Kaspersky Lab Files Complaint Against Microsoft for Giving Unfair Advantage To Windows Defender (myce.com) 100
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.
That Will Be The Day (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is making it hard for independent virus vendors
Re: (Score:1)
Considering Kaspersky probably employs a lot of the same people who make those viruses, that day is today. But, funny joke regardless.
Re: That Will Be The Day (Score:3)
While I have no sympathy for antivirus vendors, windows 10 does have a problem with replacing default applications on every major patch, and it's annoying as hell.
Literally every major patch, the stupid store and edge icons get placed on my taskbar, stupid edge is set to the default browser and default pdf viewer, and a ton of really annoying settings (like telemetry, peer to peer updates) are turned back to their defaults.
Personally, I'd love to see the antivirus industry succeed on this lawsuit, and thing
Wow. (Score:1)
Wow, when did /. get overcome by MS fanbois?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to see the asshat trolls in action. Thank you for not disappointing me.
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
So (Score:3, Funny)
If Microsoft made an OS that was functionally immune to viruses would it still be unfair?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty Lame (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Re:Pretty Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
If you keep in touch with the early developer releases Microsoft puts out (which most AV companies do), you'll have months to develop your product to work with the OS. The only people who had "10 days to make their software work with Windows 10" weren't paying attention earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Wasn't there a public beta of Windows 10?
Re: (Score:2)
There is one continuously. It's called the Insider program. You can sign up right now and get a current build for nothing, you don't even need a valid windows license to start.
Saying anyone had 10 days is just outright stupid on the face of it. It's shit like that actually weakens their case a lot as well. When you get to a review and half the stuff in it is demonstrably false, do you bother putting much effort into the things which aren't so easily demonstrated?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You would think so but you would be wrong. The place I work uses Kaspersky and I can tell you that it Worked on 8 and failed to install on 10 and that was not the only software we had trouble with.
All of our software works on Windows 7, some works on Windows 8, some works on only certain Windows 8 installs(we can't find the pattern), and some fails on Windows 10 even though it worked on Windows 8
Missing the point a bit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
AntiVirus applications are notoriously low level and dependent upon the operating system version they are trying to protect. Conversely, standard Windows applications use only public APIs which are typically backward compatible with new releases of Windows.
As the original poster states... nothing sinister here.
Dear Kaspersky, and other upset antivirus makers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Dear Kaspersky, and other upset antivirus make (Score:3)
Exactly. Antivirus software treads so close to "cure is worse than the disease" territory, and they need to face up to it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Dear Kaspersky, and other upset antivirus maker (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [av-comparatives.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
msav, the worst av ever, even worse than mcaffee?
yeah, i remember. fprot was way better.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Oh cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fixing defects is a bad busines model (Score:1)
When you make your money based on correcting a defect in a product you shouldn't be surprised when the company making the defect gives away a solution. The only real surprise is that it's taken Microsoft so long to acknowledge the malware problem with a product.
It's like the people who built businesses on refilling overpriced ink cartridges for inkjets. Sure they might make some money but it's a flimsy business model. They could be put out of business tomorrow by companies like HP simply dropping the pri
Meanwhile from a customer perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You can pretty consistently get the retail version of Kaspersky for free after rebate [bfads.net] every year. You just have to bide your time and keep an eye out for the deals. A couple years back they had a no-limit rebate thou
Russian Malwares (Score:2)
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.
A week? Really... (Score:1)
He's lying (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Butthurt (Score:1)
Kaspersky has been making a good living off of Windows' security deficiencies for about 15 years. Now that Microsoft has decided to turn its own deficiencies into a revenue stream, Kaspersky is upset. I hate Microsoft, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for Kaspersky's laments about the end of the gravy train. I DO have some sympathy for Windows users who have their chosen programs disabled and who are otherwise abused by Microsoft; then again, if they'd just stop bending over and taking it every time Redmo
find something new (Score:1)
It's DeJavu all over again (Score:1)