3 ms·
> Third party AV companies rely on continuing threats to stay in business. i'm pretty neutral on this topic, but doesn't this point by extension mean they hav
by cat199 7y ago
> Third party AV companies rely on continuing threats to stay in business.
i'm pretty neutral on this topic, but
doesn't this point by extension mean they have a more direct interest in discovering security flaws and publishing them rather than burying them under the rug if they haven't been seen in the wild?
- ziddoap 7y agoI think they share the same incentives in the sense that discovering, patching and reporting flaws is the mission statement. Where they differ, I think, is the end goal. Non-MS AV need an ecosystem where there is still active threats to make revenue. MS actively doesn't want any threats, because they would realize more profits through their OS being marketable as virus-free. I'm not saying Non-MS AV is out there introducing threats. But, they are incentivized to play whack-a-mole with bandaid fixes (keeping the ecosystem in check but alive) whereas MS is incentivized to go after root problems (kill the virus ecosystem, profit from OS).