Kaspersky sues Microsoft over claims Windows 10 is 'incompatible' with third-party AV

[AtlBo]

I would like to ask "what is the world of single vendor security protection like?" Maybe someone can explain to me how in the biggest picture computing is better off if MS becomes this. Honestly, no way they'll be able to achieve this, anyway. There will still be need for custom security setups for networks and other custom security software. Should we wait for MS to do this correctly too while we all die from non-productivity?

Also, why is it wrong for a company to look after its bottom line? So you want Microsoft to have the money instead of a security vendor. Why? And MS is the company that blatantly states for everyone to read that what is on your computer belongs to them and that they can use it any way they care to use such. Security? Does that make anyone feel secure? I really feel jealousy and greed in the statements of those who make such comments against security providers who have bent to every change and supplied free option after free option, even when MS had nothing for security in their products. And when you get rid of them who will take your side against the beast you are trying to create?

It seems some of you want everything to be free, but that will never be reality. Free is good, but the best will almost always have a cost and most times a high cost. Something to keep in mind I feel...

 

[Arequire]

Guys guys....How about AV's file a anti-trust warrent and restraining order on these NSA/CIA for keeping exploits secret and not letting MS know about these critical holes instead of fighting with MS.

Antitrust law is designed to regulate the behaviour of corporations and advocate fair competition. I know you probably meant something else but I felt the need to point that out.

As for AV companies going after intelligence agencies, it'd be a pointless endeavour. Agencies would argue the hoarded exploits are used against those who wish to do harm to the citizens of their respective countries and are vital for national security. The physical lives of the populous are deemed more important than the damage said exploits can cause.

 

[jamescv7]

Here's the point, the parties should conduct proper discussion from the requirements to avoid some issues on the products.

It can be fix in a diplomatic way.

1) Microsoft should release some important source code in order to analyze by a third party company on how it will prevent incompatibility issues.

2) The AV companies should cooperate by submitting the necessary requirements in order to analyze by Microsoft.

3) Kaspersky and others must have a proper mindset that Windows Defender is no way became a top 1 since the protection capabilities are basic and it holds the control on competition.

 

[Entreri]

Windows Defender is trash. If I can uninstall I would, disabling it is insufficient.

 

[enaph]

Also, why is it wrong for a company to look after its bottom line?

It is not wrong, but they need to be honest and say it out loud instead of telling everyone that it's all about the user's security.
They cannot expect that Microsoft will weaken Windows internal mechanisms just because some other company cannot make their product fully compatible with the system. This is the best scenario we can imagine - Windows with very strong built in security.

Windows Defender is trash. If I can uninstall I would, disabling it is insufficient.

LOL! Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Deleted member 178]

Windows Defender is trash. If I can uninstall I would, disabling it is insufficient.

LOL! Can you elaborate on this?

ummmmm....lab test believer?

 

[cruelsister]

I really hope that intrinsic improvements to Windows will be made, but we will have to wait and see. Currently, although Windows 10 (with native AMSI) and WD are really good with scriptors, the base protection is still lacking; and as Umbra intimates it really does not matter what Lab tests say. Even my cat Ophelia (although a Kind and Gentle soul) can breach WD with UAC at max in a heartbeat.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Even my cat Ophelia (although a Kind and Gentle soul) can breach WD with UAC at max in a heartbeat.

mwahahahahahaha i have the proof now:

- CS = security witch
- hercat = her familiar

 

[Entreri]

It is not wrong, but they need to be honest and say it out loud instead of telling everyone that it's all about the user's security.
They cannot expect that Microsoft will weaken Windows internal mechanisms just because some other company cannot make their product fully compatible with the system. This is the best scenario we can imagine - Windows with very strong built in security.

LOL! Can you elaborate on this?

Independent labs and user testing (protection, detection). If M$ puts enough resources into this, one year it may be top tier, however they are competing against billion dollar security companies whose sole income generation is security. M$ is too busy creating new ways to spy on users.

It's possible they may become top tier. IE was trash, Edge is decent, although Chrome dominates.

 

[Visa]

Independent labs and user testing (protection, detection). If M$ puts enough resources into this, one year it may be top tier, however they are competing against billion dollar security companies whose sole income generation is security. M$ is too busy creating new ways to spy on users.

It's possible they may become top tier. IE was trash, Edge is decent, although Chrome dominates.

Obviously if someone is intentionally downloading and running samples then the product is going to miss some, same for all vendors. That isn't the point of a security solution; the point is to be backup after you are careful yourself...

Independent labs and user-testing is beneficial to an extent although generally speaking they are both useless because more often than not the products are all treated like they are the same when in actual fact each product reacts differently to threats and each vendor have their own intelligence (usually).

The only reason Kaspersky has come forward with law suits is because they feel threatened that more and more people are not bothering with paid security solutions like they used to.

 

[212eta]

As the Window OS becomes more & more Secure,
the AV-vendors become more & more threatened.

 

[AtlBo]

It is not wrong, but they need to be honest and say it out loud instead of telling everyone that it's all about the user's security.

So Kaspersky's bottom line is not both the security of their clients and the profitability of their product line? How are they not the same thing? I don't understand this kind of "reasoning". Kaspersky is saying both in my opinion. A PC security company is only as good as the quality of the security their programming delivers, and the financial bottom line of the company does and should reflect the same.

 

[Orion]

Here's the point, the parties should conduct proper discussion from the requirements to avoid some issues on the products.

It can be fix in a diplomatic way.

1) Microsoft should release some important source code in order to analyze by a third party company on how it will prevent incompatibility issues.

2) The AV companies should cooperate by submitting the necessary requirements in order to analyze by Microsoft.

3) Kaspersky and others must have a proper mindset that Windows Defender is no way became a top 1 since the protection capabilities are basic and it holds the control on competition.

My point is we should join hands and fight against the bad guys not among our ownselves.Kaspersky is loosing their sight.

 

[S3cur1ty 3nthu5145t]

While I'm not using any of the Big Dog security suites, I have seen evidence of what they have spoken in recent changes to MS windows 10. Norton also has been suffering from these small issues, several machines I have seen in the last couple weeks after the Creators update, just having Norton installed for the first time on a clean machine, are having issues being recognized by the new Windows Defender Security Center, not all machines are reacting the same though, some after the first Data Base Update and Patch of Norton, will after a few minutes recognize Norton and your good, others after ever reboot, have trouble still until the machine is fully loaded, up to this point, both Nortons Firewall and Windows Firewall and Nortons Av and Windows Defender will be running at the same time. Norton also claims this issue is from recent changes to Windows 10. Some users claimed that they thought it was because Windows 10 Creators update re-enables Fast start up if you have it disabled before the update and this was the issue, testing has told me otherwise.

Do not get me wrong though, I fully understand the business of 3rd party security, and the loss of revenue they could stand to lose as Windows becomes more independent, a look at Norton shows you a Fortune 500 company worth some cash. I also understand MS has it share of bugs as well as those companies.

I had mentioned seeing this with Norton, after testing Eset in the VM last night and visiting their support page, I have found they have the same exact issues Norton was facing. Windows Defender causes freezing issues after installation/update of ESET security products

 

[Tony Cole]

I don't think Kaspersky will win. Microsoft is an American company, Kaspersky is Russian. The two nations are not the best of friends, so how can they make Microsoft pay.

 

[ravi prakash saini]

Microsoft should not develop security software but kaspersky is busy developing ,or have developed i am not sure,OS. I am a big fan of kaspersky but not going to support irrational behavior

 

[S3cur1ty 3nthu5145t]

Instead of just assumption, try placing the latest version of Windows 10, in a VM, download and test a few suites.

I have run into issues with both Norton and Eset, and seen it first hand by my testing it, not just reading. The changes made to Defender are certainly causing issues for both those companies.

All these companies have to do is record a desktop session of the installation of their product being hampered during install by these changes, and they most definitely would have a leg to stand on in court.

 

[Visa]

Instead of just assumption, try placing the latest version of Windows 10, in a VM, download and test a few suites.

I have run into issues with both Norton and Eset, and seen it first hand by my testing it, not just reading. The changes made to Defender are certainly causing issues for both those companies.

All these companies have to do is record a desktop session of the installation of their product being hampered during install by these changes, and they most definitely would have a leg to stand on in court.

Microsoft own Windows and therefore deserve to have all rights in terms of security development for their own OS. If vendors like Kaspersky have a problem with the changes that Microsoft make then they should go and release their own public OS (for a matter of fact they are indeed working on an OS although I do not know about the details).

As for performance issues with other security software, that is their fault. They get to test their products before releasing them and if they cannot work with development for Windows without complaining and filing law suits then maybe they shouldn't be releasing software for the OS; they could always go and get a job at their local fish and chip shop instead of going on tantrums like toddlers with their lawyers in court.

Eugene Kaspersky needs to be reminded that without Microsoft he would be absolutely nothing; he wouldn't have been as rich as he is now and may potentially be working for someone as opposed to have people working for him.

Tldr; Bill Gates has a huge part in the success of Eugene and he needs to grow a pair instead of making drastic decisions out of jealousy.

 

[S3cur1ty 3nthu5145t]

Eugene Kaspersky needs to be reminded that without Microsoft he would be absolutely nothing; he wouldn't have been as rich as he is now and may potentially be working for someone as opposed to have people working for him.

Maybe Microsoft needs to be reminded that over the years, especially from XP on that their system was riddled with security holes and without 3rd party applications to fill those gaps, they may have very well lost a good portion of their market to Apple or Linux.

Tldr; Bill Gates has a huge part in the success of Eugene and he needs to grow a pair instead of making drastic decisions out of jealousy.

Bill Gates could be reminded as well, that without Steve Jobs, MS would not be what it is today.


Now that we are done playing "Flip the Coin" on perspective, look again at what I posted and you commented on. Neither Product I listed was Kaspersky nor about Eugene. Both products I listed are having issues with the latest changes to Windows Defender. This is not just about Kaspersky, it is about the right to run on your system what you wish to run. You are the owner of your computer.

 

[AtlBo]

Don't know much about this issue, but I feel it's about customizability. MS tends to box in users and confine them to certain options.

Maybe it's worth remembering that MS could have lawsuit fears, in spite of what the EULA says that MS shoulders no blame for any software they write. I mean, if enough people had a security issue, there could be a suit where even the validity of the EULA could be challenged. I feel confident it will be some day anyway, although I don't have any idea what it might be over. At any rate, fears over a lawsuit could affect the choices they make at MS while attempting to replace the 2nd party security vendors. This is part of why I believe in the current system and why I feel MS would put their best money into making Windows "secureable" rather than secure.

Seems like a pendulum to me. I suspect the pendulum will swing back in favor of the security vendors at some point.