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."
This Space For Rent (Score:3, Interesting)
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
Or is that how Security Essentials got there and the people "crying foul" are just sore that they'll have to pay, too?
Had to happen.. (Score:1, Interesting)
I am of two minds about this. In the past, many things we consider to be "core" OS services were once separate. For example, a TCP stack was once an add-on product that was purchased separately. Same for the internet browser, calculator, notepad, and even the GUI. Many companies have either been consumed or gone out of business as their products were rolled into the OS.
On the other hand, having a single vendor -- especially an OS vendor with Microsoft's history -- manage all security is an invitation to disaster. At least with competing products there's a chance that an exploit will be caught by some of the products.
I think it's a good thing, though. My Dell laptops come with that hideous McAfee A/V that prompts me every time I restart my PC and nags me about upgrading.
Re:GOOD! (Score:1, Interesting)
I've tried lots of antivirus software and in terms of user-friendlyness and low resource consumption, MSE has been nothing be spectacular. Having said that though, in the last few months I have been infected with viruses that were able to successfully knock MSE's real-time scanner offline and deregister it's driver-level bindings. What is really needed is an IDS (intrusion detection system) to go alongside MSE to keep MSE safe. However, the fact that MSE can't safeguard itself from these kind's of things is telling of it's ability to keep your system safe in general.
Worth noting, a second laptop I own running Antivir instead of MSE survived the attack unscathed.
I still use MSE on the first laptop, along with Comodo Firewall now. However, I personally trust Antivir more now that I have experienced this firsthand. I guess it was only a matter of time, and popularity, before it started being targeted.
Words of wisdom... A rolling stone gathers no moss.
Re:Good for Microsoft! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're presumably referring to PatchGuard, the protection Microsoft implemented on the x64 version of the Vista kernel (about 4 years ago, actually). Symantec and McAfee threw hissy-fits over the inclusion of anti-rootkit protection that also happened to block their rootkit-like method of hooking into the kernel. After much whining and threatening of lawsuits, MS relaxed the protections such that the kernel could still be modified, provided the modifying code had a trusted digital signature. This is a lot weaker, but it did appease the giants of the AV world.
Interestingly, Trend Micro just went and implemented their next antivirus release to use the new kernel API that Microsoft had released specifically to allow AV to work despite Patchguard. Trend Micro's PC-Cillin was working on Vista x64 long before MS weakened PatchGuard, back when the Symantec and McAfee were running crying to their lawyers. For a couple years, I recommended PC-Cillin on the simple basis of Trend Micro apparently being able to find its ass without the use of both hands and a guiderail.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
How, exactly, would that work? In Win7 and Win2008r2 MS has basically caught the competition in terms of security. There isn't a lot of stuf running by defaut (especially in the server OS), there aren't many ports open, you need to elevate to admin rights to do most dangerous things.
There's simply no way for a consumer or "power user" OS to prevent the user from being tricked into installing malware. If you allow the user to install software at all, social engineering does the rest. Also, no one (besides SE Linux) has a good way to stop Adobe's monthly horrible security flaw from mattering, yet. An OS-provided AppArmor-style approach seems promising, but is some ways from being model that gets built into a consumer OS. Sure, MS could be working harder to make a consumer OS more secure than any before, and should be, but that's hardly what I'd describe as "fixing problems".
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
introduced a product of their own
They don't charge for it. There is no market in which SE plays because it's free.
Besides, you're..."innovating" (making up) new law here and you're full of shit as usual. They are "legally obligated" to do exactly two things: Jack and Shit.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
They can't. The problems that need an AV to solve are in the user, not the software.