Malwarebytes Faces Lawsuit For Classifying Rival's Anti-Spyware Program As a Threat (techspot.com) 38
Enigma software group has won a crucial case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, allowing it to proceed with its lawsuit against Malwarebytes for flagging its anti-spyware software as a 'potentially unwanted program.' The lawsuit alleges that Malwarebytes has engaged in anti-competitive conduct under the Lanham Act and tortious interference with Enigma's business. TechSpot reports: The ruling has been lambasted by some legal experts, who believe it could hamper cybersecurity service providers from doing their job effectively. Talking to The Register, Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, claimed that the Ninth Circuit's decision was erroneous, as it failed to differentiate between facts and opinions properly. According to him, in deciding in favor of Enigma, the Ninth Circuit failed to comprehend how the cybersecurity industry operates, and how security companies use the terms 'malicious' and 'threat.' He also felt that thanks to the judgment, there will now be more disputes over such classifications in the future, making the job of cybersecurity companies tougher than ever before.
Goldman further argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision would mean anti-malware software vendors will now simply minimize their financial and legal risks by leaving out supposed anti-threat programs from their list of suspect apps even if they display dangerous behavior, which could pose a major threat to consumers. Some smaller players could also exit the industry altogether, which would further hurt consumers by reducing competition. Goldman was also critical of the Supreme Court for denying Malwarebytes' appeal, and called out Justice Clarence Thomas in particular for writing what he called a "gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas." Enigma said in a statement: "Malwarebytes (has) disparaged Enigma's products for commercial advantage by making misleading statements of fact. ... Trying to wrap them in a First Amendment flag does not make them any less offensive or any less actionable."
Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, told The Register in an email, "This case is like a wrecking ball for internet law." He added: "The Ninth Circuit already damaged Section 230 by creating an exception to its coverage (for 'anticompetitive animus') that no one understands and has not benefited anyone. Then, when the Supreme Court denied the appeal, Justice Thomas wrote a gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas. Now, the Ninth Circuit has redefined the standards for what constitutes a statement of 'fact' as opposed to an opinion in a way that hurts businesses in the anti-threat software space and well beyond."
"If each classification could similarly support weaponization in court by businesses unhappy with the classifications, then anti-threat software vendors will avoid the financial and legal risks by lowering their cybersecurity standards or exiting the industry," said Goldman. "That puts all of us at greater risk."
Goldman further argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision would mean anti-malware software vendors will now simply minimize their financial and legal risks by leaving out supposed anti-threat programs from their list of suspect apps even if they display dangerous behavior, which could pose a major threat to consumers. Some smaller players could also exit the industry altogether, which would further hurt consumers by reducing competition. Goldman was also critical of the Supreme Court for denying Malwarebytes' appeal, and called out Justice Clarence Thomas in particular for writing what he called a "gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas." Enigma said in a statement: "Malwarebytes (has) disparaged Enigma's products for commercial advantage by making misleading statements of fact. ... Trying to wrap them in a First Amendment flag does not make them any less offensive or any less actionable."
Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, told The Register in an email, "This case is like a wrecking ball for internet law." He added: "The Ninth Circuit already damaged Section 230 by creating an exception to its coverage (for 'anticompetitive animus') that no one understands and has not benefited anyone. Then, when the Supreme Court denied the appeal, Justice Thomas wrote a gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas. Now, the Ninth Circuit has redefined the standards for what constitutes a statement of 'fact' as opposed to an opinion in a way that hurts businesses in the anti-threat software space and well beyond."
"If each classification could similarly support weaponization in court by businesses unhappy with the classifications, then anti-threat software vendors will avoid the financial and legal risks by lowering their cybersecurity standards or exiting the industry," said Goldman. "That puts all of us at greater risk."
American judicial system really is a pile of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:American judicial system really is a pile of cr (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? It's the best system money can buy!
Not QUITE the best that money can buy (Score:1)
I think the judicial system in the Ferengi Alliance is (will be? time travel tenses are a pain) at least marginally superior.
Re: (Score:2)
1337th rule of acquisition, when faced with a superior competitor, use paid off judges to hamstring them
Re: (Score:2)
Holey Moley, I'm gonna have to drink some root beer!
Commerce Acquisition Regulations
PART 1337 - SERVICE CONTRACTING [acquisition.gov]
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 414; 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.
1337.110-70 Personnel security processing requirements.
Source: 75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010, unless otherwise noted.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have enough facepalms for computers with dozens of antivirus, anti-malware and "optimization/cleanup" programs installed.
I'm not blaming the users, I'm blaming the FUD culture deliberately created by the vendors of this junkware.
Having said that, Malwarebytes does seem to do a good job.
Re: (Score:2)
I used it to fix a machine a few weeks ago.
Re: (Score:3)
It used to be a thing, back 20+ years ago. We would use a variety of scanners to check and clean systems suspected of being infected. Some people would even run multiple active AV programs at once (a cure worse than the disease...)
Nowadays, most just run the built-in AV on a pc and harden the network itself with IDS + Firewall. If a modern system is suspected of compromise you pull it offline and either wipe + reimage it, or replace it from hardware up if it is a critical system.
But back in the day, equi
Re: (Score:2)
I remember just 10 years ago, when the self-installing, MS security mimicking Security 2013 worm would get onto a persons computer and refuse all attempts to remove it
Malwarebytes wiped that shit out with a version update, a reboot and a final cleaning, somehow I suspect that a shitshow named Enigma Software would try and pull the same pranks
Malwarebytes is dead, long live Malwarebytes
Re: (Score:1)
Where is it wonderful? Let's go there and copy it.
meh (Score:1)
Don't worry, this case won't go anywhere and will get tossed right quick.
If the legal system reclassified opinionated words like "potentially" to be statements of fact, the majority of the legal system itself would be destroyed overnight.
There's a reason legal statements are peppered with "potentially" to deflect statements of fact, and "allegedly" to deflect responsibility of a claim.
It's now required just to have a discussion on anything that is a possibility before being declared true, which just happens
Re: (Score:3)
imo any decent security program will contain malware fingerprints and _should_ be considered as potentially malicious
What a completely worthless article (Score:5, Insightful)
This story link contains absolutely nothing on why MBAM might consider their software a threat, let alone whether it might be justified.
I don't know where this text comes from originally, but I found it in a forum post: [linustechtips.com]
SpyHunter by Enigma Software Group USA, LLC is a program that was previously listed as a rogue product on the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products List because of the company's history of employing aggressive and deceptive advertising. It has since been delisted but some users have reported they still engage in deceptive advertising. Newer versions of SpyHunter install it's own "Compact OS" and uses Grub4Dos loader to execute on boot up. The user no longer sees the normal Windows boot menu but instead sees the GRUB menu. In some cases this has caused the computer to go into a continuous loop or experience other issues when attempting to boot.
So in summary, users are getting tricked into installing this shitty software which sometimes breaks their computer. It is therefore malware, it should not be difficult to prove it, and we should be looking out to see who's really funding this attack on Section 230.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia:
SpyHunter is often labeled an Potentially Unwanted Program due to its misleading results of always showing infections, including on clean computers, and injects tracking cookies into a users browser, raising concern whether it is legitimate or not. The company also floods web search results when searching for a specific threat, linking a download to SpyHunter, even if the product is not able to remove it.
That plus the previous response. Yeah...
Re: (Score:3)
Tech companies often abuse 230 to do whatever they please with zero oversight.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Ever been on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter?
The plural of rant is not data.
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually nothing new, and has happened many times before. It could be intentional (ie vendor trying to discredit a rival), but they also have plausible deniability because:
1) anti malware typically employs persistence techniques to make it hard to get rid of - in exactly the same way malware does
2) anti malware needs to come with a database of known malware, which by necessity must include strings and patterns to look for - it's not uncommon for the patterns in the anti malware database to be detect
Re: (Score:2)
3. AV / AM software accesses all files on a system (on disk and in memory) -behavior which looks suspicious to other AV / AM software.
Re: (Score:2)
drinkypoo:
Most, if not all, security programs contain a malware/virus signature/fingerprint database to compare their findings to (think of it as a virus snippet used to create a vaccine). In my 4 decades of computer use and administration, these databases have frequently caused other anti-virus software to raise the 'potentially malicious' warning
So, yes... it is common, if not in fact an industry practice. The legal system calling it into question ignores decades of common usage and will, inevitably, have
Re: (Score:3)
drinkypoo, all apologies, I failed to read your entire post, great analysis thank you
Well, is Enigma's software junk or not? (Score:2)
If it's not legit, did Malwarebytes try to argue that they're engaged in false advertising?
Re:Well, is Enigma's software junk or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Enigma is pretty much everything Malwarebytes says it is. One of those spammy "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED INSTALL THIS ANTIVIRUS NOW" type sleazo marketers.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - except I don't think false advertising has anything to do with it. Despite Trump's fervent hopes, "they did bad things too" is generally not a legal defense, except in the context of self defense or breach of contract. False advertising charges would be an unrelated case.
If Engima's software is legitimately acting in sleazy ways, then it's justifiably flagged as potentially malicious, and the judge probably misruled. If not, then Malwarebytes is almost certainly engaging in anticompetitive behav
Re: (Score:2)
wikipedia
SpyHunter is often labeled an Potentially Unwanted Program due to its misleading results of always showing infections, including on clean computers, and injects tracking cookies into a users browser, raising concern whether it is legitimate or not. The company also floods web search results when searching for a specific threat, linking a download to SpyHunter, even if the product is not able to remove it.
Some background legal information (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Some background legal information (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Settings/Posting/Comment Post Mode = "Plain Old Text"
The court misunderstood? (Score:2)
"According to him, in deciding in favor of Enigma, the Ninth Circuit failed to comprehend how the cybersecurity industry operates"
Or they comprehended exactly how the cybersecurity industry operates.
LMFAO (Score:1)
Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, claimed that the Ninth Circuit's decision was erroneous, as it failed to differentiate between facts and opinions properly
I think this is pathetic. When a malware flags a competitive malware as a threat, it is anti-competition plain and simple. The "professor" claims such and such, but he won't elaborate why, that's because he can't. If he goes into the why, he'll effectively prove himself bogus.
Re: (Score:2)