Sure, if you access the kernel you can break it. So we should make easier to do the right thing.
EU complained that Microsoft was the only one that could access the kernel because a lot of Microsoft applications needed kernel access.
(Edit for the downvoters - nothing I said above was an opinion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41049312)
Also Linux fanboys will usually blame the system admin for not configuring things properly if things break: "it's not the operating system, it's <something stolen from OpenBSD>".
End of the day Linux is only popular because of the inertia UNIX had on mini-computers/servers. For standard end users GNU Linux is lightyears behind Windows and macOS in terms of usability and stability.
If MS had blocked these type of things people would be in here complaining about antitrust and MS is evil.
While the hate is valid in many cases, I've observed that the cribbing about it has also been unwarranted or unjustified a lot of the time (also no other corp is held to the same standard) - and this is a prime example.
MS cannot legally restrict third party kernel. Apple can, bc they didn't get struck down like MS did.
MS has an option to not bundle Defender with their OS, which would let them lock the kernel to avoid the anti-trust restrictions, but that would be an insane decision to make.
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't indeed
Our EU friends really enjoy having all the regs on everything... but then demand to be treated as-if the regs don't exist. It's amazing to see...
I work in big tech, and unfortunately we frequently need to have conversations about the smallest features because we have evidence about us giving users an inch and they taking a mile.
Or, an alternative interpretation: Microsoft had 15 years to fix any issues.
However, doing so is no easy feat. The first version of eBPF was released over 10 years ago.
They are not saying the EU is the root cause of the failure, just that they cannot close the hole currently due to the EU.
What they leave out is that they could choose to integrate Defender into the OS for free, thereby removing it as a product to compete against. They could also move Defender to not require kernel hooks either. Neither are options they want to consider currently.
No comment about being able to move Defender to not require kernel hooks (I don't know).
Two reasons:
1 - Few people understand anything about how their computer (/car/stove/phone/medicine/...) works -- they spend their time on other things.
Without any model of how their device works its easy to misassign responsibility (see how many people think that Safari is Google or vice versa). So it's in MS's interest to try to get the message out. Of course people do this when they are at fault as well.
2 - EU is in a wave of beating up* on certain large companies. This can also be an opportunistic way to push back.
* I am not implying whether I think the EU is correct or not.
People interested in running CrowdStrike would be forced to use the EU version anyway, and people uninterested wouldn't be affected by the Crowdstrike bug whether they used the EU version or not, so I don't see exactly how having two versions of Windows would help here.
The rest of the world would have come to a different solution not based on kernel-level access.
I.e Taking Microsoft's argument to it's literal conclusion.
Windows kernel signing does not work like Apple's Big Brother approach, it uses a set of certificate authorities.
Microsoft does have a program for verifying drivers: WHQL, which you may recognise from the slower driver that Windows Update installs for your GPU before you download the faster one that didn't pass Microsoft's verification from the manufacturer's website. CrowdStrike doesn't seem to be WHQL-certified.
I suggest Microsoft follows Britain's example and leaves. The main difference is that we Europeans actually miss the Brits, whereas nobody would miss Microsoft and its shoddy products and business practices.
On a more serious note, I fully understand that the Digital Markets Act is causing Microsoft headaches. But I think this headache is well deserved. Big Tech has been building moats where they should have built bridges, and now our computing landscape resembles medieval Germany where everything was at the mercy of a few feudal lords. It is time to drive out those lords and reshape software in a way that empowers, not enslaves.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41029590
Euronews Next has contacted Microsoft for comment
High quality stuff.
