The "false-positive" war between Kaspersky and Rising is becoming more and more intense, and the contradictions between the two are gradually escalating. Recently, Rising issued a statement describing Kaspersky as the "King of False Positives." In addition, Rising delivered an ultimatum, demanding that Kaspersky apologize publicly within 12 hours, otherwise it would "reveal more truths."
At the same time that Rising and Kaspersky were on high alert, the incident of Kaspersky "false-positiving" Tencent QQ also came to light. However, unlike Rising's strong reaction, Tencent remained unusually low-key about the matter. According to industry insiders, the reason for the stark difference in attitudes of the victims of the two "false-positive gate" incidents is actually because the nature of the two incidents was completely different.
Strategy Error or Technical Error
Foreign Software Triggering Unknown Landmines
On May 22, well-known industry figure Hongyi Zhou, chairman of Qihoo, expressed his views to the media. He believed that Kaspersky has significant differences from many localized enterprises because its core rights are always held by the Russian headquarters. The Russian headquarters does not understand China's domestic Internet ecosystem, and the corresponding lobbying space is also relatively small. As long as there are unsafe factors in the program, there is a possibility of being reported as a virus and subsequently eliminated. Therefore, the false-positive of Rising may be due to some technical errors.
At the same time, some industry insiders pointed out that although both cases involved false positives, the nature of Tencent being falsely identified was not due to technical error. The cause of QQ being falsely identified this time was the inclusion of rogue software technology in the new version of QQ. It was understood that the misidentified QQ version included the installation function of Chinese Soso (a search engine). Some people questioned whether this was another way for Tencent to promote its search business through QQ.
In response, technical experts explained that this version of QQ could install Chinese Soso plugins on users' computers without their knowledge. Moreover, after deleting the file, QQ would still automatically regenerate the file, making it difficult for users to clear it themselves. "From this point of view, Kaspersky's detection and elimination of Tencent cannot simply be equated with the false-positive of Rising," said the technical expert. In this program, Tencent also added blocking settings for competitors' products such as Baidu and Yahoo. That is, every user who installs this version of QQ will find it difficult to continue using Baidu or Yahoo search software.
Since Tencent did not obtain the user's consent when doing so, some Internet legal experts believe that the new version of QQ already meets the characteristics of rogue software published by the Internet Association, essentially turning into a rogue software.
Industry Unspoken Rules Rampant
Domestic Manufacturers Choose Silence
It is puzzling why only foreign antivirus software like Kaspersky, Norton, AVK dare to detect and eliminate Tencent QQ and protect user rights, while most domestic antivirus software turn a blind eye?
Some insiders in the Internet industry believe that the Internet industry is full of all kinds of unwritten rules. The larger the company, the more it needs to follow these rules, sometimes even at the expense of some user interests. Tencent has now developed a powerful market influence and controls a large number of user resources. Challenging Tencent means taking certain risks, and domestic antivirus software deeply understands this, thus adopting a non-action attitude. However, foreign antivirus vendors like Kaspersky have not yet gone through the "baptism" of numerous unspoken rules, hence they made these "rule-breaking" actions.
This time, Kaspersky's harsh crackdown on Tencent, though offending Tencent, established a good image in the hearts of users, resulting in a dramatic increase in installations. Some industry insiders believe that this might be the direct cause of Rising immediately escalating the issue once it discovered Kaspersky's "false-positive" on Rising. Because Kaspersky has caused great market pressure and moral pressure on Rising. However, it is understood that since antivirus software uses a lot of underlying technology, conflicts between software are common, which only falls within the scope of technical solutions.
Regarding several "false-positive" incidents, Ms. Yan from China University of Political Science and Law stated that the false-positive incidents exposed some industry unspoken rules, but people did not reflect on the problems within the industry because of this. Facing the industry's siege and pressure, it is hard for Kaspersky not to make adjustments, but whether these adjustments are good or bad is worth everyone's consideration. If the unspoken rules continue to be buried under the surface, then how will the interests of netizens who suffer deeply from industry unspoken rules be protected?