Kaspersky files an antitrust lawsuit to EU and Russia against Microsoft for keeping users safe with Windows Defender

[GoodBytes]

The free antivirus from Microsoft introduced as Microsoft Security Essential for Windows XP, Vista and 7 introduced in Windows 7 days, and later renamed as Windows Defender and included in Windows 8 and 10 is causing issues with Kaspersky the Russian anti-virus and security software maker.

 

The CEO of Kaspersky, Eugene Kaspersky, says that Microsoft of “fiercely” promoting Windows Defender using its “dominant position” in the PC market.

He says:

Quote

We see clearly – and are ready to prove – that Microsoft uses its dominant position in the computer operating system (OS) market to fiercely promote its own – inferior – security software (Windows Defender) at the expense of users’ previously self-chosen security solution. Such promotion is conducted using questionable methods, and we want to bring these methods to the attention of the anti-competition authorities.

More specifically, he complains that when Kaspersky trial or subscription ends, Windows turns on Windows Defender and notify the user that their anti-virus has expired, instead of keeping the user vulnerable. Yes you read this correctly:

 

 

More exactly, under Windows 10, when the anti-virus expires, they need to use a call in the Action Center to show the above pop-up, instead of being able to show its own pop-up.

Quote

for three days after the expiry of a license for our security solution and the turning off of protection, we are forbidden – through our own notification system – from informing the user that it might be a good idea to extend the license so that protection could get back up and running. Instead of that, we’re obliged to use Microsoft’s own notification system – now called ‘Action Center’ – to which many users pay little attention.

 

In addition, they accuse Microsoft of having its OS update system when a user upgrade from an old version of Windows to a new one, or a new large update of Windows 10 that if teh anti-virus has compatibility problem with the update, their anti-virus gets removed instead of failing or notifying the user.

Quote

What’s even more… interesting, is how after the independent protection is deleted, it stays in the list of installed programs! So, if users miss the fleeting ‘notification’ about Microsoft’s protection being turned on, and/or didn’t have time to work out that this means their existing self-chosen security solution has been deleted, they might not understand straight away what’s actually happened. That is, users think their chosen security solution is working (why wouldn’t they? It’s there in the list of installed programs; even the icon on the desktop’s still there) when in fact it’s been deleted.

 

Kaspersky says that they have these compatibility problems as they don't have RTM versions like previous version of Windows, and wants them. They complained about this in the past. They want RTM build of Windows 2 month in advance. (I guess no one told them about the Insider program).

Quote

Ideally, independent developers need two months after receiving the RTM to carry out all their fine-tuning before the release of the Windows update to the public. Earlier, Microsoft would give us the RTM version in good time, but of late this has been reduced to a couple of weeks before releasing to the public.

 

In Kaspersky own blog post, they include Microsoft response to their complaint about the lack of RTM, although this is not a direct quote from Microsoft, but rather the company paraphrasing Microsoft response with their own understanding:

Quote

Microsoft defends these new, shortened testing periods for independent developers by stating something like: ‘these aren’t the days of Windows XP, 7, 9… releases any more. No one has RTM versions these days; Apple hasn’t – either for macOS or iOS; and Google hasn’t for Android. We’ve simply got to keep up with the competition’. However, that’s not true: we still get finalized versions of operating systems that are ready for corresponding program development from both Apple and Google with plenty of time for adjustments. Moreover, their OSs aren’t as complex or multi-component as Windows.

 

Once again, other anti-virus and security software maker has 0 problem, and have adapted to the changes.

 

Source 1: https://mspoweruser.com/kaspersky-makes-good-microsoft-threat-antitrust-complaint-eu/

Source 2: https://blog.kaspersky.com/microsoft-european-trial/16976/

 

So, it looks like Kaspersky doesn't like that its users are able to keep their system fully updated and secured. And doesn't like the fact that they when they anti-virus expires that the user has some level of protection over nothing. Kaspersky forgot that if user bought Kaspersky A/V or security software it is because they want something superior over what is included in Windows. If it the user subscription expires, they'll renew if they are still interested.

 

What do you think? Do you think Kaspersky is right? Is this Windows 10 behavior unfair to the consumer?

 

To me, I think it is completely BS. No other anti-virus has any trouble (assuming the user has the latest version and keep things updated). Microsoft gains nothing from having people use Windows Defender over other solution. The A/V is free, they don't make money on it. It keep users secure, and allows Microsoft to push detection to block attacks like the WannaCry ransomware that happen that would have affected users who has expired anti-virus as Defender would remain disabled. If the user is interested in Kaspersky, they bought it in the past, they know that they want this proven superior security this better security software over Windows Defender. So, if it expires, and the user is still interested, they'll get re-subscribe in their own time, while still having some security (maybe they want to wait for the week-end, for example, if it expires during the week). As for the pop-up forced by Windows, well it is clean simple, convey full information. A/V loved th efact top put panicking alerts, and play with the fear of users, not to mention they are usually intrusive. So, I think it is better for Windows image, and user experience.

Am I wrong?

 

 

[Zando_]

Yeah, is there a problem with MS covering you when your antivirus expires? And why is it only Kaspersky* that's complaining? And anyone who know how to install and use an antivirus probably know how to keep it up to date. 

 

 

 

 

*And they're Russian... 

[pipnina]

The way I see it, antitrust can be bad for both consumers and competitors. Microsoft also ended up in an antitrust lawsuit when they released Internet explorer. "WHAT, THEY'RE GIVING AWAY A WEB BROWSER... FOR FREE??.. WITH THEIR SYSTEM??" At a time when free browsers were basically nonexistent, that was a big deal and shoved Netscape under a bus, arguably unfairly.

 

It's a difficult decision, because in cases where antitrust is good for the consumer but utterly destructive to ALL competition simply because one company is 50x larger than the other and can afford to give away things as freebies.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, pipnina said:

The way I see it, antitrust can be bad for both consumers and competitors. Microsoft also ended up in an antitrust lawsuit when they released Internet explorer. "WHAT, THEY'RE GIVING AWAY A WEB BROWSER... FOR FREE??.. WITH THEIR SYSTEM??" At a time when free browsers were basically nonexistent, that was a big deal and shoved Netscape under a bus, arguably unfairly.

Frankly, with the Internet Explorer precedent, it is surprising that they are not getting sued a lot more. And not just Microsoft: in the last 5 years or so the exact same bundling approach that triggered the IE lawsuit has been replicated to death by basically anyone with some sort of control over a platform.

[Princess Luna]

ESET > Kaspersky

[Đỗ Đức Huy]

So an anti virus software making company is bitching about an Operating system making company for making its OS secure? fpppss but then again this is Russia Comrade!

[Zando_]

4 minutes ago, pipnina said:

The way I see it, antitrust can be bad for both consumers and competitors. Microsoft also ended up in an antitrust lawsuit when they released Internet explorer. "WHAT, THEY'RE GIVING AWAY A WEB BROWSER... FOR FREE??.. WITH THEIR SYSTEM??" At a time when free browsers were basically nonexistent, that was a big deal and shoved Netscape under a bus, arguably unfairly.

 

It's a difficult decision, because in cases where antitrust is good for the consumer but utterly destructive to ALL competition simply because one company is 50x larger than the other and can afford to give away things as freebies.

But I don't think IE turned out so well for MS (more like BS in this case), and judging by their pitiful ads (in their own OS) for Edge, basically begging you to use it, it isn't doing much better. 

[Tiwaz]

7 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Yeah, is there a problem with MS covering you when your antivirus expires? And why is it only Kaspersky* that's complaining? And anyone who know how to install and use an antivirus probably know how to keep it up to date. 

 

 

 

 

*And they're Russian... 

we have been running KApsersky on several pcs for several years now and its been working fine. Windows defender is really fucked up. Some months ago it started just randomly using up to 100% cpu power, disabling kaspersky and causing windows to freeze. The only thing that could fix it was a group command via registry i think. Windows defender is just a Microsoft scam tbh

[ivan134]

This really isn't an Onion article?

[pipnina]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Frankly, with the Internet Explorer precedent, it is surprising that they are not getting sued a lot more. And not just Microsoft: in the last 5 years or so the exact same bundling approach that triggered the IE lawsuit has been replicated to death by basically anyone with some sort of control over a platform.

Well, yeah. Google pushes Chrome on Android, even though I think Opera and Firefox (Mozzarella Fire Doggo) have versions for Android, but basically no-one uses them because you have to SEARCH for it, and you can't uninstall Chrome.

 

2 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

But I don't think IE turned out so well for MS (more like BS in this case), and judging by their pitiful ads (in their own OS) for Edge, basically begging you to use it, it isn't doing much better. 

Back when this was a thing, Firefox, Opera, Chrome etc didn't exist. It was basically just Netscape. IE was the most used browser for like 5 years or more AFAIK

[Zando_]

4 minutes ago, pipnina said:

Back when this was a thing, Firefox, Opera, Chrome etc didn't exist. It was basically just Netscape. IE was the most used browser for like 5 years or more AFAIK

Wow. It's amazing humanity survived. But how many lives were lost during this dark time of web browsing? 

[zMeul]

goodbytes shilling again .. who knew

 

MS keeping the users safe you say?

AV-Comparatives: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

AV-Test: https://www.av-test.org/en/compare-manufacturer-results/

 

Quote

Kaspersky says that they have these compatibility problems as they don't have RTM versions like previous version of Windows, and wants them. They complained about this in the past. They want RTM build of Windows 2 month in advance. (I guess no one told them about the Insider program).

except they are right, MS doesn't tell anyone when a particular build is the actual RTM build

[Fetzie]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

goodbytes shilling again .. who knew

 

MS keeping the users safe you say?

AV-Comparatives: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

AV-Test: https://www.av-test.org/en/compare-manufacturer-results/

You're more secure than having no protection at all (which is what Kaspersky is complaining about).

[zMeul]

Just now, Fetzie said:

You're more secure than having no protection at all

sure, whatever you say

Windows Defender is like a perforated condom

[Bouzoo]

23 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

ESET > Kaspersky

ESET > everything

[Fetzie]

Just now, zMeul said:

sure, whatever you say

Windows Defender is like a perforated condom

I don't see how you can say it is better for Defender to remain inactive and there to be zero protection for the computer until you reactivate your AV (which automatically deactivates Defender)

[JoseGuya]

28 minutes ago, pipnina said:

The way I see it, antitrust can be bad for both consumers and competitors. Microsoft also ended up in an antitrust lawsuit when they released Internet explorer. "WHAT, THEY'RE GIVING AWAY A WEB BROWSER... FOR FREE??.. WITH THEIR SYSTEM??" At a time when free browsers were basically nonexistent, that was a big deal and shoved Netscape under a bus, arguably unfairly.

 

It's a difficult decision, because in cases where antitrust is good for the consumer but utterly destructive to ALL competition simply because one company is 50x larger than the other and can afford to give away things as freebies.

Under that logic, MS should be getting lawsuits over Paint because it hurts Adobe, and the same for windows media player, calculator, or any software they include in the system. 

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

ESET > everything

Have been using ESET Nod32 all my life, it has served brilliantly by today, it annoys me people who say common sense is all you need, it is not like we don't have it, we just enjoy having one last line of defense that doesn't suck for those nights we're drunk wasted trying to torrent rather edgy stuff

[zMeul]

Just now, Fetzie said:

I don't see how you can say it is better for Defender to remain inactive and there to be zero protection for the computer until you reactivate your AV (which automatically deactivates Defender)

you are twisting my words

my problem is with goodbytes shilling and saying Windows Defender keeps users safe

whatever Kaspersky says is only PR to advance their suit and market position

[PlayStation 2]

Watch the EU go with it because that's what they did with Windows Media Player, and Internet Explorer IIRC.

[captain_to_fire]

44 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

We see clearly – and are ready to prove – that Microsoft uses its dominant position in the computer operating system (OS) market to fiercely promote its own – inferior – security software (Windows Defender) [emphasis is mine]

Yes it is inferior. 3rd party tests confirm that and a thread I made weeks ago how Windows Defender can be a conduit for malware execution because of its not so good sandbox when scanning a file. 

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/avc_factsheet2017_04.pdf

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/april-2017/

44 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

What do you think? Do you think Kaspersky is right? Is this Windows 10 behavior unfair to the consumer?

I get why Microsoft is doing this because they have the right to cover the people who don't have a third party AV. Back in pre-Windows 8 days, a newly bough PC is often bundled with an anti-virus like Norton or that awful McAfee and they're protected depending how long the trial period lasts. Once trial period is up, people will forget that an AV is expired and it stops working, thus making them vulnerable so during the release of Windows 7, they bundled Windows Defender. 

 

But I think Eugene Kaspersky is doing this because many people think Windows Defender is good enough and they've stopped paying for AVs. But I agree with Kaspersky on this one:

Quote

Besides, we want fair and healthy competition, which has always given excellent results everywhere – no matter in which industry or market. And btw, we invite all our competitors/colleagues to join us: as we’ve already shown, turning to antitrust bodies does bring positive change.

 

And remember: the only folks who gain unequivocally if there is a monopoly in the security products market are cybercriminals. They’d love nothing more than to be able to concentrate on trying to out-smart the single security solution of a monopolist. (emphasis is mine)

 

44 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

they don't make money on it. It keep users secure, and allows Microsoft to push detection to block attacks like the WannaCry ransomware that happen that would have affected users who has expired anti-virus as Defender would remain disabled.

Windows Defender unfortunately is way too basic for both home users and small/medium businesses and it lacks anti-ransomware features paid AVs have that works even with a lot (not all) zero-day malware [Here, Here]. 

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by hey_yo_

[Ezzy-525]

For some reason...as soon as something has "Russian" in it...I'm immediately dissuaded from using it.

 

I'll stick with Windows Defender thank you very much.

 

Better the devil you know and all that.

[LAwLz]

Just so that everyone knows, Kaspersky does raise some valid complaints and the title is really biased and misleading.

I highly recommend reading the full article with an open mind.  

[GoodBytes]

12 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Yes it is inferior. 3rd party tests confirm that and a thread I made weeks ago how Windows Defender can be a conduit for malware execution because of its not so good sandbox when scanning a file. 

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/avc_factsheet2017_04.pdf

https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/april-2017/

I get why Microsoft is doing this because they have the right to cover the people who don't have a third party AV. Back in pre-Windows 8 days, a newly bough PC is often bundled with an anti-virus like Norton or that awful McAfee and they're protected depending how long the trial period lasts. Once trial period is up, people will forget that an AV is expired and it stops working, thus making them vulnerable so during the release of Windows 7, they bundled Windows Defender. 

 

But I think Eugene Kaspersky is doing this because many people think Windows Defender is good enough and they've stopped paying for AVs. But I agree with Kaspersky on this one:

 

Windows Defender unfortunately is way too basic for both home users and small/medium businesses and it lacks anti-ransomware features paid AVs have that works even with a lot (not all) zero-day malware [Here, Here]. 

 

Yup, and no doubt about it. But some protection is always better than none. At least it gives users, as mentioned, time to, when they have free time, to renew their subscription or look for a different solution. In the mean time they are not vulnerable completely, and not hold to a ransomed if they do get a popular virus in the mean time ("Pay for us to remove it" type of thing)

 

[Bouzoo]

18 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Have been using ESET Nod32 all my life, it has served brilliantly by today, it annoys me people who say common sense is all you need, it is not like we don't have it, we just enjoy having one last line of defense that doesn't suck for those nights we're drunk wasted trying to torrent rather edgy stuff

Been using it since No32 ver. 3, never looked back. That + MBAM pretty much counters everything.