Re: Via Slashdot: Antivirus Vendors Head to Court

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 7/8/07, Richard M. Smith <rms () computerbytesman com> wrote:
> http://www.beskerming.com/commentary/2007/07/08/209/Antivirus_Vendors_Head_t
> o_Court
>
> Antivirus Vendors Head to Court
> A growing dispute between Kaspersky Lab and Rising Tech in China is now
> headed to court after Kaspersky sued Rising Tech for anticompetitive
> business practices.
>
> The growing dispute, tracked by the Chinese Internet Security Response Team,
> started when an update issued by Kaspersky for their antivirus products
> misidentified some of the files associated with the Rising Tech antivirus
> products as being malicious. This misidentification led to the Rising Tech
> products being unable to be updated. It is unlikely that the problem was
> very widespread, as it would have required affected users to be running both
> Kaspersky and Rising Tech software and updating them whenever a new
> definitions file was released.


This is very confusing... The install instructions for SAVCE 10.x are
"remove any and all other antivirus or antispyware applications before
beginning installation".

Seems to me if Kaspersky or Rising Tech put this kind of disclaimer in
their EULA, they wouldnt have to go to court (or would win if they
did). If its not unfair business practice for Symantec, then lesser
(sized) companies should have no fear.

Even if they dont, its common knowledge that if you are dumb enough to
pay for and run two AV apps on the same box, that you include the
respective app files and folders in the exclusion list of the other.

Like I said, a very wasteful and confusing lawsuit. Nothing good will
come of this.. Maybe a law preventing AV apps from behaving as they
should..

-JP
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.