9 ms·

No, another incentive to stop using Windows. 3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates, an

No, another incentive to stop using Windows. 3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates, and Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no')

untog 9y ago
It isn't relying on it - MS recommends people use Defender, which works fine. But unfortunately not everyone is doing that.
- mark-r 9y ago
  Ironically Defender was preventing me from receiving Windows updates, so I had to turn it off. I assume that means I'm in a catch-22.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Seems like the EU and/or the FTC would want to talk to microsoft about microsoft requiring microsoft's AV to be installed before microsoft will update the OS.
  - untog 9y ago
    But they don't - third party AV software can update the registry key.
Arnavion 9y ago
>3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates It is because these (misbehaved) 3rd party applications do things that cause the mitigations update to make computers unusable. >and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no' It does not default to "no" since the default is to run MSE / Defender.
- JadeNB 9y ago
  > > and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no' > It does not default to "no" since the default is to run MSE / Defender. I think that it's reasonable to read the grandparent's post as meaning "defaulting to 'no' under certain conditions on the system". It would surprise me if there weren't plenty of users out there who have legacy workflows with antiquated antivirus software still running, either because they set it up and haven't changed it or because their local tech geeks set it up and they don't know how to change it. I know that, as I've tried gradually (and unsuccessfully) to ease back into Windows after a long time away, it's been hard for me to believe in Defender as a full AV solution, and my first instinct was to run old favourites like ClamAV as an extra layer of defence.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
The problem is that anti-virus software is not a normal application, it is a weird, very complex kind of parasite that burrows deep into the operating system. This means Microsoft must be very careful, lest the parasite unintentionally kill the host.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DarronWyke 9y ago
  Symbiont. The word you're looking for is symbiont, not parasite. A symbiont lives in harmony with the host, exchanging something in exchange for the resource it consumes (in this case protection). A parasite just takes, and gives nothing back to the host. (Of course, let's ignore the obvious joke about some AV solutions like Symantec.)
  - cwyers 9y ago
    Given your definitions, I'm pretty sure commercial AV is just parasites.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Yeah, the distinction between a symbiont and a parasite is mostly of degree, not kind, and AV software these days is increasingly being found on the blurry line between the two.
- vidanay 9y ago
  Typically, that would be called "a virus"
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    No. "Symbiote," likely; "parasite," perhaps. "Virus," not at all.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
jpalomaki 9y ago
From the article: "There is a problem where some anti-virus vendors are using techniques to bypass Kernel Patch Protection by injecting a hypervisor which they use to intercept syscalls and make assumptions about memory locations — memory locations which are now changing with the Meltdown fixes." Difficult situation for Microsoft. If you install applications which mess with the operating system in unsupported ways you can't expect your system to function correctly with automatic updates. On the other hand, users are likely not aware of what they have done and bricking millions of computers is also not good. Might for example cause a backslash when people stop updating their systems. This sounds like a quick and dirty fix they put in place while figuring out what to do.
- viraptor 9y ago
  I'm not sure it's that difficult for Microsoft. Unless I misunderstand something, the requirement is on the antivirus systems already registered with Microsoft. They had half a year. MS could force vendors to patch their shit in a few weeks by giving them an ultimatum: in January, either you don't interfere with kernel patching, or we're showing your customers "you antivirus is stopping you from receiving latest security patches, consider finding an alternative vendor". They have reasons for doing it the other way, but I definitely blame them for not standing up to crap AV vendors in this and many other situations.
  - leeter 9y ago
    They could, but this isn't just a technical issue it's also a legal and political issue where several AV vendors are currently suing MS in the EU for alleged anti-trust behavior. So the lawyers compromise everybody's security.
    - epistasis 9y ago
      that seems like a fairly questionable blame-shift for MS. If they don't have the guts to provide even that level of protection, yet more reason to shift away from them except for trivial things like gaming.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I'll never understand why AV is a third party software solution. I don't buy an Audi and then go to some other company and buy ABS and seat belts. This is a MS issue and should be handled in house.
- Arnavion 9y ago
  >I'll never understand why AV is a third party software solution. It has been first-party for many years - MSE was released 2009-09 per Wikipedia.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    Exactly!
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Maybe not a great analogy: ABS components and seat belts are, in all likely hood, manufactured by a third-party who specialises in such.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    But I don't have to go get them installed myself. So it's Audi's problem, not mine.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Right, but MS provides AV or you can install a third party option instead. Just like you can install aftermarket brakes, suspension, ECUs or even seats and seatbelts in your Audi.
      - scholia 9y ago
        PCs often (mostly?) ship with third-party anti-virus software because AV companies pay them to install it.
bitwize 9y ago
Windows isn't going anywhere, if for no other reason than because Microsoft Excel is basically electronic paper to the business world -- and there is simply no adequate substitute for it. (No, neither OpenOffice Calc nor any of the Web-based offerings -- including Microsoft's own -- count.) Coping with Windows is a fact of life. Get used to it.
- viraptor 9y ago
  There's MS Excel (and office) for Mac and Wine supports Office 2013. The situation is getting better every year.
  - petecox 9y ago
    And MS Office for Android.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- arwineap 9y ago
  You've decided to make it part of your life. Plenty of us have gotten rid of that virus years ago; yes even at work.
- serf 9y ago
  >Coping with Windows is a fact of life. Get used to it. echoes from 1998. http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ Your use of the word 'coping' is telling. p.s. I can't remember the last time I touched MS software outside of a VM.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dingo_bat 9y ago
Agreed. MS should cut off shady AV software if they are interfering in the windows update or security of the system. If they don't it tells us they have AV vendors higher on their priority list than end users. And that sucks.
IncRnd 9y ago
> Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no') The default is to use the 1st party product, Windows Defender, which defaults to 'yes'.

untog 9y ago

It isn't relying on it - MS recommends people use Defender, which works fine. But unfortunately not everyone is doing that.

mark-r 9y ago
Ironically Defender was preventing me from receiving Windows updates, so I had to turn it off. I assume that means I'm in a catch-22.
craftyguy 9y ago
Seems like the EU and/or the FTC would want to talk to microsoft about microsoft requiring microsoft's AV to be installed before microsoft will update the OS.
- untog 9y ago
  But they don't - third party AV software can update the registry key.

Arnavion 9y ago

>3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates It is because these (misbehaved) 3rd party applications do things that cause the mitigations update to make computers unusable. >and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no' It does not default to "no" since the default is to run MSE / Defender.

JadeNB 9y ago
> > and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no' > It does not default to "no" since the default is to run MSE / Defender. I think that it's reasonable to read the grandparent's post as meaning "defaulting to 'no' under certain conditions on the system". It would surprise me if there weren't plenty of users out there who have legacy workflows with antiquated antivirus software still running, either because they set it up and haven't changed it or because their local tech geeks set it up and they don't know how to change it. I know that, as I've tried gradually (and unsuccessfully) to ease back into Windows after a long time away, it's been hard for me to believe in Defender as a full AV solution, and my first instinct was to run old favourites like ClamAV as an extra layer of defence.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

The problem is that anti-virus software is not a normal application, it is a weird, very complex kind of parasite that burrows deep into the operating system. This means Microsoft must be very careful, lest the parasite unintentionally kill the host.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DarronWyke 9y ago
Symbiont. The word you're looking for is symbiont, not parasite. A symbiont lives in harmony with the host, exchanging something in exchange for the resource it consumes (in this case protection). A parasite just takes, and gives nothing back to the host. (Of course, let's ignore the obvious joke about some AV solutions like Symantec.)
- cwyers 9y ago
  Given your definitions, I'm pretty sure commercial AV is just parasites.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Yeah, the distinction between a symbiont and a parasite is mostly of degree, not kind, and AV software these days is increasingly being found on the blurry line between the two.
vidanay 9y ago
Typically, that would be called "a virus"
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  No. "Symbiote," likely; "parasite," perhaps. "Virus," not at all.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

jpalomaki 9y ago

From the article: "There is a problem where some anti-virus vendors are using techniques to bypass Kernel Patch Protection by injecting a hypervisor which they use to intercept syscalls and make assumptions about memory locations — memory locations which are now changing with the Meltdown fixes." Difficult situation for Microsoft. If you install applications which mess with the operating system in unsupported ways you can't expect your system to function correctly with automatic updates. On the other hand, users are likely not aware of what they have done and bricking millions of computers is also not good. Might for example cause a backslash when people stop updating their systems. This sounds like a quick and dirty fix they put in place while figuring out what to do.

viraptor 9y ago
I'm not sure it's that difficult for Microsoft. Unless I misunderstand something, the requirement is on the antivirus systems already registered with Microsoft. They had half a year. MS could force vendors to patch their shit in a few weeks by giving them an ultimatum: in January, either you don't interfere with kernel patching, or we're showing your customers "you antivirus is stopping you from receiving latest security patches, consider finding an alternative vendor". They have reasons for doing it the other way, but I definitely blame them for not standing up to crap AV vendors in this and many other situations.
- leeter 9y ago
  They could, but this isn't just a technical issue it's also a legal and political issue where several AV vendors are currently suing MS in the EU for alleged anti-trust behavior. So the lawyers compromise everybody's security.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    that seems like a fairly questionable blame-shift for MS. If they don't have the guts to provide even that level of protection, yet more reason to shift away from them except for trivial things like gaming.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

I'll never understand why AV is a third party software solution. I don't buy an Audi and then go to some other company and buy ABS and seat belts. This is a MS issue and should be handled in house.

Arnavion 9y ago
>I'll never understand why AV is a third party software solution. It has been first-party for many years - MSE was released 2009-09 per Wikipedia.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  Exactly!
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Maybe not a great analogy: ABS components and seat belts are, in all likely hood, manufactured by a third-party who specialises in such.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  But I don't have to go get them installed myself. So it's Audi's problem, not mine.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Right, but MS provides AV or you can install a third party option instead. Just like you can install aftermarket brakes, suspension, ECUs or even seats and seatbelts in your Audi.
    - scholia 9y ago
      PCs often (mostly?) ship with third-party anti-virus software because AV companies pay them to install it.

bitwize 9y ago

Windows isn't going anywhere, if for no other reason than because Microsoft Excel is basically electronic paper to the business world -- and there is simply no adequate substitute for it. (No, neither OpenOffice Calc nor any of the Web-based offerings -- including Microsoft's own -- count.) Coping with Windows is a fact of life. Get used to it.

viraptor 9y ago
There's MS Excel (and office) for Mac and Wine supports Office 2013. The situation is getting better every year.
- petecox 9y ago
  And MS Office for Android.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
arwineap 9y ago
You've decided to make it part of your life. Plenty of us have gotten rid of that virus years ago; yes even at work.
serf 9y ago
>Coping with Windows is a fact of life. Get used to it. echoes from 1998. http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ Your use of the word 'coping' is telling. p.s. I can't remember the last time I touched MS software outside of a VM.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dingo_bat 9y ago

Agreed. MS should cut off shady AV software if they are interfering in the windows update or security of the system. If they don't it tells us they have AV vendors higher on their priority list than end users. And that sucks.

IncRnd 9y ago

> Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no') The default is to use the 1st party product, Windows Defender, which defaults to 'yes'.