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

Yep. Good luck to Panda and Trend Micro should they choose to cry in court.

This.

 

It's optional...it's not pre-included or forced down your throat as compared to trialware that's bundled into your system or a stamp of "recommendation" by your friendly salesman geek at that laptop sales shop in which the noob user may blindly take upon as the words of wisdom and say "let's head down and buy that shiny piece of box and be cure from all evils". (Take note I'm not saying that is bad...I'm just trying to make a point here with such a tone. No offense)

I wonder why people make such a big fuss out of this. Why the surprise when MS offers an optional security software for free to customers who have purchased a license to use their OS?

If you don't like it, don't install it. Just to clear any doubts or allegations that may be thrown at me: I don't use MSE and I'm not a MS fanboy .

Very true. Unless you've not seen it, then you'd have no problems in identifying the truth behind this statement.

Most of us here know that there are alternatives to MSE in the marketplace for AVs. There are others out there who don't know much about security but at the very least still knows a few brand names like Norton or McAfee (for example purposes only) These guys won't be "duped" by such a *marketing" if you deem it this act by MS to be as such. But imagine those folks who knows nothing at all about all these? Would you rather them have MSE being offered to them optionally or to let them run free without nothing? (and we've not mixed in other security software categories/concepts into the mix here yet)

One can argue like Luis Corrons in that MS should...:

But that brings into the table another problem. The problem of "free AV vs paid AV." I dare bet you that those brands/companies that solely offer paid solutions won't be too happy about the decision. To which point does MS have to go to please every single AV vendor out there? Include them all just to be 'fair' to all parties and at the same time benefit the end-user? Really? Do you really think that the end-user would bother figuring out which among the many would suit them? Why should they? Why can't they just pick one of the few (and heck 'free') and be done with it? Has the ultimate problem been solved by such a move?

And like I've noted earlier, we have not even mentioned OTHER security software like light virtualization software, HIPS, anti-executable, what-else-you-can-think-of....just to be fair to all parties. Come on....diversity and making every single user aware of all those options is a good thing, isn't it? After all, not everyone is in favor of AV software....some people think it's outdated technology so we do have to consider those users too just to be fair. Am I not right?

To take the horses words into his mouth:

Same goes for MS and whatever they're doing. So, why the double standards? I see...the worry here may be of 'monopoly' or 'monocultures' but let's face it this way: MS OS itself is in one form or another and perhaps arguably a monoculture in it's own class. I don't see security software vendors complaining about that...

I wouldn't argue against Luis Corrons being right that "Microsoft just doesn’t get it… Security is about diversity"...he/she has got very valid points there I truly agree and respect to. However, Luis Corrons also has to bear in mind that:

"Security isn't just about diversity, other factors play a role too"....

I don't think we need to discuss those other factors...or do we?

 

@ safeguy

I hope I'm understanding your question. You're asking whether or not such people should be without MSE or with it?

My answer is with it, of course. Why would they run without an antimalware app, if that's the sort of protection they would only know how to operate? I never said they shouldn't use MSE. I said I don't understand what's the fuss with all these security vendors. What do they fear?

And, the same company (Panda) some time ago in an enterview to Softpedia stated this:

Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Softpedia-Exclusive-Interview-Panda-Security-142289.shtml

Taking this here

From the article I previously mentioned: http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/microsoft-just-doesn’t-get-it…-security-is-about-diversity/

So, it's bad if it's MSE, but not if it's Panda?

Please, note that I never mentioned that the full article was bs. Some stuff is valid and I do agree, but rather than trying to bash one other product, they should be improving their, specially considering that in the same testing they mentioned MSE got 15, they got 9 place. So, their product, according to the testing they mention, should not even be considered a valid third option to fight malware.

By the way, I'm in favor for a global Microsoft repository from where people could download apps without concerns of being rogue, digitally signed, etc but how would that work for some software developers, including open-source software? I sure would love seeing it happening, but will it ever

 

You either have an eagle eye or a sharp memory m00nbl00d, that's nicely spotted there, good post.

Well, it was rumoured not long ago that Windows 8 will have an app store, now Mac has gone and confirmed Lion will have an app store, so rumour or not, I think you can expect one from MS also.

It's sort of a repository I guess?

 

@moonblood

In this case, I'm on your side. Both of us are on the same boat. We have the same stand/views over this matter. I wasn't questioning your statement but rather backing it up (in agreement/support of what you said) with my similar views.

My question of double standards was not targeted towards you...it was targeted towards the author (Luis Corrons) of the post "Microsoft just doesn’t get it… Security is about diversity". I have made a similar comment there if you hadn't noticed...

Just to add spice to the discussion, I'll like to link to this in regards to "monoculture"...

The Monoculture Hype

@elapsed

As for the repository idea, I don't think MS would consider it practical for them to implement it on their side seeing the huge software library that's up on the web right now. At least not in the near future I guess. However, even if they manage to bring it on, we would have to expect certain groups of people that won't be pleased with such a movement as in their eyes, it's another attempt by MS to gain further hold of 'monopolism'.

But that's not really much of a deal seeing that Windows users still can make use of 3rd-party mirror sites like CNET, Softpedia, FileHippo, MajorGeeks, etc Admittedly, they aren't perfect and there have been cases of malicious downloads/files observed but at least, they're better than nothing.

 

-Edit-

I forgot one thing. What does Luis Corrons mean with

I'm giving emphasis to *all AVs*. Does he mean all AVs, including trial crap versions Or, just the free AVs Then again, I guess those who have no free versions would start complaining... Right

What about free anti-spyware/antimalware apps, like Malwarebytes Antimalware, SUPERAntispyware, SpywareBlaster, Spybot - Search & Destroy, Lavasoft Ad-aware, etc

Oh, I see... MSE isn't just an antispyware. I guess that's why no one (that I'm aware of) ever made a fuss about Microsoft providing for free, and as an installed product, Windows Defender. Maybe they haven't seen it as a threat to their business, but now they see MSE as one, and are perhaps right

 

Yes, I'm aware of that, though it was a bit confusing at first, I must say.

 

Just a reminder I haven't forgotten about this. I made a mess with my virtual machine snapshots, and I'm reinstalling everything I had back, then I will make a new snapshot and try it out.

Tomorrow by this hour or so, I'll report it.

 

OK.

This is what I came up with, but first allow me to say that, unfortunately due to limitation of monthly traffic I haven't downloaded SpyShelter Premium nor avast! Antivirus Pro, otherwise my Internet connection speed would decrease a lot. lol

I already had COMODO Firewall (I couldn't find where I had saved Outpost executable when I downloaded it when the latest version came out ) and avast! Antivirus Free edition (result would end up being the same, because what would really matter is the low-level driver installatiom).

So, instead of SpyShelter, I installed AVG AV 2011 Free which I already had downloaded to other testing.

This is what I did:

I installed AVG AV 2011 Free first - I forgot to install Sandboxie first - otherwise it wouldn't install above avast!. Then, I installed avast! and Microsoft Security Essentials v2 beta. All latest versions.

I installed Sandboxie. Loaded fine. So far, including Sandboxie, we can count 4 low-level drivers.

I installed COMODO Firewall and rebooted the system. Sandboxie loads fine.

So, we have 5 low-level drivers. Sandboxie runs properly.

Updating seems not to be an issue, for what I could see.

I'll see if I can find where Outpost installer is later on, and try with it. I do remember issues between these two, though, which would result in Sandboxie's driver not load. But, this happened in the past and I believe was solved.

 

Think that they are protecting their SO, and the benefit is for the final user

Anyway the update is optional.