Slashdot Mirror
MS Adds Security Suite To Update Service, Antivirus Rival Objects
CWmike writes "Microsoft has started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by US Windows users when they fire up the operating system's update service, and antivirus rivals are crying foul. 'Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition,' Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro, said on Thursday. 'Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned,' she added. 'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update. Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering the software via Windows Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player. But most users won't understand the distinction."
Any good Windows administrator knows that you can't rely on a Microsoft product alone to solve your virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
But isn't this both optional and free?
I don't see the problem at all. It's not like IE, which was free and mandatory (it's still free and bundled).
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The whole anti-virus industry seems like an artificial market. I wonder if they privately throw fits every time Microsoft releases patches to close potential security holes too. I mean, extending the argument, doesn't a more secure base system minimize the need for the full time, bloated nanny programs most of these companies provide; thus eroding their market share similarly? Those dirty bastards!
After calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning, E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose.
While I'm no MS fan, this is a good thing. Note: they only add MSE if no other virus checker is present. MSE actually does a pretty decent job, and it is a lot less intrusive than version McAfee, Norton, etc. available to private users.
Microsoft has a vested interest in improving the security of Windows without disturbing the rest of the user experience. Their motivation for MSE is roughly the same as the users'.
It has always bothered me that the interests of Norton, McAfee and the rest are not aligned with the user. You want a clean, fast machine. They want to sell you AV subscriptions. Which means they want to convince you how necessary those are. False alarms are fine, as are in-the-face dialogs and interruptions to remind you what a wonderful piece of crapware you have on your machine.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Because anti-virus companies make software so bad, even Microsoft doesn't want the association.
I think SE got there because MS learned something from the Browser anti-competitive issues.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
How about an App Store?
/cue delusional whining about App Stores being the start of a slippery slope to concentration camps and lockdown.
Putting moderation advice in your
'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' --Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro
Windows Update is a choice sweetie, although a lot of Windows users seem to choose not use it, or any ant-virus software for that matter.
Most of the well branded av's are just packed full of bloatware and getting worse. It's even got to the point now that alot of free software which i have installed also installs mcafee smartscan or a similar product to my desktop without allowing me to not install them. Isn't there something foul about this? Personally i use the lesser known eset's nod32 and i think it does a good job.
They don't have a monopoly and aren't a convicted monopolist. Until then they won't be forced to unbundle anything.
I actually hate Bill Gates, and despise Microsoft and almost all of their practices, but even I have to say that this is an excellent idea, and Trend Micro should go screw themselves. Microsoft has directly contributed to the Virus problem to the point where it is accepted and expected by most people. Now they are actually offering a free tool to clean up their mess to some degree. This isn't like the browser scenario, where they were looking to embrace and extend to own the Internet. Antivirus isn't an application like Word, or a web browser where people will need and want it regardless of OS. It is a necessary evil. If a company offered free smoke detectors to anyone who didn't already have them, would anybody seriously be arguing that said company is Antitrust?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I don't really understand why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to include their own security software. Microsoft should purposely leave end users high and dry when it comes to something as important as computer security (something that the OS should take care of) for the sole reason that they don't have even the slightest edge against the competing security software makers?
This reminds me of a year or so ago when there was opposition from security software groups against Microsoft because they closed up access to a few things that those groups used for their antivirus software. Something that no one really should have had access to in the first place. You can't cry that Microsoft software isn't secure and then cry foul when Microsoft actually works to improve security.
From TFA: Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update
Items in the optional section aren't automatically downloaded or installed, nor does a user even see them unless he/she clicks on a separate button to view the optional updates. MS is offering an optional & free program to protect users from Malware, and a user has to go out of his/her way to see and select that program before it'll be installed, and it's only offered to users who don't already have another AV program installed.
This is almost a "hidden option". I've got concerns about numerous M$ business practices, but I can't object to this one.
BTW - I haven't seen Adobe complaining that M$ offers Silverlight in the Optional section of M$ Update, even though M$ has clearly made some statement against Flash.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Security Essentials is free.
It's also better than Trend Micro's AV, so you can see why Trend Micro is angry.
Instead of improving their product to compete, they whine, even though Microsoft has done absolutely nothing wrong here (and frankly, a lot of good if it gets people who don't have AV to install something).
MSSE is certainly no the best AV out there, so there is plenty of room for competition.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I don't know much about WIndows, I've heard it has improved since Windows 3.1 and that's about it. I am used to GNU/Linux distributions giving me all the latest software when I apt-get update or emerge sync;emerge -uv world or yum update or whatever. I never go to some website to get or update some piece of software, the OS has some feature which lets me do that. If Windows Update would be able to do something like that then it sounds to me as if it's a very good thing. Perhaps not so good as long as it only lets you grab Microsoft software, and it would likely be hard for them to add too much other software being that Windows typically means non-free software, but still.. this sounds to me like a step in the right direction. But as said, I don't really know that much about the Windows world.
So you haven't a clue about recent Windows or how windows update works, but you opted to chime in anyway? Go crawl back under your Linux rock. Redhat 6 sucked, so it must still suck....
Since MS, has never offered such a product before, I can't see how *anyone* would "know that you can't rely on a Microsoft product alone to solve your virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems".
Considering I've run for well over a decade without ANY such product -- and doing so solved my 'problems' (non-existent) just fine, then how can adding such a product not create benefit (providing one doesn't mind the inevitable hit in performance for real-time/on-access scanning malware scanning.
It's networked, and name me one software vendor who has their software running on more computers than MS. MS collects malware reports from a large number of those running MS-software, since being able to detect 'malware' problems is a high priority issue if they want to verify the integrity of their licensing mechanisms. MS has a high interest in keeping their systems clean and has are in a better position to collect and act on information about malware infestations than any other vendor.
It's always been my opinion that the need for 3rd party apps to deal with malware is due to a flaw in the OS and that the OS is in the best position to deal with such problems. A well designed OS would have malware protection built-in. And sure, MS could screw it up -- but they do have a financial incentive to get it right -- so much so, that they *GIVE* it away for free. I'd call that a rather high motivation.
Conversely, if they charged to protect their systems from things that are essentially bugs in their system -- that would be something akin to blackmail or 'protection money'... But then that's how I see much of the for-pay malware industry -- "pay us, or your system's toast"...
Third party anti-malware companies have formed their entire existence on *flaws* in MS products.
MS providing free malware protection for their own product is ethically, the right thing to do. It's hard to argue that MS shouldn't be doing this or that it shouldn't be included as part of the OS.