Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-totally-amazing dept.

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."

51 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. And you're surprised by this... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you're surprised by this why?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:And you're surprised by this... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I should be surprised that noone at the DoJ Anti Trust division is pricking up their ears about this.

      Then I remembered who runs the DoJ....

    2. Re:And you're surprised by this... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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 will be picked up by DOJ's anti-trust dept, only if they embed their AV in the OS and distribute it freely, making it harder for other AV companies like Nortan/Symantex to sell their products.

      I am not their fan either, but they are withing their rights here, Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ?

      Ofcourse your point about who owning the DOJ makes every thing moot.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    3. Re:And you're surprised by this... by terrymr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monopoly or not in the antivirus market, buying up makers of other software to stop them from making products for competing operating systems is still questionable behavior.

    4. Re:And you're surprised by this... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Interesting
      how so, they are not stopping anyone from making another anti-virus for *nix. Actually that's precisely their point of fustration with Open source products, they can't buy them off.

      besides i had never even heard of this AV company before, and I suspect their *nix AV products were not exactly selling like hot cakes. So from a business POV this makes perfect sense.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    5. Re:And you're surprised by this... by danheskett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not really...
      For example, When Chrysler and Dailmer merged, did they drop redudant lines, and stop production of cars that compete with our products of the new merged company? You bet.

      Second, MS did not purchase this other maker to "stop them from making producting for a competing operating system". Clearly, MS purchased them for their head-start on MS's own platform. It actually does make a difference.

      Third and finally, one thing to note is that when the DOJ's consent decree with MS expires it will no longer be assumed that MS is a monopoly to the DOJ, meaning anything that requires that for a basis will have to be litigated from scratch, with MS being proven a monpoly in desktop OS's. With the state of the market it will prove prodigiously hard to prove that: between Linux and Mac Windows pretty clearly does not have a monopoly.

    6. Re:And you're surprised by this... by Guillermito · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even though a Unix/Linux server may not need the protection of antivirus software, it still makes sense to run antivirus software on them.

      For example, if the Unix/Linux box is a mail server you can run all routed messages through an antivirus filter before delivering them to Windows machines.

    7. Re:And you're surprised by this... by DJStealth · · Score: 4, Informative
      I am not their fan either, but they are withing their rights here, Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ?
      Keep in mind that the antivirus software is for messaging servers. Just because the server is running Linux/Unix, does not necessarily mean that the clients are. It is still useful to have a virus scanner for *nix to catch things in e-mail before it gets to the windows/client side.
    8. Re:And you're surprised by this... by mrscorpio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is a *nix A/V product a "redundant line" for MS? Or in other words, what MS *nix A/V product is MS keeping in favor of this one? Further, a *nix A/V product does not compete with a MS A/V product anymore than MS Office for Windows would compete with MS Office for Linux. Would a bookseller selling German language Bibles be cannibalizing their own market by selling English language ones?

    9. Re:And you're surprised by this... by strabo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ?

      Uhh... anyone running a UNIX (or Linux) server (file, mail, etc) that has Windows clients?

    10. Re:And you're surprised by this... by tbcpp · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, Microsoft does not have a monopoly on anti-virus software, they just have a monopoly on virii. They won't run on anything but Windows!

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    11. Re:And you're surprised by this... by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you're confusing vertical and horizontal integration.

      When Dahmler-Chrysler was formed, two companies that competed in the same space with the same type of products got rid of redundant offering within the same space. This is horizontal integration. This is not what Microsoft did.

      When Standard Oil bought up all the producers of oil barrels to deny their competitors access, it was performing vertical integration to remove tools needed by competitors. This is what Microsoft did.

      Microsoft has bought a product that makes UNIX and Linux servers more attractive by giving them needed security protections and has destroyed it for the express purpose of making UNIX and Linux servers less attractive. This is similar to what Standard Oil did only a little less drastic because you can still sell and use non-Windows servers without virus protection unlike oil without barrels to carry it in.

      Whether this is an antitrust violation is a question for experts in the area, but it's certainly anticompetitive behavior.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    12. Re:And you're surprised by this... by Brushfireb · · Score: 3, Insightful
      When Standard Oil bought up all the producers of oil barrels to deny their competitors access, it was performing vertical integration to remove tools needed by competitors. This is what Microsoft did.

      Certainly I see your point. But you are taking it one step too far. Microsoft didnt buy ALL of the makers for unix / linux antivirus. They bought a single one.

      I think your assumption/point would be correct had Microsoft purchased all of the AV databases available on the market. Then this would prevent anyone from having AV support who wasnt using a MS product. That is the only comparable situation to your case with Standard Oil.

      I realize this is slashdot, and MS bashing is Standard Operating Practice (tm), but COME ON. If google makes an aquisition, its fantastic. If MS does it, its monopoly? B.S.

      Next Please.

    13. Re:And you're surprised by this... by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:And you're surprised by this... by JLF65 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the SECOND AV maker that supported Unix/linux that MS has bought and then stopped Unix/linux support. How many will it take to convince you? Four? Ten? All of them?

    15. Re:And you're surprised by this... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cutting off their nose to spite their face mayhaps?

      Nope. The virus scanners have to be bought, so if MS has killed the linux choice, then you will be buying a windows server to scan viruses. This is leveraging a monopoly, pure and simple.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  2. I'm tired of this crap by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Truly, if this stuff was allowed to go on in other industries we would barely be out of the stone chisel stage. Something needs to happen to bring the PC world to it's knees so that things start to shape up.

    All of this in-fighting and patents/closed source/non-standardization needs to end... and NO Linux is not the be-all-end-all solution as it is just as bad at times.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    1. Re:I'm tired of this crap by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, I have a good 10 years of Linux use under me as well as development... I've seen Linux inside and out and a lot of the same problems exist there too.

      Like 30 piss-poor similar programs with no 1 solid one... Look, I'm all for variety but getting a SINGLE solid set of apps out before branching 30 mediocre ones into even more mediocre ones serves nobody.

      Linux has had some of the same fundamental flaws for all of those 10 years, most are still not fixed... but people rag on MS for not fixing things that are broken for 6 months, not sticking up for MS but it is the truth.

      In-fighting exists everywhere and stifles creativity and innovation. For those who say that everything is fine as it is, please get a clue.

      Patent-slinging is degenerative, it hurts companies ability to innovate and it also stifles Open Source. They are broken and it is holding everyone back.

      These are just a few off the top of my head, I can go on if you'd like but I think you get the drift and can come up with a bunch of your own. Year after year fo the same tactics grows old and really makes me wish for a wholesale change.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  3. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    ClamAV is actually becoming usable, more hands might light work etc

    1. Re:Who cares by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, ClamAV is not merely usable, ClamAV is awesome. They update quickly, and one can set up regular updates and scans with cron in seconds. It catches stuff McAfee misses and it has a nearly transparent milter. The milter's a bit tough to set up from scratch, but you can still scan your maildirs with cron if you like. That might be good enough for some orgs. But by and large ClamAV is all you need.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    2. Re:Who cares by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      if you want to keep distance from sendmail, theres ClamSmtp.

      from their site:

      ClamSMTP is an SMTP filter that allows you to check for viruses using the ClamAV anti-virus software. It accepts SMTP connections and forwards the SMTP commands and responses to another SMTP server. The 'DATA' email body is intercepted and scanned before forwarding.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    3. Re:Who cares by Linux_ho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seconded. I didn't believe it until I actually did my own testing, but ClamAV outperforms much of the commercial competition (McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro) in terms of response time, speed, and accuracy.

      We used to run Trend's Interscan VirusWall for SMB on our mail hub, and would get a few false positives every week (out of approx. 40000 messages). Not anymore. Now we run ClamAV with Postfix and ClamSMTP, and we have had exactly zero false positives and zero false negatives since we switched (shortly after the MYTOB update was released).

      My users are delighted that they're no longer getting viruses, and my monthly "Warning! There's a new virus that our Trend Micro scanner isn't catching yet" messages. I'm happy that I don't have to re-send and apologize for the false positives anymore. My boss is happy that he no longer has to shell out $5000 per year for Trend's crappy product. It's all been good.

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
  4. Okay, Okay by brotherscrim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know lots of people here are going to cry foul, but come on: Who was gonna buy anti-virus software for linux from Microsoft?

  5. This is good! by mboos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft is affirming that Linux and Unix are more secure than Windows and don't require anti-virus software!

    --
    --Mike Boos
  6. Silly readers@! by spitefowl · · Score: 3, Funny

    You must be mistaken, Linux doesn't have viruses!

  7. sounds like an admission by Microsoft by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    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...

    Well this says to me one of two things:

    1. Microsoft is (metaphorically) sticking out its tongue at the Unix/Linux universe, as well as every regulatory body with which they've "dealt" in the last ten years, or
    2. Microsoft cedes the reliability and small risk and vulnerability of Unix/Linux products over Windows and will thus focus continued energy to try and approach that level of security in Windows.

    You be the judge.

    I guess I'm just happy Microsoft can't buy linux and drop all support for that.

    1. Re:sounds like an admission by Microsoft by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one used these products to stop Linux/Unix machines from getting compromised. This software was run on Linux/Unix machines to stop Windows clients they served from getting compromised. It filled a real need, if one filled by other products as well. MS killed them because it probably plans to integrate the functionality into its Windows server offerings and does not like offering software that does not lock you in to their OS's.

  8. so what by jwegy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't sale or support Unix or Linux. What is the problem? They need to focus on their customers. That makes plenty of business sense.

  9. product in search of a problem anyway by Coolmoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Im not saying that virii arent in existance for unix or linux it just seems that most A/V for linux seems to be geared at protecting windows machines from the real world. Seems that linux is the armor protecting the sheep (windows) from slaughter.

    --
    Got hosting
  10. You gotta love this by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft selling antivirus. That always leaves me gaping. It's like, I don't know, Lucrecia Borgia selling antidotes...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  11. Hey, it's a smart move by spellraiser · · Score: 5, Funny

    Selling anti-virus services for Unix/Linux is like selling ice cream to polar bears anyway. It's good to see Microsoft focusing on the real problems :P

    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
  12. Remember folks by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Funny
    Remember folks, this is called innovation, and it is how Microsoft has thrived through the years by giving the consumer choice and high-quality products. Isn't it great to have such a fine company looking out for the needs of the marketplace by removing unnecessary choice from our lives? Oh sure, the carpers could point out that Microsoft has no obligation to support a competitor's marketplace. But I choose to stay in the warm sushine of Microsoft's benevolence, and trust that if they say we don't need a product, that's good enough for me.

    Innovate onward, kind Microsoft!

  13. Well, Duh! by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Talk about making a strategic value out of your own product's flaws:
    1. MSWindows machines draw malware like crap draws flies
    2. Sysadmins install filters on their *nix mail servers to shield the (vulnerable|culpable) MSWin machines
    3. MS buys up any company producing filters for *nix servers
    4. MS shuts down the *nix side of the business
    5. MS then sells MS servers because they're the only ones that can protect the MS clients.
    6. Profit! (Not to mention more market dominance)
    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Well, Duh! by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's one possible outcome. The other one would be

      5. Customer decides to ditch all remaining windows installation and use only Unix in the future, ceases to care about malware
      6. Customer saves money (for licenses), saves more money (for administration), and also saves time and hassles
      7. M$ loses customer
      8. M$ loses money.

      They're really gambling here - they take away the middle path and hope that out of the remaining options, you'll choose the one that gives them more money instead of the one that gives them less money. Obviously, they think they *can* pull it off, but in the end, nobody likes a bully, so even if they gain some money in the short term, they do lose customer trust over the long term.

      The fact that they fail to see this and *still* think that they can base their business model on terrorizing people instead of acting in a benevolent way where the customer is king just shows that despite everything, they still aren't thinking about what'll happen in the long term and where they'll be in, say, 50 or 100 years.

      Which, incidentally, is exactly the timeframe where the current high-ups like Gates and Ballmer and the like who cashed in big time won't be around anymore to care about the losses that will come.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  14. Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! by jaseuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whats the point when clam is comming along so nicely?

    Virus scanners on unix are only any good for protecting downstream windows clients and clam is ideal for this, although admittedly not quite ideal for real-time scanning of NFS/SMB shares, but for mail / web virus scanning its more than sufficient.

    If clam continues the way it is, there will be a very small market for unix virus scanners.

    Jason

  15. Re:Unix Viruses? by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Unix Viruses? Probably due to the lack of viruses/customers

    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.
  16. what if he wasn't convicted? by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Funny
    I agree, it's like leaving your child to the care of an ex-pedophile.

    Sure he could a Smooth Criminal, but maybe he's just a fun guy who the kids think is a real Thriller!

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  17. No big loss either. by KerberosKing · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/

  18. Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! by n0-0p · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly I think the parent was commenting on the practice of buying out the competition. Or, more acurately in this case, buying up a supplier for the competition so you can cut their legs out from under them. On a larger scale it's the exact kind of practice that prompted the creation of anti-trust laws in the US. Of course this is a niche product, so I'd leave it to a lawyer to determine how much anti-trust law applies.

  19. Re:OhNo! by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh. I went to a convention where wireless users had to show that they had AV software installed before being given the connection info. Had my Linux laptop there, they wouldn't let me on until I could show them some antivirus software running. Left, came back an hour later (after breakfast), and ran my "anti virus software".

    #!/bin/bash
    echo Scanning memory for viruses...
    sleep 2
    echo OK. System clean.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  20. Really odd by mcc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How these acquisitions are chosen.

    Microsoft needs to expand into the video game market. They buy the one game company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then ends).
    Microsoft needs to expand into the virtualization market. They buy the one virtualization company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then suffers).
    Microsoft needs to expand into the antivirus email filter market. They buy one of the antivirus companies with support for linux/unix (which then ends).

    Funny how these coincidences work.

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
    1. Re:Really odd by m50d · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's just good business sense. If you could cripple your competitors' OSes while acquiring things you wanted, wouldn't you do it?

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Really odd by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just good business sense. If you could cripple your competitors' OSes while acquiring things you wanted, wouldn't you do it?

      It is also blatantly illegal under the Sherman Act in this case. Don't hold you breath until the DOJ takes action though, we also saw them bought and paid for years ago.

  21. RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus) by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  22. Re:*sigh* by a_greer2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes If it were apple, /. would post.

  23. Why *buy* anti-virus software when ClamAV is free? by Richard+Lamont · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a couple of good reasons for having anti-virus software on a unix/linux mail server, even though they don't get viruses. First, it can protect Windows email clients. Second, anti-virus software can also pick up things like phishing emails, which are platform-agnostic.

    Fortunately, good quality free (speech and beer) anti-virus software is available from http://www.clamav.net/ - and it's packaged in many linux distros.

  24. Cutting off their nose to spite their face by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I hate to say this but UNIX and Linux do not get viruses.

    Virus detection programs on UNIX or Linux are usually deployed on mail servers that kill the viruses before they hit Windows-based mail clients.

    Therefore, cutting support puts Windows mail clients connected to UNIX mail servers at threat.

    Stupid, stupid decision from a company that claims to be serious about security.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  25. Not the first time they've done this by DieByWire · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They bought out RAV a few years ago and buried Linux support. After that things got even worse.

    We switched to Vexira from Central Command. Midway through our contract, CC was kind enough to tell us we had to upgrade to their new software, and by the way, you have less than a week to do it. This was between Christmas and New Years. Did I say the the new software didn't support our existing OS? (RH 7.2, patches from Progeny.)

    Every time we've used proprietary AV software we've gotten screwed.

    Solution: apt-get install clamav.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  26. In other news ... by lord_rob+the+only+on · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unix/Linux has decided to cut virus support.

  27. Open Source Alternatives by vhogemann · · Score: 4, Informative

    ClamAV
    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-stats /

    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
    1. Re:Open Source Alternatives by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Informative
      So I now wonder how ClamAV would perform against the proprietary alternatives...

      Actually quite well, in my experience.

      We installed a spam/virus scanner to handle incoming internet mail before it goes into our 'internal' mail server, which runs Symantec(tm) Antivirus.

      The scanner is running ClamAV via ClamSMTP. Since installing this, the Symantec logs have only shown ONE virus hitting the mail system...which came from someone internal who brought the virus in on a laptop (grrrrr...) and not from the internet at all. So, thus far, it looks like ClamAV is catching everything that Symantec would have caught, and possibly more.

      --
      Hacker Public Radio is our Friend