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."
"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.
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?
And rather anti-competitive, don't you think? I mean if they include it as part of the OS distribution and integrate it into the overall OS, wouldn't that hinder the efforts of other companies that make competing software? Think of the ramifications. What if they made a Internet chat application, Internet web browser, Internet connection software and services, word processors, or even spreadsheet programs and integrated them into their operating system. Oh wait...
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?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
What I am really concerned about is those of use who use RAV as a mail server virus scanner. RAV has been keeping the users at my current employer from even having attachments they could 'accidentally' click on. And I like it. Any guesses on whether RAV will be around for us mail server admins in the future? Can anyone recommend a good replacement for RAV?
--Pope
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.
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?
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.
By "grow" you mean "continue using their illegal monopoly to continue doing illegal things that they have been proven guilty for in court", right? I'm all for companies growing, but MS is big enough already, dontcha think?
If Norton Aquired McAfee, or if winzip aquired winrar, or whatever, that's ok, that's competition in the market. When MS *is* the market, it's a different story. Of course, they have bought enough polititions that it's not like anything is going to be done about it, even if anyone does say anything, right?
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?
MS integrated a virus scanner into DOS 6.x and Windows 3.x. This is nothing new. Except for the fact that they have publically announced where they got the AV tech from, this time.
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
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.
And what about timely releases for new virus defs? MS is sometimes quite slow to release other security patches...what makes you think they'll be quick on the draw with virus definitions.
As much as I don't generally like the whole virus industry (they make their money from the misery of others; see lawyers), they are generally pretty good at early detection and fast updates...all without breaking other software!!
This is a large undertaking. Will they rise to the occassion or will everything else suffer too?
-Ben
Integrated dictionary? Think bigger. All the arguments for rolling in Internet Explorer could be used to argue for integrating Word.
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
The problem is that Linux is plagued with _worms_ not viruses. Worms for the most part can't be stopped. If a worm can get to your server, then it means that (aside from not having a fiewall stop it), that it's probably exploiting a daemon. There is no way antivirus can really intervene in that scenario.
The other big exploit I see comming with linux will be things hidden in source code. How many admins really check the MD5 sums (if there is one) to verify that code hasn't been tampered with - then install it as root? Quite a few.
For once, I'm somewhat intrigued by Microsoft's latest dubious move.
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.
Oh, please. Norton, McAfee, etc, will survive by doing things that Microsoft does not - better user interfaces, etc.
This is another damned if you do and damned if you don't scenarios for Microsoft.
For that matter, it's not obvious that Microsoft will create an actual antivirus scanner for end users - it could well end up 'under the covers' as a filter driver on top of the file system.
In this scenario, Norton, Mcafee, etc, would provide databases & user interface drivers to interface to the filter.
We're (the company I work for) in the process of looking for a replacement for RAV since we got wind of the buyout. I've done a bit of looking around, and found Vexira. They have AV solutions for Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Sendmail, Qmail, Postfix, and Exim. It seems to have a moderately priced liscensing scheme- $200/year for 6000 users and 200 domains for the Sendmail product- less expensive than RAV. They also offer a free trial on their products. If anyone's had experience (good or bad) with Vexira's products, please comment below
wget? Hell, one book on Netscape (this was before I even had a Windows box, and didn't realize that the disk was for Windows, and not DOS) came with Chameleon Winsock, and told you to use FTP to get Netscape!
Also, the browser need not be WELDED TO THE OS to be bundled. (BTW, litepc.com is working on that welded to the OS part - they've already done it on 98 and ME, but their software is far from free, unless you want half-assed IE seperation) Linux has several browsers, typically bundled. Konqueror can be removed (makes file browsing a pain, but hey...), Mozilla can be removed, Lynx can even be removed (unless you telnet into the box or don't use X, don't see why you'd keep it...)
I'll try to briefly sum this up, but don't you dare to reply without reading the rest:
MSIE is a terrible browser because it is filled with security holes, it is bloated, and the user interface is so basic it slows down your surfing compared to other browsers. It is also a bitch to code web pages for, and pretends to know better than the web author what is supposed to be done.
As for foul business practices, open your eyes! Microsoft is well known for the way they reach into new markets and eliminate the competition. They even backstab their own partners if needed.
Read on for a more thorough explanation:
I am a Windows user, and I couldn't care less about "hacking away" at the source code. What is so bad about IE is that it is has an incredible amount of serious security holes, many of which are still not patched, and when they are patched, you will often find that things like certain JavaScript sites stop working properly. This is probably because of the severe code bloat MSIE suffers from. It is huge!
And before you give me the "but MSIE is used by a lot more people than other browsers" argument to justify Microsoft's incompetence when it comes to handling security, let me remind you that:
Think about that for a minute before you choose to respond (or not).
MSIE is also terrible to code for. It tries to guess what I am trying to do, and often it guesses wrong. If you have ever tried to write server-side scripts that, say, are to do something else with a file than MSIE wants to do, you will know that it can be a pain to work around MSIE's "I know better than you what you are trying to do".
Moving on quickly, the user interface is terrible. It is so basic it is unusable. It slows down a lot if you open a lot of windows, and I regularly have 20-30 browser windows open. Not only that, but it clutters the Windows task bar with these windows. With other browsers, I can keep everything within the main browser window. MSIE also is a heaven for spammers with their neverending loops of popup windows. To conclude: MSIE's user interface is unusable. It is too basic and it slows down my browsing tenfold. I can't use mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, can't block popups, and so on. No doubt, you will point out that there are addon shells for MSIE. Great. Use them if you want to. But my point still stands: Most people will never even know about these, or about alternative browsers. But this isn't just about the user interface. The very core of the browser is severely flawed, from the ground up.
And it has terrible support for standards compared to Opera and Mozilla. It can't even get basic CSS positioning right.
Do I have to go on?
Excuse me? MSIE is terribly slow when I try to use it, simply because it has a terrible way to handle multiple windows and other basic user interface features that already exist in better browsers.
As for "unbloated" - you must be kidding me. For one, most of MSIE is buried in the operating
Clever signature text goes here.
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 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 >
RedHat and OS X ship just as chock-full of features, gizmos, and software as Windows does. We long, long, LONG ago left the era when you knew every bit that was being loaded into memory It's bashing to complain about fairly basic elements shipping with the OS.
(And MSIE is not the "worst browser out there today" by any means. If it were, it *wouldn't* be hard to make a business building another - there's the factory vs. third-party automotive stereo counter example. Where MS has truly bad products - SQL Server, for example - competition is healthy.)
The best way to compete against Microsoft isn't to try to stop them from bundling, it's to come up with a compelling, competing bundle. I'm no laissez-faire economist, either, but this is just obvious. I'm more critical of the licensing restrictions and channel-abuse that MS engaged in than by any of the bundling.