Talk:Microsoft Safety Scanner

License

I'm going to take off the last paragraph. And move the ref. The license states in section 2.a.i

"* Malicious Software Removal. The software will check for and remove certain high severity malicious software ("Malware") stored on your device when you select this action. When the software checks your device for Malware, a report will be sent to Microsoft about any Malware detected or errors that occur while the software is checking for Malware, specific information relating to the detection, errors that occurred while the software was checking for Malware, and other information about your device that will help us improve this and other Microsoft products and services. No information that can be used to identify you is included in the report.

• Potentially Unwanted Software. The software will search your computer for low to medium severity Malware, including but not limited to, spyware, and other potentially unwanted software ("Potentially Unwanted Software"). The software will only remove or disable low to medium severity Potentially Unwanted Software if you agree. Removing or disabling this Potentially Unwanted Software may cause other software on your computer to stop working, and it may cause you to breach a license to use other software on your computer, if the other software installed this Potentially Unwanted Software on your computer as a condition of your use of the other software. You should read the license agreements for other software before authorizing the removal of this Potentially Unwanted Software. By using this software, it is possible that you or the system will also remove or disable software that is not Potentially Unwanted Software."

This hardly sounds like using it developmentally. And Even if the software can only be used for development, that is hardly the same thing as saying it can only be used by malware authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awg1010 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You have completely disregarded the quotation that I put there in the article:

INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. You may install and use one copy of the software on your device to design, develop and test your programs

Well, this one DOES look like development to me. What you quoted here only reinforces the original statement in the article: MSS can only be used to design, develop and test programs against malware removal and potentially-unwanted software removal procedure.

Now, I do really think Microsoft have probably copy-and-pasted the wrong sentence there which is meant for Visual Studio. But I think I should keep my own opinion out of the article. Fleet Command (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But, okay, I remove the malware-endorsing statement. Fleet Command (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

www.MicrosoftSafetyScanner.com

Please avoid www.MicrosoftSafetyScanner.com if at all possible. WHOIS reports that this website does not belong to Microsoft Corporation. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Use http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/en-us/default.aspx instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit of Original Research

I just attempted to install and run Microsoft Safety Scanner on a fully-updated XP box, and got this error message:

Microsoft Security Essentials
Microsoft Security EssentialsInstallation Error
Microsoft Security Essentialsis already installed
Only one copy of Security Essentials can be installed
Only one copy of Security Essentials can be installed on your computer at a time.
To reinstall Security Essentials on this computer, first uninstall the current version, and then try installing Security Essentials again.
Error Code 0x4FF02

(I do have MSE already installed.) It appears that Microsoft Safety Scanner and Microsoft Security Essentials are the same program. Alas, I cannot find a citation to reliable source that supports this conclusion. Can anyone else find one? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No surprise. In fact a recent Microsoft SIR report states that all Microsoft antivirus programs such as Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft ForeFront Client Protection, Windows Defender and DaRT use the same engine. I can find the URL to that report, no problem. You are going to have to satisfy the paranoid Wikipedians who take almost no source for reliable. (Conspiracy theory has not gone out of style.) But I think a little dig up will yield sources that would shut them up.

I was thinking about merging these two articles, but a chain of more important events stopped me. But don't let me interrupt you: Search a bit, find a good source and merge them. Fleet Command (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Guy Macon is undone

The following edits are reverted:

1. Edit #1 (URL now points to actual source, not to a repost) PC & Tech Authority is a reliable secondary source, even more reliable than BetaNews because it has an editorial and oversight committee. Therefore, per WP:RS, it is the preferred source, although it might be a repost.
2. Edit #2 (Fixed outdated EULA info.) No you didn't. You changed the link from Microsoft Safety Scanner EULA to another product's EULA which is blatantly wrong. The EULA links is working perfectly.
3. Edit #3 (Fixed references list (was split into references/further reading), checked every URL and updated access date.) Well, this edit is in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout which says it must be split into two section. Besides, you also removed archive link and quotation, which hampers verification.
4. Edit #4 (Removed Notes section. Wikipedia is not a tutorial on how to use Microsoft webpages.) Wikipedia requires verifiability and everything that helps verify info and locate them is more than welcome. Your edit deters verifiability.
5. Edit #5 {Fixed ref error} See above.
6. Edit #6 (Deleted unsourced claim. "According to AV-Test's Andreas Marx" is hearsay, not a citation, plus even the the hearsay only says it "appears to be based on MSRT" not "uses the same detection engine and malware definitions as MSE and MFEP.") Huh? What are you talking about? Did you even see what you edited?

Fleet Command (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"License restriction" section seems to be irrelevant

(cf. my changes) LittleBen (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ben

I just saw your edit. I am afraid your edit is based primarily on your assumption that if anyone can freely download and use something, their domain of use is not restricted to anything whatsoever. I see no reason behind this assumption. From where I am standing, everyone can download and use this product for development and test purposes only.

It seems the original writer had made the same mistake, only in the other direction. He or she seems to have thought that only developers may perform the acts of development and test (although perhaps he or she might be completely right if we accept that by definition, he or she who develops and test is a developer.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at this it will be quite obvious that Microsoft Safety Scanner is not restricted just to developers, despite what the EULA fine print says. I understand that it is essentially the same as MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials) except that it does not have to be installed (it has to be run manually), and the virus definitions are not updated automatically or semi-automatically (it's out of date in ten days)—the article essentially says this: "It uses the same detection engine and malware definitions that Microsoft Security Essentials and Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection use". The file name starts with the same "mse" as MSE. Microsoft seems to have simply forgotten to update the EULA fine print to the same as that for MSE. Best regards, LittleBen (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

Dear Ben, I believe it is imperative that you know that difference between a legal contract and advertisement. The EULA clause included in the article has legal value, meaning that by violation of it, Microsoft has the power to sue the violator. Everything else without a legal value does not have the power to replace the EULA. So, let's stay neutral here and just report the facts: Although Microsoft has made it available for everyone, it has also included an EULA that says it may only be used for development purpose.

But off the record, I agree with you. It is probably a mistake, but a fatal mistake that has due weight for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello yet again,

Your claim that the document you point to is the real EULA did not make any sense to me. The facts are as follows:

(1) Microsoft invites anybody who thinks they might have a virus problem to download and use the program. (I think they may say that it's not free for companies or government organizations—Microsoft may have a commercial product targeted at companies and government organizations: I can't remember if the download page says this, but it is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article anyway). Anyone who downloads from this page is not going to be aware of what you claim to be the EULA, because it's not mentioned on the page.

(2) Microsoft surely has no way of knowing who has downloaded and used the program, but if it were to find that somebody was selling this software that it (MS) gives away for free, then it would probably want to take legal action—so you'd expect the real EULA to include a clause prohibiting the selling of it.

(3) This software has the potential to mess up a PC that is infected with a virus—and it's free software. So one would expect that the real EULA would explain that (a) it's unsupported, and that (b) MS takes no responsibility for you using it—you use it at your own risk.

(4) There are two conceivable ways that MS could ensure that you read and agree to the EULA before using this software (to protect themselves from being sued for the reasons given in item (3) above): (a) Require you to agree to the EULA before allowing you to download it. But this would not protect them from being sued by someone who uses this software after being given it by somebody else, so this would not work. (b) Require you to click a check box to agree to the EULA before being allowed to run this software.

So there you have it. A little bit of logic will tell you where to expect to find the real EULA, as deduced in 4(b). Why don't you download the program and look at the real EULA and see if use of the program is really restricted to people who develop and test programs? The web page inviting anyone who thinks they have a virus problem to download this software surely indicates that this is not the case. So I'd say again that the item cited is obviously not the real EULA, and should not be cited as such. It's an obvious mistake, and should not be reported as fact. LittleBen (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ben

Almost everything you have said so far are your own assumptions, half of them have already failed verification. For instance, contrary to your assertion, the EULA (which you sarcastically called real) is linked both from the main web page and the software itself. Wikipedia runs on the principle of Verifiability and the act of apply "logic" to reach a conclusion not directly supported by any source is categorically forbidden in Wikipedia.

And please don't put word in mouth, will you? Please read the message carefully and do not assume anything that is not there. In case you are in doubt, please consider visiting WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Codename Lisa

• I checked the EULA that is embedded in the software again. I use Japanese Windows, and there seems to be no way to display the embedded EULA in English. The embedded EULA is not linked to the web page, though you suggest otherwise, but there's a link that provides a printable version of the embedded EULA (again, this is in Japanese in my case). A more careful perusal of the embedded version confirms that you were right: the silly "people who develop and test programs" restrictive phrase is also in the Japanese version. So I shot off a complaint to MS from the "was this page helpful" feedback link at the bottom of this page. I hope they fix it, we seem to agree that it's silly. (Sorry for the misunderstanding—I didn't believe that MS could be so silly, but I was wrong).

Best regards,

LittleBen (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Wasn't Lisa the predecessor of the current Mac OS? What are you doing in a Windows article ;-) (just kidding).