Skip to main content
Microsoft and the Antivirus Question

Several people have asked about Microsoft possibly developing antivirus products, following comments made yesterday by Mike Nash, Security Business Unit vice president.



That Microsoft would be eyeing the antivirus market is not surprising. How slowly the company is moving in that direction is what people should find surprising. Consider that Microsoft agreed to acquire antivirus maker GeCad a year ago last week or that the company tested security software PC Satisfaction for the better part of a year.


One place antivirus software might make sense is part of the operating system. One of Microsoft's longstanding problems is figuring out when a separate product is utility enough to be made part of Windows. I can remember when companies charged for TCP/IP stacks. Microsoft eventually rolled that functionality into Windows, because networking had reached a certain critical mass.


But, the post-trial Microsoft must contend with the reality that operating system bundling is viewed more critically than even three or four years ago. I recall the mid-2001 fuss over Microsoft putting firewall capabilities into Windows XP. Firewall providers survived the bundling. Aside: JupiterResearch consumer surveys show that a large number of Windows XP users don't realize a firewall is built in to the operating system.


Bundling antivirus software into Windows could affect loyal Microsoft partners and increase unwanted criticism. Loyalty does count for something at Microsoft, which typically does stand by its loyal customers, although it sometimes steps on them accidentally (What happens when you're a mouse and an elephant rolls over in its sleep?).


News reports offered conflicting versions of Mr. Nash's comments, some suggesting Microsoft would release antivirus software and others that the company had undefined plans with respect to antivirus.


I don't envy Microsoft's position. The right thing to do for its customers would be to bundle antivirus software into Windows. The Internet is increasingly dangerous, and the company has an obligation to protect its Windows customers. But vendors like McAfee and Symantec are customers, too, and loyal partners--companies that have built up businesses around selling antivirus software subscriptions.


At some point, Microsoft will have to make the tough decision. Windows Service Pack 2 was a tough decision, because of the resource investment and potential customer usability impact. Bundling is another, and one I would encourage Microsoft to consider making. Soon. Whether intended or not, Mr. Nash's comments are now a trial balloon that Microsoft can use to gauge customer, partner, news media reaction to a move into the antivirus market. [via Microsoft Monitor]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mainframe to Mobile

Not one of us has a clue what the world will look like in five years’ time, yet we are all preparing for that future – As  computing power has become embedded in everything from our cars and our telephones to our financial markets, technological complexity has eclipsed our ability to comprehend it’s bigger picture impact on the shape of tomorrow.

Our intuition has been formed by a set of experiences and ideas about how things worked during a time when changes were incremental and somewhat predictable. In March 1953. there were only 53 kilobytes of high-speed RAM on the entire planet.

Today, more than 80 per cent of the value of FTSE 500* firms is ‘now dark matter’: the intangible secret recipe of success; the physical stuff companies own and their wages bill accounts for less than 20 per cent: a reversal of the pattern that once prevailed in the 1970s. Very soon, Everything at scale in this world will be managed by algorithms and data and there’s a need for effective platforms for ma…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …