Microsoft partners protest free antivirus distribution

By Liam Tung on Nov 10, 2010 7:30 AM
Filed under Security

Security vendors raise competition alarm.

Two antivirus vendors have criticised Microsoft over its decision to push out its free anti-virus (AV), Security Essentials, under its Microsoft Update service.

Microsoft began offering Security Essentials as a free program in late 2009, which drew little objection from AV vendors, however its decision to push it to customers in the US and UK during the past fortnight has triggered claims the process is anti-competitive.

"We think this is not fair," PandaLabs technical director Luis Corrons told UK technology news site, ITPro.

He added that the ubiquitous distribution of Microsoft's anti-virus would make it easier for criminals to develop malware that bypasses the blacklist.

The company wants Microsoft to continue pushing antivirus to Windows users, including illegitimate copy owners, but also include other AV programs in the update.

A Trend Micro executive raised similar concerns last week after the UK launch in late October.

"Commercialising Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition," said Carol Carpenter, Trend Micro's general manager of the consumer and small business told Computer World.

"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."

Microsoft initially justified its free AV service because it knew that "too many people" were unwilling or unable to pay for it.

This week it defended its new push program because giving away AV wasn't enough to encourage customers to use it, according to a statement Microsoft issued to CNet on Monday.

"Despite the broad availability of anti-malware software, we still find that many consumer and small business PCs remain unprotected," Microsoft said.

Microsoft partners protest free antivirus distribution

13 comments in this discussion

"@packet, Bellingham pipeline? They never found a conclusive cause, most likely due to human error and poor computer design. 1 sysadmin and 2 operators refused to witness, and they found deleted ..."

By OD123

Tags

microsoft, security, essentials, trend micro, panda, free antivirus

Further security flaws found in Java Runtime Environment

Australian police seek thousands of Microsoft user details

The best and worst of cloud contracts

Internet Explorer vulnerability permits mouse cursor tracking

Breaking Stories

Mater CIO shows QLD Health 'how it's done'

QLD Transport to replace 'cumbersome' data search

Melbourne firies use drone to check dangling truck

DNS DDoS attacks skyrocket

Photos: Toshiba's 2013 laptops

Comments: 13

Alias2010 Nov 10, 2010 9:09 AM	Manage Service Providers make extra $$$ by selling Trend and Symantec to their customers however these are very expensive for small businesses. MSP generally do not disclose that Microsoft has a free Desktop AV Solution. I onced worked for various MSPs and highly recommended MSSE for the Small Businesses. It make sense to deploy with Windows Updates because WSUS is now standard with every server edition and this is the reason for the decision. It is incidental that the free product may compete with installed costly AVs but you can deny the installation of MSSE.
gerson Nov 10, 2010 10:02 AM	These companies are suggesting MS being anti-competitive because they (MS) are trying to be responsible by making essential protection to their own system?
pete123 Nov 11, 2010 11:17 AM	It's about time. A modern operating system should protect itself from vulnerabilities. When you buy a car, you don't then have to go to a third party to have the seatbelts installed.
OD123 Nov 11, 2010 3:23 PM	Most infections are caused by users blindly clicking on something "Email from DHL? Hmm don't remember ordering anything through DHL. Ah well, its addressed to me, so must be right. Hmm, need to pay first? OK". On Linux, due to the way the authentication works, you can only cause problems within your work environment. On Windows 7, a lot of people will simply click allow when the system pops up yet another request. Seat belts were mandated by law, after which car makers had to include them or wouldn't get their cars roadworthy. You can buy a car, but you can't drive it on the road unless you have a license. Anyone can pick up a computer and 'drive' it. No questions asked. No one has actually died from computer virusses (afaik), but there's been plenty money wasted on trying to recover systems. If MS had given it a bit more thought, the virus concept might not have become what it is today. Yes there are virusses for Linux, or Mac, but nowhere near the amount or as dangerous as for Windoze. By letting MS provide AV through updates, the risk rises that innovation will be killed. Would the Windoze firewall ever have been improved if there were no better product out there? Thank god for Open Source, at least there's a community MS can't compete with just on dollar basis. MS can't be trusted to do good. They've proven time and time again they need good competition or nothing will happen. How long did it take them to create a tabbased browser and be able to compete against FF? I wouldn't trust MS to do a good job scanning my computer for virusses. Just like I don't trust their firewall. I'll use thirdparty products, preferably free for personal use. And there's plenty out there. People need to take responsibility when using computers, just like when using cars, or walking down the street. You can't just cross whenever you feel like and expect the rest of the world to wait. It's probably about time the government stepped in and provided guidance for people that need it, just like child care.
Ezy2Confuze Nov 11, 2010 4:44 PM	Sounds like sour grapes. These same companies had a go at M$ in Vista days becasue they could no longer just run their applications in an Administrator type level, they actually had to develop a better more secure way of running their apps.
Ezy2Confuze Nov 11, 2010 4:50 PM	Hey Pete123, does Apple give away free AV with their OS? Does Android have it's own built in AV? Or do you not consider them "modern operating systems"
packet Nov 12, 2010 8:16 AM	@OD123 would you fly in a plane or live next door to a nuclear reactor that ran on free software? People have died from unresponsive computer systems (google bellingham pipeline), its not that far a stretch to say that a virus could have the same effect. open source is good but its no better or worse. (google debian openssl)
Thysce Nov 12, 2010 2:38 PM	I don't understand this. Microsoft provide their own free AV to support an OS which costs consumers a couple $hundred. These companies having a whinge, do they have their own OS?
Ace Nov 12, 2010 11:33 PM	You chaps are missing the point. Microsoft has a nasty history of destroying businesses by distributing free software with it's ubiquitous Windows platform. Ask Netscape. There were a lot of court cases, a lot of fines, and a lot of court orders about what they are allowed to do in this regard. There is a thriving and competitive desktop AV industry out there. If I were them, I'd very wary of Microsoft's activities in this area.
anonymous Nov 13, 2010 12:05 PM	@Ace, there does seem to be a difference between MS predatory behaviour against companies in sectors where MS wanted to become dominant (your Netscape case for example), and the present issue where MS is addressing some of the shortcomings of the MS OS. Some people might say it was about time.
deteego Nov 13, 2010 6:17 PM	anonymous wrote: @Ace, there does seem to be a difference between MS predatory behaviour against companies in sectors where MS wanted to become dominant (your Netscape case for example), and the present issue where MS is addressing some of the shortcomings of the MS OS. You could have argued the exact same thing about Windows not having internet browser functionality in the whole netscape vs internet explorer debacle. Microsoft basically did the exact same thing back then as its doing now, whether its as much of an issue now is debatable
Ace Nov 13, 2010 11:27 PM	@anon, I understand your point, and I think that MS have done a lot to harden their OS - not an easy task by any measure. I'm not sure MS have actually done anything wrong with this product, given that all the AV vendors offer seamless updates over the internet. But I do think it's worth examination given MS's history.
OD123 Nov 15, 2010 3:34 PM	@packet, Bellingham pipeline? They never found a conclusive cause, most likely due to human error and poor computer design. 1 sysadmin and 2 operators refused to witness, and they found deleted logentries. Rather than an unresponsive computersystem, it would seem more foul play. Have you heard of Stuxnet? A Windows specific virus that targets SCADA systems which are typically used in Nuclear plants. Any man made system is prone to failure. Which is why regular maintenance and control is required. New capabilities introduce new vulnerabilities previously unknown. I also didn't say Open Source is better than MS, but I did say MS needs Open Source to drive innovation. At least with Open Source there's a large community that has a drive to improve regardless of competition, because people always want more.