> [MSE] doesn’t have: parental control, built-in VPN, webcam protection, password manager, backups, exploit protection, protection for online banking and online shopping, proactive protection against future threats and dozens scores hundreds of other features which are all useful in providing maximum protection and a better user experience
That's exactly what I like about it. Stuff the "user experience": I don't want an AV product that tries to run my life for me. (I don't want Windows 10 to do it either, which is why I tried it for less than a week and went back to Windows 7.) AV products are bloated, difficult to use and always in your face when they should just silently remove viruses. Which is what MSE does for me.
A couple of weeks ago, my neighbors asked me for some help with their printers. Their wifi printer had suddently stopped working, then they bought a new one (which of course costed less than a ink cartridge) which also didn't work.
After the initial shock of dealing with windows 10 (I hadn't used windows, especially a home version, for years), I found out, by plugging a cable, that the printer actually worked just fine. Checking the wifi router admin page showed that the printer was correctly connecting to the network.
At that point I suspected firewall issues. The Windows firewall control panel was disabled claiming to be managed by the antivirus. I looked at MSE, and it was also disabled. I asked my neighbors and they said that they had been using MSE but McAfee had somehow appeared recently on their computer (possibly sneakingly installed by some unrelated application).
And of course McAfee was there, already demanding protection money. I uninstalled it after clicking through dozen of scary popups warning that the computer would be overwhelmed by viruses, my bank account emptied and my identity stolen.
Immediately after that a popup appeared from Windows system tray telling me that my computer was unprotected and I should install Avast immediately. I quickly got rid of that only for yet another popup to appear (for some AV that I had never heard of).
Eventually I managed to get rid of all AVs, re-enabled MSE, and suddenly the printer started working again.
I think MSE should really just treat every other AV as malware, although I'm sure MS would get a lot of backlash.
I personally haven't run antivirus software for years on my own machines. I recommended that all of my customers learn basic security practice instead, and reminded them that the antivirus program they used is there as a tool to help them, and not a replacement for safe browsing.
In the past we've seen malware injected into ads that then load on legitimate sites. Hosts get hacked too and their sites can then be used to serve malware.
You're right to teach your customers safe browsing habits but they do still need an antivirus as well.
Disclaimer: antivirus solutions are not perfect either. Particularly with new attacks. So while I do advocate using them it's also good not to take them for granted (e.g. assuming you can get away with running any old binary you've downloaded from Limewire because you have an AV installed). The best approach is common sense with the AV as a safety net.
Just another reason to use an adblocker.
I manually whitelist in uMatrix, but it's pretty inconvenient and does not stop attacks coming from domains previously whitelisted/deemed safe.
Mother-in-law called because she could connect to Internet.
Turned out McAfee was just demanding their protection fee.
So: McAfee bad. Cannot speak for Kaspersky, haven't used it for years. Defender is OKish.
But one that I sometimes recommend is Vipre from Sunbelt Software.
My builds are slightly faster with it and on one occasion it took down an infection that no other AV I tried managed.
(Of course this can just be because the malware writers didn't care to code in resistance to it but then again it supports Kasperskys claim that diversity is good.)
Ever since then, it's been consistently awful to the point of ridicule. But sometimes I have flashbacks to when even I would recommend it.
The problem now is that MSE doesn't seem to keep up with the latest viruses and hacks. My kids wrecked our Windows 7 computer twice by trying to download Minecraft addons. (First time it installed an ad-bot that was running hidden Firefox windows in the background and swamping our internet connection by loading pages and clicking ads. Second time it was a rootkit that added it's own "recovery" partition to the drive; which it used to reinfect the computer even after I wiped and reinstalled Windows 7.)
Now we have Windows 10 and they all have their own non-admin accounts, so hopefully they can't install anything super destructive.
Those free AVs and ones bundled by mega ISPs? Prepare to pay in computer resources, and even then your protection is probably only mostly adequate.
The only true anti-virus is awareness and user education. Risky behavior and unwise reactions to suspicious emails are the two infection vectors that secure software can't stop.
With Microsoft in the OEM hardware business, hopefully the end of this era is coming. Sure, Microsoft's own pushes towards Edge and Office 365 are annoying... but easily disabled without any scary warnings. Maybe Edge is better for people than Chrome, I dunno, I like Chrome and haven't bothered to try Edge.
When I was very young I had this job where I would go to people's houses to repair their computers. What I would often find would be computers so slow to the point of being unusable. After a few months I'd realized there were only two scenarios here:
- Computer full of spyware. CleanUp / Restore and anti-spyware + anti-virus installation would often work wonders for the customers.
- Computer running Panda Antivirus. Uninstalling Panda and installing Avast would always work wonders for the customers. Best thing was when they've asked how I solved their problem so quickly and I replied "uninstalling Panda". "But I paid for it" would be their response, to which I would follow up with a "call them and get a refund".
Anti-virus, what an interesting industry!
They even bought/merged with AVG which was quite annoying 10 years ago.
So MSE it is for friends/relatives.
I miss the days when one could run the virus scanner once a month and not have it always be on.
In fact some of my Win7 computers behind NAT I run without any active anti-virus.
They, IMHO, should be given no system access and should only be allowed to implement something like IsHarmful(s DataStream) (bool, string) - maybe a little more and that's it.
Currently on Windows 10, it's surprisingly difficult for "normal" users to know if av/fw are available by default and how they work. How the built-in security works with 3rd party solutions is more confusing, even for power users.
I can't be arsed dealing with that crap.
This isn't an anecdote. This is life for many, many users.
not all of them are bad, but there sure are a lot of them along the lines of 'disabling/uninstalling Avast solved the problem'
I'm not completely devoid of sympathy for Microsoft here.
They are making decisions to scan anyway and enable their solutions whenever they can because I won't stop and ask users which crapware they installed to supposedly scan their system before telling them to give up on windows.
I find it very funny that Kaspersky claims Microsoft was a security leader when they were in a total downward spiral but is unhappy now that I have to think twice about whether my recommendation to switch to Linux is out of date advice.
I don't have a good solution for maintaining an add-on AV market and actual security.. But pushing them to just do the bundleware and not be the AV is a pretty good solution for Microsoft and their users that financially Microsoft pays for instead of profiting from. Still, it might be too late for them to retain a position on consumer devices of any sort.
My experience just last month: you cannot run 2 anti-virus systems at once, they all aggressively lock out their competitors. McAfee causes Kaspersky to crash, and in the opposite case a lot of scary looking warnings go up. Imagine if insurance was done this way, or home security, or even physical security.
Most fields of personal security allow for overlapping coverage. Anti-virus products explicitly try and avoid this and then use that to their advantage to force you to re-up, paying for coverage. Defender is the default option that steps in so that consumers CAN take the time to make a rational and educated choice.
Because most consumers with anti-virus software didn't choose it! Anti-virus vendors compete much more at the level of securing hardware vendor contracts (or eking out an existence in counterpoint to them).
This is REALLY important and is a case where Microsoft is actually being very progressive and pro-consumer. Anti-virus software, of pivotal importance for windows users, is now on even footing with games and word processors. They must compete for consumer attention and affection and demonstrate value and cultivate consumer loyalty. Even if Kaspersky is one of the better actors in this space, it's a space fundamentally toxic to consumers.
If Kaspersky had an offering that combines their definitely superior scanning engine with Defender's/MSE's stupidly easy and unobstructive UX, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
(Well, maybe not a heartbeat. Would be nice if their website worked without enabling JS and didn't ask me to download PDFs afterwards… seriously?)
The average windows user hasn't a clue whether a piece of software is bloat, or really important
One of the most common issues I come across when fixing PCs of friends or relatives is "my antivirus thingy says I need to buy it or I'll get viruses" and my solution is always the same: uninstall whatever version of Kaspersky, or Norton or AVG shipped with the machine and replace it with Defender/Essentials, which just works, and more importantly, is practically invisible while doing it. Frankly, the tactics used by AV companies to try and scare users into buying their software are downright immoral.
Microsoft is losing out to Apple, who have no qualms about deciding what you can and can't have on their platform (Flash anyone?). From a marketing point of view I can definitely understand why they would do this.
For every legitimate product/service on Windows platform MS has to fight a tsunami of crap, which reduces battery life, prevents shut down/sleep, increases startup time, etc, etc
Especially with sw breaking between versions (even from major vendors) because they never followed best practices
The fighting battle he mentions is also being fought by MS, against a lot of enemies as well
I am sympathetic to the author's UX arguments, but it has always seemed to me like the OS vendor was clearly the party whom I wanted to handle my virus protection, if any. I'm already obliged to trust them and they're in the best position to do the job (API access, etc.)
If you as a third party want to convince me you're better at protecting my computer, you've got an uphill battle considering the hacks necessary to do the job (and it never seemed like lots of AV API support is the answer, since you could just build first party AV functionality instead with better integration). Also not convincing: hundreds of non-AV features like a password manager.
"Better user experience" would not be the way I describe it.
Does this mean heuristic analysis? Because apparently MSE does that: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/mse-protect...
Somebody at work went and managed to get themselves infected with some type of bitlocker-type virus a few months back, and so the decision was made to push AVG to all machines. What a PITA. I might as well have gone back to using spinning-rust instead of SSDs for compiling in Visual Studio, until I figured out how to eradicate the AVG tentacles scanning and intercepting everything. And AVG is supposed to be one of the better ones.
Chrome, Firefox and Edge have: exploit protection, protection for online banking and online shopping
There is no such thing as "proactive protection against future threats"
Besides the VPN, why should I pay money for any of this crap even if I do want it?
This and the introduction of hostile upgrades on Windows 7 was the reason I actually switched to a Linux based operating system (Xubuntu), with my old Windows 7 as occasional virtualized guest operating system for old applications.
I was never happy with Microsofts product policies and aggressive strategies, but I accepted them since they did not cross the lines too much. Also, I thought the barrier to switch was much higher.
It is not. There is no reason not to switch away from proprietary, closed OS such as Windows or Mac OS these days. Unless you are really a fan, of course. But then you are willing to pay the price.
My sticking issue is mailbox. I like local email storage bc of responsiveness, offline use, as opposed to web ui. Is there an email/calendar client that can work on windows and linux, and update the same file? E.g if i sent an email on Windows, and now i am on Linux, i'd like to see it in my sent folder. Any tips?
I think there aren't many more cross platform alternatives available anyway.
My brand new laptop becomes impossibly slow when Defender is on. Is this just me or is it supposed to be expected Defender behavior? When I code, every character appears half a second after I type it. Turn off Defender, and everything is blazing fast.
This thread is full of people claiming how 3rd party AV makes their computer slow and Defender doesn't, but, well, Defender does. Anyone have a clue? I don't mind the idea of running an AV like Defender but I do mind an unusable computer.
Also ensure all windows updates are done and installed - the background update manager can kill laptops in my experience, so again its best to let it get its job out of the way before using the laptop.
(1) Might have a problem! (malware / something)
(2) Might need to let it run and do it's scanning thing for a while 'til it's initialization and/or setup is finished. I've never heard of anyone turning it off and on repeatedly.
Thank the heavens. I mean, seriously, using parental controls as a parent is equal to failure at being a parent in my opinion. They're useless at best (because you can circumvent ANY of them), and instill false confidence in incompetent parents.
A more recent example I've personally seen is with a foster parent where several abused children were homed together. Their birth parent would consistently break visit rules, and attempt to establish side channel communications (facebook, email) with the kids so she could coach them on what to say in court. They agreed to do so, despite being extremely unhappy about the situation. They were happier in their new foster home than they'd ever been before, and yet they were overwhelmingly complicit with the demands of their schizophrenic birth mother.
Parental controls are useful in such scenarios where the children don't have normal baselines. Not only that, but when given unfettered access to a computer, kids will literally download anything they perceive as fun. Many games, game mods and the sites that host them include malware. Yes, parents should talk with them about safe browsing and downloading, but being a good parent and yet not understanding computers is entirely possible. Simple free software for controlling usage schedules and quantities should be baked into the system.
Kind of hard to study for the AP CS test when Bess is blocking the Sun JavaDocs because "hacking"...
Pretty much all of my "family tech support" is related to the AV doing something stupid like auto-deleting cookies or flashing up big scary messages for something trivial.
However Windows Defender seems to be good for me on Win10 - it just sits there out of the way, I don't even know its running. I LIKE the fact it doesn't have "online protection" or password managers or parental controls or whatever. It feels lightweight and does not cause everything to become 3x or 4x (or worse!) slower like every other AV software I've encountered
Whenever I go to perform family tech support I remove any random AV software they've been tricked into installing and just leave Windows Defender and that usually solves the issues (obviously making sure they are up-to-date on patches & still using 2FA)
You can disable these features though by turning off real time protection (which I had to do).
I had to install Kaspersky on my main laptop since some VPN software imposed a policy that it installed and up-to-date to connect to a contractor's secured network. It was absolutely terrible. It killed my battery, slowed my machine, killed my TCP stack at one point, interfered all the time, and became generally unbearable. It frustrated me so much, I now do all network operations via a secured VM to avoid the Kaspersky curse on my main work machine.
Microsoft is damned if they do, and damned if they don't fix this for their users. Maybe Kasperski is collateral damage in this effort, but I think Microsoft is right to use the Windows 10 upgrade as an opportunity to try and remove these mostly terrible software from users' pc's. Let Kasperski convince users how their software is better so people actively choose it over Microsoft's solution. I do this with Chrome too: as long as it's better I reinstall it every time no matter what Microsoft tells me about Edge.
Giving 3rd parties access to low-level APIs also gives your OS ability to be used in versatile and innovative ways across the board. Also gives the ability to 3rd party software companies to allow you to add tooling and customization to your OS so that it does exactly what the user wants. And making you grow into the largest dominant OS out there.
On the other hand, I need to download more and more applications outside MAS on macOS because the sandbox doesn't even let basic apps like a custom file explorer to function properly, making a platform really usable only for a few use-cases the original vendor thought of.
A friend of mine runs a 3-person software company making desktop Windows software. Nothing terribly exciting, think - a ToDo list or similar. They put nothing in the kernel, stick to documented API, make no deep tie-ins into the system (e.g. Windows Explorer extensions). Just a perfectly simple standalone piece of software with minimal dependencies that can run even on XP.
Not two months ago they started getting reports that the software was disappearing from users' machines. The Start menu icon was still there, as was the Uninstall entry, but the EXE was nowhere to be found. Naturally they thought of the antiviruses, but there was no pattern. Fast forward two weeks and the only commonality between all reports was a freshly installed Windows 10 update. The update silently wiped their software off. And to understand why that happened or to file a "false positive" report with Microsoft, the only option was to cough up few hundred dollars for opening a "priority support" ticket with them. Not everyone was affected, just a fraction of a percent. You could still reinstall the software and Windows won't make a peep or complain in any way.
While it made very little sense, it still clearly showed that users were no longer in control of their machines. Moreover, Microsoft outright lied when they said "all your files and apps will remain where they are" while installing an update.
So it's not just about loosing control over your own computer, but it's also about being treated like a sheep that Microsoft owes no explanations to and can do what the hell it wants. I sure hope Kaspersky Labs will have enough rage, funds and patience to drag Microsoft through courts and whip it back in place.
The other category of software that frequently gets false positives are demoscene productions, which admittedly do push the boundaries and can involve things like custom packers and unorthodox API usage, but are certainly not malicious by any definition. Of course there's also the cracks/patchers/keygens, which are not malicious to the user but are often detected as such anyway.
The latter leaves no traces such as shortcuts/uninstall entries and actually shows a notification to the user; the former is as 'rough' as just removing the executable.
When I was doing a lot of MacOSX kernel / driver work 8-10 years ago and keeping up with all the darwin lists, we'd get tons of questions from A/V devs porting their software from Windows to Mac. There were all kinds of bad questions. The worst one I remember is somebody asking why they were not allowed to hold a kernel mutex across notifying a kernel-space A/V deamon & waiting for it to respond (deadlock?).
After seeing multiple questions like this from these folks, I resolved to never run a 3rd party A/V suite again, and have run nothing but vendor provided A/V.
The idea that Kaspersky is somehow radically better than other AV vendors is a joke. Sure, some of them are comically bad, but none of that are that good. "Good enough" is often good enough.
I'm a fan of Kaspersky's research. AV isn't one of the areas where people need to be spending their time, though. I don't know how you could say AV works with a straight face.
ALSO: MS isn't a monopoly anymore.
Do you have an alternative working approach to securing end users' devices?
>I'm a fan of Kaspersky's research.
And yet you suggest to stop doing that research.
In fact, one could claim by now that anti-virus and security have very little to do with each other, so stop equating them in your retorts.
Nowhere I stated or implied otherwise.
>one could claim by now that anti-virus and security have very little to do with each other
This claim is trivial to disprove. Imagine there's no AV anymore (yet firewalls and HIPSes are still in place). Do you think overall security (measured, say, in damages $$$) won't change? There would be an immediate disaster.
Knockout/Angular/React/Ember/Backbone devs are staring with amusement :).
As messy as av/fw are on Windows 10, let's not forget how things were before in the bad old days; security products were sometimes as bad as the malware they claimed to protect you from. Remember when you helped family and friends and how Norton was so difficult to remove it required a dedicated removal tool? Remember the countless of cleaners that used all kinds of scummy advertising techniques to trick users into installing them, often decreasing performance and safety?
As the "computer guy" for a lot of people, I'm glad that AV+FW are included in Windows 10. I am, however, disappointed how sub par they perform and how user hostile they are.
On Windows 10, the firewall is completely opaque and Microsoft decided to remove the firewall icon from the tray. So users naturally don't know if it's installed or not or what it's doing. Also, it's buggy as hell because on more than one computer I've had to keep resetting it to defaults simply because it would regularly stop ALL outgoing connections. Took some time to figure that one out and for most casual users that would have been impossible to solve, especially since there is no freaking firewall icon to click on anymore.
The antivirus has a more visible and sane presence but performs poorly in the independent AV tests. For some reason it changes names more often than a porn star, further confusing users. The blog post fails to mention Microsoft Defender, the fifth incarnation of the AV on Windows 10, so there are five different AV that Microsoft offers/has offered.
Microsoft needs to improve the quality of their built-in security products, both how successful they are at protecting users but also the overall usability experience.
If MS really wanted to make system security an even playing field where vendors could actually be effective, they'd make it modular (like Linux's LSM) so that admins could easily swap out security solutions without busting the system (slow, bloated, ineffective, etc.).
Vendors are a large part of the problem. They want more money, more often and in many cases really harm performance and do little to protect the system.
My father has three freaking antivirus/antimalware solutions installed. Maybe defender could be better, but if it reduces the market share of the nortons, comodos etc then I'm all for it.
I ran into this when the Windows 10 Anniversary Update rolled out. In my case the program Microsoft uninstalled was a Start Menu replacement, so I didn't actually have a functional start menu for several hours after the upgrade until I got the updated version of the 3rd-party program installed.
This left me shocked, dumbfounded, speechless, and furious. Everything I've observed over the last 20 years says Microsoft honours backwards compatibility above all else. Raymond Chen has great blog posts about the huge efforts they used to go through. My understanding is that's why businesses have stuck with Windows; it'll keep running their 10, 15 ,20 year old legacy VB line-of-business apps even on their newest OS. Apparently Microsoft has now decided to throw out backwards compatibility? I don't understand this decision.
See also a similar comment I wrote a while back about the policy to uninstall incompatible software.
Unless the updates really uninstalled the application instead of just breaking it, and that's really (another) bad decision from Microsoft.
Windows' upgrade process could in theory disable the shell extension, but that would be even worse than uninstalling the program given how programs on Windows do not take kindly to being 'half-installed' (case in point: uninstallers that break when some application files are removed).
This is what backwards compatibility leads to, and there is no way all parties can win in this scenario.
Note also that I don't especially consider Classic Shell to be an odd program given that when I briefly worked at Microsoft a few years ago (Win 8.1 was current), my manager actually recommended I install it on my second day there on the company-provided computer in order to retain the classic UI because that group found the Win8 touch UI to be unusable on the desktop.
1. Defender is not the best AV out there from a strict efficiency perspective (IMHO, Defender is good enough for most people and is quiet enough & bloat less enough compared to a lot of the competition).
2. Killing the competition in the specific AV domain is bad for security (IMHO, perfectly valid point).
3. MS is globally trying to kill any competition by abusing its dominating position (IMHO, another perfectly valid point).
2 & 3, while absolutely true, are shadowed by 1 which is a very questionnabe point.
Conditioning users to expect popups demanding payment is unconscionable.
"A component of the operating system has expired."
and I was unable to boot any further. still am not. had to turn back my BIOS clock a month in order to "unlock it".
needless to say, a planned install of linux is on the way. I've had enough.
Right after installing it I noticed that I MITMed myself with their "Web Protection" feature. To show green check marks next to my Google search results this "security" software intercepts my TLS traffic and alters it without my consent.
At least Microsoft's solution isn't that desperate to make itself noticed even at the expense of my network stack's integrity.
This is my main issue with the "security" industry for Windows. To justify their existence they have to remind their paying users all the time about their involvement and sometimes they use really stupid and dangerous methods to achieve this.
Independent of that, running Kaspersky means installing Kaspersky's root kit. That's another low level vulnerability in addition to Microsoft's root privilege. It's simply more attack surface. Fully utilizing Kaspersky means sending telemetry to Kaspersky just as fully utilizing Microsoft's product means sending telemetry to Microsoft. I've no reason to believe Kaspersky less likely to be compromised than Microsoft.
To put it another way, Kaspersky's business, like many in the Windows ecosystem is to AdWords or bloatware their way to rents extraction while free alternatives exist. I'm ok with Microsoft making that model obsolescent and Kaspersky adapting or dying because Kaspersky's argument isn't that it provides significantly better anti-virus protection.
Yesterday I fired up Windows 10 in a VM on my MacBook to get some development work done, only to find Windows go straight into installing updates while I'm on battery in a cafe & without my power cord. (But it insists "Don't Turn Off Your PC".) 90 minutes later (!) Windows finally launched... just as I had to run for my train home. I literally couldn't do my work that afternoon, all because of Windows.
If you do not like mac nor windows, maybe give Linux a shot? If you care about the mac UI you can make Linux look like it.
For software development and normal usage I do not feel like I am missing out on something by using Debian on the desktop and Ubuntu on my laptop.
If you use some specialised software for design you might want to check compatibility though
I haven't given Ubuntu a proper try, except the one time I tried to make my plugins work with GIMP & Wine. Elementary looks interesting as well - their website mentions some of the Apple attention to design detail that I appreciate.
My suggestions: Xubuntu or Ubuntu w/o all the nasties, Elementary OS, Debian, Arch Linux or a BSD flavour.
So I install Ubuntu and am greeted by a broken screen, where 2/3 of the screen are on the right and 1/3 is on the left, like somebody cut a piece of film badly so it's the previous frame and the current frame together.
I asked around and apparently Ubuntu 16.10 doesn't do AMD anymore because AMD didn't write a proper GPU driver, and the old driver for Ubuntu 12.04 (that's from April 2012 haha) is broken totally for new hardware.
So here am I using Windows 7 Pro in a virtual machine on Windows 10 home which constantly bugs me with notifications, is very slow, eats battery and is generally horrible.
Meanwhile my MacBook Air (which only has 4GB of RAM because I bought it with my own money and I'm freelancing and am 16 years old) is laughing in the background...
So, no, Linux is not the solution... :/
Having said that, battery life on my laptops are terrible with linux out of the box.
So I'm going to give Linux a real shot, and improve my knowledge of it, as added benefit along the way. I'm investigating now which distro to start with.
For all web dev coding work, there should be no problem.
Good point though, maybe I'll be happier if I just fork out for a 2TB SSD. But at the time Apple wanted $800 for a 1TB SSD and I wasn't prepared to pay Apple's inflated prices.
IT IS NOT TRYING TO TRICK ME INTO USING MSE.
Also, back in the day I had an HP laptop with an AMD Duron processor, and it came with Symantec AV. I had overtemp shutdowns. I diagnosed that the AV was using most of the CPU cycles by far. So I researched the providers and somehow Nod32 came out on top across two or three different AV shootouts. I replaced Symantec with Nod32 and the laptop ran so much better. After that I only ran bundled AV on new machines until I could get around to installing Nod32. Nod32 continues to behave appropriately.
On the machine that runs MSE instead of Nod32, there was a different application chewing up the CPU cycles: The HP support assistant.
I can't understand the need for bloatware aka "anti-virus", if you take the time to educate the users and train him to stop clicking and installing whatever pops up in their screen then they can pretty much rely on MSE and have a clear mind.
Obviously MSE might not detect EVERYTHING but basic education on how to treat spam/advertisement/phishing goes a long way.
Sweeney had an argument, and one that I think Microsoft is trying to address. Anti-virus software (including McAfee and Kaspersky) is responsible for so many daily fuckups in my corporate computing experience that I am aggressively removing it from every computer I can find, and I tell everyone I can do to the same.
It is good that Microsoft is making them justify their existence, use less deceptive re-subscription tactics, and in general providing very stiff competition for them. In this specific case, it not monopoly tactics, this is pro-consumer competition.
I hope people realize this, because I think most windows users read this and then immediately squinted and said, "Kaspersky, huh?" It took me over an hour to scrape that gunk out of the last windows 7 box I set up for my family, and I was happy Win10 kicked it to the curb for me on the upgrade I just helped with.
I have not yet found an Antivirus software which can truly educates the user - there are wonderful opportunities in there for the right kind of company/product. Proactive solutions beat reactive solutions hands down. Like they say "Stitch in time saves nine"
So it's about profit, because the AV companies lose out in their historically most lucrative period to keep paying users.
I think it's good enough, in general. While a 3rd party AV might be more effective for someone very prone to installing PUPs/malware, I still don't think it's worth it - an adblocker likely makes much more of a difference just by preventing people from clicking Google ads while looking for legitimate software.
Side note: I've been happy with Win10. While I thought auto updates would be bad, they've all been snuck in while I'm sleeping/AFK with no side effects. Apart from the initial round of disabling various telemetry features, it's been smooth, and the stupid stuff like unremovable start menu tiles has gradually been fixed.
Having anti-viruses installed is for fools. I just upload every single executable to VirusTotal.com and make sure I know the source I downloaded it from - this is far superior to any anti-virus and doesn't slow down your PC.
I said this when Windows 10 was new and I got tons of downvotes. I say it again because it still holds true and needs to be said.
And answers: "Of course, the cybercriminals!"
What he doesn't say: one of the greatest cybercriminal is the American Government.
We often need to deal with user problems because the installation or update process was blocked by AV software without any user visible message. Also often an application is incredibly slow for some period after the installation because AV is doing some additional scanning/blocking (again the user is not informed about this and blames the application).
This has been going on since days of DOS, like 35+ years.
"MS-DOS also grew by incorporating, by direct licensing or feature duplicating, the functionality of tools and utilities developed by independent companies, such as Norton Utilities, PC Tools (Microsoft Anti-Virus), QEMM expanded memory manager, Stacker disk compression, and others."
This is Microsoft business success 101.
However I think the point that having one monopoly AV decreases security because the bad guys can adapt to it is at least not as clear cut as it seems. Especially compared to the scenario of someone having multiple AV programs installed. AV programs themselves are excellent attack vectors, especially for the more skilled attackers so reducing the number has at least some theoretical benefit.
In startup land this is common - I've seen so many bootstrapped startups fail because they were out-spent or their market was monopolized by big companies or big VC money.
Sometimes it feels like we're going to end up with one giant tech giga-corporation that will just own everything and everyone will be employees of it.
The reality is that an organization as big and as talented as Microsoft could, if they put their mind to it, develop and release a software product in virtually any market covered by their ISVs, and unless it is really terrible, or the third-party tool is really good, displace it.
IANAL, but that seems at the least to be a bloody annoying action, and at the most, anti-competitive as well as anti-consumer.
User comment: "MacBookPro takes 17 seconds, my Windows machine takes 122 seconds."
Because of AV - fast on Mac, slow on Windows.
It was a scary experience and it will take some time until azure will gain my trust. What would help is entangling microsoft and azure into a s structure like google has done with alphabet. With the current structure clashes of interests are inevitable.
Oh, wait, that's because iOS is orders of magnitude more secure than Windows and doesn't really need an AV product. Whereas Windows has been plagued by malware for decades. Nobody wants to buy AV in the same way that nobody wants to buy health insurance; it's an unfortunate necesssity in an imperfect world.
Unfortunately the tradeoff we're facing here is the "information feudalism" one. People aren't realistically able to secure themselves, so they end up having to pick a quasi-monopolist and delegate to them the ability to ban software. Such bans can be extremely arbitrary. Occasionally even your headphone jack gets taken away. But people put up with it because it works for them in a way that anarchy doesn't.
Microsoft would clearly love to make Windows behave like iOS: apps only installable from the store which has power of veto and takes a cut. Heck, Apple would probably like to do that with OSX. Neither has quite managed it yet.
I suspect the long term way out of this is a proper user-owned subscription-driven open hardware company, but that's a very hard thing to build and a hard sell to the average user.
There's a reason that every business on the planet runs Windows and that the Mac only has a piddly ~7% market share.
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft usually corrects their big mistakes while Apple defends theirs to the death. That's why (among many, many other issues) Mac users were forced to buy one-button mice for 15 years and that's why they could only resize a window by the lower right corner until around 2007. LOL!
There's also a reason that Windows is orders of magnitude more secure than "the Mac OS" - it gets attacked way more often.
There is no antivirus for iOS, not even from Apple. That's not anti-competitive.
Where the rest goes, I don't know. But I'm not going to take most antivirus vendors very seriously until they stop adding gratuitous security holes when installed.
I see it has happened with iOS, despite widespread popularity (yes I have an iPad for reading), and I see GateKeeper etc. on Mac and warnings about unsigned apps on Windows 10 but it hasn't quite got to the "you can't run what you want" stage yet.
It is almost like they (Apple and Microsoft) are trying to outdo each other in locking down machines (arguably sensible for some users). I wonder where it will stop.
I stopped using AV softwares a long time ago for the following reasons:
- It slows down your device (memory, cpu, disk access, etc.).
- It annoys you a lot more than it stops or solves any security concern. I've yet to hear from someone telling me their AV software saved them from an actual real virus... If this ever happens it's probably a damn advanced attack that even the AV software doesn't know about.
- It's extremely hard to remove, especially when pre-installed as a bloatware on a PC. Sometimes it's also installed as an extension of other software (browser, etc.).
- It usually takes wrong decisions (false positive) that lead to broken web pages, legitimate software that stops working, etc. And unfortunately the "standard" user has no way to figure out it's due to the AV. I can't count the number of times I had to work with my customers on figuring out what was making my website or software not run (or even not to install) on their machine.
One time I had to write to an AV editor in order for my browser extension to be whitelisted. Never got any answer...
AV softwares can be easily replaced with common sense and a set of very simple rules.
- Have a hardware/software firewall that blocks everything expect what's required (allowing only web when initiated from the machine is enough in 99% of the cases). Every major OS now comes pre-configured with a software firewall which removes 90% of the threats.
- Use a strong email service or software (gmail, etc.). This way you reduce the likelihood that a virus, spam, or fishing email passes through.
- Don't open email attachments coming from unknown or non trusted senders. Even when the sender seems legitimate, double check that the email makes sense (not an unusual behavior), pay close attention to URLs, written language and words. Don't click links without knowing where it goes (domain name, https, etc.). Email remains the most simple way to install a virus or a trojan on someone's computer so be very very attentive when acting upon an email. If you use an email provider (like gmail), report the spam or phishing attack very quickly so that 1/it can be stopped quickly for others and 2/it teaches the Machine learning to do better next time.
15 years I've been applying these rules and I never got any virus without using any AV software. My devices run like a charm (PC or Mac).
While I'm a big defender of freedom and open source, I can easily understand and forgive proprietary OS providers choices with regard to the AV editors.
But anti-virus isn't the solution either. This happens with anti-virus eating half their CPU. I don't really know a sensible way to let my parents have a windows laptop these days. They use an iPad now, and that's the end of it.
I certainly agree with your top and bottom sentence there. AV software is basically an industry which shouldn't exist (or at least shouldn't be anywhere near as well-known and lucrative as it is). The reason it has existed, is because Microsoft have in been poor on security in general. I think more specifically we can say that earlier versions of windows took an approach of being way too permissive with things like file permissions. It seems to me they've been gradually phasing in more sensible limits ever since, and if they're also phasing out 3rd party AV software, I can see that might be a sensible rationalisation too.
Might be. I'm not 100% sure because, while they are improving general security, the other challenge microsoft has always faced is that hackers target windows first because it's most popular. Previously hackers had a mish-mash of several different AV softwares to stay ahead of. By making every windows machine a highly regularised defender-running target, this might make life easier for hackers.
I replaced the Graphical User Interface with a lighter one though to maintain decent performances.
MICROSOFT KILLS OFF INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE VENDORS BY FOISTING ITS PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN NO WAY BETTER ON USERS
for the tweet? (The products are in no way better, not the users!)
When moderators change a title, we always try to replace it with representative language from the article itself. In this case you can find that language in bold at the bottom of the article.
Users who feel strongly about Microsoft (for or against) are fond of accusing the refs of being biased (against or for), but that's the case with every emotional topic. We're as careful as we know how to make sure it isn't true in reality.
Instead, you replaced it with the most positive line you could find until users complained.
You do this time and time again and it smells like bullshit.
> You do this time and time again and it smells like bullshit.
This is a form of sample bias. People notice the cases they feel strongly about and fail to notice the ones they don't, thus weighting their sample. The more strongly you feel, the more this effect will skew your view.
No doubt we do have biases—though I'd be flabbergasted if the one you're accusing us of were among them—but given how hard we work to be neutral, and how powerful this sample-weighting dynamic is, moderator bias is a poor explanation here. It's like a programmer being too quick to blame the compiler.
Also, it works the other way around - you wouldn't need to complain if there was a formal contract.
Fun fact: If you bought one share of MSFT the 23.Dec 1999, you would be down 2 cent today.
They've had at least 2, that i can think of, 2for1 stock splits since 1999.
So that's wrong. If you had invested $10k in 1999 you'd likely have > $35k now including dividents.
Update: As far as I can see they have had two 2 for 1 splits and one 7 for 1 split. Meanwhile the price of the stock has gone from $3.696 to $107.79. Meaning that you would have over $400K today + dividends.