of this tool? Should this really be rated "critical" since there are many companies out there with competing products which have been available for some time?
Wouldn't this be the same as entering the Antivirus business, and labeling the software as "critical"?
In my opinion, this update shouldn't be classified as critical, but that again is just my opinion. :)
--
Jake Sallee spark@breathdedeeply.com www.breathedeeply.com
Registered Linux User #358012 http://counter.li.org
Yes, it is critical to their attempt to get over another market :) Sunny -- Get Firefox http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=10745&t=85
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:45:18 -0600, Sunny <sloncho@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:14:45 -0600, Jake Sallee <spark@breathedeeply.com> wrote:
Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software.
My main concern is wondering why MS decided to classify this tool as a "critical" update? Isn't this pushing the legal limits of this tool? Should this really be rated "critical" since there are many companies out there with competing products which have been available for some time?
Wouldn't this be the same as entering the Antivirus business, and labeling the software as "critical"?
In my opinion, this update shouldn't be classified as critical, but that again is just my opinion. :)
--
Jake Sallee spark@breathdedeeply.com www.breathedeeply.com
Registered Linux User #358012 http://counter.li.org
Yes, it is critical to their attempt to get over another market :)
Sunny
(edit: meant for this to go to the list, not just you, Sunny :) Not to play devil's advocate, but it is a critical update to their users who otherwise don't know any better... now let me get a show of hands of people who know someone who falls into that category. ;) Other companies have to market to gain acceptance, and maybe Microsoft should have to too, especially when moving into a new market, however, they have to couple that with the need to providing service to their OS customers. I'm not an MS sympathizer, really, just thinking of how I'd handle it if I was in Billy boy's shoes.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:28:28 -0600, Mike <runnin247@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:45:18 -0600, Sunny <sloncho@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:14:45 -0600, Jake Sallee <spark@breathedeeply.com> wrote:
Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software.
My main concern is wondering why MS decided to classify this tool as a "critical" update? Isn't this pushing the legal limits of this tool? Should this really be rated "critical" since there are many companies out there with competing products which have been available for some time?
Wouldn't this be the same as entering the Antivirus business, and labeling the software as "critical"?
In my opinion, this update shouldn't be classified as critical, but that again is just my opinion. :)
--
Jake Sallee spark@breathdedeeply.com www.breathedeeply.com
Registered Linux User #358012 http://counter.li.org
Yes, it is critical to their attempt to get over another market :)
Sunny
(edit: meant for this to go to the list, not just you, Sunny :)
Not to play devil's advocate, but it is a critical update to their users who otherwise don't know any better... now let me get a show of hands of people who know someone who falls into that category. ;) Other companies have to market to gain acceptance, and maybe Microsoft should have to too, especially when moving into a new market, however, they have to couple that with the need to providing service to their OS customers.
Yes, that's the point. The other companies have expenses to market their product. While M$ just make it "mandatory" and free, thus killing them. The OP's concern was if it have to be in the critical section. And I do not think it should be there. The critical section was meant for patches. This is not a patch, and it does not solve any security flow. Otherwise it have to uninstall windows as well :)
I'm not an MS sympathizer, really, just thinking of how I'd handle it if I was in Billy boy's shoes.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Sunny -- Get Firefox http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=10745&t=85
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:27:24 -0600, Sunny <sloncho@gmail.com> wrote:
Not to play devil's advocate, but it is a critical update to their users who otherwise don't know any better... now let me get a show of hands of people who know someone who falls into that category. ;) Other companies have to market to gain acceptance, and maybe Microsoft should have to too, especially when moving into a new market, however, they have to couple that with the need to providing service to their OS customers.
Yes, that's the point. The other companies have expenses to market their product. While M$ just make it "mandatory" and free, thus killing them. The OP's concern was if it have to be in the critical section. And I do not think it should be there. The critical section was meant for patches. This is not a patch, and it does not solve any security flow. Otherwise it have to uninstall windows as well :)
And that's precisely my point, to those users who are completely clueless to adware/spyware/malware, this is 'critical'... There is a security issue with spy/ad/malware, and yes, I agree, Windows, lol. It's not critical to you because you know you have choices, and are probably proactive in preventing these problems, you understand the problem and know you have choices. It's also not critical to the corporate users, where the IT department might/should already have a malware detection/removal process/system in place. I guess the contention is over the definition of 'critical' as M$ uses it, is this defined somewhere? I see your and the OP's point, though... but I don't think if it was 'non-critical' that it would have gotten to those who really need it. Can it not be uninstalled, or atleast turned off (like the firewall) ?
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 15:14, Mike wrote:
And that's precisely my point, to those users who are completely clueless to adware/spyware/malware, this is 'critical'... There is a security issue with spy/ad/malware, and yes, I agree, Windows, lol.
It might be a critical add-on, but it's purpose is not to fix security holes. This tool is designed to find 3-rd party spyware/adware. Is Windows Media Player critical? Nope, it's an add-on. Just like antivirus software. Is it fair practice if M$ was to bundle antivirus software, rating it as 'critical' security patches/fixes? No way.
It's not critical to you because you know you have choices, and are probably proactive in preventing these problems, you understand the problem and know you have choices. It's also not critical to the corporate users, where the IT department might/should already have a malware detection/removal process/system in place. I guess the contention is over the definition of 'critical' as M$ uses it, is this defined somewhere?
I see your and the OP's point, though... but I don't think if it was 'non-critical' that it would have gotten to those who really need it. Can it not be uninstalled, or atleast turned off (like the firewall) ?
Sure, it can be uninstalled. But then you will have automatic updates constantly complaining about updates available. I know you can disable certain updates, but not every user will know how to do this. -- Jake Sallee spark@breathdedeeply.com www.breathedeeply.com My Desktop: www.breathedeeply.com/screenshot.jpg Registered Linux User #358012 http://counter.li.org
Yes, that's the point. The other companies have expenses to market their product. While M$ just make it "mandatory" and free, thus killing them. The OP's concern was if it have to be in the critical section. And I do not think it should be there. The critical section was meant for patches. This is not a patch, and it does not solve any security flow. Otherwise it have to uninstall windows as well :)
Yeah, but what can you do, except don't get caught in the Windows quagmire. We have a government that promotes this kind of behavior by helping Microsoft establish a monopoly in the educational market as a form of punishment for Microsoft's monopolistic practices. At the same time with laws like DMCA, many open source, potentially even Linux itself, is illegal as it can be used to circumvent copyright mechanisms used to limit consumers free use of media they purchase. Essentailly... A corrupt government fueled by corrupt businesses and supported by manipulated sheople and ignored by the the selfish masses...
On Wed February 16 2005 11:28 am, Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:45:18 -0600, Sunny <sloncho@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:14:45 -0600, Jake Sallee <spark@breathedeeply.com> wrote:
Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software.
WTF ndoes this have to do w/ suse? OT to the OT list please! -- dh
Sorry Sunny this should have gone to the list. Shouldn't the header from this thread be emblazoned on every M$ product ;-) -- Clive. Fighting for darker skies. From 52:26:31N 01:27:48W
Jake Sallee wrote:
Just for discussion, I wanted to talk about the MS tool released to help detect malicious software.
My main concern is wondering why MS decided to classify this tool as a "critical" update? Isn't this pushing the legal limits of this tool? Should this really be rated "critical" since there are many companies out there with competing products which have been available for some time?
Wouldn't this be the same as entering the Antivirus business, and labeling the software as "critical"?
In my opinion, this update shouldn't be classified as critical, but that again is just my opinion. :)
Perhaps their definition of "malicious", is non-MS software. ;-)
participants (8)
-
Clive -
David Herman -
Jake Sallee -
James Knott -
Joaquin Menchaca -
Mike -
Russ -
Sunny