Wednesday, June 21st 2017

After Kaspersky's Shots Across the Bow, Microsoft Reacts

You probably have heard about security giant Kaspersky having previously fired some shots (figurative ones, which translated into a very real antitrust complaint recently) towards Microsoft. The gist of the issue stands on Windows' handling of third party security software suites, with Windows sometimes removing those suits' installations on basis of "incompatibility" with more recent Windows versions. Other points of conflict mention the coloring in Windows Defender, where a user's security status appears as "not green", which leads customers towards believing that even though their systems have a third party security software installed, only Windows Defender can really and fully protect them (which is visually conveyed by the Window adopting a green coloring when customers select to activate Windows Defender.)
Granted, Microsoft's response was indirect - probably looking to distance themselves from the matter as much as possible - but it was a response of sorts. In a blog post, Microsoft reiterates that Windows Defender is shipping with Windows so users have a fallback protection on at all times, before they have been able to install their third-party security program of choice, or even in case such a protection expires for any reason. In a blog post, Microsoft states that it is in the consumers' best interest to always have an extra security solution being available without user input, so as to reduce exposure time while customers look for and choose another (or the same) security third party.

The company mentioned the WannaCry debacle, and how it is their mission to provide a full-blown, safe computing environment for users, on top of which they can then add third party solutions. Remember the browser antitrust investigation which resulted in Microsoft including a browser choice window for new installations? That could be one of the possible future solutions by Microsoft to avoid an antitrust investigation - if it really is found that Microsoft is using somewhat underhanded tactics. But that, like most things, is open to debate.
Sources: Microsoft Blogs, Tom's Hardware, Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

36 Comments on After Kaspersky's Shots Across the Bow, Microsoft Reacts

#1
DeathtoGnomes
m$ uses underhanded moves whenever they can. They want the monopoly to last as long as possible, anything to get "telemetry" on its customers. m$ still forces its malware on you, OneDrive for example might be so-called disabled in Policy Editor, but you still cant uninstall it. Look at all the storedefault apps you cant uninstall, its no wonder m$ still gets hit with anti-trust threats. It really m$'s way to avoid letting consumers Opt-Out of allow them to collect personal data.

Opt-Out; m$'s nasty word of the day.

Raevenlord
consumers' best interest to always have an extra security solution being available without user input
Reads: nope you cant shut this off, Cortana wont like it.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheLaughingMan
I kinda like MS Security Center on Win10. And if I decided not to use it, Kaspersky is not even in my top 8 choices and two of those are blank slots.
Posted on Reply
#3
Shihabyooo
Raevenlord
The company mentioned the WannaCry debacle, and how it is their mission to provide a full-blown, safe computing environment for users,
Took them long enough to start using it as an excuse to get away with their authoritarianism.


DeathtoGnomes
m$ uses underhanded moves whenever they can. They want the monopoly to last as long as possible, anything to get "telemetry" on its customers. m$ still forces its malware on you, OneDrive for example might be so-called disabled in Policy Editor, but you still cant uninstall it. Look at all the storedefault apps you cant uninstall, its no wonder m$ still gets hit with anti-trust threats. It really m$'s way to avoid letting consumers Opt-Out of allow them to collect personal data.

Opt-Out; m$'s nasty word of the day.


Reads: nope you cant shut this off, Cortana wont like it.
You can uninstall OneDrive and most -if not all- of the "default apps." That itself takes no more than a single, elevated, powershell command-line per application (and a few registry tweaks, in the case of OneDrive). The problem was that these things are like cancer cells, remove them today, they pop back up the next update cycle.
Cortana's a b**** to get rid of, though. -_-
Posted on Reply
#4
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
DeathtoGnomes
m$ uses underhanded moves whenever they can. They want the monopoly to last as long as possible, anything to get "telemetry" on its customers. m$ still forces its malware on you, OneDrive for example might be so-called disabled in Policy Editor, but you still cant uninstall it. Look at all the storedefault apps you cant uninstall, its no wonder m$ still gets hit with anti-trust threats. It really m$'s way to avoid letting consumers Opt-Out of allow them to collect personal data.

Opt-Out; m$'s nasty word of the day.


Reads: nope you cant shut this off, Cortana wont like it.
Orly because its not installed on my machine
because one power shell command is hard
Posted on Reply
#5
kn00tcn
TheLaughingMan
I kinda like MS Security Center on Win10. And if I decided not to use it, Kaspersky is not even in my top 8 choices and two of those are blank slots.
...based on what?
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
TheLaughingMan
I kinda like MS Security Center on Win10. And if I decided not to use it, Kaspersky is not even in my top 8 choices and two of those are blank slots.
I haven't installed anything more than what comes with W10 on any system in my household. I will just reimage if it is an issue. Don't really see the reason for third parties at all at this point. If you want to watch shady porn use your damn phone like a normal person.
Posted on Reply
#7
Scrizz
I've seen computers where Kaspersky has damaged the OS.
Last time I touched them was when XP and vista were out.
I really don't like Kaspersky.
Posted on Reply
#8
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
ksp ceo has a big mouth yall might wanna do some research before hopping on the anti-ms bangwagon
hes been bitching about loosing his market share since the release of windows 7
Posted on Reply
#9
Melvis
DeathtoGnomes
m$ uses underhanded moves whenever they can. They want the monopoly to last as long as possible, anything to get "telemetry" on its customers. m$ still forces its malware on you, OneDrive for example might be so-called disabled in Policy Editor, but you still cant uninstall it. Look at all the storedefault apps you cant uninstall, its no wonder m$ still gets hit with anti-trust threats. It really m$'s way to avoid letting consumers Opt-Out of allow them to collect personal data.

Opt-Out; m$'s nasty word of the day.


Reads: nope you cant shut this off, Cortana wont like it.
Try the LTSB Version, it looks to have all of that crap not installed, I have yet to try it but soon hopefully. I personally HATE onedrive with it keep poping up everytime I want to add an attachment to an email....

Shihabyooo
You can uninstall OneDrive and most -if not all- of the "default apps." That itself takes no more than a single, elevated, powershell command-line per application (and a few registry tweaks, in the case of OneDrive)
Cortana's a b**** to get rid of, though. -_-
Tell that to your next door neighbour.
Posted on Reply
#10
buggalugs
I trust Microsoft more than Kaspersky.
Posted on Reply
#11
Dethroy
Nothing but hot air. Baseless accussations trying to sway sheeple.
Posted on Reply
#12
lexluthermiester
buggalugs
I trust Microsoft more than Kaspersky.
And that would make you foolish as Microsoft has, time and again, proven they are anything but trustworthy.
Posted on Reply
#13
Octavean
lexluthermiester
And that would make you foolish as Microsoft has, time and again, proven they are anything but trustworthy.
I agree,....

The reality is that Microsoft has removed programs from systems when upgrading from Windows 7 or Windows 8.x to Windows 10 even if those programs would be perfectly functional after the upgrade. Its easy for Microsoft to say that said programs wouldn't be functional or they wouldn't be supported and many people would believe it but there is evidence to the contrary.
Posted on Reply
#14
Slizzo
Octavean
I agree,....

The reality is that Microsoft has removed programs from systems when upgrading from Windows 7 or Windows 8.x to Windows 10 even if those programs would be perfectly functional after the upgrade. Its easy for Microsoft to say that said programs wouldn't be functional or they wouldn't be supported and many people would believe it but there is evidence to the contrary.
Problem here is that it's that MS found issues with specific apps on specific machines. Even if they didn't see the issues on ALL machines, they saw that there were issues so erred on the side of caution and removed apps from upgraded windows installations.

Not that hard to see this is the case. Might want to step away from the ledge.


But then, maybe that's the I.T. guy in me coming out.
Posted on Reply
#15
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
kasperskys invasive kernel mode driver was causing unrecoverable BSOD'd during upgrades
completely kasperskys fault
again ceo has been pissing at moaning about the evil windows defender since windows 7 when people stopped using his garbage
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Slizzo
Problem here is that it's that MS found issues with specific apps on specific machines. Even if they didn't see the issues on ALL machines, they saw that there were issues so erred on the side of caution and removed apps from upgraded windows installations.

Not that hard to see this is the case. Might want to step away from the ledge.


But then, maybe that's the I.T. guy in me coming out.
I wonder if people know Apple does the exact same thing and has for over a decade.
Posted on Reply
#18
Slizzo
cdawall
I wonder if people know Apple does the exact same thing and has for over a decade.
It's a conspiracy that OS developers have enterprise environments in mind when they design their OSes. Conspiracy I say!
Posted on Reply
#19
BiggieShady
How brilliant, slight unfair advantage that can be claimed to be just another undeveloped feature ... after all, they got lots of those
Posted on Reply
#20
TheLaughingMan
kn00tcn
...based on what?
It working, being simple to use, using very little memory and resources, and letting me uninstall it when I feel like it. These are all thinks Kaspersky struggled to provide when I was using a log time ago. I hope things have gotten better, but I don't care about going back to check. I just tossed it in the pile of software I have quality working replacements for like Firefox, MS Office, Nero, and a few others.
Posted on Reply
#21
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
We live in the 21st century where all internet connected machines are constantly under siege. If Microsoft didn't offer something to protect its users from that onslaught, they wouldn't be holding up their end of providing a safe, reliable operating system. If a court rules that Microsoft can't secure their own operating system and third parties have to be relied upon to do it... *speechless*
Posted on Reply
#22
Shihabyooo
FordGT90Concept
We live in the 21st century where all internet connected machines are constantly under siege. If Microsoft didn't offer something to protect its users from that onslaught, they wouldn't be holding up their end of providing a safe, reliable operating system. If a court rules that Microsoft can't secure their own operating system and third parties have to be relied upon to do it... *speechless*
Security shouldn't be a pretext for authoritarianism. I believe it was your old Franklin who said sacrificing freedom for security is foolish (or something along these lines). This isn't an either-or situation. Microsoft could and should make its own security software, but abusing their status as the owner of the platform to favour it over others' (especially when it's, in many aspects, inferior to them) is a completely different matter.
Posted on Reply
#23
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Windows Defender nor Microsoft Security Essentials never stopped me from running anything I wanted to run.

Windows is literally Microsoft's baby. If they want to offer any software that is part of that product/service, they can do it. As long as Microsoft doesn't prohibit you from using something else, there's nothing wrong with including a solution of their own. Microsoft's blog entry reiterates that is Microsoft's policy on the matter: Windows Defender will remain to be included as part of the service but you can install/use something else if you want.

Frankly, there's nothing to see here unless Kaspersky files suit. Kaspersky might win in the EU (again) but I doubt they'll win in the USA. Without Windows, the market for Kaspersky wouldn't exist in the first place.
Posted on Reply
#24
DeathtoGnomes
Shihabyooo
Security shouldn't be a pretext for authoritarianism. I believe it was your old Franklin who said sacrificing freedom for security is foolish (or something along these lines). This isn't an either-or situation. Microsoft could and should make its own security software, but abusing their status as the owner of the platform to favour it over others' (especially when it's, in many aspects, inferior to them) is a completely different matter.
m$ could try and make(sell) Security software, but I they seriously doubt have the ability to be competitive and still have personnel left over to cater to their enterprise customers. Nope, its just basic, bottom of the line, barebones type effort put in its security software to placate the consumer, knowing full well the majority of m$ consumers will go with 3rd party security. If it takes a 3rd party to get m$ to react to fix something, maybe there is a bigger issue inside the m$ bedchambers.

For all this to work, people have to put egos aside and actually work better together, there seems to be too much "my way or the highway" developers there.
Posted on Reply
#25
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Defender were born out of the need to fight viruses that can prevent the successful installation of Windows and later, Windows security updates. The research they had to do there lead to branching off to a basic system to counter malicious software that security updates can't fix. The only thing one really can fault Windows Defender for is not being as intrusive, meticulous, and heavy handed as the third party solutions. Microsoft basically delivered what most people wanted. Popularity of third party antivirus programs therefore plummeted.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment