Does Kaspersky Have a Point?
Last week an article was written regarding Kaspersky filing an antitrust complaint to the European Union, targeting Microsoft. Kaspersky claimed Microsoft has put up various road blocks for third-party anti-virus (AV) companies, making it impossible to stay on a level playing field.
The article published last week generated a large amount of feedback, from all perspectives. Because of this engagement, it was believed a follow up post is warranted, explaining PC Matic’s viewpoint.
PC Matic’s Perspective
Antivirus solution, PC Matic, agrees that Kaspersky may have a point to their complaint.
Recently, Microsoft began requiring all of their supported AV programs to take part in performance tests that the companies have to pass in order to remain a Microsoft Supported anti-virus (AV). If the software program does not pass the test, it is removed from the PCs when they are upgraded to Windows 10 and the security program is not allowed on the Microsoft Supported Anti-Virus list.
The issues with the performance tests are how often they need to be done, as well as the time constraints that Microsoft enforces. First, testing is required multiple times a year. During which, it has become standard that Microsoft has updated their operating system and/or Defender. This means, security programs must ensure their programming is compatible with these enhancements. There is also a timeline, setting expectations for when security programs are to complete, and pass the performance test.
From an AV company perspective, the consistent retesting can become quite time consuming; however, it must get done. If it is not done so in a timely manner, or if the product fails, it makes it harder for paying customers to keep their third-party security solutions on their computers.
Overall Defender is becoming a better product, but based on test results PC Matic and many other AV products still do a better job at blocking the latest threats. However, the performance testing and some of the recent changes to Windows 10, create a longer process for these AV companies to remain as a Microsoft supported AV. The question now is, do these increased hoops security companies have to jump through outweigh the benefits for the end-user?