Kaspersky says Windows&#039 security bundle is anti-competitive

Kaspersky points out that Windows automatically uninstalls unsupported antivirus application when you upgrade to the new OS, regardless of your settings, and will sometimes revert to Defender even if you pass an initial check. Also, if your third-celebration antivirus tool is compatible, you’ll nonetheless get a warning that Defender is off with a “large juicy” button to turn it on. These wouldn’t be so undesirable if Microsoft gave independent developers more slack, Kaspersky argues. Third parties supposedly don’t get a lot lead time prior to new releases (just a week in one particular case), so they’re left scrambling to make their apps compatible. And to top it off, notices for expired antivirus application licenses are buried in Security Center notifications for three days prior to you get a much more explicit warning. You may not understand that your preferred software program is inactive until Defender automatically kicks in.

If successful, the complaints would have Microsoft clearly tell Windows customers about software compatibility problems prior to an upgrade, stopping rude surprises with antivirus protection. Microsoft would also have to ask for your approval whenever it desires to turn on Defender, and give outside developers “good time” to address compatibility concerns.

We’ve asked Microsoft for its response to Kaspersky’s problems, and we’ll let you know if it has something to say. However, Kaspersky may possibly have a tougher time with its case than in other antitrust circumstances, such as when Microsoft’s rivals attacked it over browser option. For 1 thing, it is not as if Microsoft keeps Windows development completely in the dark. Ars Technica notes that the Windows Insider system offers just about any individual a peek at where Windows is going in the future, and explicitly warns you if antivirus apps aren’t compatible. Also, antivirus is far more of a must-have than a nicety these days. Regulators may possibly be hesitant to make any moves that potentially leave customers unprotected, even if that is unlikely with Kaspersky’s proposals.

Engadget RSS Feed

Security News This Week: Google Ups the Ante on Web Encryption

As the presidential campaign charges ahead, the saga of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e mail server continues. Fresh criticism emerged this week that Clinton must have been hiding terrible things simply because one particular of her aides smashed two of her personal Blackberrys with a hammer. But from a data safety point of view, that is not a poor issue in reality some professionals say the discarded devices ought to have been destroyed a lot more thoroughly. Meanwhile, Property Oversight Committee leader Elijah Cummings released a 2009 e mail sent by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Clinton in which he describes in detail all the ways he himself skirted State Division technology specifications.

This week we grappled with the query of why Baltimore has turn into a bastion of surveillance tech. Over in the private sector, the Google-owned tech incubator Jigsaw is developing a program to try to identify ISIS recruits and deter them from joining the organization. And an op-ed contributor says it is time to acknowledge that whoever wins the presidency will need to set new policy for autonomous weapons systems and their scope of use in warfare when the old Department of Defense Directive expires in 2017.

But wait, there’s more: Each and every Saturday we round up the news stories that we didn’t break or cover in depth but still deserve your consideration. As always, click on the headlines to study the full story in each and every hyperlink posted. And remain protected out there.

Google Will Mark Unencrypted Websites “Insecure”

Not too extended ago, the normal for a secure site was to not offer gaping holes for hackers to exploit or infect guests with malware. Now even plain-old HTTP itself, that venerable web protocol, is about to be deemed insecure. Google has announced that its net browser Chrome will soon take a a lot more aggressive stance on web encryption, marking any site as insecure if it does not use HTTPS, a protocol that encrypts web pages with the encryption schemes SSL or TLS, and putting a red “X” more than a padlock in the corner of the address bar. The rollout will start in January by applying the rule to any web site that asks for a password or credit card details. It will later expand to all sites when the user is browsing in Chrome’s incognito mode. At some point, Chrome will label all HTTP web sites as insecure. In other words, the web giant is taking a giant step toward a fully encrypted net and placing anybody who isn’t taking HTTPS seriously on notice: If your web site isn’t currently encrypted, start off functioning on it or turn into the topic of shaming messages in millions of users’ browsers.

Healthcare Gear Organization Sues Firm That Traded on Its Hackable Bugs

In the extended history of controversies more than hackers who locate and publicize hackable bugs, the case of St. Jude Healthcare and the finance firm Muddy Waters might be one particular of the messiest. Last month Muddy Waters and the security analysis firm MedSec teamed up to expose what they described as flaws in St. Judge’s pacemakers and defibrillators that could put patients’ lives in danger, potentially bricking the healthcare implants. And they went a step further: Muddy Waters also short-sold St. Jude’s stock, then profited from the resulting drop after the expose went public. Now St. Jude is firing back with a lawsuit accusing both the hackers and traders of illegal and damaging behavior like industry manipulation and false accusations. Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Michigan published a rebuttal to MedSec prior to the lawsuit, claiming to refute some of the vulnerabilities MedSec identified.

Congress Concerns Damning Post-Mortem on OPM Breach

A hacker breach of the Office of Personnel Management that was revealed last year was the worst cyber attack on a federal agency in current history, exposing as numerous as 22 million federal employees’ private records. Now a group of Republican members of Congress has released the results of its investigation into the attack and areas the blame squarely on the agency’s management. The detailed postmortem runs through a series of known, unfixed safety vulnerabilities in the agency’s systems prior to its discovery of hackers compromising its network in 2014 and describes how after OPM identified the initial breach and focused on containing the intrusion, another group of hackers ran rampant by means of its systems, ultimately stealing millions of the very individual background check records. The report lists the agency’s obstructions of the Office of the Inspector Common, which investigated the breach, along with OPM’s misleading statements to Congress about its technologies setup and security measures.

White House Names Very first Federal Chief Information Safety Officer

As component of the Obama administration’s $ 19 billion Cybersecurity National Action Strategy, the White Home appointed its very first federal chief information security officer. The position will be filled by retired Brigadier General Gregory J. Touhill, who was previously deputy assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications in the Division of Homeland Security’s Office of Cybersecurity and Communications. As CISO he will report to Tony Scott, the federal chief information officer. Touhill’s aim will be to enhance government network safety, evaluate security measures at agencies across the government, and raise awareness nationally about the significance of cybersecurity. It’s not going to be an effortless job if he does it correct.

DDoS-For-Hire Service Hacked, Revealing Shady Dealings and Customer Information

The Isreali “booter” service vDOS, which offered to wage distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks for its clients, was itself hacked, exposing information about tens of thousands of buyers and targets. The hack also leaked details about the business itself. Amongst April and July 2016, vDOS generated more than 277 million seconds of attack time, or practically nine years of malicious traffic, by maintaining a number of attack campaigns every day. As Krebs on Security puts it, “To say that vDOS has been accountable for a majority of the DDoS attacks clogging up the World wide web over the past few years would be an understatement.” The organization was breached by a hacker who had discovered a vulnerability in the server configuration data of another attack firm. He attempted it on vDOS and it worked, allowing him to exploit an additional bug that gave him access to the company’s databases. vDOS has created over $ 600,000 in the previous two years. Go Back to Leading. Skip To: Commence of Write-up.