41–50 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll never understand why AV is a third party software solution. I don't buy an Audi and then go to some other company and buy ABS and seat belts. This is a MS issue and should be handled in house.
>I'll never understand why AV is a third party software solution. It has been first-party for many years - MSE was released 2009-09 per Wikipedia.
I think at this time if you're on windows 10 you should really just use Defender. It works well, they are actively developing it, and the new white list based directory protection is kinda neat if you're scared of ransomware.
What feature are you talking about specifically?
“Customers will not receive the January 2018 security updates (or any subsequent security updates) and will not be protected from security vulnerabilities unless their antivirus software vendor sets the following registry key” Another incentive to stop using questionable AV software (since this was implemented because they can't get their act together).
No, another incentive to stop using Windows. 3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates, and Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no')
Coping with Windows is a fact of life. Get used to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which third-party AV isn't dodgy?
clamav Unfortunately I have no reason to use it, though. I don't even know whether it's any good. But at least I know it's not dodgy!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, another incentive to stop using Windows. 3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates, and Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no')
From the article: "There is a problem where some anti-virus vendors are using techniques to bypass Kernel Patch Protection by injecting a hypervisor which they use to intercept syscalls and make assumptions about memory locations — memory locations which are now changing with the Meltdown fixes." Difficult situation for Microsoft. If you install applications which mess with the operating system in unsupported ways yo…
They have reasons for doing it the other way, but I definitely blame them for not standing up to crap AV vendors in this and many other situations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: "There is a problem where some anti-virus vendors are using techniques to bypass Kernel Patch Protection by injecting a hypervisor which they use to intercept syscalls and make assumptions about memory locations — memory locations which are now changing with the Meltdown fixes." Difficult situation for Microsoft. If you install applications which mess with the operating system in unsupported ways yo…
I'm not sure it's that difficult for Microsoft. Unless I misunderstand something, the requirement is on the antivirus systems already registered with Microsoft. They had half a year. MS could force vendors to patch their shit in a few weeks by giving them an ultimatum: in January, either you don't interfere with kernel patching, or we're showing your customers "you antivirus is stopping you from receiving latest secu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, another incentive to stop using Windows. 3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates, and Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no')
The problem is that anti-virus software is not a normal application, it is a weird, very complex kind of parasite that burrows deep into the operating system. This means Microsoft must be very careful, lest the parasite unintentionally kill the host.
(Of course, let's ignore the obvious joke about some AV solutions like Symantec.)
“Customers will not receive the January 2018 security updates (or any subsequent security updates) and will not be protected from security vulnerabilities unless their antivirus software vendor sets the following registry key” Another incentive to stop using questionable AV software (since this was implemented because they can't get their act together).
No, another incentive to stop using Windows. 3rd party applications should NOT be responsible for insuring that the OS can receive critical security updates, and Microsoft should not be relying on 3rd party applications to determine whether or not their customers receive critical OS security updates (and of all things, hilariously defaulting to 'no')
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it's that difficult for Microsoft. Unless I misunderstand something, the requirement is on the antivirus systems already registered with Microsoft. They had half a year. MS could force vendors to patch their shit in a few weeks by giving them an ultimatum: in January, either you don't interfere with kernel patching, or we're showing your customers "you antivirus is stopping you from receiving latest secu…
They could, but this isn't just a technical issue it's also a legal and political issue where several AV vendors are currently suing MS in the EU for alleged anti-trust behavior. So the lawyers compromise everybody's security.