Antivirus Firms Unite Against Microsoft Push for Windows Defender in Windows 10

[Exterminator]

Kaspersky asked Russia and the European Union to investigate Microsoft’s Windows 10 practices that encourage (and sometimes force) users to replace third-party antivirus with Windows Defender, and now the Russian company receives the support of security firms across the world.

Kaspersky explained in a blog post published last week that many other security companies believe that Microsoft turns to dirty tricks to push users to Windows Defender, but nobody has until now been vocal.

And according to SecurityWeek, some firms have already expressed their support for Kaspersky, including Panda Labs, F-Secure, and Avira. All of them believe that Microsoft needs to play well with third-party security companies, and some admit that Redmond needs to change its antivirus policy in Windows 10.

Luis Corrons, technical director at Panda Labs, explains that several European security companies have the same concerns over Microsoft encouraging users to go for Windows Defender, and explains that Kaspersky will certainly receive the support of others in the fight against the software giant.

F-Secure CTO Mika Stahlberg goes for a more conservative approach, and says that the current practice that Microsoft is using “is not allowing the best protection for the end customer,” while Avira CEO Travis Witteveen thinks “Eugene is right to be upset.”

“We are in active dialogue with Microsoft, as not all changes, as well as upcoming changes, are considered as beneficial for the user. We are glad they are investing effort, but have warned them about abusing their position,” he said.

Microsoft not worried
Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be at all worried, and says that it’s always open to communication with Russian authorities and the company always wants to comply with the local laws. At the same time, the company claims that it’s not aware of an investigation started by the Russian government, explaining that it’ll look into it once it receives an official notification.

The European Commission is yet to confirm an investigation in this case, but judging from the fact that more security companies show their support for Kaspersky’s complaint, a closer look at how Microsoft pushes Windows Defender to Windows 10 users is very likely.

 

[Dirk41]

Again I support MS

 

[Fritz]

I don't. But Eugene's claim is a bit far-fetched if not funny at best.

 

[DardiM]

Thanks for the share

European Union doesn't like such a practice, so I bet there will be some issues for MS
(see the previous problems with default browsers)

 

[askmark]

Again I support MS

Absolutely! I'm fed up with with Microsoft constantly being attacked for producing insecure operating systems but when they do something about it they are criticised for being anti-competitive. Sheesh!

I think it's brilliant that Windows Defender is always there ready to take over when third party AV expires or isn't compatible with an OS update. It provides peace of mind that you are safe in the knowledge you always have at least some protection. That being said, I personally don't use any third party AV software, just WD, Voodooshield and Hitmanpro.Alert.

Instead of whinging these AV companies need to make sure they keep up with Microsoft's OS changes, ensure their products are tested properly and remain compatible. Then they'll have nothing to worry about

 

[Wave]

Instead of whinging these AV companies need to make sure they keep up with Microsoft's OS changes, ensure their products are tested properly and remain compatible. Then they'll have nothing to worry about

The problem is that they know that more and more people are becoming more educated in cyber-security and will learn that they don't actually need their products since Windows Defender is more than plenty in reality as long as you apply good practises. They are jealous that they will lose customers to Windows Defender (lightweight, built-in and free, from the owners of the OS they are using) and of the advantage that Microsoft has over them.

If it wasn't for Microsoft then the chances are that Kaspersky wouldn't even have a business, I doubt they would have started on Linux or Mac OS X as opposed to Microsoft. It was Windows development that got them started and hooked them into the enjoyment of security software development (or software development in general), or even what got them involved in things like reverse engineering/analysis (e.g. the engineers at Kaspersky).

They are wasting time, the clocks ticking.

 

[Dirk41]

Anyway if defender was the only AV on earth , bad hackers and other bad people would focus on bypassing only one AV .


So I support competitiveness too

 

[askmark]

The problem is that they know that more and more people are becoming more educated in cyber-security and will learn that they don't actually need their products since Windows Defender is more than plenty in reality as long as you apply good practises. They are jealous that they will lose customers to Windows Defender (lightweight, built-in and free, from the owners of the OS they are using) and of the advantage that Microsoft has over them.

If it wasn't for Microsoft then the chances are that Kaspersky wouldn't even have a business, I doubt they would have started on Linux or Mac OS X as opposed to Microsoft. It was Windows development that got them started and hooked them into the enjoyment of security software development (or software development in general), or even what got them involved in things like reverse engineering/analysis (e.g. the engineers at Kaspersky).

They are wasting time, the clocks ticking.

All excellent points @Wave as always

 

[Ink]

Security vendors prefer Windows prior to Windows 8? Expired trial Antivirus software. $$$

 

[askmark]

Security vendors prefer Windows prior to Windows 8? Expired trial Antivirus software. $$$

Yeah I'd hate to think how many people have been ripped off by renewing their trial AV at exorbitant pricing, when they could have replaced it with something better and cheaper!

 

[BoraMurdar]

This pursue will never work. I think Microsoft has covered it by it's License Agreement and protected by US law. Anyway, Windows Defender is not an antivirus anymore, it's a part of the operating system. You could install/uninstall it in Windows 7, but although you can disable it in Windows 10, there's no legal way of uninstalling it completely from the system. And it can and will be integrated just more and more into the core.

2 possible outcomes :

• Microsoft will make Windows Defender a paid product (like their Office Suite), which is very unlikely
• Eugene will consider making a free AV that will be accessible globally

 

[Wave]

Eugene will consider making a free AV that will be accessible globally

I can imagine him now smashing up a bunch of things in anger of Microsoft. "No my precious money is being lost with the free Kaspersky products, I should have made 5mil this week, not 4.9!"

 

[BoraMurdar]

I can imagine him now smashing up a bunch of things in anger of Microsoft. "No my precious money is being lost with the free Kaspersky products, I should have made 5mil this week, not 4.9!"

Spoiler

 

[enaph]

What a hypocrisy! Everything was OK when new Windows computers were sold with pre-installed Kaspersky/Norton/McAfee products trial versions but when Microsoft implements a simple AV solution in THEIR system then everyone goes crazy? I don't see the point because Microsoft still allows installs of third party AV/IS so why they are crying?

 

[Wave]

What a hypocrisy! Everything was OK when new Windows computers were sold with pre-installed Kaspersky/Norton/McAfee products trial versions but when Microsoft implements a simple AV solution in THEIR system then everyone goes crazy? I don't see the point because Microsoft still allows installs of third party AV/IS so why they are crying?

Because it will potentially cause them to lose some money and they don't like this, they want Microsoft to push their products instead of their own. (since if a customer installs Windows and likes Windows Defender they may not bother switching to Kaspersky).

I know, it sounds stupid doesn't it? That's because it is.

 

[enaph]

Because it will potentially cause them to lose some money and they don't like this, they want Microsoft to push their products instead of their own. (since if a customer installs Windows and likes Windows Defender they may not bother switching to Kaspersky).

I know, it sounds stupid doesn't it? That's because it is.

I know why - it was just a rethorical question

 

[Wave]

I know why - it was just a rethorical question

Crap, sorry.

 

[juhful]

I think thses types of things are rediculous, MS should be allowed to make their OS in anyway they see fit. If MS can make an OS that doesn't need any third party security software then good for them. Kaspersky, go ahaed amd make your own secure OS if this impeeds your business. I never understood when companies get punished for their success, unless they take too much advantage and price gouge people, and that hasn't happened yet, though many make this claim, there is no real proof that MS has done anything other than delivering a product that the competition couldn't and still can't beat. MS has their issues but let's not punish them for being better than everyone else.

 

[Wave]

MS has their issues but let's not punish them for being better than everyone else.

Well to be fair to other vendors, in terms of product capabilities, products from vendors like Kaspersky, Avast, Emsisoft,... And some others, definitely surpass Windows Defender (e.g. via real virtualisation utilisation, BB/HIPS, larger cloud systems, etc). However, in terms of reality, mixing basic good online practises with Windows Defender is all you really need.

But of course MS has the advantage since they do own the OS, they know what they are doing for sure (assuming the Windows Defender team are also linked with the Windows kernel developers).

 

[askmark]

Spoiler

At least Bill has done something worthwhile with his money and given half of it to charity.