3 ms·

Marcus Hutchins-Microsoft claim that CrowdStrike was enabled by EU rule is false [video]

36 points by vfclists 2y ago

vfclists 2y ago
Original submission was flagged because the use of the video's original title that was considered flamebait. This post simply uses a more appropriate header based on the actually video content and it has to be viewed to understand this point. Marcus maintains that Microsoft's desire to give itself an advantage and EUs insistence that all other companies should have the same privileges led it to maintain that flaw. Again the video must be watched to understand this.
tapoxi 2y ago
Paul Thurrott, a very long-time Microsoft focused journalist, also called BS on this. Apparently the EU never asked for anything, Microsoft made all of those decisions themselves and the EU basically just acknowledged them.
- intern4tional 2y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20061023112233/http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39163277,00.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20061023112233/http://software.s... "Microsoft made both changes in response to antitrust concerns from the European Commission. Led by Symantec, the world's largest antivirus software maker, security companies had publicly criticised Microsoft over both Vista features and also talked to European competition officials about their gripes." Perhaps reactive, but there were definitely conversations between EU and MS. As someone that watched the video (and directly worked on this stuff during my time at MS), I think Marcus has no idea on how the OS vendors relationships work with governments. He misses the fact that if Windows releases user-level APIs that provide similar functionality, it would break existing functionality and force a migration. For the example he uses patch guard, existing functionality did not break anywhere as significant as say would evicting drivers from the kernel.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > Microsoft made all of those decisions themselves and the EU basically just acknowledged them. That's why they pay 2 Bilion Euros per year as "lobby" money to EU.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
chucke1992 2y ago
[flagged]
- literalAardvark 2y ago
  Watch the video. You're misunderstanding the situation.

36 points by vfclists 2y ago

Original submission was flagged because the use of the video's original title that was considered flamebait. This post simply uses a more appropriate header based on the actually video content and it has to be viewed to understand this point. Marcus maintains that Microsoft's desire to give itself an advantage and EUs insistence that all other companies should have the same privileges led it to maintain that flaw. Again the video must be watched to understand this.

tapoxi 2y ago

Paul Thurrott, a very long-time Microsoft focused journalist, also called BS on this. Apparently the EU never asked for anything, Microsoft made all of those decisions themselves and the EU basically just acknowledged them.

intern4tional 2y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20061023112233/http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39163277,00.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20061023112233/http://software.s... "Microsoft made both changes in response to antitrust concerns from the European Commission. Led by Symantec, the world's largest antivirus software maker, security companies had publicly criticised Microsoft over both Vista features and also talked to European competition officials about their gripes." Perhaps reactive, but there were definitely conversations between EU and MS. As someone that watched the video (and directly worked on this stuff during my time at MS), I think Marcus has no idea on how the OS vendors relationships work with governments. He misses the fact that if Windows releases user-level APIs that provide similar functionality, it would break existing functionality and force a migration. For the example he uses patch guard, existing functionality did not break anywhere as significant as say would evicting drivers from the kernel.
hulitu 2y ago
> Microsoft made all of those decisions themselves and the EU basically just acknowledged them. That's why they pay 2 Bilion Euros per year as "lobby" money to EU.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

chucke1992 2y ago

[flagged]

literalAardvark 2y ago
Watch the video. You're misunderstanding the situation.