Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm
thejuggler writes "Excite News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to buy Sybari Software Inc., which makes programs designed to protect business computer networks from viruses, worms and other threats. This is Microsoft's second purchase of an anti-virus company. The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software."
windows hungry! want more!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No Antitrust for you to see here, please move along.
1. Make bad software 2. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software 3. PROFIT!!!
Wouldn't it be better if Microsoft was to fix their bloody insecure software instead??
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.
I don't see how they couldn't, without risking further anti-trust-related accusations.
The coolest voice ever.
Manufacturer of spontaneously-combusting household furniture today announced that they would be charging customers for fire extinguishers.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I don't use antivirus software and have never gotten a virus yet.
I guess you also have no mirror, but know you look great?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Bucharest, June 10, 2003 – GeCAD Software has announced a definitive agreement with Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash., USA, by which Microsoft will acquire GeCAD’s antivirus technology. Microsoft has stated its intention to integrate GeCAD’s technology into products and services that will help secure customers."
http://www.ravantivirus.com/
RAV produced RAV AntiVirus Desktop for Linux [8.1.4]
By all accounts it was a really good product. MS scuppered my plans to try it out >:(
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
I wonder how they can argue that IE has to be a fundamental part of the operating system that they give away*, but a virus scanner is an add-on? Controlling which programs run seems like it should be an OS fundamental.
(* re: IE vs. netscape browser wars and the monopoly verdict)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Microsoft have certainly done a first class job in creating a demand for these services. Kudos.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Why, being the major operating system vendor on the planet and then charging subscription rates for anti-virus and anti-spyware would guarantee Bill Gates billions more $ to give to Africa, India, China and any other country he wants to (NOTE: Not an intended pub-<) curry favor with, by aiding the sick and the poor and generally being a heck of a nice guy in the public eye.
What do you have against all these people?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As we noted over at Ars, Sybari doesn't make an AV engine. Their main product allows customers to plug in AV engines developed by other companies, and in fact can support multiple engines at once.
Of course, MS does have their own engine now, which they bought back in 2003.
Kinda like a B grade Scifi movie, release a disease and charge money for the cure.
...To the first person to write a virus attacking a hole in this...
I guess it comes down to this - can they bankrupt enough of the opposition, within the four years, to seize control of the market and prevent anyone else entering it?
As for arguments that Microsoft should fix their software - nice try, but the lemon laws don't apply to software and there's nothing else that's likely to compell Microsoft to change. Unless someone would like to try talking the most conservative Congress in living memory into applying standards to software - are there any geeks rich enough, other than Bil Gates? - I don't see a single reason for Microsoft to change what has always been a profitable tactic - sell trash, then sell an even trashier "upgrade" for lots of money, and THEN convince the consumers that they have the better end of the deal.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Microsoft bought RAV some time ago- who made a fine Windows and Linux AV program. They also made RAV for most all of the UNIX mail programs such as qmail, courier, sendmail, postfix, etc.
Was sad to see it go... apparently it was also to include its technology, but if you ask me, it was more to get it out of the antivirus mail server market.
This is nothing new-- Microsoft buys anyone who has something to offer them or their competititors... yippie
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
At least Microsoft isn't getting into the condom business. "Introducing Microsoft Condom 3.0, now it actually prevents pregnancy!"
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Or you could go to Symantec's site and use their online ActiveX virus scanner.
Why does "ActiveX virus scanner" sound like an oxymoron?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'll make a vulnerable product and then charge money to protect it.
Could someone explain why wingnut here only posted a link back to this thread?
The "it" pages on slashdot (as in "it.slashdot.org") use a pretty annoying color theme. By changing it to an unknown value, you can force the web page to use the (more reasonable) defaults.
According to some very informative posts on the Yahoo SCOX stock board, Symantec has the rights to a very key patent in this area and McAfee has a perpetual, fully paid-up license to the said patent. Neither company would relish MSFT moving in on their nice little market and may well have solid legal grounding for setting $FELINE amongst $AVIANS.
This is Microsofts second purchase of Anti-Virus sofware which runs/ran on Linux. Sybari announced Linux support last year and RAV was a very popular Linux based product already.
Good for Microsoft, bad for Linux and bad for consumers.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
yup, and all the while their intent is to also remove the advantages these products have running on Linux. Now MSFT has both GeCADs and Sybaris anntivirus software and both DID support Linux.
Just like a halloween doc said that they would hire key open source developers, this is just a variation on that. They're purchasing products/companies which help enhance the usefulness of Linux in the enterprise. They did this to JAVA too.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
There's always www.clamav.net
If Microsoft is buying Anti-Virus software companies that have versions for Linux then there is now a whole lot more incentive for Anit-Virus companies to put out Linux versions of their software.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
I can't find the link, but the irconic thing is that ClamAV, the free virus scanner, was once evaluated and found to update its database sometimes faster then both symantec and mcaffee.
Regards,
Steve
*IF* Microsoft were to become a big player in the anti-malware arena, it would add even more weight to the belief that Microsoft creates a bad product by design. Current percieved motivation for making inferior products:
1. Create user desire to upgrade
2. End of life for products meaning no more security updates, goto 1
there will be a third -- to keep their antivirus business running.
Microsoft is partly responsible for this problem and now they intend to profit from the problems (the millions of dollars lost in time wasted, the vast amounts of data, on and on) for which they are responsible? I think even pro-microsoft people would think badly of this move.
But to buy businesses that utilize and support Linux? Highly anti-competitive and I'm surprised the DOJ isn't raising an eyebrow to this one.
The team has been around for over a year, and is part of the Windows group. They will be offering some sort of subscription ($) based security service. I'm sure this acquisition and the acquisition of the anti-spyware technology are not unrelated.
The team was placed in the Windows group in order to improve communication and turn around time with the developers. Hopefully this will mean faster resolutions and hotfixes to security issues.
Also, there is apparently some client code that provides a "heartbeat" back to the Microsoft servers.
I hope none of this information is sensitive... if it was I assume they would have had me sign the NDA.
Granted, my claim was made without any links unfortunately. However with a little googling, what I stated will become more obvious. ClamAV donors have paid subscriptions fees for ClamAV to be on certain select lists that anti-virus companies are on. I've never used these lists or interacted with them, but it is my understanding that they are kind of like mailing lists for virus companies to keep each other up to date on whats out there. According to ClamAV's site they more or less release updates daily. Perhaps they are small enough that they can bare the load. Major AV companies tend to toss out updates weekly unless something major is spreading. So it makes sense that ClamAV would beat them to it. Also, I know I've submitted at least 3 previously unknown viruses to Symantec and ClamAV and clamav did indeed update quicker( Symantec is what we use at my corporation, maybe one day I can convince the upper management to try out ClamAV, even if its just as a second defense) and I was also involved in a federal investigation regarding blaster. (I wasn't involved in creating it, but my network was one of the first 50 hit and so we had some valuable data and were known to be close to the source of the attack). I am by no means a virus expert and where as I personally like ClamAV for my own mail gateways, at my company we use Symantec, which is also very nice. I'm not saying one is better then the other, but am simply stating that ClamAV from my experience and also from the source that I unfortunately can't find, sometimes (not always)updates quicker
Regards,
Steve
Sell a crappy OS, then sell people the ability to protect themselves from it. Could this be a new form of double-dipping?
then by including its browser and mail client in their OS, and preventing by its maneuvers other products to have a chance (ie: being included by the OEM), microsoft forcibly extended its mono-culture to two other important vectors of virus and spywares...
combined with:
- the numerous security fails discovered in these product in a regular fashion.. some of them very stupid and dangerous: attachment that open by itself and execute, by using audio/x-wav mime type.
- bad default settings: hidden extensions (what have they done to prevent double extension scam in OE ?), netbios and co active by default on the internet connexion..etc..
microsoft created a ground very favorable to virus, spyware, worms: we could euphemistically that that they have some responsability here..MS attempt to make money with antivirus/antispyware not only shows their opportunism but also their prevalent cynism.
i guess that a antivirus and antispyware mono-culture is what we needed :/
BTW for those poor fellows still using OS oses ;) there is a great paper about network services minimization on windows 2000/XP (also available in french) a good way to close some present and future security holes, thanks to herve schauer consultants.