Microsoft Reacts To Kaspersky's Antitrust Complaints
Kaspersky’s Complaints
Kaspersky’s main argument against Microsoft is that the company is using Windows to promote its own operating system over other antivirus solutions, often with "underhanded tactics."
Before Windows 8, Microsoft used to develop the Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) antivirus, which was a third-party program, just like any other antivirus solution. However, starting with Windows 8, Microsoft integrated its own antivirus into the operating system by upgrading its older “Windows Defender” anti-spyware solution with MSE's antivirus capabilities.
As the MSE seemed good enough to stop the majority of viruses, while silently doing its work behind the scenes, many people seemed content with it and stopped using other antivirus software. This scenario was unfavorable to Kaspersky and other antivirus companies. However, third-party antivirus companies could still claim a significantly higher rate of catching viruses in the wild.
According to Kaspersky, the real problems began when Microsoft started using questionable tactics such as:
- Uninstalling existing antivirus programs when there was a new Windows update
- Reducing the time it took to allow the developers to make their antiviruses compatible with the latest update
- Changing notifications in a way that hurt third-party antivirus’ companies subscription numbers
- Not allowing users to permanently deactivate Windows Defender anymore, thus potentially creating conflicts with other antivirus software
In a previous post, Kaspersky also mentioned that Microsoft was using questionable user interface tactics to make it look as if your PC was not secure just because Windows Defender wasn’t enabled, even if some other security solution was. However, Kaspersky said that Microsoft fixed this after it issued a complaint with the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Services.
Microsoft’s Reaction
Microsoft didn’t directly call out Kaspersky in its recent blog post, but the article seems to have been targeting Kaspersky’s complaints. Microsoft started by reminding us about the WannaCry ransomware attack and others like it that put all Windows PCs at risk. As such, the company said that it’s focusing on securing Windows from top-to-bottom on its own, while also allowing third-party security solution providers to further enhance that protection.
Microsoft added that its goal with Windows Defender has been to ensure that all Windows customers have antivirus protection at all times, whether they’ve purchased or downloaded another security solution or not.
In its recent blog post, the company stated the following:
Microsoft supports a rich ecosystem of security partners, each attacking malware and ransomware with diverse perspectives, and continues to work with security partners to support that. As the security landscape, PC industry, and customer needs continue to evolve, Microsoft will continue to work with security partners to ensure that the broad security industry does everything possible to keep customers safe.
Microsoft also said that it’s been working closely with third-party software providers to ensure that their programs are compatible with the latest Windows updates months ahead of time. This statement seems to directly contradict Kaspersky’s claim that sometimes they are given early access to the new updates only two weeks before the Windows update is released.
Perhaps the issue here is that they’re talking about different types of updates. Microsoft may be talking about major upgrades, such as the recent Creator’s Update, whereas Kaspersky may be talking about monthly patch bundles. Security patches can also cause other software, including antivirus programs, to stop working properly due to changes in how certain code behaves.
Microsoft also mentioned that its antivirus security is disabled when a third-party antivirus is running. However, Windows Defender will be re-enabled when the subscription for the third-party solution expires, to continue to protect users.
Avoiding Antitrust Investigations
As long as Microsoft doesn’t use underhanded tactics to eliminate the antivirus competition faster than it would have otherwise by simply continuing to make Windows more secure through various solutions, it should be able to stay clear from new antitrust investigations.
Microsoft got in trouble before for the Internet Explorer integration, and the European Union's solution was to force it to show users other browser options upon Windows installation. If Microsoft doesn’t stray too far away from a similar solution for the antivirus software, then it may not get in trouble again over antitrust issues. However, if some of Kaspersky’s accusations end up being true, then the European Commission could still open a new antitrust investigation against Microsoft.
You'd Also Like
"Changing notifications in a way that hurt third-party antivirus’ companies subscription numbers"
I'm thinking popup windows saying "You have _____ days left to renew your subscription!"
Indeed. They're going after Google right now for $1B. Personally, if I were running Google I'd tell the EU to suck it. I double dog dare you to block me in Europe.
this might be true for AV software but i think the big implication is more on third party software in general. if MS get a free pass with this issue then what other initiatives will they do in the future in regards to third party software? imagine suddenly MS remove your Steam client (or any third party Game client like EA Origin and such) for whatever reason and all games must be played through MS own client or more extreme will only install game purchased using MS store?
Now look who's talking: they forgot to mention how deep you have to go into the system to completely deactivate their own solution too when one debugs software and wants to rule out the anti virus/firewall. The IE antitrust issue mentioned here I'd say it's a weak excuse to racket Microsoft because it doesn't make efforts to fight ignorance: the lack of advertising for IE competition didn't prevent me of using Opera since 2000/2001... I bet no one is attacking the grocery on his door step for lacking to inform the customers : 'you know, 100 meters farther there is another grocery potentially selling cheaper and better quality products'...
PS FU MS, I hope you lose bad.
Sophos, BitDefender, Panda, Avira, Avast/AVG....all have free versions for consumers.
Might be more in line with how they attempt to nag you about NOT using their so-called "new" browser: Edge.
I've not used the first three, and someone earlier in the thread claimed BitDefeneder was ad-free, but those last three all nag you to upgrade and use scare tactics to get you to buy their mostly useless fancy editions. I get that they are for-profit companies, but that's the problem. Microsoft is offering a free solution built into their OS, while these other companies are offering you a limited free version and then endlessly nagging you to buy something. To me, that's much different than Internet Explorer competing with the equally free Netscape. Maybe BitDefender would be a viable option to offer if it really is free, but not Avast.
This is 100% true I see it almost everyday when working on clients systems. If their subscription is expired Defender takes over until the anti virus is renewed. What Kaspersky failed to mention was that when anti virus expires it stops protecting you it pretty much totally stops working. So it is no wonder Defender has to turn itself on. It does so because your anti virus just left you out to hang until you pay. They never used to do this in the past as you would still get protection just no def updates. Some protection is better than none.
These Anti virus companies did it to them selves by putting greed before their customers safety but now they complain about Microsoft stepping to try to fix things. MS may do some questionable things but this time around they are not at fault. Anti virus companies complain about lower subscriptions well maybe if your software didn't act like dead turds once expired MS wouldn't be forced to step in.
Sophos does not offer a paid consumer version. They offer a free consumer antivirus and a free consumer firewall appliance (requires a PC setup as a dedicated hardware firewall). Their consumer antivirus uses components from their corporate offering. It does lack configuration settings though.
BitDefender does nag a little, but if memory serves, the nags only appear when you look at the incredibly simple UI.
Panda offers a free antivirus and does have a few nags, but they're only visible from the UI itself.
Nearly every company that offers a "free" consumer variant has nags of some sort. They only offer a "free" version as a marketing tool to lure people into buying the "premium" variant. Sophos is the only company I know of that doesn't do this, as they have no paid software for the consumer market at all.
Avira, in my experience, has been absolutely horrible with nag screens in the past. I refuse to use them now due to their previous behavior.
Avast/AVG (they're the same company now) has had a history of irritating nag screens but Avast has historically kept them limited to the UI for the most part.
If you want an absolutely free antivirus that isn't connected to Microsoft and doesn't display any sort of nag screen, Sophos is the only option.
There are also, supposedly, free versions from Adaware and ZoneAlarm....as well as Comodo, if you don't mind an AV that regularly fails when tested by independent labs.
As a bonus you also get Glasswire Firewall for free just for using 360 Total Security (optional install).
Emphasis added where I think you missed what cfenton was saying.
There is a reason why on the PC that I had Avira free AV on, only the update module/executable has internet access right.
ZoneAlarm I believe was ad-ware, or maybe it was their free firewall that was adware.
1TB in three hours with windows defender? Im sorry but something else is going on with your system that you really need to be checking it out... Whether is faulty monitoring software (for how much data is written), you have an infected system, or something is corrupted on the system... defender alone is not the problem.
Either that.... Your willing to tell me that if defender is left alone on your system, in just a 3 to 4 days, Defender would have written more data to your SSD than my oldest SSD (Samsung 830) that has had only about 27TB written too over it's 5 year life time. Which that SSD has had different OS's installed on it over that time and those have had Defender or it's older form, Security Essentials depending on the OS....
So either you got more (and possibly bigger) problems that you haven't realized yet or your greatly exaggerated what defender is doing on your system.
(I've heard about defender having excessive writes but the largest amount i've ever heard is about 50ish GB's of data over 6 hour window.... Magnitudes smaller than a 1TB in 3 hours...)
That is not even possible. It would mean that Defender was writing with more than 94MB/s the whole 3 hours. Biggest lie I ever heard.
I didn't miss that at all. The "nag" from BitDefender used to be at the bottom of the UI where the average user would never see it. The "nag" from Panda is in a box that only appears on the UI, if certain modules are enabled on the UI. Sophos has zero "nag" what so ever because they don't offer a paid consumer antivirus. Their completely free consumer antivirus is fully funded by the sale of their commercial products. Sophos is literally the only antivirus company that makes no attempt to sell a product to users of their (completely free) consumer antivirus product. In fact, the only consumer oriented product that Sophos sells is HitmanPro....lol
ZoneAlarm used to be strictly a "firewall" company. I don't recall their products every being adware, though they were never the best security products on the market.
Security software shouldn't create security holes in other applications, yet that seems to be standard practice for most security suites. Even Google's own security researches have stated that Windows Defender is the only "security application" that doesn't create more security holes.
MS developed the Operating System. MS has an obligation to ensure a reasonable level of security. To state that MS, while attempting to secure their own software, is in violation of anti-trust laws is ridiculous. Windows Defender is not the only "security application" that has access to provide notifications. McAfee does it without issue. Avast does it without issue. BitDefender does it without issue. AVG does it without issue. Sophos does it without issue. Malwarebyte's does it without issue. HitMan Pro does it without issue. Norton does it without issue. Panda does it without issue. Why is it that Kaspersky is the only vendor having an issue with this? Even anti-malware vendors aren't having issues. Even Emsisoft Anti-Malware has no issue. This issue appears to be limited to Kaspersky. I have personally tested the aforementioned security applications and Kaspersky is the ONLY vendor I've found to have issues with anything, including basic functionality.
Yes, there are files that only Windows Defender has access to. There is no reason for any other "security application" to have access to those files. No security vendor has a legal right to access those files as they belong to Microsoft. There is no "anti-trust" issue involved at all. MS holds exclusive rights to those files.
Yikes I'm sorry but advertising this very un-trusted Chinese spying av is not good man look up the history of this company look at the ratings and the protection. Seriously they are no good you dig on your machine and try to remove or replace it you will find the spying and the extra bs i swear they hack your stuff. Made this mistake myself about 2 years ago totally screwed up my computer. it's either bitdefender free which is one of the best right next to kaspersky for detection and protection. or windows defender and ad and script blockers in a good updated browser with malwarebytes free as a backup scanner. and use a reg cleaner monitor startup programs and monitor services.