Kaspersky files anti-competitive complaints against Microsoft

There will always be 3 or 4 people who are fully convinced that they will only be safe in a Faraday cage on the dark side of the moon.

Their voices will just be louder in a place like Wilders and similar forums, where they can really wind each other up.

 

When paying attention to all the subtle and not so subtle remarks plus following all the many, many links in the Kaspersky blog post, then you don't even have to read between the lines.

It's pretty clear that Kaspersky are firing in all directions, hoping to make a mess.

 

But it's not about KAV vs others, it's about a level playing field. And I don't know about Win 10, but on Win 8, Win Defender is garbage, it's the first thing I turn off, and would never rely on it.

Kaspersky is not talking about security measures that are "under the hood", it's talking about M$ making it harder for third party apps to succeed, it doesn't matter if it happens to be a security app.

Yes exactly, some people just don't get it. At the end of the day it might start to hurt businesses, that's all that matters.

 

Security Firms Allege Microsoft as Anti-competitive

http://www.securityweek.com/security-firms-allege-microsoft-anti-competitive

 

This is getting more and more ridiculous.

These third party security vendors speaking in that article actually believes that through some obscure universal law, everybody that uses a pc are required to be dependent upon them ??
That it's a law that a OS must be vulnerable and that these third party security vendors HAVE to exist ??

I wonder if we next week will see these third party security vendors file a official complaint against the UNIX community, against the Linux community and against the OpenBSD community.
Those third party security vendors are probably very angry and feel that it's very anti-competitive that those OS' are by design built so users of those OS' are not in any way interested in buying software from these third party security vendors.
They demand a ruling so that those OS' are rewritten from scratch in a manner so they become vulnerable and so the third party security vendors can harass and pressure those users into buying their products.

And next month we will probably see those third party security vendors file a official complaint against all vendors of mobile OS'
The third party security vendors are probably very angry and feel that it's very anti-competitive that all mobile OS' will isolate and sandbox each application individually and also heavily restrict and lockdown communication with OS core.
They demand a ruling so that all mobile OS' are rewritten from scratch in a manner so they become vulnerable, so all isolation, sandboxing and lockdown are forbidden and the third party security vendors can then harass and pressure these users into buying their products.
The third party security vendors probably feel that it's very, very unfair that people that uses a mobile OS on a tablet or a phone, can stay safe without buying third party security products.

All OS' are getting stronger and stronger and better at protecting themselves by themselves, Windows included.

The third party vendors speaking in that article, just want to stay in the past and hold back progress.

 

There is a fundamental flaw in your arguments.

The issue is not the about limiting a publisher's right to maintain the integrity of an Operating System.

The issue is Microsoft's bundling an Anti-Malware Program with it's Operating System and presenting and operating it in such a way that scares/disuades/misleads home users away from using a third party solution and that limits third party providers from maintaining the effectiveness of their products on that OS.

Yes - MSFT must do everything possible to make it's OS secure and prevent exploits of it's operating system.

No - MSFT can not use it's market power in the OS market and tie it's OS to an anti-malware program and implement it in a manner of operation and presentation in a way that it disuades/misleads the home user from considering the use of a third party product, and which frustrates third party security providers in maintaing the effectiveness of their products on that OS. It has many of the same effects of an anti-competitive tying arrangement.

The issue raised by Kasperky is about preserving a level playing field for third party security program vendors. It's about preserving a vibrant, competitve marketplace, with ease of entry, that promotes innovation that leads to the availability of better security products.

Windows OS = an apple

Windows Defender = an orange

Linux = a very secure OS in and of itself

 

Windows is a proprietary OS; they have no obligations to those vendors. If they want lock out 3rd party vendors , they can and nothing can prevent that; as users, if those vendors are not happy, they just have to move to another platform.

As if you buy a car and some airbag company complain than the car vendor should not restrain them to install their airbag...will never happen.

 

"Microsoft Loses E.U. Antitrust Case

BRUSSELS, Jan. 16 -- The European Union said Friday that Microsoft's practice of selling the Internet Explorer browser together with its Windows operating system violates E.U. antitrust rules.

It ordered the software giant to untie the browser from its operating system in the 27-nation E.U.

'Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice,' the E.U. said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011604570.html

There are comparable USA cases filed by The United Staes Department of Justice against Microsoft that resulted in a Consent Decree to the same effect, but the USA cases together are much broader in scope and far too complicated to cite and explain here.

NB: Kaspersky has filed it's case in The EU and Russia.

 

@hawki Because Windows is too widely used so now they fell under those laws. Any other OS won't even be bothered with these laws.

 

Perhaps, but the subject of this thread is the legal action Kaspersky has taken against Microsoft in The EU and Russia.

I do not use a Mac. Does Apple integrate Safari into it's iOS?

 

Personally I prefer competition over monopoly because competition is usually better for end user. I don't see this as 3rd party AV vs. secure OS, I see this as 3rd party AV vs. WD. Will see what authorities in Russia and EU will say...

 

yes it does.

 

sure, but basically Kaspersky said " buhuhuhuhu we don't have enough time to adjust our software to Windows rapid changes"...come on... they are huge company... look at Emsisoft and even smaller vendors, they don't have issues to have a stable version on time. Their versions are stable unlike KIS which need months to get dozen of "patches" (aka fixes) to do its basic tasks properly.

KIS and other big vendors lose market shares, their CEO are unhappy, less money in their account. Simple as that.

I am glad that WD is integrated in Windows and becomes efficient enough, so we don't rely anymore on "badly-coded-resources-hog-kernel-hooking-broke-my-OS" AVs.

 

Patch A, Patch B, Patch C, Patch D. They might eventually run out of letters.

If Microsoft wanted it they could have probably made AMSI Windows Defender-only, but they didn't. And allowed other vendors be able to take advantage of it in order to protect the user.

 

I agree that it is to Micrsoft's credit and good to see that WD has advanced to such a degree that it is a viable option as a sole Anti-Malware solution for many. But Kaspersky's complaint goes beyond just the timing of advance releases. It goes also to the manner in which WD presents itself to the non-tech savy home user -- in a way that could lead WIN OS users to believe that they have no choice, that WD is the best AM to use or that it is not necessay to consider using another AM, or that another AM is not compatible. It is possible that enough consumers would, because of this, use WD that it would put some AV companies out of business and make it difficult for new companies to enter the market.

I, for one, do not want to live in a world where WD is the only one, or only one of a few AM programs. In such a market competition is stifled and along with it innovation and the advancement of new and unique approaches that lead to better AM solutions.

It is for the most part competition, not corporate pride, that forces security companies to constantly improve their products.

 

That is not accurate , MS even implemented Periodic Scan in Win10, which is an official proof of "you CAN use another AV" ; Kaspersky is trying to redirect the true purpose of their greedy motives to a so-called antitrust issue.

so do i , but kaspersky using shady maneuvers to regain market shares shouldn't even be tolerated.

 

I'll leave it to The EU and Russian Antitrust/Competition authorities to respond to the above statements. Afterall, it's only what they say that will matter.

 

@hawki :

First of all - when you are producing a OS, then no one can demand that you must leave security implementations to anybody else.

Have you EVER heard of a case where iOS or Windows Mobile have been faced with a ruling that ordered any of them to lower their native security and rebuild its structure so third party security was possible ??

Second - desktop applications in Win32 are not a right people have by law.
Microsoft can go to UWP exclusively tomorrow, and not allow any system access through ANY other means.

That would make Windows extremely safe. And at the same time end this debate right here and right now!

All work applications used in enterprise and SMB can be made to exist as UWP.
All homeuser applications and games can be made to exist as UWP.
No enduser, home or enterprise, would come to miss any functionality.

Do you REALLY think anyone would say "oh, we miss the old days when our OS was running third party security products with low level access and our business could suffer a breach with huge loss of finances and huge loss of intellectual property as a consequence at any given moment" ??

The third party security vendors speaking in that article are trying to create a illusion that we HAVE to need them.
We don't.
10.000 years ago we HAD to have a fireplace. We evolved. Today we DON'T HAVE to have a fireplace to survive.

Windows as well as all other OS' are also evolving.

 

@Martin_C Running Windows Defender is not a serious option for me, as it slows down my computer too much. As a result, I use a third party antivirus which has extremely minimal system impact. Quite possibly when I upgrade to a faster system (I'm thinking of upgrading to laptop with an i7 processor before too long. The one I use most now, only has a 1st generation i3) I'll be able to use Windows Defender without very noticable slowdowns and I may ditch my current antivirus. To be fair, I find that just about all third party security software causes unacceptable slowdowns, so it's not a WD specific issue.

Without your continued and informative posts about WD, I probably would not have considered switching to it in the future.

 

@Martin_C

I have read your posting history so I understand where you are coming from.

I understand that there is no way to convince you of holding a view that differs from that you have been expressing in this thread.

You are 100% entitled to your opinion and the right to expres it here.

Much of what you say has practical merit, however, you are simply wrong as a matter of law on a number of statements. For example, there is absolutely no way that a non-corrupt court in The United States of America would approve of Microsoft's configuring Windows so as to preclude the use of third party applications. Microsoft is simply too big to allow it to behave in such a manner. Of course, Microsoft would never attempt to do anything like that because of customer blowback.

You also still fail to make the clear distinction between making a secure operating system as oppsed to an increasingly effective anti-malware solution that is sold with it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not knocking Windows Defender. I believe it is great that Microsoft has dedicated resources to making it what it is today and to continue to improve it. For a time I considered using it myself. But the graveman of Kaspersy's complaint against Microsoft is not the effectiveness of Windows Defender.

Respectfully,

hawki

 

WD (for Win8/10) isn't sold with Windows8/10 , it is now part of the built-in security of the OS, since it is implemented at kernel level and is system aware. You are right when it was called MSE for Win7.

 

Anyway, next batch of unsatisfied companies would be the sandboxing vendors because : http://www.darkreading.com/applicat...app-guard-for-its-edge-browser/d/d-id/1327006

and Win10 built-in security explained : https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/security

Now i need MS to create a outbound connection alert system, so i would avoid using 3rd party softs for it. (manually configuring WinFW is way too harassing)

 

@roger_m : Thank you.
You sure have been through practically all solutions available on the market.
And you sure have an impressive application collection installed.
Not many users were able to hit the limit back when there was a 512 app limit.
Getting a faster laptop will be a night and day experience. For your security as well as overall daily use.

 

The only drawback with WD is the way it handle a folder full of exe, the displaying of the content can lag.

 

@hawki:

No.
There are no laws anywhere in the world that says that it must be possible to sell third party anti-malware applications on any given OS, and there are no laws that says that low level access must be given on any given OS.

The two of us simply have different views of how an OS are supposed to operate.

I believe in security by design, implemented in core.

You believe in security as a bolt-on aftermarket product.

You are of course also 100% entitled to your opinion and the right to express it here.

The two of us simply just do not agree on this matter.