Slashdot Mirror
Intel Enters Anti-Virus Market
Jack writes "ITO holds a story on latest Intel investment: "Intel is branching into anti-virus security with a $16 million investment in Czech anti-virus software vendor Grisoft. Grisoft's AVG anti-virus is used on more than 25 million computers worldwide, according to the company."
Does this mean that they're no longer going to release AVG updates?
I hope there remains a free version of AVG. That's what I install on the few windows machines I maintain for people. It's a lot easier to convince people to run antivirus software when they don't have to pay for it.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
I..... don't agree. Viruses are not generally written in machine or machine-specific code, they do the same as most Windows software does: call APIs that have flaws in them because MS does not write them robustly enough nor is there peer review to point out flaws that an originating team optimizing for flawless interoperability with another team's APIs and other code. In essence, open-source development is so sucessful in a security sense because such review (ie: how could a virus exploit this?) has already taken place in the development process in the wild.
A virus written for a Windows XP machine has at least a 90% chance of hitting a similarly protected Alpha running XP (OK, OK, let the flames begin....). Does the above comment infer that when Mac OS moves to i386 it will be more suceptible? This may be the case, for one or both of two reasons: 1) by then the focus will have moved from MS Windows attacks to Mac OS attacks because of market penetration, plus the added bonus of being a novelty like Windows virii have become. 2) the virus developers have learned tricks for machine calls and stops only pertinent to i386s; see the missing 10%.
Intel makes a general purpose CPU, and it works just fine. They shouldn't be responsible for fixing their hardware (thinking of the hardware AV idea) because of software that someone wrote to run on it that has undesirable effects to the end user. Similiarly, the PHP developers shouldn't be bothered to fix the (common?) mistakes made by hobbyists or otherwise.
Microsoft seems to have a good strong competative pattern that they've been doing. I don't know if Intel can compete. Microsoft's pattern is:
1. Create an Operating System
2. Look at what software is successful and making money on that Operating System.
3. Create Microsoft version of same software
4. Integrate said software into the OS and use Windows leverage to force OEM's and manufacturers to bundle preinstalled on most computers.
So far, this has pretty much worked and usually kills whatever piece of software was successful on Windows. I think its about to happen with antivirus software. I dont know if Intel or the other antivirus companies can compete with this. What do you think?
Why does the industry need to revolve around fixing Microsoft's problems?
snip
They shouldn't be responsible for fixing their hardware (thinking of the hardware AV idea) because of software that someone wrote to run on it that has undesirable effects to the end user.
Why? Cash!
You're right, Intel shouldn't be responsible for fixing Microsoft's problems. I'm certain they don't feel that way. Fixing Microsoft's problems, though, is worth millions of dollars. Assuming Intel is looking to build an anti-virus system at the CPU or chipset level (pure conjecture, but let's just assume), they wouldn't be doing it because they feel a responsibility to do so. Rather, they'd be looking for a competitive advantage over AMD, and another reason for customers to ditch their perfectly good (but three year-old) 2.0 Ghz Pentium 4.
Of course, I'm not even sure how such a hardware anti-virus would work, other than something similar to the NX system on the x86-64 chips. If such a beast does rear its head, though, rest assured that it won't be because someone felt a moral responsibility to fix some Microsoft bugs.