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
But most users won't understand the distinction.
Outside of some very specialized applications, that sentence could apply to almost any software.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
Or is that how Security Essentials got there and the people "crying foul" are just sore that they'll have to pay, too?
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.
forefront and MSE are actually pretty good (MSE being built from forefront).
Their foot print on a system is quite reasonable (unlike many av suites) they do a good job of doing what they should do and staying out of the way. We all pay the price of way to many totally unsecured systems connected to the internet. FTFA the update only appears when no security software is detected on the system, So this will be being offered to users that would otherwise have no av protection at all.
I can see where MSE being offered free (and now offered via windows updates) would make other av vendors unhappy ..but f*ck them far to many of the consumer orientated av offering are just terrible bloated piles of junk.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
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.
Good! I personally love Microsoft Security Essentials. It does exactly what you want in a Virus Protection Program: 1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected" 2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there.
Plus it's FREE. FREE!
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
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.
Please Read the Summary...
If Windows update detects you have no Anti Virus package installed, it adds the Microsoft Security Essentials as an OPTIONAL download that you can CHOOSE to have.
Just like the Browser Election ballot Europeans got (Which listed many alternatives to Internet Explorer) it's the user's Choice to install the software or to acquire Anti Virus software on your own.
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.
I have tried many other products. On the consumer level, there is really no significant benefit the other guys have over MSE that makes it worth the cost per year. The only product I'd probably recommend would be Sunbelt Software's offerings because their products are good at delousing a machine when it can't be taken apart and fixed by someone with a clue. Suites [1] are a different story, but antivirus products alone, there isn't much anyone else has that MSE doesn't on the consumer level.
Enterprise-wide, different story. Products like Forefront or Symantec Endpoint Protection provides far more than just a "virus condom". As an IT guy, I can have it to stop "hacking tools" such as most serial number grabbing utilities, have it lock out USB flash drives, give me comprehensive reports from the Windows side of the house, hook with NAC to ensure that if a Windows box doesn't have AV, it doesn't get connected (for CYA reasons rather than technical), and loads of other stuff that matters in business.
So, on a personal level, I would just be content with MSE. If an acquaintance called up saying, "OMG, my computer is infected", I'd tell them to download Sunbelt Software's offering and let it attempt to clean the machine. If I were running a business, I'd spring for SEP or Forefront because of the enterprise level features.
[1]: Antivirus + firewall "suites" are pointless in any Windows version post 2000. Want a firewall? Get a hardware router, so blackhats don't have a small window of attack when a machine starts up or shuts down, and the software "firewall" isn't loaded and hooked into the IP stack.
Just an FYI regarding firewalls - if you're on Win 7, there's no need to pay for a firewall because Win 7 finally has a good built in firewall.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
it IS unfair competition itself. it was what was done with ie against netscape, and media player against others.
Not quite. Media player and IE come pre-installed on your machine but this is explicitly labeled an optional download. Being part of the "optional updates" means it will be presented to users as an option. They will not be in any way forced to download it and in fact will have to go out of their way to deliberately check the box to get it, something most people (i.e. my mom) probably won't do assuming they even realize the option exists.
Actually major media player updates (e.g. version 11 if you have version 10) are listed as optional as well if I recall correctly.
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
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.