Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
Microsoft's dirty strategy on security
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eddie Morra" data-source="post: 778451"><p>I was going to say this just as you posted that, but then I remembered that Microsoft still mess around partnered vendors, so decided not to post it.</p><p></p><p>For example, look at Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI). In my opinion, they intentionally withhold documentation, even from well-known vendors, probably because they feel like keeping it as a weapon for Windows Defender. Due to this, there's lack of information about implementing AMSI from an AV/AM point-of-view, and Microsoft pretty much remain on the throne for AMSI with Windows Defender. And even if you can implement it normally, there's hidden truths when it comes to supporting other script interpreters.</p><p></p><p>Is it really that difficult for Microsoft to share public documentation about how certain script interpreters are very limited when it comes to AMSI support? In my opinion, it's a real troll when you're trying to test if your implementation works or not, unless you've read the Cylance article, the thread I made here awhile ago, or resort to reverse-engineering. They won't even add a few sentences to clear up confusion on that. Talk about being lazy and lousy!</p><p></p><p>Before I had to actually work with features like AMSI, I was under the impression that Microsoft were really focused on helping other third-parties advance and be more compatible with Windows, allowing them to enhance things like script scanning without doing anything undocumented/hacky. Obviously, I have since become aware that I used to be under a terribly wrong impression, in my opinion.</p><p></p><p>Anyway... nothing is going to change for as long as people continue to give Microsoft a dip into their wallets. Until there is a day where Microsoft's income is cut off enough for them to care enough and make a change, things will probably remain as they are.</p><p></p><p>People are constantly talking about how Microsoft are just trying to make Windows more secure... why do they need to focus on things like enterprise security solution/s to do this and go on about it 24/7 like it is something made from the man in the sky himself? In my opinion, they are trying to milk as much money as they possibly can, which makes sense to me because they are a business and making more money will be in their best interest. I think that the real reason they have moved into the security market so much suddenly is not because they truly want more people to be protected by default, and to help companies stay safer, but because they saw the potential it could have for making more money.</p><p></p><p>The extensive marketing is fabulous. Check out this awesome quote about the sandbox-container introduction: '<a href="https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/10/26/windows-defender-antivirus-can-now-run-in-a-sandbox/" target="_blank">Windows Defender Antivirus becomes the first complete antivirus solution to have this capability</a>'.</p><p></p><p>In my opinion, all they need to focus on to make Windows more secure is: patch more vulnerabilities, implement designs for functionality which are more secure than current ones, reduce bloat-ware/features enabled by default which a majority aren't going to need, and work more with third-parties. They have ways for people to submit feedback but if the feedback is ignored most of the time, then there's no point in collecting it at all!</p><p></p><p>I understand I have gone way off-topic, and moving back to the topic, I would say that this is probably a case of a genuine and accidental false positive.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eddie Morra, post: 778451"] I was going to say this just as you posted that, but then I remembered that Microsoft still mess around partnered vendors, so decided not to post it. For example, look at Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI). In my opinion, they intentionally withhold documentation, even from well-known vendors, probably because they feel like keeping it as a weapon for Windows Defender. Due to this, there's lack of information about implementing AMSI from an AV/AM point-of-view, and Microsoft pretty much remain on the throne for AMSI with Windows Defender. And even if you can implement it normally, there's hidden truths when it comes to supporting other script interpreters. Is it really that difficult for Microsoft to share public documentation about how certain script interpreters are very limited when it comes to AMSI support? In my opinion, it's a real troll when you're trying to test if your implementation works or not, unless you've read the Cylance article, the thread I made here awhile ago, or resort to reverse-engineering. They won't even add a few sentences to clear up confusion on that. Talk about being lazy and lousy! Before I had to actually work with features like AMSI, I was under the impression that Microsoft were really focused on helping other third-parties advance and be more compatible with Windows, allowing them to enhance things like script scanning without doing anything undocumented/hacky. Obviously, I have since become aware that I used to be under a terribly wrong impression, in my opinion. Anyway... nothing is going to change for as long as people continue to give Microsoft a dip into their wallets. Until there is a day where Microsoft's income is cut off enough for them to care enough and make a change, things will probably remain as they are. People are constantly talking about how Microsoft are just trying to make Windows more secure... why do they need to focus on things like enterprise security solution/s to do this and go on about it 24/7 like it is something made from the man in the sky himself? In my opinion, they are trying to milk as much money as they possibly can, which makes sense to me because they are a business and making more money will be in their best interest. I think that the real reason they have moved into the security market so much suddenly is not because they truly want more people to be protected by default, and to help companies stay safer, but because they saw the potential it could have for making more money. The extensive marketing is fabulous. Check out this awesome quote about the sandbox-container introduction: '[URL='https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/10/26/windows-defender-antivirus-can-now-run-in-a-sandbox/']Windows Defender Antivirus becomes the first complete antivirus solution to have this capability[/URL]'. In my opinion, all they need to focus on to make Windows more secure is: patch more vulnerabilities, implement designs for functionality which are more secure than current ones, reduce bloat-ware/features enabled by default which a majority aren't going to need, and work more with third-parties. They have ways for people to submit feedback but if the feedback is ignored most of the time, then there's no point in collecting it at all! I understand I have gone way off-topic, and moving back to the topic, I would say that this is probably a case of a genuine and accidental false positive. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
