Kaspersky files anti-competitive complaints against Microsoft

"...Kaspersky Labs’ Eugene Kaspersky put out a blog post recently calling out Microsoft for 'slowly killing off the independent security industry'. In the blog post, he announced that he’s seeking legal action against Microsoft for anti-competitive behavior..."

http://www.winbeta.org/news/kaspers...icrosoft-over-third-party-anti-virus-software

"...Accordingly, Kaspersky says that he has filed complaints with competition authorities in the EU and Russia. He asks that they force Microsoft to cease the behavior he feels is anti-competitive...

..., Kaspersky demands that regulators force Microsoft to "provide new versions and updates of Windows to independent developers in good time so they can maintain compatibility of their software to Windows...

...Kaspersky wants the install/upgrade behavior to change. He wants Windows to be more explicit that installation will remove incompatible third-party anti-malware software. He also wants Windows to specifically recommend the installation of compatible third-party versions after the upgrade....

...Kaspersky criticizes ...[the]...subtlety of the way Windows defaults to Defender. Windows' method has two prongs. The first: Windows warning screens encourage users to enable Defender—an act that disables third-party products—even if the third-party product is currently active and up-to-date."

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ticompetitive-bundling-of-antivirus-software/

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/russ...gation-after-kaspersky-complaint-510163.shtml

Shame on the greedy Kaspersky. They have sank lower than Spyhunter. Well another brand, I will mark as untrustworthy.

 

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
This "reinstall your OS twice a year" practice from MS is making many developer's life harder.

 

Filing in Russia and the EU will probably give the complaint some legs (or is it ears?). I would be more interested in how the EU responds. I am not sure that either could force MS to provide the access that Kaspersky wants, but they might 'ask' MS to stop removing 3rd party software that is already installed. They may 'suggest' that MS inform the user before taking this action.

This is like 2 kids being told to play nice

 

Windows Insider is freely available. AU was available a few weeks before the official release. They just want MS to do their work for them.
As far as I know, WD is still the only 64-bit AV, AV devs had several years to produce 64-bit version, but they lack the will, there is no profit in it.

 

Eset and Emsisoft are 64 bit and use all 64 bit drivers. Eset additionally uses Win 10's ELAM driver.

 

As I understand, there were some changes made from last version that Insider users got and final version that got released (at least I remember some users complaining about it). IDK if Kaspersky's software was affected by this changes, though.

 

Thanks for info.

 

Yes many vendors had problems with a change in the firewall that broke most third party products.

 

Mr. Eugene Kaspersky must have been low on coffee.

There will never be a ruling anywhere in the world that will pressure Microsoft in this case or Apple or Google to lower their native security.

No ruling will ever dictate that a OS needs to be infectable so the user who has just bought a license to the OS are guaranteed to suffer a loss of money, loss of data and identity theft unless the user also accepts to send money to a third party "security" vendor.

What Kaspersky are trying to do here, are nothing more than advanced ransomware tactics.
Kaspersky are hoping that it will be against the law to be safe online, unless all users across the globe pays Kaspersky and/or the companies they are friends with.

It's ridiculous. But VERY symptomatic.
Vendors like Kaspersky are blinded by their own work and think they and their bolt-on "security" are more important, then getting to the point where the OS by design can keep every enduser safe.

Somebody needs to suggest Mr. Eugene Kaspersky to go out and get some fresh air.
And also explain to him that it's every OS' ultimate goal to be capable of protecting itself.
In fact users, enterprise and home, expect it.

Not a single enterprise, SMB or home user are jumping up and down every day, praying to be able to spend money on third party security and spending tons of work hours on trying to figure out why their OS are suddenly malfunctioning after the third party product was installed.
They have better things to spend that time and money on.

 

@Martin_C You've made some excellent points.

 

Usually, I agree with the good E.K. but this time I think he needs to grab a cup of green tea and relax himself.

 

"Windows 10 Anniversary Edition aims to knock down ransomware...

...Browser-based exploits account for 60 percent of all ransomware vectors, something the company has addressed in both Windows 10 and its Edge browser.

In addition, Microsoft has addressed vulnerabilities in its email services, added new technology to Windows Defender to more quickly detect and respond to threats, and combined Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection with Windows Defender’s version to help companies in particular attack the threats. These efforts have been combined with Credential Guard, Windows Hello, and other Windows 10 Anniversary Update-specific efforts to lock down Windows 10..."

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/microsoft-combats-ransomware-windows-10-anniversary-edition/

"Defending against ransomware with Windows 10 Anniversary Update"

https://blogs.windows.com/business/...ws-10-anniversary-update/#p3V3IuFZYHgQ84fO.97

 

Ummm.....

See page 10 :

https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/MRG-Effitas-360-Assessment-Q3-2016.pdf

See page 9, bottom row:

https://avlab.pl/sites/default/files/68files/ENG_2016_ransomware.pdf

 

@WildByDesign : Thank you

 

@hawki :

Tests like those are not representative of how the real world works.

And Mr. Eugene Kaspersky makes a number of false accusations about the native security in Windows 10 in his blog post, where he links to tests but accidently forgets to mention that :

- Testing in such tests are always without SmartScreen.
- They are without UWP apps.
- Some test lower UAC settings - in fact one of the tests you link to, states that they gave Admin privileges to tested malware samples.
- Many tests will do enterprise testing on non-enterprise Windows editions.
- And none will use the additional defenses available in Windows 10 Enterprise.
- Very, very rarely will latest Windows 10 editions be used.
- Some tests disables automatic sample submission.
- Block at First Sight are not active.
- PUA detection are not activated.

And the list goes on.
Lots of native security in Windows 10 are disabled in such tests.
Everybody in the industry knows it. Because such test are not meant to give end users a realistic picture of what the combined native security are capable of. Those tests are merely meant to be promotion papers for the third party vendors.

None of the testing organizations are doing testing where every available native security mechanism in latest available and fully updated Windows 10 are fully enabled and active.

 

the fight for user percentage is getting in the next stage - muddy stuff.

although i think that windows 10 is still an experiment vendors like K have to accept the new direction and to modify their software to work flawlessly. either K or others dont and now complain - but they still want money for bugs. the market is getting closer >:>

 

Overall I have to agree with Kaspersky, it makes me think of the case against IE vs other browsers. M$ should stop with these anti-competitive actions.

 

Microsoft investigated by Russian antitrust body after Kaspersky complaint

http://www.zdnet.com/article/micros...ian-antitrust-body-after-kaspersky-complaint/

 

@Martin_C +1

Kaspersky sucks since day one, any user with some knowledge won't use it. Win Def is getting stronger, at every builds and that annoy many vendors.

 

This is what we should aim here; well developed and founded feedback and solid critical assessment

 

Anti-competitive actions ??

In my view, that kind of completely backwards way of thinking only exist among that very, very, very tiny subset of pc-users who has it as a hobby to install security applications.

No OS are made with the purpose of installing third party security.
A OS are meant to be as secure as humanly possible from the hands of the OS developers.
Security by design, implemented in OS core.

And with the restructuring of Windows development, Windows 10 and Windows-as-a-Service, Microsoft are delivering exactly that.

It's beyond silly that a person or in this case a company (Kaspersky) can even get themselves to publicly express that they feel that it's unfair when the vendor who are developing the OS are investing massively in keeping everyone of their users safe.

Microsoft are doing the right thing. Security are not a afterthought. It needs to be the foundation of the OS to be effective.

 

Wilders members are the kind of people satisfied only with complex-out-of-the-ordinary stuff

how i know that? because im one

 

I think there is too much reading between the lines of the KAV request. They simply asked to be able to have access to windows builds going into production early enough to ensure their software still works and to avoid the OS to simply uninstall their software without any prior notice. IMO, it does not seem to be a totally unreasonable request.

 

Yes, I also don't understand what this fuss is all about.