By Dan Ilett, 5 July 2005 17:08
NEWS Microsoft has witnessed an improvement in the way people are securing their computers.
Speaking at the company's TechEd conference in Amsterdam today, Detlef Eckert, chief security advisor for Microsoft, said although the level of hacking and virus attacks remains constant, people are being more vigilant about online threats.
Eckert told silicon.com: "While the attacks are not going down and the network worms are still a risk, society at large has got better. What we sense is a shift of the professional criminal attacks. They are more targeted and they go on the premise 'how do we get money?' They are phishing attacks that look for bank details, espionage attacks that use Trojans or botnets that do denial of service attacks."
However, Mario Juarez, product manager of security for Microsoft, said that only one in three people using Windows XP in the US had downloaded Service Pack 2, which tightens security on the operating system: "We know that the percentage of people using Windows XP SP 2 is lower than we would like it to be. One in three machines that run Windows XP is running SP 2. Customers are still reluctant to upgrade."
Microsoft has recently completed the acquisition of antivirus company Sybari and launched an anti-spyware service which it says 20 million people worldwide have signed up for. Some of the anti-spyware services will be provided for free but Eckert said the antivirus product will continue to be sold for a fee.
While Microsoft currently provides free patches for vulnerabilities in Windows, Eckert said Sybari's software would carry a cost because viruses were completely unrelated to its software flaws.
"We are not charging the user for anything related to vulnerabilities," Eckert said. "There are companies that charge for updates or services. There are virus attacks that are not related to vulnerabilities but exploit user behaviour. The virus attacks look at system or user log traffic. They use port 80 or http as a way to attack companies. They get into the web server and attack you directly."
But last week antivirus expert Graham Cluley of Sophos stressed that Windows was one of the greatest problems in the antivirus world.
Cluley said: "I believe that right now the real threat is on Windows computers and servers. Last month we saw more malware and most of them targeted Windows. Today there is a 50 per cent chance you will get infected in twelve minutes of plugging into broadband. It's users - the businesses are patching themselves - they are the ones who are spreading it about."
When asked if it was fair to charge customers for antivirus products that secure flaws in Windows, Microsoft's Juarez said: "It's about philosophy. There is an inherent premise in the issue of propriety of charging for security that resonates in an interesting way. Customers are really keen on being protected. Our principal interest is providing the means for customers to stay secure.
"It's about making the entire ecosystem safer. As Microsoft we think on a global level of what keeps the internet safe. We need to be sure that the world is safe."

Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Lionel A Smith
When will these corporate types start using language in a meaningfull way?
What a load of buzz words that add up to total nonsense.
'It's about philosophy...'. What is he on about?
'Inherent premise ...'. Oh! Really!
'....resonates in an interesting way'. What planet is this guy on, certainly not this one if he thinks that making internet use safer has anything to do with an 'ecosystem'.
2. Ed
Any of you thinking 'Oh typical Microsoft, charging us for protection from their mistakes...' please wake up - Microsoft have (and are) being sued by the EURC (European Union Regulation Committee) for basically monopolising the media player market – can you imagine if Microsoft ‘freely’ provided anti-virus and anti-spam protection?! Yes it would be the ‘right thing to do’ (in a way) as in theory it would make Windows the most highly protected platform available – however im sure the courts would have a field day and the future of companies such as Trend, McAfee, Symantec, Message-Labs…? Who knows?
Don’t get me wrong; Microsoft does not sit with a Halo over it’s head by far but I felt they deserve a bit of credit in this instance!
3. Mark v Baker
What I'd like to ask is 'why is MS pushing XP spk2?' when so many software suppliers advise that XP Spk 2 should NOT be used due to problems with applications (we develop and implement industrial control systems)
surely the patches MS provide should give the security without all of the inherent conflicts in networked systems (OPC/OLE for example)
4. Trevor
Firstly I don't work for Microsoft but I see implied critisism of them in this article for insisting on charging for anti-virus when we want it for free.
I'm sure most of us would like it free and built in and I think microsoft might like to do this but you can gurantee if they did then there would be a number of "Monopoly" cases coming right at them within hours of release!!
We have to decide what we want an OS that has everything we need or having to pay for all the addons we need to make something lesser secure.....