> Just Devils advocate, but, But misguided, as usual when someone defends Microsoft. > If MS is really not allowed to protect their kernel, that part of whate

> Just Devils advocate, but, But misguided, as usual when someone defends Microsoft. > If MS is really not allowed to protect their kernel, that part of whatever EU understanding they have should probably be revisited They are allowed to protect “their kernel”. (And / or everything else, which AFAIK is what anti-virus software is supposed to do.) It's just that they're only allowed to do it the same way they allow everyone else to do the same thing. So, being the lazy arseholes they are, they let everyone else into the kernel like they do it, in stead of doing what they should have done: Do it from userspace like anti-virus software used to work, or build a secure API that lets software protect the kernel without being able to take it down / prevent it from booting up — and use that API themselves, in their own separate anti-virus product. Then that product would have been on an even footing in the marketplace with its competitors, which is what the agreement with the EU sought to achieve. But Microsoft cheaped out and took the easier, cheaper — and riskier! — route. This debacle is as much on them as on Crowdstrike.