Kaspersky files complaint against Microsoft for giving unfair advantage to Windows Defender

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Kaspersky files complaint against Microsoft for giving unfair advantage to Windows Defender[newsimage]http://www.myce.com/wp-content/images_posts/2016/11/Kaspersky-Lab-logo-1-95x75.jpg[/newsimage]

Russian antivirus vendor Kaspersky Lab has asked antitrust regulators in various countries (including the European Union and Russia) to make Microsoft stop giving an unfair advantage to Windows Defender.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/kaspersky-files-complaint-microsoft-giving-unfair-advantage-windows-defender-80877/](http://www.myce.com/news/kaspersky-files-complaint-microsoft-giving-unfair-advantage-windows-defender-80877/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

With knowledge of many systems failing to do at least an upgrade from earlier versions of Windows because of various antivirus solutions, I can understand why third party antivirus solutions gets disabled as part of the process, good go M$.

With that said and while I do have ‘some’ to say about Kaspersky’s own methods, they are correct here… It is mandatory for Microsoft to make the store ‘the’ place to be to compete with Apple and Google and so yes, they really try to tax third parties (isn’t that part of what any store is about?) by forcing developers to adopt to the new regime… That is what Universal Windows Platform (UWP) is about.

So why not Microsoft as well as Apple and Google?
One of the very few things that is really great about Windows is the diversity of the software available, where the vast majority is still based on common PE/PE+ format which is native and available for download on many sites. UWP does not change ‘that’ much apart from partly more forced design and being installed from a store unless developer’s extentions are turned on (you can probably imagine how many users will) and so yes… Kaspersky is right.

Now, Microsoft really are in the hands of the users here and luckily we will be the ones who together will decide how it goes. If we choose to use it, it will be a success sacrificing diversity for convenience as for many small developers and freewares, the store will be ‘off limit’ (they would kill off access standard PE/PE+ executables today if they could to get to that level of control). Would we want it to happen?

As for Microsoft’s own antivirus implementation in Windows 10? Nah… I have too many unpackers and other ‘suspicious’ programs on my computer to use that. Simply way too little user control for that to happen, but generally the era of antivirus is over. They slept when the world turned and today, ransomware and other types of infections managing to evade detection by your traditional antivirus calls for solutions covering several types and layers of detection, something that is, so far, not part of one single package. To avoid what could be seen as advertising, I will not elaborate any further on the subject :wink:


#3

Well, Sorry to say to you Kaspersky…My Windows Defender is still OFF in my Windows 10. Been OFF since the day I installed Win 10.
Plus, I don’t use your Stupid Progy anyway.


#4

My Windows Defender has been switched off from day one and has never come back on. Stop Moaning Kaspersky…


#5

I use Kaspersky when I can afford it and like it. When I can’t I turn on Defender and tweak it as I want. I don’t think defender has spontaneously taken back over either. I tweak all my stuff the way I want if possible anyways and try to make it work better for me.


#6

This is beginning to sound suspiciously like Microsoft’s anti-Netscape actions all over again. M$ went out of their way to sabotage Windows so as to make the APIs used by Netscape slower than they needed to be, so that they could brag about Internet Explorer being faster. They also did everything in their power to “encourage” users to choose IE over Netscape. When Microsoft finally lost an anti-trust lawsuit for their actions, it was too little too late for the Netscape Corporation.


#7

[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2783779]This is beginning to sound suspiciously like Microsoft’s anti-Netscape actions all over again. M$ went out of their way to sabotage Windows so as to make the APIs used by Netscape slower than they needed to be, so that they could brag about Internet Explorer being faster. They also did everything in their power to “encourage” users to choose IE over Netscape. When Microsoft finally lost an anti-trust lawsuit for their actions, it was too little too late for the Netscape Corporation.[/QUOTE]
Without much evidence this is all hearsay. As to what they allow and don’t well put this way that is their O/S and they can do as they please. There are others you can use Linux or iOS not one is stopping one from going there either.


#8

[QUOTE=MrScary;2783640]Well, Sorry to say to you Kaspersky…My Windows Defender is still OFF in my Windows 10. Been OFF since the day I installed Win 10.
Plus, I don’t use your Stupid Progy anyway.[/QUOTE]
That’s it they must be shrinking in market share so what do you do cry fowl in hopes you get a bigger share. That won’t work anymore and their story of fowl play is all that just story lines there isn’t much evidence they are presenting that is fact based to prove otherwise. It’s their O/S and they could do as they please as they always done. Whether or not I like it is a totally different matter. But if Kaspersky can’t compete well what do you do cry fowl play because your loosing that not the way to garner business. You keep going and make your product better. And prove that you can do better then M$ but if you cry fowl because of lost market shares then I for one say good riddance. Why doesn’t he ask his good friend Putin to help since they are trying to get rid of Microsoft product as well they be in very good company-to become a Police state that would help each other in return… :cop: Just like their own statement.

to have a totalitarian/police-state platform


#9

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2783782]Without much evidence this is all hearsay. As to what they allow and don’t well put this way that is their O/S and they can do as they please. There are others you can use Linux or iOS not one is stopping one from going there either.[/QUOTE]It may be their OS, but it’s the users’ computers, so the users should be in control. I do agree that people should consider switching to something else at this point. But, the fact that they can make the switch (at least, they can in theory) is no an excuse. Also, IOS isn’t really any better. Heck IOS developers aren’t even allowed publish a non-Webkit web browser via the IOS store.

As for the evidence, it may not be strong enough to [I]prove[/I] that Microsoft is intentionally engaging in anti-competition, but it still seems pretty compelling to me. Between Microsoft’s anti-competition history, and the frequency at which they reset the users’ settings for no apparent reason, I feel like the writing’s on the wall. Either way, if Microsoft is doing this, there’s a good chance more evidence will show up soon (that, or Microsoft will try to hide the evidence by stopping this behavior in future updates, and then re-engage once this complaint has blown over). Let’s keep our eyes on the May update, as that could be an indicator as to whether Microsoft is guilty or not.


#10

Personally I gave Windows Defender a chance. I was a hardcore basic AVG user and educated everyone that use my system as well as theirs.

“If you don’t what the it is, don’t click on it. Don’t trust it. Don’t click on it.”

I also put other security measures into play. Anyhow I understand where the article is coming from and Microsoft should give third party security vendors more then a week to ensure compatibility with their software. I believe the issue here is that Microsoft is starting to move towards what Apple has been doing for years by making vendors play with ecosystem to ensure system stability and security.


#11

[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2783789]It may be their OS, but it’s the users’ computers, so the users should be in control. I do agree that people should consider switching to something else at this point. But, the fact that they can make the switch (at least, they can in theory) is no an excuse. Also, IOS isn’t really any better. Heck IOS developers aren’t even allowed publish a non-Webkit web browser via the IOS store.[/QUOTE]As other mentioned they are able to not turn on Defender so the story from Kaspersky doesn’t also hold water either.

[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2783789]As for the evidence, it may not be strong enough to [I]prove[/I] that Microsoft is intentionally engaging in anti-competition, but it still seems pretty compelling to me. Between Microsoft’s anti-competition history, and the frequency at which they reset the users’ settings for no apparent reason, I feel like the writing’s on the wall. Either way, if Microsoft is doing this, there’s a good chance more evidence will show up soon (that, or Microsoft will try to hide the evidence by stopping this behavior in future updates, and then re-engage once this complaint has blown over). Let’s keep our eyes on the May update, as that could be an indicator as to whether Microsoft is guilty or not.[/QUOTE]Until it is there all companies engage in such tactics not just Microsoft this is being simplistic.


#12

[QUOTE=tannic;2783807]Personally I gave Windows Defender a chance. I was a hardcore basic AVG user and educated everyone that use my system as well as theirs.

“If you don’t what the it is, don’t click on it. Don’t trust it. Don’t click on it.”

I also put other security measures into play. Anyhow I understand where the article is coming from and Microsoft should give third party security vendors more then a week to ensure compatibility with their software. I believe the issue here is that Microsoft is starting to move towards what Apple has been doing for years by making vendors play with ecosystem to ensure system stability and security.[/QUOTE]
That is the problem the A/V is only good as the user if they click on black sites or links they don’t verify then your A/V goes out the windows pun. So in the end the A/V is only good as the User and if they are using the Admin/Owner account that is how they get malware/virus. What they need to do is make a Limited User account and use that for their everyday task that way any malware/virus can’t install or take over their system. But as before Users don’t think twice about this Really Simple change to harden their system.