• On GameFAQs: What causes the Red Ring of Death?
November 19, 2008 8:14 AM PST

How Live OneCare changed the antivirus landscape

by Robert Vamosi

Since its introduction in 2006, Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare has altered the antivirus landscape. With Tuesday's announcement that Microsoft will no longer be selling the product in retail outlets but offering a new free version, code-named Morro, starting in the second half of 2009, it's sure to change the field once again.

Since Microsoft bought Romania-based antivirus firm GeCad five years ago, there has been fear among the commercial antivirus vendors that the software giant would simply bundle its malware protection within the next version of Windows. While that didn't happen--and it's unlikely to happen--Microsoft's addition to the market has forced its competitors to make some changes even though Microsoft hasn't become the huge player once feared.

Even before the first beta in 2005, McAfee and Symantec were talking about plans to go head to head with the software giant. McAfee announced plans around Project Falcon, and Symantec launched Project Genesis.

Microsoft OneCare entered the market in May 2006 as a "desktop IT department" and inspired a new breed of "omni security suites" that went beyond the traditional Internet security suite. I wasn't impressed. Although OneCare offers the revamped GeCad antivirus engine, Microsoft Windows Defender antispyware protection, and the Windows Firewall, along with system diagnostic tools, backup capabilities, and a way to monitor home networking, I think that the interface is clunky and that the tools aren't necessarily top of the line. And, I'm on record as calling OneCare SopranoCare since it seems wrong to me to have to pay the company that broke your operating system to fix it.

But at its introduction, Microsoft did shake up the antivirus landscape. OneCare was priced at an absurdly low $49.95, and it protected up to three PCs. At the time, Symantec's Norton Internet Security and McAfee's Internet Security were both priced at over $100 for their three-user packages. Today, three-user packages well under $100 are common.

Symantec responded in 2007 with its Project Genesis-produced Norton 360, a unified product that took Norton Internet Security and added online backup. But Symantec didn't just add to its existing product, it reinvented the product, producing a new one with a fully integrated interface marketed for the average home user. And at around $70, it could be used on up to three PCs.

McAfee also responded with its Project Falcon-produced McAfee Total Protection, also priced around $70 for up to three PCs. It too offers home network monitoring and premium or enhanced versions of the McAfee Internet Suite.

But McAfee and Symantec both had something Microsoft did not: effectiveness.

Almost two years ago, independent antivirus-testing organizations faulted OneCare for missing known malware. Andreas Clementi of AV-Comparatives.org wrote in his February 2007 report (PDF) that OneCare did not meet the minimum requirements for participation. "Due (to) that, its inclusion in future tests of this year (will) have to be re-evaluated."

Microsoft began hiring longtime antivirus experts from competitors, and it appears to have paid off. A few years ago, Vincent Gullotto came over from McAfee to head Microsoft's Security Research and Response team. Microsoft has since added experts from F-Secure, Sophos, and elsewhere to the team. And it shows. In the latest On Demand scanning test from AV-Comparatives.org, Microsoft OneCare 2.5 scored as well as McAfee VirusScan Plus 2008.

All is not perfect, however. In May, Microsoft mistook Skype for a piece of malware. And the Windows Firewall, while Microsoft insists otherwise, is not a truly two-way firewall; there are a great many outbound exceptions within the Microsoft version. A Microsoft representative said "If we turned on outbound filtering by default for consumers, it forces the user to make a trust decision for every application they run which touches the network." Given that other firewalls have outbound filtering, I still don't see why Microsoft can't.

The free version of Morro won't have all the current bells and whistles of OneCare; Microsoft says the diagnostic tools won't be included. Although the final feature set won't be known for a while, just having a free antivirus/antispyware/personal firewall product from Microsoft is bound to shake things up.

With traditional antivirus protection perhaps becoming obsolete, maybe it's time that Symantec and McAfee start offering free versions of their own antivirus products--something that I've said for years.

As CNET's resident security expert, Robert Vamosi has been interviewed on the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets to share his knowledge about the latest online threats and to offer advice on personal and corporate security. Listen to his podcast at securitybites.cnet.com or e-mail Robert with your questions and comments.
advertisement
Click here!
Recent posts from Defense in Depth
Window Snyder to leave Mozilla
How to handle ID fraud's youngest victims
Is white listing going mainstream?
How Live OneCare changed the antivirus landscape
Express Scripts clients threatened with extortion
Study: DDoS attacks threaten ISP infrastructure
Security expert talks Russian gangs, botnets
Extortion used in Express Scripts database breach
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (21 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by elllroy November 19, 2008 8:26 AM PST
it always amazes me: a whole billion dollar industry based on the flaws of one product: windows. amazing. and still not one virus fpr mac os x.
Reply to this comment
by dredge999 November 19, 2008 9:52 AM PST
There are several things wrong with your statement.

1) Malware/Virus authors base their attacks on the target systems that will offer them the most bang for their programming buck. Apple market share is miniscule compared to the Windows O/S market share. Consequently there have been FAR fewer attackers actively trying to exploit MAC OS/X. This should be obvious unless of course you are a MAC fanboy.

2) There ARE virii out there for MAC OS X and Adware/Malware.

3) MAC OS X is not more secure than windows. The fact that less malware/spyware/virus writers are targeting it does not make it more secure.

see: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

There are many sites that track vulnerabilities and almost all of them reveal that MAC OS X has an equal if not greater number of flaws and security holes when compared to Windows.

You might want to do some research before you write a comment that contains the same old FUD that all Apple fanboys blindly reiterate time and time again.
by Michichael November 19, 2008 11:48 AM PST
Where have you been? I've lost count of the viruses for Mac OS X and software. Shoo fanboy, there is no immune OS.
by gbo2k9 November 19, 2008 1:34 PM PST
Well, Sophos hasn't lost count, I think they are up to 5.
by Penguinisto November 20, 2008 12:15 PM PST
@dredge999: The "marketshare" argument falls flat when you realise that Anyone who can compromise Macs en-masse would have millions of machines, untouched by A/V, all to themselves.

To date there is one convoluted trojan "out there" for OSX. It requires you to surf to a pr0n site, download a file, enter your root password to install that file...

...meanwhile, London's hospitals are still without networking due to a common Windows virus: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/hospital_computer_virus_shutdown_update/

Also, vuln counts != virus counts. Please educate yourself (or at least try to) on the differences (esp. since your URL destination make no distinction between local/remote, or between core and ancillary apps...)

@ "I've lost count of the viruses for Mac OS X and software."

...you can't count past 5 variations of one trojan?

Damn...
by eiverson November 19, 2008 9:10 AM PST
I'm curious to know if "experts" disagree with Microsoft's recent report asserting that 90% of malware attack vulnerabilities in the applications that run on the operating system. I'm sure Microsoft applications account for a percentage of those too, though. All that said, AV products are not primarily making up for the mistakes in the applications that run on the operating system.

Although taken off-guard, I'm not terribly surprised by this move to render OneCare freeware. Its anti-malware capabilities are mostly if not entirely signature-based. Signature-based only defenses are increasingly ineffective due to polymorphic malware and malware-makers systematically altering and confirming that their wares elude signature-based defenses. More on this here:

http://www.securitynowblog.com/endpoint_security/secunia_report_signature-based_antivirus_misses_most_unknown_malware

http://www.securitynowblog.com/endpoint_security/signature-based-antivirus-and-hips-technologies-poor-endpoint-protection

There are some promising freeware tools that folk ought to evaluate that block malware attacks without signature defenses. However, in some cases the medicine can be worse than the illness. A promising example to try:

http://www.blueridgenetworks.com/solutions/edgeguardsolo/

This tool is imperfect but surpisingly effective for a beta.
Reply to this comment
by pin_gwin November 19, 2008 10:37 AM PST
Changed the landscape? It looks like nobody mentioned. I do not feel anybody is expecting anything good coming out of MS. And for a real good reason - the real players are offering fully functional free versions of AV already for years - like Grisoft AVG.
Reply to this comment
by guest86 November 19, 2008 10:43 AM PST
Don't buy Anti-virus have one to 3 years to expire. Forget it! I have lifetime Anti-virus that will never expire! Enough! Many people get stress so bad. I just happy own my lifetime product come from Google. Thanks to Google to give my LIFETIME anti-virus. Powerful one with spyware protection and virus protection plus Firewall. MS is so stupid! Waste a lot of money is not right. Grow up MS!

I have Norton 2005. Because product is not good! Lousy! Missing files like malwares, etc. Very annoy pop ups. Worth $59.99 is not important! I sued Norton company because product is not good or enough! Get up and working more powerful than before lousy products! I now stopped buy Anti-virus products at store no more! Shame on whole companies! I not happy anymore! Very Angry!
Reply to this comment
by Schratboy November 19, 2008 10:59 AM PST
Microsoft and security go together like peanut butter and thumb tacks.
Reply to this comment
by Hemanth_3_9 November 19, 2008 11:04 AM PST
Hi Rob, if Mcafee and Symantec offer a free version of their antivirus software wouldnt that affect their revenues.
Reply to this comment
by gbo2k9 November 19, 2008 11:29 AM PST
"1) Malware/Virus authors base their attacks on the target systems that will offer them the most bang for their programming buck. Apple market share is miniscule compared to the Windows O/S market share. Consequently there have been FAR fewer attackers actively trying to exploit MAC OS/X. This should be obvious unless of course you are a MAC fanboy."

What research do you base this on? By miniscule, you mean over 7%? I guess 2 million macs a quarter is miniscule. The FACT is there are far fewer SUCCESSFUL exploits. If it were the case that market share determined attack vectors, why is it that the first Mac OS X virus reported used iChat to propagate itself? Now, in terms of market share, iChat is not even the leading chat software for Mac users.

2) There ARE virii out there for MAC OS X and Adware/Malware.

Yes, there ARE, and if you have 10 fingers on your hands, you can use those to count them. However, in the Windows world, you would need to have about 10 hands, just to count the new ones that are found each day.

3) MAC OS X is not more secure than windows. The fact that less malware/spyware/virus writers are targeting it does not make it more secure.

Two counter points. 1) Yes it is more secure. 2) Yes it does.

Let's put it like this. If you live in a high crime area (like Windows) or you live in an exclusive, expensive, neighborhood (like Mac OS X) you will be less likely to encounter crime (viruses/malware). Further along that analogy, Mac OS X is like a gated community, and Windows is like a crack house with a broken lock.

"There are many sites that track vulnerabilities and almost all of them reveal that MAC OS X has an equal if not greater number of flaws and security holes when compared to Windows."

That's nice, but here in the real world, where I practice unsafe browsing every day on my Mac, I have yet to encounter a single virus. I've never run any form of antivirus either.
Reply to this comment
by unbreakable2008 November 19, 2008 12:15 PM PST
Wrong! You say this:And the Windows Firewall, while Microsoft insists otherwise, is not a truly two-way firewall;

This is incorrect! Vista has a new firewall!

The new vista firewall has 2 way filtering if you wish ... I explain it all in my blog>>>

http://computerboom.blogspot.com/2008/11/advanced-vista-firewall-settings-2-way.html
Reply to this comment
by gbo2k9 November 19, 2008 12:39 PM PST
Well, since Internet Explorer is integral to the OS, all attacks on IE should be considered attacks on Windows.

If Apple did something as stupid as integrate Safari into the core OS...

I could care less about stats, announcements, patch schedules, etc. I live in the real world, where user experience is what matters.

Why does everyone purport to know the mind and motivations of "virus programmers". Have you ever met one? Have you ever been one?

From experience, I can say that the virus programming world is as diverse as the earth's population itself, and they are not all operating on the same principles or towards the same goals.
Reply to this comment
by DrtyDogg November 19, 2008 2:16 PM PST
"If Apple did something as stupid as integrate Safari into the core OS..." No they left out the UI and just integrated the rendering engine.
by AwakenZero November 20, 2008 1:01 AM PST
"Why does everyone purport to know the mind and motivations of "virus programmers". Have you ever met one? Have you ever been one?"

"From experience, I can say that the virus programming world is as diverse as the earth's population itself, and they are not all operating on the same principles or towards the same goals."

Uhh why don't you answer your own question first.

"I could care less about stats, announcements, patch schedules, etc. I live in the real world, where user experience is what matters."

Then you can't compare and say Mac OSX is better. User experience is subjective.
by Rupe120 November 19, 2008 12:45 PM PST
What else will they be scanning for? I just don't trust them.
Reply to this comment
by DarenI November 19, 2008 1:10 PM PST
Live OneCare did not change a thing for the AV industry. As a long-time Microsoft user, I gave up my Norton AV and tried Live OneCare on two of my systems and my mother's. It was horrible. It would update to new versions without my consent, I had to manually configure the software after every reboot in order to continue using file and printer sharing on my home network (it refused to save my settings that it is a trusted, private network), and it let a well-documented virus that had been out for 5 years (yes, 5 years) infect my system. I learned my lesson. I ditched Live OneCare and reinstalled Windows and Norton. Just to make sure I was being fair, I copied an infected file off a backup onto the newly reinstalled system. As soon as the file hit my computer, Norton quarantined it. Live OneCare -- now Morro? -- is not even deserving of being called competition. In this case, you are getting what you pay for, which will soon be nothing.
Reply to this comment
by SpeedyDemon November 19, 2008 1:42 PM PST
It's soooooooo nice having linux.

Also, about all an outbound firewall is really good for is to stop virus infected machines from spewing spam and malicious code all over the internet .... maybe.

Again ..... it's soooooooo nice not worrying about that with linux.
Reply to this comment
by mbenedict November 19, 2008 1:57 PM PST
If I had a dime for every root-kit infested Linux & BSD boxes I've seen...

...but I'm glad you're not "worried" 'cause you have Linux.
Reply to this comment
by guest86 November 21, 2008 6:12 PM PST
I own Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and Trojan Remover can blow any Anti-viruses softwares away. 100% powerful than normal anti-viruses can't delete viruses, malwares, etc. Better know that.

Norton - Failed
McAfee - Failed
Live OneCare - Failed
Panda - Failed
AVG - Failed
Nod32 - Failed
Avast - Failed
Kaspersky - Failed
All more are total Failed!

We still recall all lousy anti-viruses products! Not enough. Need merge with Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and Trojan Remover can knock or kick hidden powerful viruses, worms, etc out! People must be happy.
Reply to this comment
by JoeAnne10 July 8, 2009 3:49 PM PDT
I never used an anti - virus program on my computer because I don`t really trust this kind of protection means. I`d rather not use anything than not to be allowed to use my programs because they are a potential risk. For example I could not access my <a rel="follow" href="http://www.phoenixlandscaping.biz">Phoenix landscaping<a/> program.
Reply to this comment
(21 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

About Defense in Depth

Covering computer viruses and computer crime, Robert Vamosi goes beyond the hype to provide you with expert interviews of the top security researchers, as well as offering the hands-on, nontechnical advice you'll need to stay safe online.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Defense in Depth topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right