Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Acquires RAV Antivirus
Webmoth writes "Microsoft has announced the assimilation of RAV Antivirus from GeCAD Software of Romania. This is significant, because RAV Antivirus was one of the few antivirus products that provided cross-platform email virus scanning and spam filtering, integrating with sendmail and postfix on Linux (among others). No word yet on the impact to non-Microsoft users. In the process, they've left RAE Internet, the (former) exclusive U.S. distributor of RAV Antivirus, along with a host of authorized resellers, in the dust."
perhaps this is part of the overall implementation to improve microsoft products that we've seen as of recent.
while the OS is becoming more and more bloated, a virus scanner seems to be one of the things that would actually be a welcome addition.
"Microsoftâ(TM)s investment in our technology is a testament to Romaniaâ(TM)s software development talent, and a strong endorsement of the efforts that have been made by the GeCAD team over the past nine years to help customers get secure," said Radu Georgescu, president of GeCAD Software. "I look forward to the contributions that the team and the technology will make both to Microsoftâ(TM)s future and to the future of trustworthy computing."
Their investment was to add to their DRM capabilities.
This sounds like something they will bundle with their new version of Exchange server due out later this year.
So which will come sooner, the patch detecting the virus or the patch to fix the hole in the operating system that the virus exploits?
So has MS decided that it's easier to chase the horse down after it escapes of the barn, rather than just closing the barn door?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
isn't this the classic example of leveraging the monopoly to take over another area? what sayeth symantec and mcaffee about this?
Connectix - Who made Virtual PC.... cfm?Art icleID=38080
. html
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index
AND RARE - who made games for the Game Cube..
http://cube.ign.com/articles/371/371768p1
I'm sure this isn't a complete list...
Here is a new business strategy:
1. Create product for non-MS platform
2. Sell to MS
3. Profit!
Watch for Microsoft operating systems to be more prone to virii in the future.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Wasn't Palladium supposed to make Windows boxes virus-free? Why bother buying up an antivirus company when their future plans are to make virus scanners obsolete?
In other news, scientists combine a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto and cause an enormous chain reaction, obliterating life as we know it across four continents.
"Something that perfect could only exist if there was a god to create it, so the Babel fish proved there was a god. Proof denies faith however, and faith is the standard by which we are to know God. Oops, says God, without faith I have no followers, and disappears in a theological puff of smoke."
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
Will it be built-in in the OS? it could be a good thing, but will other competitors take MS to court for being anti-competitive, like Internet Explorer vs Netscape?
So now companies aren't just outsourcing to other countries they are "assimilating" them there too just to save a buck...
We're not god. Not only are we human but we are sometimes forced to become the devil himself. We're not god
This is an ANTIVIRUS program, WTF does that have to do with anything Microsoft would want to add DRM to?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
With viruses, Microsoft has ignored them for years - blaming virus writers and people who didn't patch their systems every 30 seconds. Now they have finally awoken to the fact that they have to take some responsibility for abuses of their system due to shoddy programming.
How will Norton, McAfee, etc. survive this? Microsoft will force their product down our throats and will kill more competition.
Scanning email for specific viruses is overkill. This solution stops more viruses (read: all of them) with far fewer system resources:
http://qmail.org/qmail-smtpd-viruscan-1.0.patch
First VirtualPC, and cease-and-desisting RealPC, now this. Seems Microsoft is intent on continuing their tried and true strategy
1. Find company that sells something that enables use of other platforms besides Wintel/Palladium
2. Purchase said company with change found in Bill's sofa
3. Shut down offending product line
4. Enjoy complete immunity from antitrust regulation in the U.S.
Fortunately, this leads to a great new business model, especially in countries with IP laws that the RIAA finds not-so-friendly:
1. Create a product that enables use of a platform other than Wintel
2. Sell company to Microsoft
3. Dig backup CDR of source code out from behind bookshelf
4. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Let's now wait and see if Microsoft maintains the RAV Anti-virus for mail servers product for all the non-Microsoft environments. Anyone care to place a wager?
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
AVG Antivirus http://www.grisoft.com Is a free (depending on your country of residence)windows based AV that does not use any spyware and has free updates. It has saved my neck quite a few times. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't currently have any protection. So far it appears to have mostly the same features as others such as Norton AV.
cross-platform email virus scanning and spam filtering, integrating with sendmail and postfix on Linux
Is this one way to penetrate Linux server markets and make some money of out it? So even if you switch from Windows to Linux, you might still be paying to MS one way or another.
If this is not just another attempt to suck the air out of the room for everyone but MS I totally missed my guess.
---
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nearly every major antivirus vendor has a Linux product.
Don't let MS wipe this out, mirror now!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
while the OS is becoming more and more bloated, a virus scanner seems to be one of the things that would actually be a welcome addition.
Gee, well I'd like to see the OS an integrated dictionary that could be used by all applications but that would be too much like a useful feature. Why doesn't Microsoft include one? Because it would put a severe dent in sales of Microsoft Word - beyond the spelling checker, there are few killer features in Word that 90 percent of home users will ever want to use.
Let's face it, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless features and applets that Microsoft could include in its OS but continually chooses to ignore simply because including them could hurt sales of its other products.
On the other hand, where there is the real threat of a competitor's product gaining a position of near-dominance, or of a product potentially reducing users' reliance on Microsoft products, Microsoft does everything it can to smash the competition and bring them back into the fold. The Netscape/IE browser war is an example of the former, Java and Microsoft's flawed JVM is an example of the latter.
I'm guessing that Microsoft will simply kill off this product. After all, the very words "cross-platform" are considered blasphemy to the folks at Redmond. The last thing it'll do is further develop a product that promotes secure computing on non-Microsoft platforms.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Dvorak predicted this would happen in a PCMag editorial back in 2001:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,6271,00.asp
His reasoning is fairly sanguine as well - Virus updating over the web gives MS a perfect excuse to connect to your Windows PC and - along with updating your virus software (perhaps daily!) - sniff around to see what apps you have installed, check out any illegal software/music/etc, look for that Linux partition (and corrupt it?)... pretty scary.
MS connecting to your PC daily... Dvorak was right about something... its all just too much at once. Perhaps this article should be under 'Further signs of the apocalypse'?
Here are a couple of harmless words by me, please be constructive with your critisism. I am a padawan nerd after all...
Once again Microsoft do one of their trademark things; shady deals and corporate buyouts. There's no other reason why Microsoft bought this company other than it provided good services on another platform. This doesn't come as a suprise really. Seems to me that lately they're not really satisfied with owning 95%+ of the market.
Never believe in the official word Microsoft give. That's rule number one. Look at the reason why they bought Connectix. The official word was because of the technology they had with running several operating systems on the same computer, or something like that. Well, it becomes even more obvious when you look at the fact that Connectix was the only Windows emulation software on the Mac, backed up by the fact that Microsoft have been lacking on updates for their Mac software recently. In other words, they want to kill Apple.
Why? Seems to me that Microsoft is now doing whatever it can with in legal boundries to finish all the competitive forces. They're now piece by piece peeling the bana of Apple. Before you know it, Microsoft will kill Office for Mac and Apple will die of nothing is done about it.
Infact, didn't Microsoft make an agreement or licencing deal with SCO a couple of months ago right before they started suing companies for stealing their code? Have none of you ever thought of that connection?
In other words... Looks like Microsoft has pulled in to high gear in fear, by doing what they do best: kill the opponents by buying them away.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
... and thinking "It is???"
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
about time they got serious about preventing modification to system files and other critical targets of viruses
Go Check out Frisk Software's F-PROT for Linux and FreeBSD.
Good stuff.
now you can get virus and anti-virus software from the same company.
Avast at http://www.avast.com/index.html
:)
Using it on my Windows XP box and I'm very happy with it, apart from the scary siren and ladies voice that shouts "Warning, Virus Detected" and scares the crap out of you when you're not expecting it
They have a Beta Version for Linux for download.
Jonathan
This is just another example of how the government fucked up in the Anti-trust trial, by not splitting the company into 4 entities and barring them from working together.
MS should be restricted from buying/licensing any existing company or product. Why inovate when we can buy the competion?
Anyone else remember what MS Anti-virus was like back in the days of Win3.11? Their (in)ability to release updates in a timely mannor should give food for thought to those thinking of deploying this.
F-Prot Antivirus for Linux Mailservers which works with Sendmail Postfix and QMail.
Duh! Open source is a virus, right? What better way to see who's running Linux than a virus scanner! Of course!
This is significant, because RAV Antivirus was one of the few antivirus products that provided cross-platform email virus scanning
Yes, that's probably the whole point.
Thank God I chose to buy Sophos licenses instead of RAV. For anyone who's looking to replace RAV (on linux, bsd, whatever) check out Sophos. They support a plethora of operating systems, hopefully they won't get bought by M$ too ;)
Virus Alert!!!
The Virus __Microsoft Windows__ was found on your operating system. Click _here_ to clean.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
...make sure RAV can't detect Outlook viruses?
Oh, wait, you mean Microsoft _didn't_ mean for Office to be the Microsoft Virus Developers Kit?
My bad.
There I go again confusing results with intentions.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I got lambasted for using that not-even-close-to-a-word before, and you know, I was wrong to use it. Because it isn't a word. Really. Virii? Where did that even come from? Even if you incorrectly use the common rule and replace the "us" with "i" you get "viri". Where does the extra "i" come from?
Please stop using this bastardization as I did. The last thing English needs is a new complex form of pluralization, the "add random letters for no reason" rule.
The enemies of Democracy are
This once more illustrates that Microsoft is not a real 'technology company'. They buy other, smaller companies and integrate it as a component into their code base. They also do not provide cutting edge technology, they simply wait until a small company has proven to have a good product and then buy out that company. The leading software company for consumer software in the world is nothing more than a rather shallow business model: take the ideas of others, integrate them and sell the stuff. In itself, that's okay, but it feels a bit cheap. Why not being original? Is it all about money and nothing else?
Check out H+BEDV Antivir. It's free for personal use, and it integrates just fine with Qmail as is, or with AMaViS if you prefer using that.
Slagborr
I think if Microsoft wanted to kill Apple, they would have simply purchased the company back in '97 , rather than cutting an investment-for-software deal. If MS killed Office on Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world - there are other office/productivity suites for the Mac (Open Office, Apple Works, etc).
Actually, if RAV works on Mac, I would think MS would have every reason to keep it going - and, if it doesn't run on Mac, they would probably try to make a port of it. MS is in the business of selling software. Apple is just another platform in which to do that - and, given the fact that their respective OS' run on different chip architecture, there isn't the same direct competition for MS as there is with Linux.
Regarding Connectix, there's no reason for MS to kill the Mac version there either - actually, it gives MS a chance to let Mac owners run an MS OS on their Macs (which they have to purchase). MS sells software - selling a VirtualPC app w/ a copy of WinXP is a *good thing* to them.
The Linux version of RAV probably is doomed, however... unless MS wants to begin infiltrating the Linux market w/ its software (which seems unlikely) - keeping an anti-virus app around w/ the RAV logo on it would be a low-impact way of delving into the Linux market, while staying slightly under the radar screen.
This thread has been tossed around for the past few days, and you can check the archives for past discussions of various anti-virus suites for Linux email servers.
"Your mind is like a parachute. If it don't work, you're screwed"
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
What it does do: block off valid .exe attachments, which would be a major
PITA at my place of work. What it doesn't do: scan for zipped virusses,
Word macro virusses, etc. I wouldn't trust that 'solution' for a second. There's a *reason* people
buy antivirus programs, you know?
I believe Microsoft will follow RAV's cross platform tradition. The products will be available on all major platforms including Windows 9X, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows CE.
Why? Because I dont have a virus scanner and I know I'm not alone in that.
Yes, I know that it's useful, that's why I want it. But critical? Number of times my system has succumbed into a virus? 0.
If my next version of Windows just keeps my computer secure from virii, great! If not, what have I lost?
It could be argued that this adds to bloat. It is true. However, IMHO, it adds much more to usability. No need to read dozens of reviews of scanners, check if they happen to work with your OS and hardware combination, no need to subscribe into an additional download database (scanner that's not kept up to date isn't worth much).
Homer : I reluctantly accept your proposal.
Bill Gates : Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Homer : Hey, what the hell's going on!
Bill Gates : Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane laughter]
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Any issues of MS buying the patents of RAV Antivirus, which would affect others who develop security software for Linux?
Microsoft already tried to include a virus scanner in DOS 6. IIRC, it was really, really bad. Here is a link to a usenet posing talking about it:
0 &h l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_ mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=31&as_maxm= 12&as_maxy=1993&selm=0019.9304021149.AA05068%40fir st.org&rnum=119
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=MSAV&start=11
MSFT can aquire a company and *not* integrate it into windows
When has that been the case?
Will I retire or break 10K?
So does this mean that you're standing down from your goal of "Secure Computing" to something more akin to "Kinda Almost OurFingersAreCrossed WeKnowMoreThanTheHackers WeAllCarryRabbitsFeet Computing"?
And to think I once believed in you guys.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I guess that's possible - but it would only be a matter of time before someone decides to check what kind of data is coming in and out of their computer, and when word of what was happening got out, there would be a massive backlash against Windows. Look at what happened with a (relatively) small thing like product activation... if Microsoft does do something like this, I think MS will be a lot subtler about it. And you are, of course, making the assumption that MS bought RAV with the intention of integrating antivirus into Windows, not selling the progam separately or just killing it off. That assumption makes sense, but nothing's been confirmed so far.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Or a protection racket?
Sure, we'll sell you an anti-virus, you wouldn't want anything "bad" to happen to your data would you? We'll keep you nice and virus clean. What, you think we put those bugs in there accidently?
I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
What they say and what they mean.
What they say:
"Customers told us they needed a safer, more trustworthy computing experience to help combat the threats posed by those who write viruses and malicious code," said Mike Nash, corporate vice president of the Security Business Unit at Microsoft. "This acquisition will help us and our partner antivirus providers further mitigate risks from these threats."
What they mean:
Trustworthy Computing isn't everything we promised. Palladium only addresses security and DRM through encryption, not vulnerabilities. We need outside eyes looking at our problems.
Say:
In addition to developing new solutions, Microsoft will use (embrace) the GeCAD engineering expertise and technology to enhance the Windows® platform and extend support for third-party antivirus vendors so they can provide customers with increasingly secure and comprehensive levels of virus protection.
Mean: We think that this is another market we can exploit. Seeing how we developed this market we can use our monopoly to force out everyone else. Note that they even use 'extend'.
Thoughts:
Well, the problem is that AV tools are only good at preventing a problem from reaching you if you know about it before it reaches you. It doesn't prevent the problem. They help in clean up but after you've been hit. Virus and worm writers are very inventive. They'll find vulnerabilities no one ever thought about.
Predictions: MS will create a new MS AV product like Norton or McAfee. But it will come bundled with their software. Later they'll rewrite Win APIs so that their AV works faster or has more access.
Note the quality of the product is unknown. I would think it will be worse because audits work best when neutral third parties are invovled. By buying this technology, it would seem that over time RAV will lose any edge it has now.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have done a quick search on this page for two keywords: "Hotmail" and "MSN" when it had already gathered about a hundred responses. No hits!
Has noone thought about the likelihood that Microsoft has bought multiplatform antivirus software to protect their Hotmail/MSN e-mail services, rather than implement it in a desktop OS? Microsoft has been talking for a long time about rental software services, and not moving the actual software to the desktop system, but implementing it behind the webinterface is actually a rather good solution to fighting e-mail born viruses. I don't expect you'll see this software in Windows, ever.
JeR
It was announced today, that after long negotiation, Microsoft has purchased the final remaining piece of intellectual property on Earth, the cyrogenically preserved head of Linus Torvalds...
I've got your sig, right here.
Friend of mine is using RAV in his security appliance based on OpenBSD. Supposedly RAV had realy good licensing terms as compared to other 'professional' AV companies. Anyhow, talk about fate, he finaly dumped MS completely in favor of Open/Free BSD and then a year later MS is back ;-)
Sounds like a great way to put all your chickens in one easy to use basket.
I give up, some one get me when Elvis returns...
I think they are. They have a apple controlled browser out (Safari) and I just bet they have had a Office type suite with full file compatability hidden in some dark room for a while now just in case MS kills Office. I dont think Office is much of a threat anyway - when I had my G4 I could have cared less, and nobody in business is using Macs anyway! They can just use Office on their PC'S. Apple does need a foolproof file converter for anything Office does however.
The days of Apple and MS making nice are coming to a close. After 10.3 OS X comes out with nice 970 dual hypertransport enabled in tow things are going to get interesting. Thats the only reason MS bought Virtual PC - to hold it over Apple's head. Look for another round of platform wars to start later this year.
How about this:
Put aside that it's a virus scanner. What does it really do? It scans all of the files on your systems, and those being transmitted in and out of your system and matches fingerprints of those files to a database.
What's to stop them from tracking all of the files sent in and out of the system under the guise of the virus scanner? It could pop up different messages "This file contains the virus {blah}" or "this is a DRM protected application and is not legal to transfer to your system".
It could piggy back that information in it's virus datafile updates. It would be hard to track becuase all of the things that it would do, it needs to do to be a succesful anti-virus tool.
-Sean
No, because buying Apple outright is stupid. They provide Microsoft with legitimacy as "competition."
The parent's assertation makes much more sense.
I thought Microsoft *is* a virus.
When a virus and and antivirus come together, is it like matter and antimatter?
Glad I don't live in Redmond...
The reason stems from the fact that people are trying to get rid of symptoms instead of the problem. Executables shouldn't be allowed to be sent in email, and end-users should scan archives for viruses after they get them. Email servers are not virus scanners.
As much as the problem with microsoft anti-stimulating the industry in some areas...and how they shouldn't be taking away form other systems to promote their own, argument.
Could it possibly also be GeCAD's responsibility to promote such a community and third-party systems? I mean, they are the ones who gave up on the community and sold out to microsoft.
With the recent rumblings of microsoft releasing a version of Unix, wouldn't it make sense for them to get into this AV company, considering its cross-platform nature?
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
I was just having a conversation with a friend about this. The only areas in software Microsoft didn't have a product are Autocad, High End Photo processing (Photoshop) and Anti-virus, (plus some veritical industry apps).
One more category now gone.
Anthony
- "Jesus may love you, but I think you're garbage wrapped in skin."
Um. Actually, Jesus *knows* you're garbage wrapped in skin and He *still* loves you enough to come, put on that skin, terminate it in Himself in His death, and raise you up with Him.- 21 Him who did not know sin He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
He took on the "skin" and terminate the garbage within so we'd be made the righteousness of God in Him. Not a bad trade.Did I miss something, or has /. gone almost an entire day without an article on $CO?
My god, how will I live without another forty or fifty threads on how SCO is a bunch of scum-sucking MS agents? (Not that I mind...)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
What it does do: block off valid .exe attachments, which would be a major PITA at my place of work.
What aspect of your work flow requires you to send and receive raw Windows executables?
What it doesn't do: scan for zipped virusses
Current e-mail viruses don't zip themselves.
Word macro virusses
Why would one send a .doc to another user? Sending RTF (Microsoft Rich Text Format, a textual encoding of .doc) is safer, as RTF cannot carry macros and thus cannot carry macro viruses.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, I've been waiting for this moment for about 10 years. I'm a real big fan of Microsoft Anti-Virus (MSAV). Heck, I've even been getting updates from them ever since (with that coupon on the back of the DOS 6.x User's Manual, remember?). Finally, I can upgrade! Hoooray!!!
Maybe they are going to be including more robust email anti-virus protection in the next version of windows and office server products. (This is actally a fact)
So basically your entire post was nothing but an ill-informed anti-Microsoft flame fest with zero substance or insight what-so-ever. "Interesting" indeed, not for the content of your post, but for the meta-content, the peek into your psyche.
Welcome to Slashdot, you'll do fine here...
another alternative is MailScanner with any of these AV programs
Sophos, McAfee, F-Prot, Command, Kaspersky, Inoculate, Inoculan, Nod32, F-Secure, Panda, RAV, Antivir, ClamAV, Vscan.
Installs basically as a drop in for exim, Postfix, sendmail and ZMailer.
I've been using this with sendmail and the free for personal use version of F-Prot.
it keeps the (possibly multiple) attached AV scanners updated and has internal support for SpamAssassin.
Calligraphy software is of course the next thing to become part of the borg.... what an obvious choice...duh!
Is it really easier to deploy a 3rd-party app than to secure an app/OS?
A virus scanner will block only certain signatures - how many virii use the same core but are recognized as different by scanners?
A simple vulnerability could result in tens if not hundreds different viruses, all exploiting the same hole.
Let's say scanners are updated and catch all the virus variations - the same vulnerability is _still_ present, just waiting for another iteration of the same core.
Just like letting your child at home with a list of people he's not allowed to let in, instead of just locking the door...
I think the move is only political Look, we're really trying to make it look like^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsecure.
Cybersoft http://www.cybersoft.com/products/index.shtml have good recursive anti-virus products for linux
I'm a satisifed customer, it ran for all incoming emails for customers at a small ISP I worked for.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Remember Microsoft does actually sell Microsoft Office for Mac; also IE for Mac is pretty pure and better than IE on Windows. I hope you don't mean Linux when you are saying cross platform :)
Evil ZEN Scientist
CPAV= Central Point AntiVirus. MS never hid who they licensed this from, and Central Point continued to sell until they merged with Symantec, which killed the product.
MS re-adding this is a good thing.
It's not like they couldn't already do it with Windows Update or any multitude of MS tasks that access the internet. Believe me if they wanted to do it (and maybe they are, but I'm not one to wear a tinfoil hat) they have had the means to do just that for a LONG time!
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
The difference in this case is the counterpart.
Both Microsoft and Netscape had to compete about clients and about pages using their extensions to HTML. Winning one side meant winning the other.
But with viruses, if everybody uses MS Antivirus, that doesn't mean that every virus writer will make viruses detectable by MSAV. On the contrary.
The antivirus market is less monopolizable.
The way out I see is if antivirus buyers don't care about actual detection. They could put up with some level of viruses (all in all, there are so many people using Outlook now!) and go with a free inferior MSAV instead of a competing brand.
How do you see it?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
and I think there are others as well, so this company is not the only game in town.
I implemented a multi-domain Sendmail (LibMilter) solution for around 4000 users with the RAV product and found it to be a great product. The domain based licensing model was the original reason for going with RAV as Trend Micro and Sophos etc were extremely expensive for this many users (as they license on a per mailbox basis). It would be nice to see this feature remain, but I would doubt that this will stay when Microsoft get control, especially based on their current licensing of products. Is there any news on whether non-MS platforms will still be supported?
Maybe this is the start of the next level of Microsoft's trend towards integration. Seeing as how they have $40 billion in cash. Perhaps they plan on buying a large amount of software that is usually coupled with their products. This way they could compete with other operating systems with a large feature list of things that people usually have to buy seperately.
Like I said in another thread, I'm not saying that's the reason they paid $$$ for the company. It's probably just another of their expansion campains.
But it would be a lot easer to hide a DRM scanner inside of a virus scanner than it would inside of Windows Update (which people watch closly) or Word (which isn't supposed to be scanning your entire drive on a daily bases).
-Sean
...monopoly violation?
What pisses me off is that John Ashcroft is not going to even look at this.
I say we flood the DOJ server with well thought-out, assertive, non-flame posts about why this is a BAD thing.
I never thought I'd find myself taking the side of symantec on anything.
Wonders will never cease.
You know the old saying: when life throws you a curve ball, make lemonade. Or something like that.
I think we all agree that we like multi-platform virus scanning. This just goes to show the biggest advantage of free software: no one can ever take it away from you.
If Microsoft decides to, they can terminate all versions of this product but the Windows versions. If we can get a really effective free alternative, that can never happen. (The very worst thing that can happen is slow updates to the virus definitions.)
I have always thought that anti-virus software was an ideal candidate for free software. Non-coders can easily contribute: whenever they find a virus that the scanner doesn't know, just send it in. (They can find the virus either by using a payware virus scanner, such as Norton Antivirus, or they can find it the hard way by getting it. However they find it, they can send it in.)
Heck, I'd be willing to keep one machine with Windows on it, running Norton, and also run the free scanner on it, just to help out the community.
So, is there a free virus scanner? Yes. Two, actually.
First came OpenAntiVirus. But that project's virus database was last modified in October 2002. The better alternative is ClamAV.
ClamAV is available for a whole bunch of platforms, including Linux and FreeBSD. It can be set up to scan mail on servers. There is a library you can use to add antivirus scanning to your own applications (maybe OpenOffice should do that?).
I hope that lots of people will start running ClamAV, even just as a test project. Remember that you can put ClamAV on as many computers as you want, for free, but you can still buy a few payware virus scanners to hedge your bets if you want to.
If lots of people run ClamAV, and send in viruses that it misses, it should be able to find all the viruses that the payware can find.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Honestly, I don't understand why everyone is pissing and moaning about Microsoft's anti-competitive nature in this situation. Today, Symantec and McAfee are the two most widely used anti-virus programs out there, and actually sell quite well because a LOT of my customers ask me for their products. Sure, with Microsoft now creating an offering, there's going to be some competition, but isn't that what business is about? Sure, Microsoft is going to use its financial leverage to market it, and develop it really well so it does smash the competition, but isn't that what capitalism's about?
Tell me, name an operating system out there which can come close to being as good as Windows is for the average Joe to use? I can only think of Mac OS X, and the only reason they aren't anywhere near the sales of Windows, is because Apple is the only company who distributes it, and they charge a lot more money for their products. I'll admit that it's probably better than Windows in some ways, but the average Joe is used to Windows. Linux is nowhere NEAR this kind of functionality, and for both OSes, there's just not that much support available for it. Windows is unparalled.
I'll admit, that maybe the Netscape/IE situation was kind of different. At first, IE sucked, and I used Mosaic and Netscape. Then as IE got better, I started using it in tandem with Netscape. Then it came with Windows 98. Bonus, one less download for me. But then Netscape started sucking ass and I stopped using it altogether. I ended up using the better product. Sure, the average Joe will probably have just used IE, but what's wrong with that? He ended up using the better browser.
So stop whining about the anti-virus thing. If it's a crap product, don't buy it, keep using your Symantec or McAfee. But if Microsoft makes it work really well, then why not use it? It's still about choice. You can still choose to use the better product. Still hate Microsoft? Don't buy their products. Simple as that.
Maybe this is how they can lower the TCO numbers with little expense on their part.
They bundle -- oops I mean integrate-- the virus scanner into the OS. We do not have to pay money to Norton.
On the other hand virus software is subscription based. You subscribe to recieve updates to the virus database. Microsoft wants to move to a subscription based business model.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Who needs RAV? You can prevent viruses and other microsoft detritus from cloging your network with a single line in your postfix header_checks file.
Maybe Microsoft with their goal of killing linux is using a denial of services approach.
Specifically, making good and developed antivirus software unavailable for Linux users. How many good options are still available?
Or maybe, there are key licenses or patents that they are aquiring. What EXACTLY are they purchasing and what parts are most important to them
You have to ask how does this aquisition fit in with their strategies. I don't believe it's simply to improve their own security.
I remember that when I installed Netscape on Win 95, the OS would not boot and gave me a message saying "reinstall operating system". I had to go into safe mode and uninstall Netscape to get Windows to work again. Once MS starts making anti-virus software, can we expect other anti-virus software to start having this kind of trouble? Maybe Norton wont run on Windows anymore. Who knows?!
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
RAV was one of the few virus scanners for Linux mail servers that was actually affordable. $300 bucks for 2 domains and then like $50 per year for virus updates.
.2 average load on a P2 300 scanning email for around 3000 users.
It was very fast,
Plus it has content filtering and an anti-spam module that cut my users spam in half.
My users love it, but I can't afford the thousands of dollars other solutions cost.
Exactly. They want to be sure that any virus scanner that people use will allow them to control what it finds and doesn't find. Just take a look at their so called firewall for an example of how they will use this scanner.
"I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
I think that it is not coincidence that Red Hat and SUSE rush to include literally gigabytes of packages with their distributions as well.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
When MS *is* the market, it's a different story.
Yes, Micros~1 is the market. Or more accurately, they created the market. They didn't invent viruses and worms, but they keep punching new holes for the malware to come through.
If it's to have their own AV embedded, fine, but most people I know will buy Norton or whatever. I partly run Norton to stop all the crud from getting through the colander that is Microsoft's security.
What does this mean for us qmail users that have this great product set up on FreeBSD? The license price was amazing and the scanner works extremely well...I hope this one will continue.
I wonder if a "bug" will turn up in Windows NL (New Letters) that causes other AV products to mysteriously miss some of the viruses on the system. And trust me, there will still be plenty of them.
With every new version and product, they have opened new holes for virus writers. Okay, I admit that making Windows more secure wasn't very markettable. But they have been making it less secure for years. Instead of firing the programmers and product managers who presided over this, they've simply admitted that it is only getting worse. Instead of fixing the holes, they are buying up one of the suppliers of duct tape and plastic tarps.
Exactly, if you can't beat em, buy em. Cut off their air supply.
Some companies are too fussy to deploy open source antivirus software.
. . . when you see a program you like, buy it and slap your name all over it! I did it, and so can you!
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
No they don't. Judge Pinhead did not include Apple in the desktop PC market when he made his ruling.
Indeed RAV for linux is a good piece of software . : . .
BUT was close source. There are some Open Source solutions but not as good as RAV. We must admit that.
What keeps us from developing an good opensource solution ? They are a few we are many.
A long time ago i was developing an antivirus myself . Since i was developing it by myself and for myself it wasn't too much. But it worked.
Main problems of an opensource anvtivirus will be
1) we need viruses in order to code the antiviral part.
2) I don't see why to keep in a database viruses from 5 or 6 years ago that can be found ( i guess ) in collections only. So we don't need to code 70000 of routines of cleaning but instead let's say 1000 of the actual viruses
3) Speed of the development is essential. if a virus is found on the wild it will be essential to have an update as soon as possible.
4) IMHO an antivirus combined with antispam techniques will cover at least 80% of the ISP providers needs so main focus has to be on this issue
5) the antivirus have to have some method to detect / eliminate polimorphic viruses. (a virtual machine to emulate the virus until it can be sure that is a virus) , or per virus specific routine ( but this method requires more daily work from the coders )
6) the antivirus have to be written in C or C++ due to speed / memory considerations.
7) the antivirus should integrate easy with the popular mailing systems ( qmai , sendmail , postfix )
Just my oppinion .
If MS killed Office on Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world - there are other office/productivity suites for the Mac (Open Office, Apple Works, etc).
Actually, if they killed Office for Mac, Apple would just drop the OSX-for-x86 bomb and destroy microsoft. --Jason
http://www.virtualvillagesquare.com/ Online Communities: The Next Generation
I've been using clamav for virus scanning since it appeared in Debian unstable. It is used by amavisd-new for virus scanning and with spamassassin for spam scanning of my incoming (and outgoing) email. Amavisd-new is then integrated with postfix and cyrus-imapd (2.1.x) for my mail server. Works like a champ on a Power Mac 8600/200 with 512MB RAM!
The only problem with using clamav is that it needs more mirrors to distribute the virus definitions. The main virus definition download site was down over this past weekend, I'm guessing because of the BugBear.B worm.
I wonder what happens if buffer overflows are discovered in the antivirus software that is installed in all the computers ...
...
Now they would not need a virus to infect the computer but a buffer overflow exploit that infects when the antivirus reads the file
I wonder what happens if buffer overflows are discovered in the antivirus software that is installed in all the computers ...
...
Now they would not need a virus to infect the computer but a buffer overflow exploit that infects when the antivirus reads the file
To have security, you need more than a monopoly.
- rav-msft-acquisition.pdf
The gem:-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"And another one gone, another one gone,
Another one bites the dust.
Hey, I'm gonna get you too,
Another one bites the dust"
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
We arrggggcc*****were a reseller for RAV and this has really hurt us. We originally adopted rav because of its seemless integration with qmail. There were several Open Source alternatives but none had the small foot print and flexibility of RAV. RAE is pissed!! They actually dropped RAV about a week ago and were unable to comment on the M$ buyout. Oh well... the search goes on for a comperable replacement.
Microsoft cant allow anyone to help the *nix community guard against things such as a virus.. " see you cant be protected unless you use OUR software "
Its all about market control.. ( which any company large enough would do btw.. )
Being from another country couldnt have hurt the issues with getting FTC approval either..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Spam blockers block spam. :).
Spam senders send spam.
Attachment blockers block attachments.
Email servers handle email.
Virus scanners (on users' PCs) scan for viruses.
HTML is for the Web, and not email. Attachments are a bad idea born out of the lack of popular and easy file exchange mechanism (no, it's not FTP).
And the Slashdot crowd writes annoying comments (sometimes)
The answer to your question is of course "no".
Typical. Nothing new here.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Since this is now either a dead product or will become windows only, what other choices do we have if we prefer not to line bill's pockets and use another OS..
( preferably 'open' so it cant be bought out just after i adopt it )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No... Apple is a hardware company that just also happens to sell software. If Apple released OS X for x86, it would erode and eventually eliminate a majority of their hardware revenue. The last thing Apple wants is legitimate Apple clone hardware. If they go x86, that's just what they would get.
I remember using the DOS-based RAV in the mid-90s... naturally lost track of it when I moved away, switched to Norton/McAfee.
Everyone here seems to be taking this as a move by Microsoft to eliminate cross-platform antivirus programs... Maybe, maybe not... As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see a home-grown product get popular like this, to the point where it's good enough to be used by Microsoft (insert obvious jokes here. And yes, I do believe Microsoft's going to use it.)
I'm frankly surprised - pleasantly surprised - that RAV got this far. Depending on software retail sales is not exactly the easiest business model pretty much anywhere in Eastern Europe.
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
I use RAV not on the desktop but on all my customers Qmail servers.
What really tweaks my mellons is that I just purchased over $800 worth of licenses in the last few months. The problem for all you not familliar with the server software is that you annually renew your license. I bet MS will honor the current license until they expire and upon trying to renew they will tell you that platform/mail server is no longer supported. Then a sales guy will contact you and try to sell you Exhange.
Man am I pissed!
In other news, Microsoft acquires Linux. Yes, that's right. Linus Torvalds has sold Microsoft a license to Linux to use in their proprietary products. The GPL version of Linux will continue to exist of course, but Torvalds is devoting all his efforts to a contract negotiated with Microsoft. The contract states, he can no longer work on GPL software, and will be working for Microsoft now.
Don't believe me? Check here
If you liked licking my balls, add me to your foes list!
The other AV companies will now focus their efforts on producing product for Linux.
Same here. My experiences with McAfee AV products have always been poor, while NAV (and now SAV) have always worked great for me. "Back in the day" (DOS, Win3.11) McAfee had a great thing going on, but they lost their touch somewhere...
;)
Meanwhile, my dad has horrid experience with Symantec AV products and swears by McAfee for him and his clients. Go figure.
I still choose Symantec for the Windows systems I touch. I never liked McAfee's network/corporate edition. SAV Corp Ed is an absolute joy to use.
Of course, at home my solution to viruses was to install FreeBSD on my desktop
Make a opensource AV solution but work with norton for it to use their definitions.. software is free norton makes $$ from definition subscriptions and updates..
That way the AV designers work on the product and dont have to worry about providing the tons of manhours required to get the newest updates out within 24 hours or whatever Norton does right now.
This could use any av's signatures norton just came to mind due to it's fast updates IMO.
I'm a System Administrator for a medium sized company. I just spend the last week setting up qmail-ldap and just got RAV Anitvirus working with it today. We purchased it last Friday. I must say the potential ramifications of this acquisition greatly worry me.
Microsoft has just made me hate them a little more today...
The home of all viruses buys an anti-virus company? That's like a drug lord buying a private drug-rehab hospital, isn't it?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So now instead of viruses getting the OS to attack us, we will also now be virused by our AntiVirus software too?
I can just see it now. A hacker exploits a bug in the AV software so that instead of referencing the virus definitions it tries to execute them instead.
And rather anti-competitive, don't you think?
WTF is wrong with you people?
Windows is *the* target for virus writers.
*delete* *delete* *delete*
I had paragraphs written but it should be PAINFULLY obvious that antivirus was the next step.
YES - I realize that this will be the death of some companies. But they should know that they had it coming. When Microsoft released automatic updates, my workload decreased 10 fold (or, rather, profit per hour increased 10 fold). The fact that auto-updates breaks a few PCs here and there pales in comparison to this FACT.
However, having built-in anti-virus will ELIMINATE me in terms of tech support, provided that Gator can be blocked. Do *I* care? While it will certainly hit me in the pocket book, this is what I've expected.
While Microsoft may not be the most ethical company, they are pretty fucking smart in the business sense. Integrated Anti-virus will reduce their occurance on slashdot.
WTF will we all do then? First it was the BSOD... Then insecurity...
NOW WHAT?
99 percent will pay the so-called "cost".
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
...and are quick with updates. Managing their updates on a large network is a pain to set up but runs sweetly once that's done.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I talked my boss into letting me build and maintain our company's email server. I used Linux, Postfix and RAV for mail Servers. RAV is incredibly easy to install, configure and maintain. It checks for updates several times per day(cron) and has all the extra stuff like Reverse-DNS, RBL, WBL, and includes anti-spam abilities. It chugs away without adding any perceivable load on the server, yet works perfectly. Best $300 our company spent. Ever.
The part the boss liked the most was NOT using M$ Exchange, which he knew was high-maintenance as far as patches, etc. After 15 months of flawless uptime, one of our new execs(...aka PHB) asked how often mail is backed up. When I told her once a week she said that at her last company they did nightly backups of their Exchange server. Naturally, I didn't miss the opportunity to reply that if they were running that @$%^*&^! mailserver software, it would have to be backed up daily due to all the bugs, half-ass patches, and viruses that are targetting it all the time.
I spoke with RAE Internet on the phone when I was checking out RAV, and they answered the phone on the second ring each time I called. I got superb support each time, with follow-up emails that were detailed enough that I didn't need to ask for an explanation of an answer. When was the last time any of you actually had that positive an experience when making a call to support from a software vendor?
So MS bought them out? Well, I hope the Romanians got a big dumpster full of cash for it. It's worth it. I just don't like the thought of what MS will do to it.
Flash is the Herpes of the Internet.
your.opinion >
[n/t]
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
You can have:
a) webshield proxy server
b) email SMTP gateway filter
c) command line scanner (uses same DAT files as personal/enterprise version for windows)
The command line scanner is VERY flexible, like the "find" command.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Their lead developers left; Microsoft picked up the pieces and the IP. I'm sure you can google for the details.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I use it to scan whole servers in a SCIF, where it's a requirement (albeit somewhat ham-fisted)
:-)
It takes like 20-30 minutes to scan 4 gigs of operating system and home directory data a day. This is on not-special Sun Ultras and Athlons.
Scanning single attachments could take milliseconds, and if you get less than 1 per second, I think your mail server will survive!
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I have a very positive experience with RAV Antivirus.
I'm using it daily on Windows and on corporate mail servers running Qmail on OpenBSD. No problem ever.
It is very fast, maybe 10x faster than Sophos Antivirus, and developpers are very reactive when it comes to merging new signatures to the virus database.
And the fact that it is really cross-platform and supports a lot of mail agents including Qmail is great!
The only thing I really don't like in it is the licensing scheme, based upon the number of hosted domains.
I would be very disappointed if the buyout by Microsoft removed the support for anything else than MS Exchange.
{{.sig}}
If you want to blame someone for the "leaving in the dust" of authorized resellers and distributors, the folks who decided to sell the company are just as much "at fault" as Microsoft.
But the premise is absurd. They sold the company because they would rather do something else with their dollars, something everyone has the right to do, and a decision that should not be made based on some kind of absurd collectivist sympathy for the authorized resellers.
Amazing magic tricks
Word on the street is all it took for the buy out where 10 lousy million $ ... I'm really anctious to see what MSFT will say at the press conference dedicated to this event 4 hours from now (in Bucharest, at the Hilton Hotel).
Pretty crappy after all, I'm forced to switch some AVs now, more work, thanks to a company that lets down its costumers and sells everything.
Which all reminds me: DEVELOPERS! I'm joining an Open Source Project, as of today. My advice to you: do the same, it's the only way to respond to their actions.
Windows/Dos used to have bundled AV I think but it was taken out for whatever reason.
I'm sorry but it's time to force MS to concentrate on the OS, not adding features that will cause other companies to go out of business. If the consumer already has a browser installed they'll stick with it. The same will apply to the antivirus. Only users that know better will go with anything different and it's true.. The average AOL user does not know how to use the internet outside of AOL most times. Once I showed someone how to minimize AOL and use exploder outside of AOL and they freaked out and was like "Why do I need AOL if it's already there"
This poor person had a AOL broadband account and could save 20 dollars with a local DSL/Cable account.. Needless to say they switched and use AOLIm to keep up with their contacts.
Norton, PC Chilln, and other companies need to protest this action.
It's time for MS to quit adding software people were buying and intergrating it into the OS squashing out the competition and killing off companies, the economy, and innovation.
a perfect complimentary product, adding RAV to MS Windows. a virus signature checker vs. a known hardware virus. Microsoft has automated the last major manual feature, the mandatory reboot ;)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So much for that:
4 21 4
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/10/232
This is my first time moderating ... where's the selection for "Paranoid"?
More tellingly, would that be "-1: Paranoid", or "+1: Paranoid"?
... I'm running MSAV for Linux! Aren't Micro$oft the greatest ?
NOD32 is a very nice AntiVirus solution for about a billion different platforms. Too bad they charge different prices for Linux Server version vs Linux Client version - it's exactly the same software. What's up with that?
In the first place, you can argue Microsoft created their market through its poor security practices. =]
But in any case, we'd have crappy progress if we had to maintain every niche market. What about Opera on Mac? Isn't Apple killing them by including Safari with the OS? Isn't that pretty evil of Apple? etc.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
microsoft did create the software with the considerable amount of vulnerabilities that makes virus like bugbear so popular.
now they'll sell the cure to the problem they seriously took part to create..
DRM would die on it's own in a free market, but as it is now it is an inactive part of WinXP and an active part of subsequent versions. Sure some individuals can keep trying to turn it off, but Windows XP SP1 gives Redmond root privileges on your computer and they can keep turning back on. A perfect method for locking out competitors and locking customers in.
There are just too many good, cost-effective, secure, time saving alternatives, even on the desktop, to spend time/money on MS-Windows. Even government agencies, traditionally slow-moving beasts, are starting to see that this just another dot-com -- full of false claims. Even the management can see it's a dead company and have been bailing under the smoke screen of a multi-hundred million dollar marketing campaign.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
getting rid of something which will turn into a beast so friggin bad it'll make the visions of Lovecraft seem snug - I solemnly declare:
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets,
We shall fight in the hills;
We shall never surrender"
(This has nothing to do with a crappy OS, it's the future of mankind at stake; the application of power for reasons only known for those who are few and far between.)
The company I work for also offers a cros platform antivirus solution. ;-)
And our Linux version is free.
And we are from the same country (Romania). GeCad was the competition for us. Now that's Microsoft
check out BitDefender Linux Edition v6.5
What non-MSFT platforms? Oh you mean, Windows 98, Windows ME, NT, W2K, XP??? yeah, yeah, they are different platforms. aahem... cough...cough...
-------- Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate -- the bombs always hit the ground.
No doubt there are marketplace-related issues worth discussing, but for the most part, I'll submit a long drawn-out yawn on behalf of all reasonably intelligent Windows users (the minority, perhaps?) who, after reviewing the various built-in features/programs traditionally offered with Windows such as the file manager, text editor, cd burner, defragger, graphics editor, webpage designer, firewall, and registry editor, conclude that the first order of business is to install a proper replacement for the nonsense.
That done, it's now onto the usual collection of compression utilities, a better browser, FTP utilities, backup programs, etc. to replace more of Bill's offerings or provide functionality he's never thought important (or hasn't yet found a company to buy that would provide that functionality). For system administrators it's more work, of course, and would normally involve such things as installing Perl, MMC alternatives and so on.
Given the obviousness of all this, I'd suggest it would be a saner world if Windows could be offered (and seen) as a platform, but I guess that word dominance thing keeps getting in the way. In the interim, at least for me, all this translates into a lot of head-shaking and more work un-checking those installation option checkboxes. Plus ca change.
The main virus definition download site was down over this past weekend, I'm guessing because of the BugBear.B worm.
I would hope not, it defeats the purpose of having AV software if you can't get the definitions during a big outbreak.
This is a total guess in the dark but what are the chances that MSFT's going to try to tackle the anti-virus market? They can sell it as a part of the OS and say it's needed to ensure reliability and stability in the system.
I mean, it could be built in the next windows system, similiarly how zip is built in XP.
Another court case in the future?
rav partners/resellers received the following 2 messages.....
-- 1st: Tuesday 2003-06-03
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
As you may have heard by now, GeCAD has signed a definitive agreement with Microsoft to sell the Intellectual Property and other technology assets relating to GeCAD's antivirus business.
I would have liked to inform you of this transaction much earlier, but was unable to do so because of the sensitive nature of the news. You will agree that this is a great achievement not only for us at RAV but for everyone who has worked over the last nine years to make this company successful.
Following this acquisition of GeCAD's Intellectual Property rights by Microsoft, RAV will shortly be discontinuing its antivirus products. It is however our intention to fulfil our contractual obligations with our partners, distributors and customers.
Until such time that we formally request you to discontinue sales, I urge you to continue on with the good work that you have been doing. Keep processing orders till such time that we come back to you with a time-table for the future.
I will also keep you posted about developments and will follow up with specific details as and when viable. In the interim, it is business as usual. All partnership contracts are still valid and we will continue to support our customers with the same dedication as we have in the past.
Thank you once again for your understanding and your partnership.
Sincerely Yours,
Radu Georgescu
President
GeCAD Software s.r.l.
Additional information on the transaction available on http://www.ravantivirus.com
-- 2nd Tuesday 2003-06-03
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This is in continuation of my e-mail earlier today explaining the recent developments in our organization.
We have now finalized the steps that need to be taken by you, with immediate effect and seek your cooperation in their implementation:
* Price List & Update Extension The price list will remain unchanged. However, you need to immediately discontinue the sale of product extensions beyond the standard one year period.
* Technical Support Will continue to be available as usual.
* Virus Signatures Will continue to be available as usual.
* Other Services Outbreak alerts and advisories, Triggered Updates, Statistics and Site Announcements will continue to be available as usual.
* Marketing Co-op Fund
This will be discontinued with immediate effect
I look forward to your support, as always, in implementing the above
with immediate effect.
Sincerely Yours,
Radu Georgescu
President
GeCAD Software s.r.l.
Additional information on the transaction available on
http://www.ravantivirus.com
They eventually spread into the Windows and Linux world's. They had been working on a game "Halo" that looked like it was going to be really neat, and run on several platforms.
Microsoft bought them, and made Halo and X-Box only title.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
SONOFABITCH!!!!!!
Leave it to Microsoft to come along and screw with a product that's cross-platform, cross-vendor, and works very well! I only hope that antivirus updates for the non-Windows products do continue, at least for a couple of years.
That said, in a way it's good to see Microsoft finally adopting some antivirus technology after ignoring it for so long. I guess after so many years of viruses/worms being released that only affect Windows machines, they've been embarrassed and shamed into doing something about it.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
I'm sure you all remember this quote from Big Brother Bill:
"But if you say to people, 'Do you understand the GPL?' (then) they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them."
Seems kind of ironic after reading this.
in the RAV antivirus, then we'll get a slew of new viruses exploiting that!
Mark
I'm going to start cracking down on MS attachments, and insist people transmit stuff over the network in PDF form. This, of course, does not work for a document in revision.
How good a job does it do with Macro viruses?
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
We know this looks bad for you. But look at it from MS's point of view: choice is bad and all other software companies should be eliminated.
See, don't you feel better now?
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
If Apple released OS X for x86, it would erode and eventually eliminate a majority of their hardware revenue.
That's true. But it also would greatly eliminate Microsoft's revenue from Windows, because just think of how many people would love to use OSX, but don't want to shell out the money for the hardware? I know that I would use OSX, if I didn't have to buy a new computer to get it.
--Jason
http://www.virtualvillagesquare.com/ Online Communities: The Next Generation
But sometimes the lil' bastards surprise you with their near-instructability.
I was exploring an abandoned building the other day. (Hadn't done that in a while.) Aside from the satanic altar, the most interesting thing I found was a 1.44 floppy. There was some kind of glue on parts of it and pieces of broken glass were stuck to it. I took it home, of course, cleaned it up a bit and shoved it in the nearest available floppy drive. It spun up, no errors on mount, a fine FAT filesystem containing files from Oct/Nov '97. Not even a single bad sector.
I'm not sure how long it had been in that dirty, damp environment, but it did have about the same amount of dirt on it as the surrounding stuff, so probably since before the windows were taken out over a year ago.
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
They knew how to get 'around' [extension protection] and just renamed the file before launching it.
Cite them for attempted spreading of viruses.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Or else I'll have to start calling them virusen just to teach you a lesson. Or maybe virusi.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Good bye Sophos, McAfee, KasperskyLab, Symantec, Norman, Panda, .... .... .... ....
Well, this article confirms that the Linux version is indeed dead, just as many people predicted.
GeCAD's line of antivirus software is well-rounded and supports most popular platforms in use today, including Windows and Microsoft Exchange Server. GeCAD antivirus software also runs on servers such as Groupwise; Linux-based mail servers; file servers such as Samba and Novell Netware, and Instant Messaging (IM) clients including ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, AOL IM, and Trillian. However, a Microsoft spokesperson said the company will discontinue cross-platform support.
I know several people who have actually forked out the $300 for RAV AntiVirus. Our company was one of them. I believe RAV was rapidly becoming one of the most popular commercial antivirus solutions for Unix platforms.
I'm guessing Microsoft would prefer to see the myth that Linux users are unwilling to pay for functional software at a reasonable price perpetuated than risk making additional profit from continuing the cross-platform strategy.
on a Power Mac 8600/200
So tell me... Did that file ever finish copying?
It seems like not many are considering that M$ might actually mean what they say. I.e. that they will include it in Windows.
The business model for anti-virus software is basically a subscription model. M$ has been trying to move to the very same model for years. Now they are finally providing some customer incentive for paying them regularly... And after all, it will be so much easier (and cheaper?) to pay M$ than some other company.
<paranoia>
Later on, when a majority of users pay them for virus definition updates, they can finally start extorting the rest with product activation the way it was always meant. And at the same time they can also be FUD:ing about the lack of anti-virus software for Linux.
</paranoia>
As much as everyone likes to jump the gun and critize MS for yet another buy-out, I really would like to point out that this is beneficial to everyone to a certain degree.
Viruses trageting Windows are extremely wide-spread: Melissa, Remote Explorer, and the recent Slammer brought down the whole Internet in a matter of minutes.
Slammer is the perfect example that the vulnerability of one specific OS will indeed affect everyone else connected to the network in an extremely short timeframe.
Any kind of built-in antivirus software in Windows at all will reduce such risk for all of us. While I wouldn't bank on MS to provide the best AV solution (hence I believe third-party AV software will continue to do very well), I do think that this move by MS is important, maybe even neccessary, to protect the the stability of the Internet as a whole.
Viurs writers target the *popular* OS. If 90% of the world is running Linux, then most viruses will target Linux. It doesn't matter how proactive you are or how secure your OS is, the fact is that there *will* be another virus, probably more damaging than Slammer, appear eventually, not matter how hard we try to prevent it. We can only try to reduce the damage by full-time monitoring and detection + rapid repsonse.
Over 90% of viruses and trojans targets Windows. If any OS needs a built-in virus scanner, it'd be Windows. I think MS is doing the right thing here.
XP has built-in firewall, yet ZoneAlarm and Norton isn't losing any sales. In fact, I think it helps them because it raises the awareness of security solutions among average users and they in turn become attracted to the more powerful third-party products.
Competition is fierce in the AV marketplace, with a number of successful leaders. I doubt MS is really trying to own this sector because there are just too many moving targets. MS traditionally only engages its ***Anti-Competitive Death-Ray*** when there's a single, clear leader in a specific market (Lotus, WordPerfect, Novell, Netscape, Palm, Sun, etc.)
Heh, Microsoft: The one virus they couldnt find a cure for :p
" Microsoft to kill popular Linux antivirus product...
The acquisition has observers questioning Microsoft's ultimate intentions and wondering what the Redmond, Washington, software maker wants with technology that powers leading virus scanning tools for e-mail servers on Linux platforms, rivals to Microsoft's Windows and Exchange products.
"I don't know why Microsoft bought a Linux company, GeCAD's Windows business is really small compared to their Linux business," said Andreas Marx, an antivirus software expert at the University of Magdeburg in Magdeburg, Germany.
Marx has just completed a test of GeCAD's antivirus software for Linux and found that GeCAD "is really the best antivirus solution for Linux." ...
"
On the other hand, there's a nice half-full aspect to Microsoft valuing strong developers & technologies regardless of what OS they're written for.
Yadiyadiyada... In my opinion Microsoft is losing it. I think the virus killer is going to be aimed at the XBOX products and mainly to protect the XBOX natively... They will not go to the extend of protecting Windows XP... it is just impossible!!! ;)
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt."Henry J.Kaiser(1882-1967)
We are the Microsoft. Lower your shields and surrender your RAV Antivirus. It will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.