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

[captain_to_fire]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.  

That's why I'm a customer.

 

Back when I was in college, I have a laptop with Windows 7 Home Premium and I used Microsoft Security Essentials and it was terrible. My classmate plugged in a flash drive and it contains a virus that made all of my folders invisible. So I tried Kaspersky back in 2011 and it was able to delete the pesky virus.

Edited June 6, 2017 by hey_yo_

[Doobeedoo]

"anti-competitive"

So on top of that, they want to sue someone who actually gives a reason for their existence in the first place?

[Guest Darth Revan]

I agree and disagree with both Kaspersky and Microsoft. First of all I agree with what Kaspersky said that Microsoft's own av solution is inferior. Which it is. However at the same time I have to say Microsoft enabling their own av after a third party one expires, is actually a good idea. As much as I hate Defended, because it's trash, not just from a protection point of view.

But it's better than nothing. And considering how insecure Windows is, having something that's better than nothing is great.

[flibberdipper]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Windows turns on Windows Defender and notify the user that their anti-virus has experienced, instead of keeping the user vulnerable. Yes you read this correctly:

Yo dawg there's a typo in the start

[GoodBytes]

3 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

Yo dawg there's a typo in the start

It is because I don't have Kaspersky Anti-Virus installed.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

33 minutes ago, JoseGuya said:

Under that logic, MS should be getting lawsuits over Paint because it hurts Adobe,

They could, except Adobe would not want to claim that Paint is a close enough substitute for Photoshop or even in the same category, as Netscape did for IE.

Mind you, this is regardless of whether they will win in each case, and whether they should win according to us. It's just stating that this line of argumentation was supported in court in the past, so the potential for other complaints is there.

33 minutes ago, JoseGuya said:

and the same for windows media player, calculator, or any software they include in the system. 

I had forgotten about it, but @Dan Castellaneta made me remember that it happened to windows media player as well:

31 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

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

 

[pipnina]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

They could, except Adobe would not want to claim that Paint is a close enough substitute for Photoshop or even in the same category, as Netscape did for IE.

Mind you, this is regardless of whether they will win in each case, and whether they should win according to us. It's just stating that this line of argumentation was supported in court in the past, so the potential for other complaints is there.

I had forgotten about it, but @Dan Castellaneta made me remember that it happened to windows media player as well:

 

Didn't windows media player have a large debacle around it as well? Since Microsoft paid the people Apple outsourced Quicktime production to to make a "Quicktime for windows" and then they re-used code. And that's why MS Office is available on Apple computers?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, pipnina said:

Didn't windows media player have a large debacle around it as well? Since Microsoft paid the people Apple outsourced Quicktime production to to make a "Quicktime for windows" and then they re-used code. And that's why MS Office is available on Apple computers?

I don't know that much. I now also have confusing memories about the move to the "modern" media player with its integrated store, and whether they had to ask you about your store of choice (if any) as part as the installation process after an update (the way they have to tell you about other browsers during windows installation). But maybe that is not related to the lawsuit.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Obligatory :

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/

 

If Firfox devs and Google's head of security say that 3rd party AV is their biggest impedement to making a secure browser and that Microsoft's built-in AV is the lesser of all evils, I'll take their words over that of some random "experts" that don't test properly and don't look at how the antivirus programs themselves are an attack vector nowadays.

 

TL:DR : Anyone using a 3rd party antivirus is either uninformed or just plain stupid.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

TL:DR : Anyone using a 3rd party antivirus is either uninformed or just plain stupid.

From a malware browser developers' rant to this blanket conclusion - that escalated quickly...

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

From a malware browser developers' rant to this blanket conclusion - that escalated quickly...

Just using the LMG approach.  Clickbait all the way. 

 

Unfortunately I don't have a thumbnail to suit, otherwise I'd post that instead of the bare link. 

[Guest Darth Revan]

1 hour ago, Captain Chaos said:

Obligatory :

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/

 

If Firfox devs and Google's head of security say that 3rd party AV is their biggest impedement to making a secure browser and that Microsoft's built-in AV is the lesser of all evils, I'll take their words over that of some random "experts" that don't test properly and don't look at how the antivirus programs themselves are an attack vector nowadays.

 

TL:DR : Anyone using a 3rd party antivirus is either uninformed or just plain stupid.

I wonder how much money did this former firefox developer, got from Microsoft for saying such bullshit.

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

I wonder how much money did this former firefox developer, got from Microsoft for saying such bullshit.

And Google which hates Microsoft. Read the article, it makes more sense. It isn't really about not having an A/V. But rather that A/V needs to be updated.

 

[Misanthrope]

Quote

for keeping users safe with Windows Defender

Geesh, you're now poisoning the well right from the title. In any case it's really not following the guidelines of the Tech news section to insert opinions into thread titles.

[GoodBytes]

11 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Geesh, you're now poisoning the well right from the title. In any case it's really not following the guidelines of the Tech news section to insert opinions into thread titles.

Yea yea, everything I say is poison.

Windows Defender is more secure than nothing. FINAL!

[Mira Yurizaki]

This is the way I see it (from: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/?comments=1&post=32715909)

Quote

Yup, just use defender. It's free, works well enough, is kept updated by windows itself, and there's incentive by the vendor (microsoft) to actually clean up malware vs half-ass it and charge for updates

Not to mention the amount of crap AVs may do in order to scope for malware that make your system less secure.

 

And what does Kaspersky want Microsoft do? Release Windows without Defender? Would that really be a good idea? Maybe we can tell Microsoft to disable the firewall so ZoneAlarm can rise up again or something.

 

On the flipside, maybe this is an underlying issue with the proprietary software model. Microsoft has an edge because they know the ins and outs of their system, so they can poke at things without impacting performance too much or resorting to questionable things. On another, maybe these AV companies are riding on the coattails of old techniques that attackers rarely use anymore.

[2FA]

Come on @GoodBytes, make the title less subjective. It's hypocritical to tell people to change titles for the same exact thing and then do it yourself. Otherwise it's a decent post.

[GoodBytes]

14 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Come on @GoodBytes, make the title less subjective. It's hypocritical to tell people to change titles for the same exact thing and then do it yourself. Otherwise it's a decent post.

There is nothing being subjective about from what I can see. I know my English isn't great, but Kaspesly asks to not have Windows Defender or have WIndows Defender always disabled when an anti-virus is installed even if it is disabled due to subscription or trial expiry.

 

We agree, that the role of Windows Defender is provide security to the user It keep users safe. Now, does it the best job in the world? no. But it still keep user safe compared to nothing. Right?

 

So, what you suggest my title be?

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Fetzie said:

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

Read the article, they're not complaining about that at all.

 

They're complaining because MS is doing the same shit its being doing with everything since Windows 10 launched. You don't have control over your own PC anymore, Microsoft is basically mandating what apps you use to open certain (more frequently used) file types and are using updates as an excuse to purge any software they don't want on your PC.

 

Up until creators update my Windows 10 install kept resetting my app defaults for no reason, once a week it would pop up and say "they're was an error and your app defaults have been reset" and all the frequently used file types (pictures, movies, audio files, internet files, PDF files etc) would all reset to their Microsoft defaults applications meaning I'd have to open all my none MS apps and set them back. I made a topic about it here and it was Goodbytes who told me it was a known bug and would be fixed in the creators update. Did it stop? Did it fuck, all Microsoft have done is stopped notifying me when they reset, they still reset very regularly.

 

There's been multiple cases of users having apps uninstalled by Updates with zero warning.

 

@GoodBytes I'm sorry but I agree with the Russians, MS won't let them notify users when subscriptions expire and instead just disable the AV and re-enable SE without even giving the user a choice in the matter, that's both anti competitive and anti consumer. Your argument would make sense if MS weren't blocking their ability to provide notifications but they are and then MS go and use a notification that 3rd parties can't use to inform the user SE has been enabled. Its bullshit of the Nth degree.

 

I've dropped 10 almost entirely now, I still have to use it for games but I spend the majority of my time in MacOS Sierra these days. I can do 95% of everything I need and I'm actually in control of my own PC.

[Bleedingyamato]

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

ESET > Kaspersky

Except for having a few minor issues with its anti-ransomware module (which currently I have disabled) I like Bitdefender.  

 

Though to each their own of course.  ? 

 

3 hours 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

A drunk pony on the Internet.  ?  This I'd be curious to see.  ?

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.  

One being that users should have total control over when/if to install updates like they used to.

 

If they release an update that is buggy and people are forced to install it they could be stuck with unusable computers until MS is able to release a fix.  

 

 

A good related example within the last 6 months I think it was there was an Nvidia graphics driver that was causing problems which made not installing it a good idea.

 

If the driver update had been forced upon users then the situation could've been much more widespread.  

 

 

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

@GoodBytes I'm sorry but I agree with the Russians, MS won't let them notify users when subscriptions expire and instead just disable the AV and re-enable SE without even giving the user a choice in the matter, that's both anti competitive and anti consumer. Your argument would make sense if MS weren't blocking their ability to provide notifications but they are and then MS go and use a notification that 3rd parties can't use to inform the user SE has been enabled. Its bullshit of the Nth degree.

When your subscription expires, the A/V is disabled, It refuses to remove any viruses, until you pay. That is how they work (the paying ones, I mean). The A/V SENDS a call to the OS a call saying that the subscription is over and the A/V is disabled. So instead of doing nothing, Windows turns on Windows Defender in the mean time. Once the user renew the subscription, the A/V says that it is enabled again to Windows, and Windows Defender is disabled again.

 

What Kaspersky wants is that the user has 0 protection what's so ever, forcing them to renew quickly, and not have time to shop around if they are not happy with the solution but decided to keep it because they paid a full year service.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

When your subscription expires, the A/V is disabled, It refuses to remove any viruses, until you pay. That is how they work (the paying ones, I mean). The A/V SENDS a call to the OS a call saying that the subscription is over and the A/V is disabled. So instead of doing nothing, Windows turns on Windows Defender in the mean time. Once the user renew the subscription, the A/V says that it is enabled again to Windows, and Windows Defender is disabled again.

Yes but the AV is unable to send an actual notification to the user about the pending expiration, instead they're forced to use to action centre, something which most people don't know about and those that do don't care about. These are the very same notifications that MS DO use to tell users SE has been re-enabled.

 

They're basically doing everything they can to prevent the user from seeing the expiration notification just so they can force enable SE. No one is ever given a choice about it.

 

I challenge you to explain why 3rd parties must use the action centre to notify about pending expiration while MS use a full blown toast notification to tell users about SE being "enabled to protect them".

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea yea, everything I say is poison.

Windows Defender is more secure than nothing. FINAL!

It has nothing to do with it's efficiency: If you undercut competitors by offering a competing product bundled on the OS level it doesn't matter how good or "better than nothing" the product is.

 

You don't think so, but it is extremely relevant seeing how Microsoft was sued and lost on similar grounds by the EU.

[Misanthrope]

39 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

When your subscription expires, the A/V is disabled, It refuses to remove any viruses, until you pay. That is how they work (the paying ones, I mean). The A/V SENDS a call to the OS a call saying that the subscription is over and the A/V is disabled. So instead of doing nothing, Windows turns on Windows Defender in the mean time. Once the user renew the subscription, the A/V says that it is enabled again to Windows, and Windows Defender is disabled again.

 

What Kaspersky wants is that the user has 0 protection what's so ever, forcing them to renew quickly, and not have time to shop around if they are not happy with the solution but decided to keep it because they paid a full year service.

That's up to the user to discuss with kapersky not for Windows to meddle with. Again this is just ridiculous your misrepresentations should not be in the title of the thread you're abusing your power as a mod to get away with your Pro-Microsoft smearing.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours 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

That 5 GB limit of mine is a good incentive to not torrent pirate's booty.