Microsoft: Users may have to pay for security

[Ice-9]

RSA 2002: Microsoft is considering charging for additional security options, and admits it didn't move on security until customers were ready to pay for it

Microsoft "may offer new security abilities on a paid basis," according to the company's chief technical officer Craig Mundie. The possibility is under consideration within Microsoft's security business unit, recently set up under its own vice president, Mike Nash.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2123526,00.html?rtag=zdnetukhompage

, now this is a good way to satisfy their customers, isn't it?  

[Chooco]

their customers were never satisfied, it's just that there isn't a possible alternative. pinkos in the USSR didn't like driving ladas but they were sort of forced to because there was no alternative.

[Ice-9]

You would be amazed to see how many people claim they're satisfied with M$ .....
Until I paint them a picture of the road they're walking, straight to M$ world domination, while M$ is building walls all around them to try and prevent them from going anywhere else than where that particular road goes.

When they will realize where they're going it will be too late for them to leave the road, there will be walls with barbed wire all around them ... and if they jump really high they will see me cruising in the open field with my SuSE

[Calum]

lethargy and apathy have been bred into most of the people who did not die young in the sixties and seventies. Most of everybody alive today is pretty apathetic because they think it is easiest not to rock the boat. They will have arguments and fights so that they can avoid having an opinion that differs from other people.

It's a complicated situation.

Also, what's the problem with M$ not moving on security until people were ready to pay for it? M$ is a business, they did not get rich from giving people stuff for free when they needed it. They have to allow people to develop a thirst for something and then get them to pay for the thing that the people 'need'. In this case, people do need security, if they are going to network their computers, but this rule applies to media player, msn messenger, internet explorer, some new feature in M$ office, whatever. Anything really.

[Ice-9]

What I think is wrong with that approach is that Windows is a bloated and insecure OS because of design flaws and programming incompetence (I might be wrong but that's what I think).
When you deliver a product full of bugs/security holes/design flaws you don't make people pay for the patches.

I can see a near future when M$ will upload security fixes to people's computers using "automatic update", without the people knowing it and then at the end of the month they will receive a bill for xx patches that were uploaded to their pc.

If they refuse to pay for the bloat, their pc will simply stop working.
Too pessimistic? I don't think so, but hey, everyone's entitled to his own opnion, right?  

[jtpenrod]

" RSA 2002: Microsoft is considering charging for additional security options, and admits it didn't move on security until customers were ready to pay for it"

In fact, the folks who use Winderz have been paying for security all along. There are third party apps such as Norton Internet Security, Norton AV, ZoneAlarm, etc. ad infinitum. M$ is just late to the party here. They've already got folks out there who are conditioned to do this very thing. Does that really surprise anyone? If it hadn't been for Winderz and all its manifest shortcomings, an entire industry would have never existed in the first place!
_________________________________________

Computers are like air conditioners: they can't do their jobs if you open windows.

[beltorak0]

Zone Alarm does sell their product, but they at least provide a decent free version.  Selling a network without some sort of basic internet security is like selling a house or a car without locks.  True, you can buy bigger locks; but my guess is that future service packs and os upgrades will accidentally break third party security measures, and M$ will charge through the nose for its own versions of the same products.  Or integrate them into the OS and try to squeeze the above companies out of the game.  But that's just a guess.

BTW; do the major Linux distro's set up a basic firewall?  why not?  Personally I think this is a serious shortcoming, especially since there are several decent gui front ends to iptables, and setting one up can take as few as ten lines in a script.

Code: [Select]

This will at least provide some protection from port scans and turn off outside access to services while allowing the user to surf the net or do email.  Setting up a service should require knowledge about how to configure the firewall for that service.  but anyway.

-t.

ps: although i just pulled that one out of my arse, i'm gonna test it.... later. -t.

----

works for ftp (receiving), email, web browsing, and local Apache access.
The quick scan from  http://scan.sygatetech.com/  showed everything as blocked.  I am currently editing this message with that hack of a firewall in place.

-t.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: beltorak0 ]

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by beltorak0:
BTW; do the major Linux distro's set up a basic firewall?  why not?  Personally I think this is a serious shortcoming, especially since there are several decent gui front ends to iptables, and setting one up can take as few as ten lines in a script.

Uh, RedHat and Mandrake prompt you for firewall setup during the install. Where have you been? And yes, they have graphical configuration tools. In fact RedHat's is right off the menu "System Settings->Security Settings".

[BJS]

SUSE 8.0 allows you to set up a firewall during install or from YAST2 afterwards.

Love KDE's Windows Emulator. It's called B.S.O.D. Brings up a bsod with a fatal exception error in case you are stupid drunk and wondering why you switched to Linux. Thats all it does. Best Windows emulation I've seen yet!

As far as MS wanting users to pay more for security...  I already pay less purchasing boxed sets of Linux. Why pay more and get less? Security comes standard with Linux. It's not an after thought.

Nor have I found a Linux distro that comes with spyware.That is VERY important to me.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Ice9:
What I think is wrong with that approach is that Windows is a bloated and insecure OS because of design flaws and programming incompetence (I might be wrong but that's what I think).
When you deliver a product full of bugs/security holes/design flaws you don't make people pay for the patches.

I can see a near future when M$ will upload security fixes to people's computers using "automatic update", without the people knowing it and then at the end of the month they will receive a bill for xx patches that were uploaded to their pc.

If they refuse to pay for the bloat, their pc will simply stop working.
Too pessimistic? I don't think so, but hey, everyone's entitled to his own opnion, right?      

morally, i agree with you, that's why i now use linux and if i ever have the money, will consider getting an OSX workstation and a FreeBSD server.

HOWEVER i advocate choice. I have no problem whatsoever with people using windows HOWEVER they should accept the consequences. If Microsoft wants to do this, then the only thing to stop them is that they will become unpopular and lose business. If this does not happen, then obviously people using windows are happy with the changes. If they are happy with the changes then anybody who still uses windows is NOT in any way entitled to complain about it.

Shape up or ship out, can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, put your money where your mouth is, like it or lump it and other tired old cliches, that's what i say to any windows users that complain about windows.