Windows Vista: What Is Anti-virus, Anyway?
 Joe Wilcox
Jim Allchin, co-president of Microsoft's Platforms & Services division, is no stranger to making gaffes. Last week, his enthusiasm got the better of him, raising questions about Windows Vista security for which answers may be surprising. |
When talking to reporters about Windows Vista's release to manufacturing, Allchin indicated comfort letting his seven year-old son use the software without anti-virus. The implication, whether or not intended: Windows Vista doesn't need anti-virus software.
I wonder how many Microsoft lawyers had to be resuscitated in the moments following Allchin's comments. After all, Microsoft has been engaged in fierce public relations scuffles with former security partners over PatchGuard, and the company recently agreed to make some technology modifications in an attempt to suave Windows Vista security concerns raised by European regulators. It's not a stretch to conclude that Microsoft's own legal watchdogs were somewhat relieved by Allchin's Friday blog post, where he essentially clarified his earlier statements--or at least their implied meaning.
It's unfair to fault Allchin for enthusiasm, and his goal is a good one. Windows Vista should be so secure that no additional security software is required. My wife and daughter both use Macs, and I don't run any security software on either computer. There simply is no need. I have Sophos software running on a third Mac, mostly for precautionary scanning. But in nearly a year of frequent Web browsing or e-mail usage, the Sophos software has found no nefarious software. Sophos was so silent I introduced a Java virus by e-mail just to test the software really functioned. If only Windows offered such peace of mind.
There is a bigger implication--and it may be good reason for some Microsoft lawyers to have cardiac arrest over Allchin's earlier comments. Windows Vista covers most security categories, with the major exception being anti-virus. New to the operating system is Windows Defender anti-spyware, parental controls and other security doodads. My question: What is the difference between anti-virus and anti-sypware software? Or restated: If anti-spyware and other security mechanisms are really effective, how necessary would be anti-virus? I ask these questions without offering answers, for the benefit of comment. What's your answer?
The Upside of Success: When Portals Take Off
Business Value Patterns for SOA
A Case of Role-Based Identity
Comments (3)
My understanding is that Viruses spread simply by existing and are intended to harm the system in a specific way. Spy-ware spreads through user action; I try to install a program or I run a script on a webpage. Spy-ware is meant to monitor the system for keystoke or something else. It's close relative, ad-ware, is meant to bombard the user with advertising. Windows defender protects against spy-ware & ad-ware. Windows Live One Care (buy & download from live.com) protects against virus. I believe Jim Allchin's comment was simply meant as a testimonial to security in Vista. If you are working under standard user with User Account Control turned on (it's onby default), there is almost no way for a Virus to punch through. Even if you try to install a virus manually, you will likely be blocked by the system. Anti-virus software will definitely be necessary for those of us that want to run under Administrator.
Posted by Chris | November 14, 2006 7:39 AM
I don't run any "security" software. When our family first installed McAfee, it responded by deleting a file that allowed dial-up connections. It's been over 10 years without Virus Scan, and our family has not seen an infection of this "virus".
Even my Mother who is just a beginner internet user has yet to find a "virus" to infect her PC.
Microsoft is right in thinking Vista does not need parasite software like McAfee or Norton.
Posted by Eric | November 14, 2006 8:03 AM
Anti Virus as we know it today, is no longer required. Companies like Mcafee and Symantec, whos software is like Adware/Spyware itself (try getting rid of it when its pre installed on a notebook) are just trying to sell more rubbish to consumers. When a real new threat arrives, its not the likes of Symantec or Mcafee who will protect against it but it will be innovative, small security companies such as Kaspersky, Acunetix (web application security) and so on.
Of course one needs a secure browser, a secure OS, and have email security installed at server level. But Windows has come a long way and i believe the latest iteration of Windows and IE are pretty secure.
And should we continue subsidizing Mcafee and Symantec just because the European Union says we should?
Posted by Nick | November 14, 2006 12:29 PM