Rival calls foul over Microsoft's delivering Security Essentials via Microsoft Update

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by MrBrian, Nov 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MrBrian

    MrBrian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    6,032
    Location:
    USA
  2. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    They wouldn't be rivals otherwise. Seriously though it is only good for the user, that does not have an AV, to have a simple way of obtaining one. Some users might stay with their original choice but a lot will at some stage remove it and use some other AV solution instead. What is important that some AV is there in place.
     
  3. aladdin

    aladdin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,986
    Location:
    Oman
    Hi Cundi,

    Very true!

    However, I have my Windows setup to update automatically. Would this install on my machine without my knowing.

    It conflicts with Sandboxie.
     
  4. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    What are you doing without an AV ;) ?

    it will not download/install automatically as it has to be selected by user as something to download first
     
  5. aladdin

    aladdin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,986
    Location:
    Oman
    Hi Cundi,

    I have been Avast Free with Microsoft Security Essential. When I purchased Sandboxie about 2 months ago, I had to uninstall it as it would not allow me to start Sandboxie.

    Yesterday, I purchased Avast Internet Security for 3 years, for 3 PCs. A special discount given to Wilders' members.

    Many thanks for such a good site.

    Best regards,

    KOR!
     
  6. Hugger

    Hugger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    Hackensack, USA
    King,
    How does MSE conflict with Sandboxie?
    I'm using both on my W7 x64 with no noticeable problem.
    Thanks.
    Hugger
     
  7. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    Agreed. :thumb:
     
  8. culla

    culla Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Posts:
    504
    av's are old school and no longer needed with virtualization and imaging :D
     
  9. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I've just tested both in a virtual machine recently, and they worked fine together. Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit.

    Most likely there's a third-party culprit here.
     
  10. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Ahem! Don't forget us ordinary folks!
     
  11. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    Can't say I think it's right at all. AV is not the Windows OS. And, it's not Office. It IS a competing product and using the pipeline that updates only MS products to supply an AV is IMO, the wrong method. Yes, it may be an altruistic gesture/program, but it sure looks like marketing to me.

    FWIW, this is not new territory to me for these thoughts. I was adamantly opposed to MSE using Windows Update as it's delivery connection. Now they've "expanded" it to downloading the program? What's next? Their new "sandbox" solution? Or who knows what else?
     
  12. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    If it's good for the user, so what? What's next? Removing paint because it competes with paint.net? Removing the defrag because it competes with defragmenting programs?

    Maybe they should remove the firewall and everything related to security for a fair ground am I right? :D
     
  13. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Interesting choice of words. Unfair to whom? Not to end-users, I must say. What's unfair is for those security vendors to make deals with computer manufacturers, so they install their trial security software, and force end-users using them, and in most times end-users have no idea they're running a trial security software, and run months and months without a working solution, and find it out already too late, when the system is infected.

    So, what is unfair?
     
  14. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Hey, fair is fair, let's also take away Windows Explorer - the Windows shell. ;)

    Microsoft should only provide the kernel to end-users. Let's all start making our own distributions. :) Hyper.
     
  15. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,771
    Location:
    Outer space
    I think a lot of people are over-reacting. It is only offered as an optional update, when the user has no AV and is delivered through Microsoft Update, not Windows Update.
     
  16. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    When you think about this a bit we all use M$ as our o/s.

    We don't have to do this there are options Apple, Linux etc.

    Now why would I use an o/s from a vendor I don't trust this makes no sense in an of itself does it?

    That said there are tactics M$ has used and does use I don't like the update being on all the time to get updates to MSE and of course forcing IE on me and Windows Explorer on us the way they do. The biggie of course is the fact that for years they provide the vast public with buggy and insecure o/s.

    These flaws have created a whole S/W 3rd party industry to fill the gaps. FW's, AV's sandboxes etc.

    But you don't need the use free MSE or their FW and leave the update service on if you are prepared to do some work.

    You have choices for those if you like! Leave the update off then.
     
  17. Hugger

    Hugger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    Hackensack, USA
    Great. Thanks.
     
  18. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Oh those naughty Mickeysoft chaps & their policy of giving away free AV programs ... :rolleyes:

    Now, if only they gave away a freeware OS! ;)
     
  19. aladdin

    aladdin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,986
    Location:
    Oman
    Hi Hugger,

    I cannot now remember the SBIE error number. Sandboxie wouldn't start. I had a choice either to uninstall MSE or Avast. I chose to keep Avast.

    After experiencing for weeks now, I have found out that one can only install four or less low level software for them to function properly. At present, I have the following low level software installed.

    1. Avast Internet Security
    2. Sandboxie
    3. Returnil

    If I remove the Avast firewall and instead install the Outpost Firewall PRO, one of the program stops working. Or, install SpyShelter Premium.

    Give it a try and let me know.
     
  20. aladdin

    aladdin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,986
    Location:
    Oman
    Hi m00nbl00d,

    Please see my above post to Hugger. And, thanks for testing it in a virtual environment. I don't know how much Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit, differs from the 64-bit.

    But since we are in testing mood, can you install on top of MSE and Sandboxie the following programs and see what happens.

    1. Avast Antivirus PRO
    2. Outpost Firewall PRO
    3. SpyShelter Premium.

    Kindly lets us know the results. Also, while at it after rebooting try to update Avast Antivirus PRO.

    Many thanks,

    KOR!
     
  21. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Hello,

    I'll try it later, when I manage to find a spare time.

    But, now that you mention that, I do remember that when I first tried Sandboxie, near 2 years ago, to install it to family members, and Sandboxie's driver wouldn't load if a few applications installing low-level drivers would be installed. Uninstalling one of them would make Sandboxie load again. Back then, my test was between Sandboxie, AVG IS, AVG Identity Protection and Outpost. Installing Sandboxie first would do the trick, if I well remember; I haven't rebooted the system back then, though, so it could had been a trick to my eyes.
     
  22. Terarus

    Terarus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    12
    Carpenter was clearer. "We're concerned that Microsoft may be using its OS-based market leverage to box out other choices. If that were to happen, it would not be good for consumers or the industry, and would warrant a second look."

    Each and every company will exploit the advantages they have. In microsoft's case its their dominant position in the o/s market. To say its an anticompetitive act is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. After all, MSE controls much less a market share compared to all other vendors and it does not charge money for the service it provides. Its not reaping in profits (however, the govt will butt in if it does attempt to) - all this will do is force vendors to provide cheaper and/or better services to consumers. Consumers will gain.

    We're not seeing the same thing as internet explorer, a forced update on users. Its purely optional and you can hide it away from the update screen. I don't see any problems with this move. Other vendors do similar things, which new laptop or desktop purchase (cept the one you make yourself) doesnt come with some sort of trial? Its pre-installed and the manufacturer wont let you untick it most of the time. The average joe is going to stick with what they get, and if their system comes pre-installed with norton, trend micro or mcafee etc etc; they'll pay for it.
     
  23. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    LOL, it's their software and their offering a good and free product :D

    And they shouldn't worry if their product is good enough :D (Suite-More features, better protection etc.):rolleyes:
     
  24. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Isn't this a lot hate o_O

    OK. And, how exactly do the paid versions of their products run? Either pirated or paid... I wonder which % is what. And, those who run pirated, for how long do they run it, until Panda kills it o_O

    So, what is the logic here o_O

    There is more: http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/microsoft-just-doesn’t-get-it…-security-is-about-diversity/

    Advise: Just make your damn products better by the day, rather than criticizing a free and pretty great antimalware product!

    -Edit-

    I love this one, though.

    Yes, indeed. I'm pretty sure Panda is eagerly awaiting for that day. ;)
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2010
  25. aladdin

    aladdin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Posts:
    2,986
    Location:
    Oman
    Hi m00nbl00d,

    Many thanks, would love the results of your testing.


    Very true that Sandboxie should be the first one to be installed. However, if too many low level drivers are installed, Sandboxie would again stop working.

    Happened to me once!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.