Slashdot Mirror
Kaspersky Lab Files Complaint Against Microsoft for Giving Unfair Advantage To Windows Defender (myce.com)
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, Eugene Kasperky wrote in a blog post. From a report on Myce: Microsoft is making it hard for independent anti-virus vendors to compete with Windows Defender, Microsoft's own antivirus application built-in to Windows 8 and Windows 10, according to founder of Kaspersky Lab, Eugene Kaspersky. For example, when users upgraded to Windows 10, their own antivirus product was disabled and Windows Defender was enabled by default. Another showcase of Microsoft's way of making it harder to compete is that antivirus companies only received a week to make their antivirus software compatible with Windows 10. And even when the antivirus software was compatible, Windows Defender would be enabled nevertheless.You can read Eugene's blog post here.
Microsoft is making it hard for independent virus vendors
If Microsoft made an OS that was functionally immune to viruses would it still be unfair?
"antivirus companies only received a week to make their antivirus software compatible with Windows 10."
This sounds like a gross over-simplification. The article itself says that Defender was included with Windows 8, which internally isn't all that different from Windows 10. Getting their software approved for the Windows Store in a short time frame sounds more likely.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The reason that Windows 10 disables older Anti-Virus software when upgrading is that the older Anti-Virus software is incompatible with 10 and can cause the system to crash if you continue to use it. Rather than give the user no anti-virus protection at all, they enable Defender and notify the user with a system tray pop-up that their old Anti-Virus software needs to be upgraded before it will work.
There really isn't anything sinister going on here.
It has come to my attention that you feel the bundling of Microsoft's defender product is bad for your business.
While I agree that bundling is a nefarious action, I also would like to point out the serious inferiority of your (ahem) "similarly priced" (ahem) products, when compared to the bundled product.
Even if the defender product was not bundled with windows, I find it very likely that users would prefer it over your advertisment laden, system resource hogging, nagscreen insistent offering of similar price. In comparison, windows defender consumes significantly fewer resources, wastes far fewer manhours of development on elaborate eye candy on an app that users would prefer did not have to be there in the first place, but simply need because of fuckwits who want to abuse the shit out of their computers when they arent looking-- and quite frankly, does not constantly demand money out of them every 6 months.
Perhaps if you offered a superior product, people would rush to install it?
Just a thought.
Better be nice, I hear BitZtream is on the short list for secretary of commerce.
Anybody else remember about 25 years ago when MS got slapped down for including an A/V component with DOS 6?
Exactly. Antivirus software treads so close to "cure is worse than the disease" territory, and they need to face up to it.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Why not just make Kaspersky automatically reinstall on a windows upgrade? It's not like windows startup entries are removed in an upgrade.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Even if the defender product was not bundled with windows, I find it very likely that users would prefer it over your advertisment laden, system resource hogging, nagscreen insistent offering of similar price. In comparison, windows defender consumes significantly fewer resources, wastes far fewer manhours of development on elaborate eye candy on an app that users would prefer did not have to be there in the first place, but simply need because of fuckwits who want to abuse the shit out of their computers when they arent looking-- and quite frankly, does not constantly demand money out of them every 6 months.
Great point. A couple of years ago I switched from third party anti-virus products on my (sole remaining) Windows 7 machine and on the Windows machines of family and friends I provide tech support to for exactly those reasons. Windows Defender does the job well and does it unobtrusively.
Dear AV makers,
May I bring to your attention that your "business" depend of the "flaws" of another product? This basically mean that you're trying to sue MS for fixing their OS.
Be grateful your business lasted as long as it did.
Elok
From a customer perspective, windows defender has been a blessing.
Giving 2 decades of virus tools that mostly seem to exist to nag you, rip your money, open extra security holes, slow you system to a halt or just crash it, lock files for read or write access, advertise other products, block installs of valid and mainstream software, causes compatibility issues and nag you more, leading to a situation where the only viable alternative for a (not even) power-user would be running the open-source clamav on-demand scan.
Windows defender was there, and i never looked back. I just made sure it was installed on all friends&family-owned windows PC's. It reduced calls for help by a number close to 100%. Where possible, i suggested to run Linux or a chromebook. The only issue with windows defender is that it is -yet- another monoculture, but so far it done its job just fine.
And now Kaspersky labs, the guys that couldn't even bother to make an affordable deal, or offer a free version, who crippled their online scan and live cd's over the years, the guys that are charging a premium subscription for a home user costing way more than the OS license itself, are what? They are/were respectable as virus-hunters. Yet, apparently they failed to make a business model that attract enough users simply by only offering overpriced stuff and crippling their products. Make me an offer i can't resist - like a high performance scanner charging no more than $5 / year payable by any payment method i see fit, and we talk again. Until that day, look in the mirror when complaining.
Let's be honest, Kaspersky Anti-Virus engine is white-listing some selected Russian malware and trojans. Capable of DDoS and remot access. MS is just protecting its users.
While I agree that bundling is a nefarious action, I also would like to point out the serious inferiority of your (ahem) "similarly priced" (ahem) products, when compared to the bundled product.
Even if the defender product was not bundled with windows, I find it very likely that users would prefer it
Actually, Kaspersky Lab makes some of the highest rated AV tools. Windows Defender is far less effective. You don't take my word for it either.
over your advertisment laden, system resource hogging, nagscreen insistent offering of similar price.
If you don't like the ads, just fork over some money. If you don't like paying money for software then you shouldn't be using Windows.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I've been running Windows 10 betas since they were available and I know at least Symantec with their end point protection had something that worked when we were still in technical preview..
If you don't like paying money for software then you shouldn't be using Windows
Why? Are you implying that somehow opensource doesn't exist on windows? Are you implying that buying a one off vs paying a subscription for a service that in the many years I have used it has given me nothing but false positives and slowdowns are the same thing?
I don't like paying money for software though I don't mind paying for something with an incredibly permissive license. I will continue using Windows quite happily thank you very much, I don't like ads so I chose not to install that piece of shit.
I am a customer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security (the antivirus version for business). For the past 3 years, Kaspersky has never had an antivirus product compatible for the latest Windows version upon release. Windows 10 correctly disabled Kaspersky upon install. I don't know if the claim about disabling even compatible versions is true.
They never even had betas before release. We had to wait nearly a year for a compatible version with Windows 8.1 and several months for Windows 10.
In my opinion, they seem understaffed
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Yeah uhhh...there is a problem with your rant and its the simple fact that Windows Defender doesn't work worth a shit at least not in the real world with real bugs.
Allow me to introduce myself...Hi! I'm the resident PC shop guy, its my job to clean up the messes that Joe and Sally Average get themselves into. I'm popular enough I don't advertise anymore and just get customers by word of mouth so I must be doing something right and Windows Defender? Yeah its a POS. I've had customers come to me with just about every free and paid AV there is out there and WD? Those PCs are always the worst infected by a country mile. Sure it uses less resources, I'd argue because it doesn't do much of anything it really doesn't need lots of resources in the first place. Sure its better than nothing but that ain't saying much.
From what I've seen at the shop? The best paid are Eset and Bitdefender, the best free are Avast, Comodo, and Adaware. With those AVs you hardly find anything and what you do find is usually pretty benign stuff like PUPs whereas with WD? Those are the ones I see the "This PC is locked by the FBI" bug, the Security Tool 201x bug, all the real nasty shit just seems to blow right through it. Makes me think its like Norton was back in the day, remember that? In case you don't back when Norton was hot shit all the bug writers tested against Norton because they knew it was included by default with a lot of OEMs so if your bug could bypass Norton? That opened up a LOT of systems you could infect. I bet the same is true for WD, bug writers test against WD because they know its the default on Win 10 and lazy users won't change defaults so there ya go, lots of targets.
So I really wouldn't use WD or MSE on anything that you actually worried about getting infected. Sure it has its uses, I have it on my gamer rig but that is really nothing more than a box that plays Steam games so its really there just for peace of mind more than anything, the quad beside it I actually use for surfing? That has Comodo IS on it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Then stop using Windows.
I guess clown attack season is over and you've come here instead.
Anyway there's no need to stop using Windows and no need to pay for all software since Windows defender is there which is the case, scenario and why it's used. It's free and make Windows somewhat more secure.
Key manufacturers have to really love keyless entry systems. If the need for your product disappears or you can no longer compete, you need to find something else to do. Yay capitalism!!!
You'd don't have autism,
Correct (p.s. "You", not "You'd" )
I didn't offend you
Wrong
you're just stupid
Wrong
Oh and I fully admitted to being a troll before (my, how quickly you forget and short attention span you have), which I also pointed out that at least I was able to admit to, unlike you.
Perhaps if you'd do a better deal, it wouldn't have been cheaper for Microsoft to start from scratch than to work with you or some other AV manufacture.
I thought MS bought Giant Antispyware and didn't start from scratch?
Didn't we go through this in the 90's with IE vs Opera/Firefox et al?
Since when is Defender a superior product? Isn't it the basically the same as Security Essentials, which had initially gotten good reviews in its first few years, but subsequently rated the worst at detection among all the antivirus products?
Perhaps if you'd do a better deal, it wouldn't have been cheaper for Microsoft to start from scratch than to work with you or some other AV manufacture.
The funny thing is if security in Windows wasn't designed to be shit from the start, Kaspersky wouldn't even have a market segment.
Furries make the internet go.
I came here to see the asshat trolls in action. Thank you for not disappointing me.