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."
No need to fuss (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't this both optional and free?
I don't see the problem at all. It's not like IE, which was free and mandatory (it's still free and bundled).
Re:No need to fuss (Score:2, Insightful)
And Any good Linux administrator knows that you can rely on a Microsoft Product alone to acquire virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I can't stand a lot of what Microsoft does, Security Essentials is not a bad program all in all. It's certainly more lightweight that than travesty from Norton and more reliable than the other "free" or "semi-free" AV programs. I still prefer F-Prot because it's the king of small footprint AV, but I have no problem with Security Essentials, and if it's part of Windows Update, 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.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the outrage! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No need to fuss (Score:1, Insightful)
... any good Linux administrator has handled customer boxes that have been thoroughly rooted, tossing your argument out the nearest window.
Good for Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm no MS fan, this is a good thing. Note: they only add MSE if no other virus checker is present. MSE actually does a pretty decent job, and it is a lot less intrusive than version McAfee, Norton, etc. available to private users.
Microsoft has a vested interest in improving the security of Windows without disturbing the rest of the user experience. Their motivation for MSE is roughly the same as the users'.
It has always bothered me that the interests of Norton, McAfee and the rest are not aligned with the user. You want a clean, fast machine. They want to sell you AV subscriptions. Which means they want to convince you how necessary those are. False alarms are fine, as are in-the-face dialogs and interruptions to remind you what a wonderful piece of crapware you have on your machine.
Re:This Space For Rent (Score:4, Insightful)
Because anti-virus companies make software so bad, even Microsoft doesn't want the association.
I think SE got there because MS learned something from the Browser anti-competitive issues.
Or better yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
How about an App Store?
/cue delusional whining about App Stores being the start of a slippery slope to concentration camps and lockdown.
Windows update is a choice (Score:1, Insightful)
'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' --Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro
Windows Update is a choice sweetie, although a lot of Windows users seem to choose not use it, or any ant-virus software for that matter.
Bloatware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
i guess i have no sympathy for them. and as much as i normally don't like MS i guess i am on MS's side for once.
Re:Or better yet (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the one in Windows 8?
From what I've read, Microsoft is planning to have a Marketplace for installing applications in the next version of Windows. This will be nice because I can either tell people to only install software from there and nowhere else. In businesses, group policies can be set to enforce this. Result: One major vector for infection gets sealed.
I'm all for application markets, provided it isn't locked down to a single vendor. The OSS market has used repositories for decades, and this has been an excellent way to ensure software downloaded is clean.
Re:When Apple will be forced to "unbundle" (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate Microsoft, but this is a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No need to fuss (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually. Compared to many other solutions, the Microsoft Security Essentials does the job. I used it to clean a friends computer of Malware that kept downloading other malware that a commercial copy of AVG couldn't find. It detected that iexplore.exe had been changed and was able to clean the computer completely. I'm not insinuating that AVG is worse that Microsoft's software, I'm just sayin' that in my experience, even Microsoft software can do the job that some other software can't. It goes the other way as well.
When I have to clean computers, Microsoft Security Essentials is one of the first that I install. And, it's usually the one that I leave running when I finish with the computer.
I used to be a fan of Norton, until I got infected with something that Norton couldn't detect.
Never really had much experience with McAfee.
I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really understand why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to include their own security software. Microsoft should purposely leave end users high and dry when it comes to something as important as computer security (something that the OS should take care of) for the sole reason that they don't have even the slightest edge against the competing security software makers?
This reminds me of a year or so ago when there was opposition from security software groups against Microsoft because they closed up access to a few things that those groups used for their antivirus software. Something that no one really should have had access to in the first place. You can't cry that Microsoft software isn't secure and then cry foul when Microsoft actually works to improve security.
Which part of "optional" is objectionable? (Score:2, Insightful)
From TFA: Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update
Items in the optional section aren't automatically downloaded or installed, nor does a user even see them unless he/she clicks on a separate button to view the optional updates. MS is offering an optional & free program to protect users from Malware, and a user has to go out of his/her way to see and select that program before it'll be installed, and it's only offered to users who don't already have another AV program installed.
This is almost a "hidden option". I've got concerns about numerous M$ business practices, but I can't object to this one.
BTW - I haven't seen Adobe complaining that M$ offers Silverlight in the Optional section of M$ Update, even though M$ has clearly made some statement against Flash.
Re:Oh, the outrage! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news Trumpet Software is suing Microsoft for including a TCP/IP stack in Windows.
Re:This Space For Rent (Score:3, Insightful)
Security Essentials is free.
It's also better than Trend Micro's AV, so you can see why Trend Micro is angry.
Instead of improving their product to compete, they whine, even though Microsoft has done absolutely nothing wrong here (and frankly, a lot of good if it gets people who don't have AV to install something).
MSSE is certainly no the best AV out there, so there is plenty of room for competition.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
Correct, but Microsoft waited until a market had built up around the insecurity of Windows before they introduced a product of their own. Since they did not proactively address security, they are legally obligated to compete in the market they created on a level playing field with other companies already in that market. That means if they use Windows or products bundled with Windows to provide an advantage for their security suite, they are legally obligated to provide the same to competitors. Where do the other AV vendors sign up to be included in Windows update?
Re:No need to fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
For the Friends and Family crowd, I now always uninstall what they have and replace it with MSE. Not only is it free, but it's been rated as the best and the updates happen automatically. It's so much lighter weight than Symantec and Norton that people tell me it's like a brand new computer.
I have not had a single callback about any problems.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:4, Insightful)
Same here. It's better, faster, and less ad free than AVG, Avast, etc.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that MSE is better than nothing (and possibly better than competing anti-virus software), I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place. It's like having a screen door for a submarine, then offering optional window panes.
Well part of the problem is users are stupid enough to download crap that has trojans in it. No amount of OS hardening can prevent a user from deliberately installing malware.
Re:No need to fuss (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which part of "optional" is objectionable? (Score:3, Insightful)
And MSE is only given as an option to people who don't have AV yet.
What's the friggin problem? Trend Micro is angry that MSE is giving AV to people who haven't bought their shitty AV product yet?
Give me a break.
I suppose we should ban all free AV software too right? I mean, for heaven's sake, all you have to do is go to their website and download it! People won't know that they need to spend $50 a year on AV software! Also, it's a known fact that the more an AV slows your machine, the better it is protecting you against viruses. There should be a law against all of these lean and efficient AV's that don't slow your machine down, and therefore obviously don't provide adequate protection. They're obviously bribing people to get those better AV ratings, too!
Seriously, Trend Micro can stick it in their ear. Build a better product or die. I don't care. Quit trying to take away my options.
Re:Sounds like a move in the right direction (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know much about WIndows, I've heard it has improved since Windows 3.1 and that's about it. I am used to GNU/Linux distributions giving me all the latest software when I apt-get update or emerge sync;emerge -uv world or yum update or whatever. I never go to some website to get or update some piece of software, the OS has some feature which lets me do that. If Windows Update would be able to do something like that then it sounds to me as if it's a very good thing. Perhaps not so good as long as it only lets you grab Microsoft software, and it would likely be hard for them to add too much other software being that Windows typically means non-free software, but still.. this sounds to me like a step in the right direction. But as said, I don't really know that much about the Windows world.
So you haven't a clue about recent Windows or how windows update works, but you opted to chime in anyway? Go crawl back under your Linux rock. Redhat 6 sucked, so it must still suck....
Re:No need to fuss (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's definitely better than AVG, especially the older (7,8&9) versions.
You are mistaken (Score:3, Insightful)
Since MS, has never offered such a product before, I can't see how *anyone* would "know that you can't rely on a Microsoft product alone to solve your virus/trojan/keylogger/spyware/whatever problems".
Considering I've run for well over a decade without ANY such product -- and doing so solved my 'problems' (non-existent) just fine, then how can adding such a product not create benefit (providing one doesn't mind the inevitable hit in performance for real-time/on-access scanning malware scanning.
It's networked, and name me one software vendor who has their software running on more computers than MS. MS collects malware reports from a large number of those running MS-software, since being able to detect 'malware' problems is a high priority issue if they want to verify the integrity of their licensing mechanisms. MS has a high interest in keeping their systems clean and has are in a better position to collect and act on information about malware infestations than any other vendor.
It's always been my opinion that the need for 3rd party apps to deal with malware is due to a flaw in the OS and that the OS is in the best position to deal with such problems. A well designed OS would have malware protection built-in. And sure, MS could screw it up -- but they do have a financial incentive to get it right -- so much so, that they *GIVE* it away for free. I'd call that a rather high motivation.
Conversely, if they charged to protect their systems from things that are essentially bugs in their system -- that would be something akin to blackmail or 'protection money'... But then that's how I see much of the for-pay malware industry -- "pay us, or your system's toast"...
Third party anti-malware companies have formed their entire existence on *flaws* in MS products.
MS providing free malware protection for their own product is ethically, the right thing to do. It's hard to argue that MS shouldn't be doing this or that it shouldn't be included as part of the OS.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
i can see a few specialty add on products, but you still expect your house/car to have basic locks.
This is what MS has been missing the whole time, they are just now adding the deadbolts. previously the door just hung open and you relied on a separate security guard to keep people out, that security guard doesn't have a right to complain that you are now building houses more secure with deadbolts. but that also doesn't necessarily mean you can't still hire that security guard for added security.