3 ms·

It also doesn't have: TLS MITM, adware, a bundled rebranded version of chromium with the same-origin policy turned off, privdog, a bundled password manager that

It also doesn't have: TLS MITM, adware, a bundled rebranded version of chromium with the same-origin policy turned off, privdog, a bundled password manager that has a bug allowing remote code execution through <img> tags and all the other things that came with many AV products over the past years. I'm not completely devoid of sympathy for Microsoft here.

bo1024 10y ago
That's irrelevant to the main point, though: that Microsoft isn't giving users a fair choice between its product and the others. Instead it's causing users to switch to its own product in a misleading and anti-competitive way (is the point of the article).
- languagewars 10y ago
  Not exactly, we have all been dumping on Microsoft for having terrible security and they have what essentially boils down to a public health problem for their entire ecosystem. Then, no one knows what they are adding as AV, much like injecting unreviewed vaccines. They are making decisions to scan anyway and enable their solutions whenever they can because I won't stop and ask users which crapware they installed to supposedly scan their system before telling them to give up on windows. I find it very funny that Kaspersky claims Microsoft was a security leader when they were in a total downward spiral but is unhappy now that I have to think twice about whether my recommendation to switch to Linux is out of date advice. I don't have a good solution for maintaining an add-on AV market and actual security.. But pushing them to just do the bundleware and not be the AV is a pretty good solution for Microsoft and their users that financially Microsoft pays for instead of profiting from. Still, it might be too late for them to retain a position on consumer devices of any sort.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Microsoft absolutely IS facilitating a fair choice, what they're doing is making it so that consumers are left "in a lurch" where they have to re-up their licenses or end up with a totally unprotected computer. Please read on, I will explain. My experience just last month: you cannot run 2 anti-virus systems at once, they all aggressively lock out their competitors. McAfee causes Kaspersky to crash, and in the opposite case a lot of scary looking warnings go up. Imagine if insurance was done this way, or home security, or even physical security. Most fields of personal security allow for overlapping coverage. Anti-virus products explicitly try and avoid this and then use that to their advantage to force you to re-up, paying for coverage. Defender is the default option that steps in so that consumers CAN take the time to make a rational and educated choice. Because most consumers with anti-virus software didn't choose it! Anti-virus vendors compete much more at the level of securing hardware vendor contracts (or eking out an existence in counterpoint to them). This is REALLY important and is a case where Microsoft is actually being very progressive and pro-consumer. Anti-virus software, of pivotal importance for windows users, is now on even footing with games and word processors. They must compete for consumer attention and affection and demonstrate value and cultivate consumer loyalty. Even if Kaspersky is one of the better actors in this space, it's a space fundamentally toxic to consumers.

bo1024 10y ago

That's irrelevant to the main point, though: that Microsoft isn't giving users a fair choice between its product and the others. Instead it's causing users to switch to its own product in a misleading and anti-competitive way (is the point of the article).

languagewars 10y ago
Not exactly, we have all been dumping on Microsoft for having terrible security and they have what essentially boils down to a public health problem for their entire ecosystem. Then, no one knows what they are adding as AV, much like injecting unreviewed vaccines. They are making decisions to scan anyway and enable their solutions whenever they can because I won't stop and ask users which crapware they installed to supposedly scan their system before telling them to give up on windows. I find it very funny that Kaspersky claims Microsoft was a security leader when they were in a total downward spiral but is unhappy now that I have to think twice about whether my recommendation to switch to Linux is out of date advice. I don't have a good solution for maintaining an add-on AV market and actual security.. But pushing them to just do the bundleware and not be the AV is a pretty good solution for Microsoft and their users that financially Microsoft pays for instead of profiting from. Still, it might be too late for them to retain a position on consumer devices of any sort.
KirinDave 10y ago
Microsoft absolutely IS facilitating a fair choice, what they're doing is making it so that consumers are left "in a lurch" where they have to re-up their licenses or end up with a totally unprotected computer. Please read on, I will explain. My experience just last month: you cannot run 2 anti-virus systems at once, they all aggressively lock out their competitors. McAfee causes Kaspersky to crash, and in the opposite case a lot of scary looking warnings go up. Imagine if insurance was done this way, or home security, or even physical security. Most fields of personal security allow for overlapping coverage. Anti-virus products explicitly try and avoid this and then use that to their advantage to force you to re-up, paying for coverage. Defender is the default option that steps in so that consumers CAN take the time to make a rational and educated choice. Because most consumers with anti-virus software didn't choose it! Anti-virus vendors compete much more at the level of securing hardware vendor contracts (or eking out an existence in counterpoint to them). This is REALLY important and is a case where Microsoft is actually being very progressive and pro-consumer. Anti-virus software, of pivotal importance for windows users, is now on even footing with games and word processors. They must compete for consumer attention and affection and demonstrate value and cultivate consumer loyalty. Even if Kaspersky is one of the better actors in this space, it's a space fundamentally toxic to consumers.