{"id":16976,"date":"2017-06-06T05:02:28","date_gmt":"2017-06-06T09:02:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kaspersky.com\/blog\/?p=16976"},"modified":"2019-11-15T06:47:26","modified_gmt":"2019-11-15T11:47:26","slug":"microsoft-european-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kaspersky.com\/blog\/microsoft-european-trial\/16976\/","title":{"rendered":"Antitrust: Pursue It in Europe We Must."},"content":{"rendered":"

Hi folks!<\/p>\n

Herewith, the next chapter in our thriller-detective (antimonopoly) series\u2026<\/p>\n

As you\u2019ll probably be aware, late last year we turned to Russia\u2019s Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) with a complaint against Microsoft<\/a>. And just recently, we did the same thing in Europe \u2013 filing complaints with both the European Commission<\/a> and German Federal Cartel Office<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So, why are we doing this? Here\u2019s why: we have users \u2013 hundreds of millions thereof all around the world. These folks trust us and depend on us to protect their data. They expect only the highest level of protection \u2013 that\u2019s why they chose us (and even if they chose different independent antivirus software, they\u2019re still affected by all this). And it\u2019s namely the right of these folks to choose exactly what they want that we\u2019re trying to protect.<\/p>\n

We see clearly \u2013 and are ready to prove \u2013 that Microsoft uses its dominant position in the computer operating system (OS) market to fiercely promote its own \u2013 inferior \u2013 security software (Windows Defender) at the expense of users\u2019 previously self-chosen security solution. Such promotion is conducted using questionable methods, and we want to bring these methods to the attention of the anti-competition authorities.<\/p>\n

Btw, our filing with Russia\u2019s FAS has already borne some fruit: Microsoft has fixed some of the issues that we highlighted \u2013 and did so without waiting for FAS to issue an official statement (as I explained in a blogpost<\/a> in early May). So, what can I say? Here\u2019s a sincere thank you to Microsoft for that! Those steps are in the right direction and most encouraging.<\/p>\n

But that still leaves today the other approaches and practices we pointed out in our claims that it hasn\u2019t yet put straight. Accordingly, we\u2019re not planning on settling for what we\u2019ve already achieved, and will be carrying on our fight to protect the interests of both the users and the AV industry.<\/p>\n

Now, let\u2019s examine those \u2018other approaches and practices\u2019 I\u2019ve just mentioned that haven\u2019t been addressed yet by Microsoft.<\/p>\n

I Will Confuse You.<\/h2>\n

Let\u2019s start with the fact that Microsoft\u2019s antivirus is hardwired into all versions of Windows 10 for home users: it\u2019s impossible to turn it off completely, impossible to delete. Until recently no one asked you if you needed it or not. There was a time when, even if you used a different security solution, Microsoft\u2019s own AV all the same periodically ran scans.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s another example: upon attempts to perform any actions with an independent security solution, users are asked at every step: \u2018Do you want to run this program?\u2019, adding: \u2018You should only run programs that come from publishers you trust\u2019. It\u2019s as if users are about to commit a wrongful action that violates the default settings from Microsoft.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One more example: for three days after the expiry of a license for our security solution and the turning off of protection, we are forbidden \u2013 through our own notification system \u2013 from informing the user that it might be a good idea to extend the license so that protection could get back up and running. Instead of that, we\u2019re obliged to use Microsoft\u2019s own notification system \u2013 now called \u2018Action Center\u2019 \u2013 to which many users pay little attention.<\/p>\n

The weird thing is\u2026 such restriction is applied only to antiviruses \u2013 with which Microsoft has been trying to compete (and not doing very well at) for years. But in previous (pre-10) versions of Windows there were no such special measures. Thus, it looks like, after years with no success (in competing with other antiviruses), Microsoft has resorted to the use of alternative, OS-empowered (in our view \u2013 underhand) tactics.
\n<\/p>

\"Notification<\/a>

Notification about expiry of security solution license in Windows 7 (top) and in Windows 10 (bottom)<\/p><\/div>\n

Disappearing Act.<\/h3>\n

Another unpleasant problem our users have come up against is the mysterious disappearance of our security software when upgrading to Windows 10. It goes like this:<\/p>\n

You\u2019re updating your OS, and while doing so are informed assuredly that all your data and programs will remain intact and safe, there are no incompatible programs, and all is fine and dandy, so you just take it easy while your OS gets updated.<\/p>\n

But then, in many cases, while the update is still ongoing \u2013 perhaps due to those same underhand tactics again \u2013 Windows decides that your existing security solution is, after all, incompatible with Windows 10, deletes its drivers (leaving a bunch of useless files (the solution won\u2019t work without the drivers)), and in its place switches on its own solution.<\/p>\n

Windows does this without the explicit consent of users, and also with barely any warning: the notification displays on the screen literally for just a few seconds. Moreover, while this notification states in bold \u2018We turned on Windows Defender\u2019, the fact that your existing security solution was removed is in small, non-bold print:
\n<\/p>

\"Btw,<\/a>

Btw, compare the modest message with the alarming window of Microsoft\u2019s own solution<\/p><\/div>\n

What\u2019s even more\u2026 interesting, is how after the independent protection is deleted, it stays in the list of installed programs! So, if users miss the fleeting \u2018notification\u2019 about Microsoft\u2019s protection being turned on, and\/or didn\u2019t have time to work out that this means their existing self-chosen security solution has been deleted, they might not understand straight away what\u2019s actually happened. That is, users think their chosen security solution is working (why wouldn\u2019t they? It\u2019s there in the list of installed programs; even the icon on the desktop\u2019s still there) when in fact it\u2019s been deleted.<\/p>\n

All in all, the Disappearing Act was designed so that users don\u2019t return to their independent AV, and stay in blissful ignorance as to what\u2019s actually happened.<\/p>\n

Re-do Everything; Deadline \u2013 Yesterday.<\/h3>\n

So, how do security solutions wind up on the list of incompatible programs in the first place? Of course, Microsoft has its own criteria of compatibility \u2013 and they\u2019re identical for all antivirus products; all\u2019s fair and square there.<\/p>\n

The catch comes elsewhere: developers need to ensure compatibility of their antivirus with the final version (the so-called RTM \u2013 Release to Manufacturing) of each new update of Windows. And this final version can differ significantly from earlier versions.<\/p>\n

Ideally, independent developers need two months after receiving the RTM to carry out all their fine-tuning before the release of the Windows update to the public. Earlier, Microsoft would give us the RTM version in good time, but of late this has been reduced to a couple of weeks before releasing to the public.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, we and all other developers need to rush to ensure compatibility before the public launch of the OS. And software development should really never be rushed \u2013 especially when it\u2019s antivirus and users\u2019 security is at stake: the potential for difficulties and risks goes up \u2013 but it could easily be avoided if the final version of the OS were simply delivered with sufficient time for ensuring compatibility. We\u2019re only asking for a few more weeks to make necessary tweaks, which isn\u2019t a lot to ask when customers\u2019 security is on the line.<\/p>\n

Actually, a period much shorter than the customary one given to developers for ensuring compatibility also affects Microsoft itself negatively, plus its users \u2013 and not only those who use our products, but literally everyone. While studying new versions of the OS, our experts often find vulnerabilities and mistakes in them and inform Microsoft. And normally there\u2019s time left for Microsoft\u2019s own developers to deal with the discovered bugs before the release of the OS to the public. But if everyone\u2019s in such a hurry, there\u2019s no time for such a luxury.<\/p>\n

Microsoft defends these new, shortened testing periods for independent developers by stating something like: \u2018these aren\u2019t the days of Windows XP, 7, 9\u2026 releases any more. No one has RTM versions these days; Apple hasn\u2019t \u2013 either for macOS or iOS; and Google hasn\u2019t for Android. We\u2019ve simply got to keep up with the competition\u2019. However, that\u2019s not true: we still get finalized versions of operating systems that are ready for corresponding program development from both Apple and Google with plenty of time for adjustments. Moreover, their OSs aren\u2019t as complex or multi-component as Windows.<\/p>\n

Throw All Antivirus Out the Windows!<\/h3>\n

But what if all the above-listed actions of Microsoft are simply a coincidence and unintentional? Sorry; it\u2019s difficult to believe that. Can you believe it?! It\u2019s plain as day for us that all the measures are taken deliberately to push its own solution, and by doing so impeding users from being able to make their own informed decisions regarding AV.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a Microsoft video published on the official Microsoft YouTube channel and also on the Microsoft website:<\/p>\n