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."
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.
As much as I can't stand a lot of what Microsoft does, Security Essentials is not a bad program all in all. It's certainly more lightweight that than travesty from Norton and more reliable than the other "free" or "semi-free" AV programs. I still prefer F-Prot because it's the king of small footprint AV, but I have no problem with Security Essentials, and if it's part of Windows Update, I'm assuming that soon enough we'll be seeing in WSUS, which, when combined with the GPO software installation facilities in AD, will replicate the high-end corporate AV.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Windows Firewall and MSE is better than most other solutions for home users.
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!
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
I'm assuming that soon enough we'll be seeing in WSUS, which, when combined with the GPO software installation facilities in AD, will replicate the high-end corporate AV.
No you wont, the product you are talking about is named forefront and it is not free it cost about 2000$ per server and 15$ per client
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
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.
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
i guess i have no sympathy for them. and as much as i normally don't like MS i guess i am on MS's side for once.
Except its listed in the Optional section, which is completely ignored if you just keep clicking next on Windows Update like 99% of people, and it only shows up there at all if you don't have any other AV installed. Seems fairly reasonable to me (and I truly fucking hate Microsoft and everything they do).
I tend to agree with the above. I intended to post basically the same. Software added to the OS to fix security flaws in the architecture has a good argument as being part of the OS. If MS hadn't tried to claim the browser was a core part of the OS I doubt many people would have an issue with this being added.
They don't have a monopoly and aren't a convicted monopolist. Until then they won't be forced to unbundle anything.
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.
This is only being suggested to people with no anti-virus solution on Windows. Those people likely don't know what they're doing.
And actually, I'd recommend Microsoft Security Essentials over Symantec, McAffee, etc.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
IIRC, in some ads MS ran a few years back, they touted Forefront as one of the only security solutions which offered guaranteed protection against zombies.
I still want a shotgun...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Most of Microsoft's anti-trust trouble, at least in the US, had nothing to do with bundling the browser anyway. It gave them more trouble in Europe, but here the problem was MS was threatening PC retailers who wanted to bundle other browsers (namely Netscape) with their systems.
That's anti-competitive behavior, and we have laws against it. Europe reacted more harshly and forced MS to not ship Windows with a default browser. It ships with IE, but you have to set it as your browser of choice first.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
Correct, but Microsoft waited until a market had built up around the insecurity of Windows before they introduced a product of their own. Since they did not proactively address security, they are legally obligated to compete in the market they created on a level playing field with other companies already in that market. That means if they use Windows or products bundled with Windows to provide an advantage for their security suite, they are legally obligated to provide the same to competitors. Where do the other AV vendors sign up to be included in Windows update?
For the Friends and Family crowd, I now always uninstall what they have and replace it with MSE. Not only is it free, but it's been rated as the best and the updates happen automatically. It's so much lighter weight than Symantec and Norton that people tell me it's like a brand new computer.
I have not had a single callback about any problems.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Same here. It's better, faster, and less ad free than AVG, Avast, etc.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
... any good Linux administrator has handled customer boxes that have been thoroughly rooted, tossing your argument out the nearest window.
Is that really true though?
There is the argument that Microsoft is a larger target due to their market share and this is why there exists more 0-day exploits against their platform. To be more fair, Adobe shares a pretty large portion of that responsibility too.
However, all things being equal, I think Linux does have a greater level of security out of the box than any Microsoft product. I am not going to present a reality distortion field, like there is often around Apple, and say that there exists no 0-day exploits against Linux as a platform, but to say Linux and Microsoft are equal in this regard is just not true.
Most of the Linux boxes that I have seen that are rooted are due to poor management (open SSH with very weak passwords, failing to review logs, etc.), and not actual exploits. Once again, I am not saying that they don't exist, but there are fewer of them.
It's popular to bash Microsoft, and the poster you replied too was rather flippant, but all things considered I think it is a fair statement to say that Microsoft has been lackadaisical in their approach to security and Linux is inherently more secure.
In my mind, this makes rooted Linux boxes an oddity and a statement against the Linux sysadmin. Lazy sysadmins can setup a Linux box to be rooted in no time at all. MS syadmins on the other hand, have a harder job to perform and even a great sysadmin can find themselves facing a nasty 0-day exploit against their systems regardless of well they update and maintain their systems.