MS Adds Security Suite To Update Service, Antivirus Rival Objects 324
CWmike writes "Microsoft has started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by US Windows users when they fire up the operating system's update service, and antivirus rivals are crying foul. 'Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition,' Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro, said on Thursday. 'Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned,' she added. 'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update. Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering the software via Windows Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player. But most users won't understand the distinction."
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Trend Micro's beef with the issue is not that Microsoft has the security suite, but that it's including it in Windows Update. Given a choice between just "updating" your machine to install the security suite and forcing people to go search for other options, people are going to go with the update. Further, by putting it in with the updates it gives people the sense that they need it as part of a fully patched system, when it's not necessary and there are competing products that may be better.
i actually like this (Score:5, Informative)
forefront and MSE are actually pretty good (MSE being built from forefront).
Their foot print on a system is quite reasonable (unlike many av suites) they do a good job of doing what they should do and staying out of the way. We all pay the price of way to many totally unsecured systems connected to the internet. FTFA the update only appears when no security software is detected on the system, So this will be being offered to users that would otherwise have no av protection at all.
I can see where MSE being offered free (and now offered via windows updates) would make other av vendors unhappy ..but f*ck them far to many of the consumer orientated av offering are just terrible bloated piles of junk.
GOOD! (Score:4, Informative)
In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there.
Plus it's FREE. FREE!
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Informative)
I'm assuming that soon enough we'll be seeing in WSUS, which, when combined with the GPO software installation facilities in AD, will replicate the high-end corporate AV.
No you wont, the product you are talking about is named forefront and it is not free it cost about 2000$ per server and 15$ per client
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Except its listed in the Optional section, which is completely ignored if you just keep clicking next on Windows Update like 99% of people, and it only shows up there at all if you don't have any other AV installed. Seems fairly reasonable to me (and I truly fucking hate Microsoft and everything they do).
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forget the past... (Score:2, Informative)
Please Read the Summary...
If Windows update detects you have no Anti Virus package installed, it adds the Microsoft Security Essentials as an OPTIONAL download that you can CHOOSE to have.
Just like the Browser Election ballot Europeans got (Which listed many alternatives to Internet Explorer) it's the user's Choice to install the software or to acquire Anti Virus software on your own.
Re:Waaambulance. (Score:4, Informative)
I have tried many other products. On the consumer level, there is really no significant benefit the other guys have over MSE that makes it worth the cost per year. The only product I'd probably recommend would be Sunbelt Software's offerings because their products are good at delousing a machine when it can't be taken apart and fixed by someone with a clue. Suites [1] are a different story, but antivirus products alone, there isn't much anyone else has that MSE doesn't on the consumer level.
Enterprise-wide, different story. Products like Forefront or Symantec Endpoint Protection provides far more than just a "virus condom". As an IT guy, I can have it to stop "hacking tools" such as most serial number grabbing utilities, have it lock out USB flash drives, give me comprehensive reports from the Windows side of the house, hook with NAC to ensure that if a Windows box doesn't have AV, it doesn't get connected (for CYA reasons rather than technical), and loads of other stuff that matters in business.
So, on a personal level, I would just be content with MSE. If an acquaintance called up saying, "OMG, my computer is infected", I'd tell them to download Sunbelt Software's offering and let it attempt to clean the machine. If I were running a business, I'd spring for SEP or Forefront because of the enterprise level features.
[1]: Antivirus + firewall "suites" are pointless in any Windows version post 2000. Want a firewall? Get a hardware router, so blackhats don't have a small window of attack when a machine starts up or shuts down, and the software "firewall" isn't loaded and hooked into the IP stack.
Re:They all need to shut up (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Informative)
This is only being suggested to people with no anti-virus solution on Windows. Those people likely don't know what they're doing.
And actually, I'd recommend Microsoft Security Essentials over Symantec, McAffee, etc.
Re:"Raises" questions ? (Score:3, Informative)
it IS unfair competition itself. it was what was done with ie against netscape, and media player against others.
Not quite. Media player and IE come pre-installed on your machine but this is explicitly labeled an optional download. Being part of the "optional updates" means it will be presented to users as an option. They will not be in any way forced to download it and in fact will have to go out of their way to deliberately check the box to get it, something most people (i.e. my mom) probably won't do assuming they even realize the option exists.
Actually major media player updates (e.g. version 11 if you have version 10) are listed as optional as well if I recall correctly.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Most of Microsoft's anti-trust trouble, at least in the US, had nothing to do with bundling the browser anyway. It gave them more trouble in Europe, but here the problem was MS was threatening PC retailers who wanted to bundle other browsers (namely Netscape) with their systems.
That's anti-competitive behavior, and we have laws against it. Europe reacted more harshly and forced MS to not ship Windows with a default browser. It ships with IE, but you have to set it as your browser of choice first.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Informative)
... any good Linux administrator has handled customer boxes that have been thoroughly rooted, tossing your argument out the nearest window.
Is that really true though?
There is the argument that Microsoft is a larger target due to their market share and this is why there exists more 0-day exploits against their platform. To be more fair, Adobe shares a pretty large portion of that responsibility too.
However, all things being equal, I think Linux does have a greater level of security out of the box than any Microsoft product. I am not going to present a reality distortion field, like there is often around Apple, and say that there exists no 0-day exploits against Linux as a platform, but to say Linux and Microsoft are equal in this regard is just not true.
Most of the Linux boxes that I have seen that are rooted are due to poor management (open SSH with very weak passwords, failing to review logs, etc.), and not actual exploits. Once again, I am not saying that they don't exist, but there are fewer of them.
It's popular to bash Microsoft, and the poster you replied too was rather flippant, but all things considered I think it is a fair statement to say that Microsoft has been lackadaisical in their approach to security and Linux is inherently more secure.
In my mind, this makes rooted Linux boxes an oddity and a statement against the Linux sysadmin. Lazy sysadmins can setup a Linux box to be rooted in no time at all. MS syadmins on the other hand, have a harder job to perform and even a great sysadmin can find themselves facing a nasty 0-day exploit against their systems regardless of well they update and maintain their systems.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:3, Informative)
Symantec have two levels of offerings.
Their enterprise AV (Symantec branded) is outstanding.
Their soho AV (Norton branded) on the other hand is a salty bag of balls.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Informative)
From the article, it says that it won't pop up unless you either have no AV product, or the AV product is expired. And even then, you have to manually browse windows update to see optional updates.
It's not like you're going to turn on your PC, and all of a sudden it's on there out of the blue.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)