back to article Kaspersky files antitrust suit against Microsoft

Kaspersky Lab has filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft over allegations that Redmond is hobbling third-party antivirus software. The complaint was submitted to both the European Commission and German Federal Cartel Office this week following an investigation begun by Russia's Federal Antimonopoly Service in November …

  1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Meh

    News at 11

    Monopolist monopolizes.

    1. Planty Bronze badge
      Devil

      Re: News at 11

      Torn, both companies are scumbags, Microsoft are scumbags deep in their DNA and everything they do and say has an agenda that involves fsking someone over. Kaspersky are scumbags for their constant security scare stories that treats nonsense FUD scare story and real security vulnerabilities with equal importance, anything that means they can sell a product along the way.

      The best I can hope for is an extended court case that's cost them both heavily...

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: News at 11

        I use Kaspersky. Disagree utterly with your opinion of them. Kaspersky consistently scores near the top of AV solutions for malware detection and low false alarms. When I assessed AV solutions a few years ago, it was basically them and Trend Micro jockeying for the top spot. I think F-Secure were also very high, from memory.

        Kaspersky Labs do real and valuable security research - Stuxnet and the Equation Group come to mind. Both of which we learned the details of from Kaspersky. Very good software suite as well, though their "Safe Money" tool can be a bit funky sometimes. No affiliation, but they've worked extremely well for me. And even if you (Planty) don't like Kaspersky, MS's behaviour applies to all Third Party AV providers, not just Kaspersky.

      2. Spotswood

        Re: News at 11

        "The best I can hope for is an extended court case that's cost them both heavily..."

        Yes but then the other scumbags win: The Lawyers..

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Patching

    I guess his next move is to declare that security patching in uncompetitive as is removes the underlying flaws that malware needs, hence diminishes the market for his product.

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Dwarf

    Its the customers choice, not Microsoft's choice.

    +1 on the list of reasons not to use Windows 10.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Its the customers choice, not Microsoft's choice"

      Isn't that why Microsoft added in Windows Defender? Because left up to "customers choice" the majority of customers chose not to install any antivirus/malware software whatsoever.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is deja vu all over again

    Well, that takes me back almost two decades...

    I guess the innovation of bullshit has stopped at last as well..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is deja vu all over again

      Didn't Norton or the like complained when MS included some AV in MS-DOS as well?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This is deja vu all over again

        I rather like the irony in all of this.

        Neither would have a leg to stand on in court if Microsoft simply made their products as safe as they should be for use anywhere near the Internet..

    2. Chika
      Trollface

      Re: This is deja vu all over again

      I guess the innovation of bullshit has stopped at last as well..

      Tower to Porker 1, you are cleared for take off.

  6. GBE

    In other news: the sun and tides continue to rise and fall!

    ... has filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft over allegations that Redmond is hobbling third-party ...

    I am shocked -- shocked, I tell you...

  7. adnim

    "We want Microsoft to stop misleading and misinforming..."

    So they want Microsoft to be honest and truthful.

    I have never known MS to be that, it might be beyond their capability.

    Perhaps Kaspersky think that Unicorns exist and everyone lives inside a huge hug bubble.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "We want Microsoft to stop misleading and misinforming..."

      Probably far more honest and truthful than Apple or Google.

      1. adnim

        @cavehomme2 Re: "We want Microsoft to stop misleading and misinforming..."

        IMHO Nope, they are all equal. Honest and truthful multinational corporations do not exist in the real world. Only in advertising do such entities exist

    2. Chika
      Trollface

      Re: "We want Microsoft to stop misleading and misinforming..."

      Perhaps Kaspersky think that Unicorns exist and everyone lives inside a huge hug bubble.

      But they DOOOOO!!! Isn't that right, Twilight?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is there truly a market in failure?

    I think Kaspersky will lose this one.

    Think about it - it's not a "normal" market to have an OS which is full of bugs and security issues that it subsequently requires a third party app such as Kaspersky to fill the holes!

    It surely has to remain the responsibility of the OS manufacturer, i.e. Microsoft, to get their act together and improve security. The have done this over the past few years pretty well, more work to do, but Windows Defender is a good solution and it's integrated deeply into the OS which makes it very effective - just look at the latest detection rates at AV Comparatives dot org, it's really improved in the past year.

    What Kaspersky can do is have a product more like Malwarebytes, HitmanPro or Zemana. In other words, to have their software as an EXTRA layer of security over WD to stop tricky malware, isolate the browser for banking sessions, encrypt keystrokes, etc, but leave the core detection to WD.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

      Not is MS actively tries to hinder 3rd party AV on 10. Kaspersky never complained before - Windows Defender/Security Essentials were there, but installing a 3rd party AV replaced them and nothing tried to reinstate them.

      If there are pop-ups or some sort of "nag screens", updates replace the user installed AV, etc. etc. that could be anti-competitive behaviour. Kasperky may have some reasons.

      What if an upgrade had wiped Chrome or Firefox in XP? IE too was "deeply integrate into the OS" and MS couldn't remove it...

      Also, for attackers, knowing you have always the same software to bypass, and not n different products from different vendors, it's a huge boon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

        Not convinced a comparison with IE / FF / Chrome is valid, those are specific products over and above an OS. I welcome a wide choice of AV products, but fully understand if MS decide to improve their own OS and make it more secure and include a tool to detect malware that attacks their OS.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

          Playing devil's advocate, I believe there are very good reason to integrate a Javascript and HTML/CSS display engine within the OS itself.

          I never understood why I have to run a "browser" first to use a "web application" - today I'd fully expect the OS treats them as native ones and let me run them directly (albeit sandboxed), without the need of a helper application still mostly designed to browse "hypertext pages". From a security perspective, the OS could be able to sandbox them better than a user space application can do.

          IMHO what is a "critical" OS system and what is not may be often debatable, even if I agree that an OS can put some antimalware features in places a 3rd party product can't easily reach.

          Also, it's quite strange this happened with Windows 10 and all its telemetry features - is MS afraid a security product can go so deep to stop that as well? Or that those remote accesses "to diagnose bugs" allowed by the "privacy" (LOL!) policy could be caught by an AV and the user warned?

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

            Integrating HTML rendering and Javascript into the OS is a natural progression. Some people just don't like Microsoft. MS started down that road ages ago with Active Desktop and pulled back because of criticism. They have done it with Windows Store apps - again to howls of criticism. Yet many of the same critics fell over themselves with joy at ChromeOS and Chromebooks.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

      "Think about it - it's not a "normal" market to have an OS which is full of bugs and security issues that it subsequently requires a third party app such as Kaspersky to fill the holes!"

      I _have_ thought about it. Normal is a perpendicular unit vector and little else. This is the only timeline we will ever get to explore, and there has only ever been one Internet, so there's nothing with which to critically compare it. That thing you suggest isn't normal is exactly what we always had and so becomes the only candidate for some purportedly passable approximation of normal. MS *always* seemed happy to let 3rd parties pick up the mess, so long as those 3rd parties were picking up *their* mess, instead of Steve Jobs's or Gary Kildall's. "Developers, developers, developers, developers, ..." That suited them just fine. Or maybe you meant to say "it's not an ideal market" to which I'd say "damn straight". While getting some piece of their [deleted] together, they can't help but step on toes, because that's a market they created (helped create?) ITFP simply by not doing things that people realized needed to be done. The fact that it took them so long to wander into it, taking a thing seriously at last, just tells me they aren't yet the ones I trust to do it well, even with all their undocumented APIs and the inside track and so on. And if they're stomping on toes deliberately, that's not going to be a huge surprise.

      In an ideal world, that EXTRA layer of security is like the newbie who hits File>Save a few times, just in case the first time it didn't quite stick to the disk.

    3. h4rm0ny

      Re: Is there truly a market in failure?

      The fact that Windows Defender is made by the same company that makes the OS is obviously an asset, but perhaps less than you'd think. Windows Security (well, post-XP) uses specific hooks into the OS that any AV solution can use. Windows Defender isn't actually connecting to the OS in any substantially different way than Kaspersky (or F-Secure, or Avira, or...). You might imagine that it's baked into the OS's libraries in some fundamental way but that's not the design. For good reason, really - modular coding and all that. If Kaspersky think they can use Windows security APIs better than Microsoft's own product, then there's nothing that stops them trying. And actually, their product scores higher then Windows Defender consistently, so they seem to be doing it right.

      Also, when was the last time Microsoft exposed NSA malware in Windows? Third Party is useful. ;)

  9. Splork

    Any company that relies on MS Windows for developing software and finding customers will eventually have their IP and products subsumed by the OS itself. How could any developer trust a company that's been found guilty of abusing their monopoly, not once, but twice? If you're developing 3D mapping, content creation and AR, you're next on the list. You have been warned.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "If you're developing 3D mapping, content creation and AR, you're next on the list"

      Ah, so no different to Google and Apple then?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, progress happens.

      Remember when you had to buy a third party Memory Management utility for Windows (Quarterdeck had an excellent one, iirc)?

      Remember when you had to buy a third party TCP/IP stack for Windows (hmm, was it called 'WinSock'? I can't remember anymore).

      Remember when Windowing was a third party utility (Gem, anyone?)

      Remember when third-party file managers were a thing? (QDOS, Norton, etc.)

      Remember when the OS didn't have a JPEG viewer, or an MP3 player?

      Remember when a web browser wasn't in the box (er, Mosiac?)

      Any OS that didn't do these things 'in the box' now would be doomed. Hell, my phone OS does most of it!

      Are we surprised the what we regard as a "complete" OS *now* includes some security utilities?

      Windows Defender is simply expected now-a-days. And it actually works, which is nice too.

      1. hplasm
        Windows

        Re: Yes, progress happens.

        Remember when Windows wasn't a bloated sack of shite?

        No, me neither.

        1. adnim

          Re: Yes, progress happens.

          "Remember when Windows wasn't a bloated sack of shite?"

          Yes, I think it was called DOS

      2. RealBigAl

        Re: Yes, progress happens.

        To be honest I wasn't sure whither to upvote or downvote your post.

        Thanks (I think) for that trip down memory lane. I remember all of those...

  10. zbmwzm3

    Boo Hoo

    This is BS! All OS systems should have AV out of the box without the need to purchase it separately. Kaspersky is basically arguing that Microsoft shouldn't include AV because then no one finds it worth while to buy theirs..cry me a river.

    1. ITS Retired

      Re: Boo Hoo

      You seem to be assuming the MS is competent in coding. If they can't get their OS secure, how can anyone assume their AV and security software is any better?

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Boo Hoo

        "how can anyone assume their AV and security software is any better?"

        it isn't.

        (from about a month ago)

    2. Mephistro
      Flame

      Re: Boo Hoo

      "Kaspersky is basically arguing that Microsoft shouldn't include AV..."

      No. As per the article, Kaspersky is complaining about MS nagging windows users into removing competing security products, and even actively uninstalling rival AV software through windows updates.

      IMO, it's as illegal as it can be.

    3. adnim

      Re: Boo Hoo

      In an ideal world all OS's should be secure by default without any need for AV. Unfortunately getting code out of the door quickly and selling it or giving it away for free and monetising by stealing data from the user drives the commercial software industry.

      As "IT professionals" we have a choice... We can lock down our systems and our networks. And choose to use alternatives which may or may not require some low level tweaks to work they way we want.

      Feel for the consumer, the victim, the person that thinks clicking on the "Next" button will solve their problems and cause them no grief.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "In and ideal world"

        "In an ideal world all OS's should be secure by default without any need for AV" but since microsoft are allowed to sell bad/insecure code then they will keep doing it. The day that MS are held responsible then they will go out of business as it was not by accident but by design

        "As "IT professionals" ... are free to milk the money cow for so long as you pay MS for certification and repeat their lies.

        "Feel for the consumer" and let them know the facts, putting anything on a computer with MS installed is equivilent to putting your valuables in a paper bag outside your doorstep for a wandering thief to pickup as they pass.

        Kaspersky are also "IT professionals" from above, IMHO when computing became IT, MS were the ones that added the SH prefix. SH just repeat what we say and the money keeps coming in, well until we see your pockets bulging then you are the enemy.

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. pleb

    I started getting these popups 12 months after I bought my laptop, obviously trying to get my credit card details. Their frequency and beligerence kept increasing. It was a tough job to clean my system and get rid of every trace. It turns out the malware was preinstalled at the vendor; it was called "McAfee".

    1. h4rm0ny
  13. Daleos
    Meh

    Usually I'll be flying whatever flag for the guys that MS stomps on but in this case, MS have got a duty to keep their software as safe as possible and if that means them doing their own AV products then so be it.

    1. h4rm0ny

      And MS are welcome to continue to do so. What they should not do is try to unfairly exclude others from also trying to make Windows secure. Windows Defender is decent for the average user. Several Third Party vendors do a better job though. Especially if you need Enterprise solutions.

  14. arctic_haze
    Big Brother

    A Big Brother angle

    I have the feeling it is a KGB v. NSA battle by proxy.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    So...

    1. Anti-virus company produces shonky software that patches the Windows kernel and makes it more insecure.

    2. Mictosoft cuts off this attack vector.

    3. Anti-virus company decides it's cheaper to complain and howl than fix their product.

    For once Microsoft is in the right here.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    pedantry

    ""dominant position in the computer operating system (OS) market to fiercely promote its own – inferior – security software (Windows Defender)" "

    If that is a direct copy from the complaint, there's an interesting angle, in that they have stated Windows Defender is inferior security software. So let's wait for MS legal eagles to try this one: "Inferior security software? Prove it. For all definitions of security software".

    As I said, pedantry; would not be the slightest bit surprised to see it ...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: pedantry

      Since kapersky detects everything that windows defender does as well as stuff it doesn't then I would agree, WD is indeed inferior as a AV product.

      However if MS removed the security holes from windows rather than produce a competing AV product then Kaspersky would not have a leg to stand upon, sadly this did not happen and so MS are at fault.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: pedantry

        >>"However if MS removed the security holes from windows rather than produce a competing AV product then Kaspersky would not have a leg to stand upon, sadly this did not happen and so MS are at fault."

        Sure, but is an invulnerable OS possible? If so, why hasn't any GNU/Linux distro done it, why hasn't Android done it, why hasn't Apple done it? Note that the ones that do it most successfully are also the ones that have a walled-garden. You want MS to remove "security holes" instead of provide AV, but many of those "holes" are legitimate functionality that is necessary. What much malware does is function as any other program but doing something you don't want. Being able to encrypt files is not a security hole that you can close (ransomware) for example. For that, you need something that can detect whether a program instructing the OS to do that is legitimate or not. Which is what AV does for the most part.

  17. Snapper

    Let me get this straight...

    Kaspersky is complaining about the ethics of another company who's reputation has been in the gutter for decades?

    What the fuck did they expect? Free Unicorn shit with each computer!

    I'm glad I deal with Macs and have lived a life almost totally free of this crap. I like to sleep at night not wonder what other 3rd rate bozo's are going to try and do me over. Apple's tried enough times but they just don't have the same bottomless pit of evil to draw on.

    1. Kiwi
      Linux

      Re: Let me get this straight...

      What the fuck did they expect? Free Unicorn shit with each computer!

      Hey! MS is really trying hard at that! Ok, so it's not free, and doesn't come from unicorns, but they are really good at supplying shit with every computer! Stinking bug-infested shit of course, but shit just the same.

      What more do you want? If they provided a decent, somewhat secure OS, we'd have nothing to moan about would we? We'd not have our friends expecting us to drop everything and fix their machines at all hours of the day or night and... FUCK YOU MICROSOFT! How many hours have I wasted?!

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Same scummy Microsoft after all these years... is anyone surprised?

    Good luck taking on Microsoft's enormous lawyer fund war chest, Kaspersky.

    Kaspersky is one of the better anti-virus software companies out there. Would recommend it over bloated Norton/McAfee crap anytime.

    Everyone moaned when IE and Media Player were bundled with Windows back in the day. Now, with the war of 'ecosystems' and politicians and tech lobbyists in cahoots, no one cares about 'bundling' anymore. It's all about 'integration' and 'user experience'. Oh look, Skype and Onedrive are bundled with Windows 10 now. Anyone complaining? There are other VOIP software and cloud storage services out there, you know. Far superior to Microsoft's offerings.

    And surely you wouldn't object to Windows Defender being bundled with Windows. If you disagree, you're on the side of the terrori-- the viruses and malware. See? Microsoft has the moral high ground. Just forget about the botched Windows updates and WannaCry ransomware incident...

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hi

    It looks like you are trying to remove a virus...

    OR

    Похоже, вы пытаетесь удалить вирус ...

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crazy days

    So the Russian hacking complex *demands* that Microsoft makes Windows easier to hack by removing the security.

    If the EU agrees to that, then they're even more crazy than I thought.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Crazy days

      Where does it say Kaspersky are asking for MS to make security even slacker than it already is? nowhere outside of MS press office, you sir are a shill and I claim my £10

      What Kaspersky seem to be asking for is MS to stop bad mouthing and uninstalling their product

  21. Mexflyboy
    Big Brother

    No Kaspersky, spasiba.

    I'd rather trust Microsoft than Kaspersky, as I don't trust Kaspersky due to its possible Russian government/ KGB (FSB) ties.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/us-officials-are-warning-about-a-russian-cybersecurity

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: No Kaspersky, spasiba.

      Well to paraphrase Mady Rice-Davies, "they would say that, wouldn't they?" I mean you're relying on the world's largest propagator of surveillance with a history of false flag operations for your accusation here and no evidence provided. Even if AV providers were in-bed with their governments you logically have far less to fear about Russian authorities knowing you've broken British or US laws or leaked information than your own government knowing. If I expose someone connected to the government doing a dodgy arms deal (say Amber Rudd's husband to pick a non-random example) who do you think I'm more worried about figuring out that the anonymous source was me? It's not like I'm going to find Russian police on my doorstep.

      And actually, there's never been evidence of collusion with Kaspersky that I'm aware of whereas we have some to suggest it with Microsoft and Trend Micro. So I'm calling your post as unsubstantiated accusation.

  22. Bibbit

    I am confused but sure it is all badness

    As a cheapskate I use Avast! (ugh why the exclamation mark) which has stopped a couple of web nasties. But then you get people saying that AV software actually highlights/aides vulnerabilities which almost sounds like an ant-vacc campaign. I will probably stick with the free stuff for now and just be careful in general. As for Microsoft, they've been at this for ages (along with the rest) AND they use the term "reach out" to boot which means they must be guilty. Who used that term first? There is a place in hell just for them.

  23. Gis Bun

    Kaspersky are a bunch of whiners.

    Have Symantec, Panda, McAfee or others complained?

    If they are calling Defender inferior [it is], then you have nothing to whine about.

    Yes. Defender is free but it's like most people - you don't like IE [or Edge], you download your favorite browser. Only difference is that Kaspersky has no free AV offering.

    They also complained that Kaspersky was uninstalled on some computers when upgrading to Win 10. That is most likely because the users is running an older version of Kaspersky that isn't compatible with Win 10.

    How many Kaspersky users know they can upgrade to the latest version as long as their subscription is valid. do they advertise that?

    How about sending out notifications. Something like "Before you upgrade to Windows 10, make sure Kaspersky is up to date...." Did they do that?

    Seems like Kaspersky wants to rake in the money but not do any work to rake it in.

  24. W. Anderson

    Enough already about Microsoft poor security

    In June 2017, all this idiocy of Microsoft Windows 10 poor default security should convince any and all computer uses to switch to either Apple or better yet Linux desktops and Notebooks. Linux Servers have already displaced most of Windows Server crapware.

    Unfortunately Microsoft has such a psychological hold on so many millions of individuals, businesses and organizations, even governments, particularly for Americans - clinically described as Stockholm Syndrome - when hostages eventually support and love their captor, that the company's products users are unable to clearly or mentally consider superior and considerably more cost effective alternative software solutions.

    It has become tiring and nauseating to incessantly hear and read about the distresses of Microsoft poor quality and poor performance software. Enough already!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like