Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux
jasonmicron writes "As previously reported on Slashdot, Microsoft has completed the aquisition of Sybari Software this morning. Before the ink was even dry, Microsoft cut all new antivirus support for all Unix and Linux definitions. Current customers will continue to receive support but new customers will not have the option to purchase the software under Unix / Linux. From TFA: Post acquisition, Syabri becomes a Microsoft subsidiary focusing on marketing anti-virus and anti-spam protection for Microsoft messaging and collaboration servers. It will continue to market Sybari's Lotus Domino products but will not sell Antigen versions for Unix and Linux."
ClamAV is actually becoming usable, more hands might light work etc
Well, IE for Solaris was there, but no longer. And, of course, Xenix.
Go somewhere random
I'm sure that if Apple did the same thing, that Slashdot would post a story, right?
RTFA--it's about software for checking email for viruses on the mail server.
Microsoft is affirming that Linux and Unix are more secure than Windows and don't require anti-virus software!
FTA:
Anti-virus products for Unix servers occupy a useful niche in the market not because there are many viruses that infect Unix platforms but because they help prevent these servers from hosting Windows malware. ®
This is true, however, it is nice to be able to scan for Microsoft viruses on your Unix file and email servers. Oh well. Good thing there is ClamAV.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
There are plenty alternatives like those listed in the unix-linux antivirus mini-faq http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/openantiviru s/mini-faq/av-unix_e.txt?rev=1.40&view=markup Kindly compiled by the OpenAntivirus Project http://www.openantivirus.org/
First, don't panic. Just because some company I've never dealt with stopped making a product I never used doesn't mean I feel the world is going in the crapper. There are other Unix/Linux Anti-V irus solutions.
There's ClamAV, which does an admirable job of keeping up with the stream of crap slung by the rest of the 'Net.
For commercial products, I've really liked Sophos' software. They were one of the only companies that supported the vast Unix/Linux versions we had when we made the selection.
Both work especially well when teamed with something like amavisd-new and your favorite MTA.
I recall some noise being made about McAffey bringing back their Linux AV software, too...
I used to think printing on on Unix sucked. Then I figured it out. Printing on Unix *does* suck. Like a Kirby.
They did the same thing with RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus)- one of the best qmail/sendmail/postfix/courier and console+monitoring virus scanners when M$ bought it.
First the sales stopped, then the virus definitions took a few days to get updated on each big 'outbreak', then they stopped coming at all... *sniff*
Fortunately by then, ClamAV had matured more than it did when we purchased RAV for our mail servers, and it was kicked to the curb.
In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY (since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Kaspersky Lab has actually hired *nix RAV developers and helped existing RAV users with migration. Good things deserve to be kept and developed further.
Ya because there's no AV alternatives. I mean you couldn't possibly go and get Norton, or AVG, or Sophos, or McAfee, or Trend Micro, or Panda, or Avast, or ... well you ought to get the point. There is no lack of virus software. There's too much of it, if you asked me, it confuses normal users as to which they ought to use and trust.
/. or why any of the Linux folks seem to care. Given the antipathy for MS I can't see Linux advocates wanting to give them money, so what's changed?
That MS isn't supporting Linux in it's AV efforts is highly unsupprising. You should be happy, in fact, as it's a selling point for those that compete with them. You can get AVG on your Windows desktop and Linux server, but not MS AV (when it comes out).
I don't understand why this is even news on
Just go get AVG, it's better anyhow.
Uhh... anyone running a UNIX (or Linux) server (file, mail, etc) that has Windows clients?
" I hate to say this but UNIX and Linux do not get viruses."
Mail-borne malware travels through UNIX and Linux mail gateways.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Unless things have drastically changed in recent years, I remember Sybari's most important product being their "Antigen" software which allowed efficient scanning of *email* for virii. We purchased the version of their product for Exchange Server back when Exchange 5.5 was a pretty recent product and people were still running NT 4.0 on their workstations.
I assumed the Unix/Linux versions of Sybari products were typically purchased for this purpose - in-line virus scanning of corporate email as it went through the Unix or Linux server?
Don't forget Microsoft bought FoxBase and killed MacOS support to kill databases on MacOS.
And Microsoft bought OneTree and promptly killed commercial quality version control for MacOS (they dead-ended the format and only with much begging allowed others {MW} to make clients.)
However, Bungie sold themselves because they didn't have deep pockets, were starving, and the gaming industry drove them that way. Microsoft needed that flagship killer app. They didn't just wax the MacOS release, they delayed the Windows release to make it non-relevant.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
You've misunderstood the purpose of antitrust law. The finding of monopoly status does not put MS under the gun for movement in the OS sphere. After all, they own that arena.
The idea of antitrust is to prevent a monopoly from using its exclusive position in one market to create monopoly positions in new markets, which is what MS tries to do at every opportunity. Bill is VERY against antitrust law, for obvious reasons.
But as you say, this DOJ is owned by MS and hands-off ideologues. There will not be antitrust movement against MS in this generation - if ever.
ClamAV
s /
http://www.clamav.net/
OpenAntiVirus Project
http://www.openantivirus.org/
Actualy I have an Email server setup wit Postfix + AmavisNEW + SA + ClamAV, and I'm yet to see a virus that passed undetected.
Check our virus detection statistics here:
http://integracao.saude.rio.rj.gov.br/amavis-stat
We're behind the main corporate server, so our department depends on it to send or receive email. They use a NortonAV server, but more than once an infected email passed trough, and it were stoped by our Server.
So I now wonder how ClamAV would perform against the proprietary alternatives...
I really want to try it, but our "corporate policy" states that every email traffic must pass trough the "homologated" AV solution. We're actally the only department that is really using Linux for real, and the rest of the company still has this strong Microsoft culture and don't quite trust Open Source...
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Umm, Last time I checked Microsoft has no monopoly in the Anti-Virus market. Besides if you are talking about its monopoly in the PC OS market, this move hardly affects it one way or another.
This may actually be a good thing, believe it or not, for ClamAV accuracy. ClamAV was in danger of becoming too popular.
In the very specific-and-limited realm of software that uses heuristics to block malicious content, being the big dog is not necessarily best. There are no network benefits to having many copies of an AV package available (possible exception: those that phone home about new malicious content). It just means that all the malware authors test against and work on bypassing your software.
Let's take a brief look:
* Web browsers. IE is the overwhelmingly dominant browser. Firefox has a number of good architectural decisions made from a security standpoint, but it sure as hell isn't free from potentially-exploitable security holes. It's just that very few people are exploiting them. Why would they want to, when they can get ten times the return by exploiting IE? Sure, maybe after they've attacked IE a zillion ways they might be interested in spending resources on Firefox, but not right away.
* Spam blocking. Spammers now not infrequently run spam past major spam-blocking systems before sending it, and keep tweaking it until it gets past them.
* Desktop Virus scanning. In the past, major antivirus systems (like Norton Antivirus) have been directly attacked and disabled by viruses.
* Email Virus scanners. You think this will be any different?
My main concern is that Microsoft may be positioning itself to begin dictating email standards, which would give it very strong influence over the Internet. (They already tried this with their patent-encumbered SPF alternative, and while I'm not familiar with Exchange, I'm sure that Exchange follows the typical Microsoft pattern and "works better" with other Microsoft clients and servers in a myriad of ways).
Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ?
Unix antivirus scanners are used on mailservers to scan for Windows viruses that might affect Windows boxes, not to scan for viruses written for Unix.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Sorry, folks. Saying *nix doesn't have viruses is just fan-boy. Believing it is ignorant. As a matter of fact, I run Windows and Linux. Windows does tend to get more, simply because it has more market share. However, I can say that the only virus/worm I've ever gotten that DESTROYED important data was on Linux. God damned phpBB worm that replaces *.html among other things.
Anyway, such generalizations are foolish anyway, since it's usually not the OPERATING SYSTEM level software getting the virus/worms. It's some badly written service.
Anyway... you get the point. But please, stop being slashdot zombies and claiming Linux is perfect.
Keith
I disagree.
Anti-virus software is probably the one product that should be Open as the larger the number of eyes, the easier they are to spot and eliminate.
None of the commercial anti-viruses would work without users complaints and suggestions. The lists are made primarily from users either automatically or manually volunteering.
By the way;
RAV antivirus was bought by M$ a couple years ago and absorbed. Resistance is futile...unless you start with a free and open licence.
That takes some of the greed out of it.
I have yet to be infected in 5 years and around fifty linux boxes. I realize that a relatively small number of infections do really exist, but can be limited by being careful with how you set up and use your Unix/Linux machine.
Clamav antivirus and a wwww + nntp filter with reasonable firewall has virtually stopped our 150 Windows boxes from virus/trojan/adware/spyware.
Squid Proxy actually speeds connections and cuts wasted bandwidth. All done and more with a couple old boxes that couldn't run Windows fast enough. Software cost was zero and legal.
If the Linux/Unix servers don't clean Windows virus they will increase in number of "aggresions" (the virus) making Windows users angry(est) with their OS. And if someone tell them "there's another OS that doesn't have virus infections" they will be more willing to change.