Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

McAfee Brand Name Will Be Replaced By Intel Security

Posted by Unknown on from the onward-to-tarnish-a-new-name dept.

An anonymous reader writes "At CES 2014 today, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich announced the McAfee brand name will be phased out and replaced by 'Intel Security,' which will identify Intel products and services in the security segment. The rebranding will begin immediately, but the transition will take up to a year before it is complete." The BBC reports that John McAfee is happy with the decision: "'I am now everlastingly grateful to Intel for freeing me from this terrible association with the worst software on the planet. These are not my words, but the words of millions of irate users. ... My elation at Intel's decision is beyond words.'"

126 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    But what's even more interesting is that John McAfee uses a Flowbee to cut his hair.

    Sorry, I forgot all about McAfee "anti" virus software until this story, as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Interesting... by tbuddy · · Score: 1

      There was never a good reason to use McAfee or Norton. Not even in dial-up days when you'd buy software boxed. In those days Panda was available and way less of a nightmare than the competition.

    2. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

      I frigg'n wish. Unfortunately my incompetent security group insists on McAfee. Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM. If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 PM you'll be lucking to get out of the office by bedtime. McAfee has absolutely no ability to scale CPU usage, it's 100% all the time.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 AM

      Sorry just noticed the typo.

    4. Re:Interesting... by rvw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now, I'm no rocket surgeon, but why not schedule the scan for Saturday?

      That prevents people from having a decent Tuesday lunch break.

    5. Re:Interesting... by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what's even more interesting is that John McAfee uses a Flowbee to cut his hair.

      Sorry, I forgot all about McAfee "anti" virus software until this story, as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

      The difference between a virus and an antivirus is that antivirus tends to consume more resources, do much more damage, and are generally more difficult to remove than a virus.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:Interesting... by cusco · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could be worse, could be Symantec/Norton. Always wondered what poor Peter Norton thought about his products after Symantec took over. They went from powerful tools no techie would want to live without to useless crap in only two revisions.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Interesting... by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because bad, bad, bad things happen when you miss a McAffee scan!!! Lots of computers are home/off or whatever over the weekend. At my previous place of employment, after being off the grid with my laptop for a couple of weeks, I came back and it couldn't update right since I was *SO* out of date, which we then fixed and got it to run. Then it ran back to back to back to back scans despite cancelling etc, the schedule would detect a missed scan and re-schedule a new one despite a fresh one having completed earlier in the day. My machine scanned continuously for over a week...IT eventually threw up their hands and just told me to deal with it.

    8. Re:Interesting... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I experienced this once at a previous job.

      Except the scan started at 10am to be sure the machines were all likely to be powered on.

      And then everybody walked away from their desks -- got so bad many of us started disabling it, then IT and HR got grumpy, and we told them that if they insisted on making our machines unusable for several hours during a working day we would either not be able to work, or we'd disable the stuff.

      You could literally hear the groans spread through the office when it started scanning and everything ground to a halt.

      It was definitely crappy software that wanted to use ALL of the CPU.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Interesting... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      It would come with a new computer as crapware and nagware, threatening you with virus doom if you didn't upgrade after 30 days.

    10. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Because the IT group (of which the security group is part) mandated that we're not allowed to leave our machines running over the weekend, saving power and all... We're technically not suppose to leave them on over night through out the week either. Otherwise they could start the scan at say 5PM on Monday evening and it'd run until 7AM Tuesday morning when no one's in the office anyway. Instead they'd rather waste everyone's time by running the scan during working hours when they know everyone will be at their desks with their computers on tearing out their hair instead of working.

    11. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Panda is linked with Scientology. That a very good reason not to get it.

    12. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Our IT group has our machines locked down so we can't disable McAfee. Well most of our machines, my particular group isn't part of IT, but we do some heavy software development so we qualified for special exceptions. We can't actually disable McAfee, not legitimately anyway, but we have more privileges than everyone else in the building.

      I certainly feel for everyone else. What's really nuts is Microsoft software takes the biggest performance hit. So Word, Outlook, Access, Excel, and IE all break badly when McAfee is running, sometimes to the point that they just don't work period. Other programs, like Eclipse, Chrome, Libre products, SQL Developer and Aptana Studio are slow, but the at least work to a point. I often just end up checking my Outlook mail through our webmail interface on Tuesdays because I can't even open Outlook without something catastrophic happening.

    13. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So... scheduling and turn off when finished is out of the realm of doable for your IT support team?

      I assume they are too busy these days helping implement the ACT Website?

    14. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So is the Microsoft Windows defragmentation software.

    15. Re:Interesting... by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

      I frigg'n wish. Unfortunately my incompetent security group insists on McAfee. Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM. If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 PM you'll be lucking to get out of the office by bedtime. McAfee has absolutely no ability to scale CPU usage, it's 100% all the time.

      I had the same experience when we were 'integrated' with a new parent company. My (admittedly) VERY trimmed down PCs couldn't handle their McAfee install - but I wouldn't call them a 'security group'. I had to argue with them that 'spyware/malware' was a separate module (a new PCI requirement at the time), which fortunately saved us from installing their crap. They also declared my recently moved db server PCI Compliant because they put it in a physical cage.

      I could go on and on about that place - I've never gotten a clearer message to get the hell out.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    16. Re:Interesting... by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest reason to use McAfee is because it has antivirus scanners for AIX, SPARC Solaris, Linux, and other UNIX variants.

      Not like this does a single thing useful. However, it does make the legal eagles happy, and in a lot of companies, they have some sworn statement that all computers on their network have antivirus on them... which means when you cut yourself another LPAR, you toss on McAfee and two cron jobs. One updates the definitions, the second does a filesystem scan. It won't ever detect anything but a false positive (barring the machine being used to store documents or Windows stuff), but it does check that box.

      As for Windows, I just use the enterprise version of MSE (System Center Endpoint Protection.) All AV products suck, so might as well use something that is ICSA certified, makes the legal eagles happy, and doesn't completely useless-ify a machine. For the real malware protection, a content filter that blocks ad and malware sites by IP is used, in combination with a decent IDS/IPS.

    17. Re: Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least your hard drive will be Thetan free.

    18. Re:Interesting... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      Yup! The next-to-last time I used Symantec, I concluded that it wasn't worth paying for. The last time I used it (free trial) I decided that "free" was too costly. Since then, I actively avoid that crapware.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    19. Re:Interesting... by nevermore94 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I actually just had to uninstall McAfee Security Scan Plus which Adobe STILL tries to bundle with the install of PDF Reader and Flash Player from a relative's computer. I also noticed that Adobe also tries to bundle Norton Security Scan with Shockwave player. Interesting and obnoxious that they are trying to get you to install both competing products with the installs of their products.

      --
      Nevermore.
    20. Re:Interesting... by Nos. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      McAfee may not be what I'd recommend for home use, but I would for enterprise. Their suite of tools and being able to pull together a very accurate and real time picture of a huge environment makes it very worthwhile. That, and a properly configured agent and virus scan shouldn't interfere too much outside of doing a regular full scan, and even then, the computer should still be usable, if a bit slower.

    21. Re:Interesting... by multisync · · Score: 1

      Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM

      If it is actually taking 14 hours to complete a virus scan, I would be looking for other issues with the hardware. Seriously, 14 hours? We use McAfee VirusScan Enterprise where I work, and most full system scans complete within an hour or so. If you weren't exaggerating, your security group must be truly incompetent as that is beyond acceptable.

      As a workaround, depending on your office hours you could begin the scans at 6:00 PM instead of 1:00 AM, so they would be finished by 8:00 the following morning. That won't solve the mystery as to why your scans are taking so long, but at least the people in your office could start coming in on Tuesdays again.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    22. Re:Interesting... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      We were all developers, and had full admin rights on our machines.

      But I definitely feel your pain -- anti-virus software which renders your machine unusable is a terrible thing.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    23. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I did say they were incompetent in my original post. The group is primarily made up of community college interns and a few veterans that just don't care being lead by managers that don't know any better. Anyone that's competent in the group gets promoted out to other divisions of the organization. The IT management isn't, and has never been, occupied by a competent technical person. They're great politically and have a lot of pull, but when it comes to making actual decisions about IT they rely on the underling managers and veterans that don't care because they've been doing the same thing for 30+ years with no hope of ever getting out or being promoted into a better position, which has given them a bad attitude, which keeps them where they are. Terrible cycle.

    24. Re:Interesting... by riis138 · · Score: 1

      It seems to do pretty well in the enterprise environment, however, the email add in can slow outlook to a crawl. We ended up having to ditch it as there was way too many end user complaints about sluggishness.

      --
      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
    25. Re:Interesting... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Which is hilarious, because McAfee could spend 5 seconds setting an executable flag so that Windows launches it's process with a Below Normal priority.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2
      It's actually two separate scans done back to back. I do bitch about the IT group a lot and their incompetence, but a lot of it might be more they know what *should* be done, but they just don't care and do things the lazy way. At one point someone figured out if you restart your computer twice in a row the McAfee scan gets canceled. Once the security group got wind of that they started a second scan so if the first one doesn't complete the second one starts up sometime later. Except if the first scan completes normally, the second one still runs. On top of that, we don't know when it stopped working, you can no longer cancel a scan by restarting your machine. The scan just starts over again from scratch. Guess it's punishment from the IT group for trying to subvert their will.

      ...you could begin the scans at 6:00 PM instead of 1:00 AM, so they would be finished by 8:00 the following morning...

      That was my suggestion, but part of the reason it's done on Tuesday morning is we're not *suppose* to leave our machines on over the weekends or at night. Many of us do because we know, for some reason, the scan starts at 1AM, so If you come in later on Tuesday the scan might finish between 2 and 3 PM and for a few hours in the afternoon you might be able to get something done. If you leave your machine off and the scan starts at say 7 or 8 AM when you turn the machine on, your day is completely wasted.

    27. Re:Interesting... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "There was never a good reason to use McAfee or Norton. Not even in dial-up days when you'd buy software boxed. In those days Panda was available and way less of a nightmare than the competition."

      Nonsense, youngster.

      What happened to McAfee was the same thing that happened to Norton. When Peter Norton was running Norton Utilities, it was among the greatest software around. It started to suck less than a year after his company was bought out by Symantec.

      McAfee used to be a great product. It began to suck soon after the company was acquired by Intel.

      Both founders have stated they were glad to be as distanced from the "modern" product as possible.

    28. Re:Interesting... by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      I've got one better. My old university required McAfee on all students computers before they could connect to the net.

      In theory it was "any antivirus software," but their Cisco Connect piece of garbage that you had to install only reliably recognized McAfee, which they would generously install for free on users machines. Of course they'd install the enterprise version where the user doesn't really have any control over it.

      Oh well, Cisco Connect's user manual straight up says it allows "remote administration" and the University's security cert wasn't valid, so it's not like all the student's machines weren't already compromised.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    29. Re:Interesting... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Qualifier: you may not have liked McAfee even in the beginning, but lots of people did. Probably what killed it was all the default installations that people didn't want.

      Norton, on the other hand, was ground-breaking in its day.

      Also, I might add: one of the reasons people disliked anti-virus software so much was that they used it wrong. They'd have 4 different utilities running in the background all the time, killing performance. In reality, it was almost always fine to run it manually once a week, or scheduled for 3:00 a.m., and disabling all the background crap.

    30. Re:Interesting... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      To be fair Symantec has gotten more efficient since SMP went mainstream thanks to multicore CPUs - they can now manage to pin every available during a scan rather than just one, so even SMP systems are not usable, so no one feels left out any more.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    31. Re:Interesting... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      I remember when the company I was working for at the time (in the top 5 Global 500 co.) upgraded the Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition scanning engine (from 5 to 6 IIRC). It was back around 2005. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth that month. It instantaneously transformed Pentium class machines into 386DX boxes and the villagers were grabbing their pitchforks.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    32. Re:Interesting... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      An uninstall won't get rid of it. Only a reimage. Don't believe the uninstall function as CPU usage still shows the scanner.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    33. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Brilliant...Absolutely Brilliant...

    34. Re:Interesting... by Nos. · · Score: 1

      To be fair, we never used a client side email scanner. We (at the time) did it server side on Lotus Notes and didn't have any performance issues. Virus Scan would scan any attachments on the client side when opened, but that wasn't an issue either.

      We've migrated to Google for email now, and rely on them for server side email scanning, but again, there is the desktop side to deal with attachments.

    35. Re:Interesting... by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      It's actually useful on file servers, as it can sometimes detect malware that attacks other platforms that got persisted to a share.

    36. Re:Interesting... by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      An uninstall won't get rid of it. Only a reimage. Don't believe the uninstall function as CPU usage still shows the scanner.

      You should probably google how to properly uninstall software.

    37. Re:Interesting... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Norton is pretty bad right now."

      Yes. It sure is. I stopped using it or recommending it about 2 years, more or less, after Symantec bought that company. That was a long time ago.

      When it was actually being run by Peter Norton, it was great.

    38. Re:Interesting... by multisync · · Score: 1

      Wow, I can understand your frustration.

      Users restarting their machines to get around the virus scan is an issue for their supervisor to address. Hammering them with back-to-back scans only increases their frustration and the likelihood that they will continue to look for ways to defeat the process.

      Battles between IT and users are common, and we've had to lock down some of the machines at my company to stop bad behavior, but it really sounds like things have progressed to the point where your IT department is simply being obstinate. Yes, it's important that the scans complete, but if your users can not do their jobs for six or seven hours of every week, pretty soon there will be no point in scanning the machines. You'll be out of business.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    39. Re:Interesting... by lgw · · Score: 1

      As chuckugly points out, the purpose of AV software on a server is not to protect the server, it's to find malware in end-user's data that's stored on or passes through the server (depending on its role). And that's often worthwhile, if the load is light.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    40. Re: Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also nonsense. Intel acquired McAfee 2 years ago and this had no influence on the existing products. If you want to compare McAfee to Norton, I expect you probably meant to reference when John McAfee sold up 10 years ago.

    41. Re:Interesting... by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Norton Utilities was amazing at the time. I remember using his disk sector editor to find the sectors of a friend's thesis (only copy of course) and rebuild the FAT for the floppy so she could copy her thesis to another disk. The tools were just so well done.

      I also learned the bigger part of x86 assembly from Peter Norton's book. It had fantastic examples - like building a basic disk sector editor. Ah, here it is:
      http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Nortons-Assembly-Language-Book/dp/0136619010

    42. Re:Interesting... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      I know what I am doing and I am a senior tech
        Unless things radically changed the McAfee scanner still runs even with their uninstaller if you use a process monitor from sysinternals. The dll files are replaced after an install that can't ne undone even with a restore

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    43. Re:Interesting... by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 2

      McAfee may not be what I'd recommend for home use, but I would for enterprise.

      Not if you need support. I have heard enough swearing over their incompetent support (one main reason we ditched them), and I have experienced it first hand. We had a virus that had disabled the virus scanner, so our people were busy reimaging PCs. We sent a VM with the problem to McAfee. After two weeks (yes, two weeks), they asked what hypervisor it was on... I ended up identifying the problem and a fix.
      Should I mention the false positive that took down all XP machines?
      Not for our enterprise, that's for sure.

      Our company just shut down the last EPO server. Smiles all around.

    44. Re:Interesting... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I know what I am doing and I am a senior tech

      The dll files are replaced after an install that can't ne undone even with a restore

      One of these two things is not true.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    45. Re:Interesting... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Really? Because AVG has Linux support as well, and there's ClamAV as well obviously.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    46. Re:Interesting... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      In related news, "bath salts" will now be known as "Intel salts".

    47. Re:Interesting... by zlogic · · Score: 1

      McAfee used to be a great product. It began to suck soon after the company was acquired by Intel.

      McAfee started to suck long before the Intel acquisition, probably some time after the Network Associates merger. I'm using a corporate version of McAfee stuff (Antivirus, HIPS, Endpoint Encryption) for a long time and their level crappiness hasn't changed much after Intel took over. Still has a horrible UI, takes forever to scan drives.
      Endpoint Encryption is still security via obscurity - to decrypt or recover data, you need a "password of the day" (can be found in online forums), a special CD with the recovery tools (can be found on pirate sites), and the encryption key is simply hidden in some HDD sector, all that protects it is a tiny 6-digit numeric password! I mean the official recovery tool is designed specifically to make it difficult determining the encryption key sector.

    48. Re:Interesting... by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Completely opposite to our experience.

      We've had nothing but great support from McAfee. I don't always agree with them, but I've found the people I've worked with to readily understand the problems we've had and readily offer solutions.

    49. Re:Interesting... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      " also learned the bigger part of x86 assembly from Peter Norton's book."

      Man, I had forgotten about that book. I didn't learn assembly from it (I did that in school) but I had it as a reference. Just recently, as I was going through things in storage, I donated it to a local charity. I haven't done any x86 assembly in a very long time.

    50. Re:Interesting... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct. It was the NA merger that was the turning point, not Intel. Still, the point is that it was the corporate takeovers that hurt these products.

      And I agree... cryptography shouldn't rely on the fact that most people won't go on a treasure hunt to find the key.

    51. Re:Interesting... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      McAfee sucked in the late 90's. Intel didn't buy them until 2004.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    52. Re:Interesting... by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Application whitelisting, OS patching, application patching and user education are also great at stopping malware.

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    53. Re:Interesting... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you don't know how many times I've had to deal with an infected PC that was "protected" by some trialware version of Norton or McCrappie from 7-9 years ago. People got trained by al the trialware to just click "no" or "cancel" that they never bothered to read it and then were shocked, shocked I tell you, when their PC became so infected I had to nuke from orbit. Back then we gave folks AVG and now I give them Avast or Comodo IS depending on their skill level but we always avoided Norton and mcCrappie like the clap, worse on any PC than the bugs we'd always say.

      I still don't know why Intel bought that garbage but if it means mcCrappie is gonna be bundled with Intel PCs? One more reason to buy AMD I guess.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    54. Re:Interesting... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      I still don't know why Intel bought that garbage but if it means mcCrappie is gonna be bundled with Intel PCs? One more reason to buy AMD I guess.

      or mac. I've never had a virus and the OS has a blacklist built-in that's updated and pushed out daily by apple. queue the "macs haz virors!" but the fact that each instance makes the /. front page says how rare it is.

    55. Re:Interesting... by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Nah, I hate it. The number of issues it causes on Windows Servers is substantial, and at a really hacky low level which is expensive and time consuming to troubleshoot.

    56. Re:Interesting... by DeathToThePatriarchy · · Score: 1

      Actually, it started well before the Intel purchase. McAfee hasn't been McAfee since it was bought by Network Associates and NA took over the name. It was a typical Network Associates product package -- lots of expensive pieces that do not play well together. Enterprise AV is not too bad, if that is all you are going to do. Enterprise IDS doesn't do *nix well and doesn't talk to the AV consolidation part. Not McAfee for a long time. One can only hope Intel can dismantle and keep the good parts and reintegrate the rest.

    57. Re:Interesting... by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 2

      God I remember all the Norton Internet Security 2004 installs that would bork in the firewall and take down the entire network connection. I hate them for buying Sygate and locking it up but I am sure not going to miss that headache.

      --
      Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
    58. Re:Interesting... by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 1

      No, McAfee started sucking well before the Intel acquisition. It had more to do with the OEM ISP bundling deals and the flaky HTML interface since about '06-'08 as I recall

      --
      Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
    59. Re:Interesting... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone needs to add a rule "don't scan network drives" to it.

      I don't have access to the config so I don't know if this is what they're doing, but it would certainly make a lot of sense. I sent off a helpdesk request to see if someone will check into this, which I doubt they will. At this point there have been so many complaints about the virus scan I think IT just set a rule that anything related to the issue just gets filed in the deleted folder.

      If someone does get back to me and it's that simple of a fix kudos to you.

      why use that method?

      It's required for security standards compliance. Why does it have to be McAfee? I don't know

      Isn't there an option to only scan system areas?

      I don't know, probably, but again I'm not in charge of IT security and they don't listen to anyone that can't chop off their balls. So basically no one that's not their divisions manager, who backs them 100%.

    60. Re:Interesting... by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 1

      I first downloaded it from his BBS and it saved my ass big time, as users had been infected by a bad copy of Norton Utilities.

    61. Re:Interesting... by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. It's ok to recommend linux here.

  2. Thanks for the warning...! by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to be the first to thank Brian for warning us in advance, I'll be sure to add it to my list of banned products.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Thanks for the warning...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AMD will appreciate the efforts of Intel to further de-value the Intel brand.

  3. I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always considered McAfee software to be nothing but useless, bloated, annoying, bug-ridden crap that causes more problems than it solves. That's why I use Norton.

    1. Re:I knew it by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I've always considered McAfee software to be nothing but useless, bloated, annoying, bug-ridden crap that causes more problems than it solves. That's why I use Norton.

      Speaking of that, I wonder if it is safe for Peter Norton to come out of hiding yet.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is that Peter Norton retired to run an arts charity in Santa Monica, whereas John McAfee retired to do mountains of drugs in Belize.

    3. Re:I knew it by cusco · · Score: 1

      Is that a protest action? "If I'm forced to use awful software I insist on using the absolutely worst ever created!" I mean really, if I had to pick a piece of software worse than McAfee there is only one possible candidate.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:I knew it by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I'd be hard-pressed to tell which of them is worse.

    5. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly John McAfee is the heterosexual in that story.

    6. Re:I knew it by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Is that a protest action? "If I'm forced to use awful software I insist on using the absolutely worst ever created!" I mean really, if I had to pick a piece of software worse than McAfee there is only one possible candidate.

      Access?

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  4. He objected to the advertising slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "McAfee murders viruses!"

  5. Java, now with Intel Security? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    So does this mean Intel is likely to fix things and stop being malware, or just business as usual and a increasing the need for ever faster processors to run ever bloated and invasive software?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Java, now with Intel Security? by rvw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So does this mean Intel is likely to fix things and stop being malware, or just business as usual and a increasing the need for ever faster processors to run ever bloated and invasive software?

      Next up: Intel Secure Core with integrated virusscanning.

    2. Re:Java, now with Intel Security? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      So does this mean Intel is likely to fix things and stop being malware, or just business as usual and a increasing the need for ever faster processors to run ever bloated and invasive software?

      Oh, it'll be better than business as usual... McAfee could always be removed by blowing away your OS, often not by anything less; but Intel has the full details on the SATA, USB, NIC, and CPU for their platform, and the capabilities of UEFI and AMT. They should be able to have McAfee baked so hard into your motherboard that you'll need a drill press to uninstall it!

    3. Re:Java, now with Intel Security? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Next up: Intel Secure Core with integrated virusscanning.

      You laugh, but from the sounds of it, Intel is planning on putting chips in everything -- which means they'll likely become security nightmares.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Java, now with Intel Security? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that. Intel has, for some time now, been researching ways to stop return-oriented programming, or ROP, exploits, with assistance from the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    5. Re:Java, now with Intel Security? by sparcnut · · Score: 1

      Please don't give them any more ideas.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
  6. so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to run this? good thing intel cpus have the power to run this shity software.

  7. Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How to remove McAfee Antivirus featuring John McAfee himself.

    1. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's amazing. McAfee might be a dangerous unstable lunatic who's a menace to society, but he's MY kind of dangerous unstable lunatic who's a menace to society.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why does John McAfee hate his own company's software, instead of trying to improve it?

    3. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by RemyBR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because it's not his own company anymore, for at least 15 years.

      --
      Cosplayers.net - The Cosplayers Network
    4. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not his company; he hasn't been involved with McAfee the company since 1994.

    5. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This video was clearly John McAfee's effective way to make Intel get away from the McAfee name: obviously Intel doesn't want to have drugs, half-naked women and guns associated with their product.

    6. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by Desler · · Score: 1

      He resigned from the company 20 years ago and sold his remaining shares two years later. Can't really call it "his company".

    7. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by Desler · · Score: 1

      Nope, he sold his shares off in 1996.

    8. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      This video was clearly John McAfee's effective way to make Intel get away from the McAfee name: obviously Intel doesn't want to have drugs, half-naked women and guns associated with their product.

      Because people might mistake them for GoDaddy!

    9. Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Because he sold the company back when Win9X was the main OS? Blaming McAfee for the AV being bad would be like blaming Ford's grandkids because the transmission in your Mustang sucks. Actually he has even less to do with it than they do as while some of the Ford family still has shares McAfee sold all the shares to his company before XP came out.

      Its the same with Peter Norton who has jack squat to do with Symantec and I'm sure isn't happy how they have run his name through the mud. Both McAfee and Norton back in the early 90s were damned good, they were on the "must have" lists of every IT guy, but the companies were run right into the ground and now they are just cashing in on the name.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. So John McAfee's best work is now obsolete? by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Funny

    This video he made on how to uninstall McAfee software http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg in case anyone missed it before.

    1. Re:So John McAfee's best work is now obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for the video on "how to remove McAfee" involving a commando-style raid using some black helicopters. It'll put the bin Laden video to shame.

  9. Well said John by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    I absolutely hate trying to help friends or relatives resolve computer problems, only to find that the computer is infested with McAfee software that has to be dealt with first, or in some cases is the main problem. Sadly users have been brainwashed into thinking that they need this crap and is is somehow good for them. But John is far from innocent in all of this, there were serious problems even back when he had full control of what the software that bears his name did.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Well said John by Scutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      I absolutely hate trying to help friends or relatives resolve computer problems, only to find that the computer is infested with McAfee software that has to be dealt with first, or in some cases is the main problem. Sadly users have been brainwashed into thinking that they need this crap and is is somehow good for them. But John is far from innocent in all of this, there were serious problems even back when he had full control of what the software that bears his name did.

      To be fair, I see McAfee installers piggybacked on a lot of other software. Users who blindly click on things without reading or understanding are are least partially at fault.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  10. A rose by any other name... by OglinTatas · · Score: 2

    Also, a pile of shit by any other name is still a steamer.

    --
    More music, fewer hits
  11. Re:to be further phased out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NSA BINGO!! I called it first. (It's for the person who calls out the first offtopic NSA comment made by some douche bag who thinks he is very clever).

  12. Intel Security vs McAfee by rccorkum · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess they couldn't get the domain pileofshit.com

    1. Re:Intel Security vs McAfee by Cobratek · · Score: 1

      McCrapee.com is available :-p

      --
      DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
  13. Re:Intel? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

    I think this purchase of McAfee *is* their "security" department.... Now if we could just get Adobe Reader to stop pushing that McAfee "security scanner" that is checked by default and 95% of everybody who downloads/installs Reader installs AND which totally fucks up the machine and is a MAJOR pain to get off.. I've made a fair amount of $$$ removing that crap from neighbors machines, not to mention weaning them off of Adobe Reader..

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  14. Name change to hide reputation.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just like how comcast became Xfinity.... Same sucky service with a new name.

    It's a hasbeen craptastic AV suite that is so over bloated it's not funny. IF intel hires all new programmers and cuts out 1/2 or more of the utter crap that slows everything down to a crawl, they might have a chance..

    But I know it's going to be a failure. Intel might be better off just selling the assets off to an unsuspecting patsy.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Name change to hide reputation.... by herve_masson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Beeing bloated, buggy, resource consuming, useless, unremovable and unstable seems to be the natural way AV softtware evolve. Some are faster than others; McAfee and Norton reached this evolution milestone long time ago, AVAST and friends are joining the club those days. I have "fixed" about 10 computers the last 2 months, uninstalling this shitware from friends's computer, now using microsoft security software. Not sure there is a solution to this madness....

      Notably, people keep thinking "I'm safe because I've Norton/McAfee/whatever ; this can't be the cause of my computer problems". At this, they've been really really good.

      Bah....

    2. Re:Name change to hide reputation.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Notably, people keep thinking "I'm safe because I've Norton/McAfee/whatever ; this can't be the cause of my computer problems". At this, they've been really really good.

      Bah....

      My favorite computer story time is when I start to talk to people about computer viruses, or malware. They almost always respond with "I have (blahblahblah) protection, and I've never had a problem." Then in their next breath, they start talking about the problems they've had.

      One guy has had threes separate viruses now without ever having a virus.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  15. Speaking of Norton... by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Speaking of that, can anybody tell me what was the last good version of Norton Utilities? I used to have them back in the DOS days, it was 2.0, I think. Today it obviously sucks, so where was the breaking point, and does it work on Windows?

    1. Re:Speaking of Norton... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The last good version was the one released just after the sale, I can't remember if it was Norton 99 or Norton 2000. The tools were still damned good although it really wasn't made for NTFS so no you really can't use it on anything newer than XP and then it needs to be on a FAT32 volume.

      But on Win9X? It was the fricking bomb, it was bundled with what was then Roxio GoBack which gave Win9X a kind of system restore which considering how easily a third party program could just write over critical system files Norton Utilities was a "must have" piece of software. I remember we had a ton of Gateway Astro PCs (Apple iMac ripoff) and we ended up selling a copy with every Astro because it took unstable vanilla Win98 and made it grandma proof, really great software it was.

      For those that want something similar there are a few freebies out there but I swear by Tuneup Utilities. Sure you could do a lot of it by hand...but why would you want to? It can also do things that would be a PITA to do manually like enabling and disabling software that demands running services (like say iTunes) so that it only runs when you use it, and a ton of other great tools. Best of all its "one click maintenance" will take care of everything either every 3 days or whenever you want. Its low resource and takes the hassle of maintaining a PC.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  16. Really? by bmimatt · · Score: 1

    Dear John,

    Please tell us how you really feel about this?

    Thanks!

  17. Alternate names unavailable by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 1

    "Intel Security" was chosen because Batshit-crazy Security was already taken.

  18. Re:Don't leave us hanging by redmid17 · · Score: 1

    GIMP probably.

  19. Name only? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Too bad its not the entire product line, the resource sucking hog that it is.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  20. Re:so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I think Intel can port McAfee to Itanium, build it into the core and find something useful for the Itanic to do

  21. Re:Time to fire your IT manager by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    So no emergency to blow $30,000 of lost productivity every single employee to save $500 in electricity costs to run on the weekend?!

    Also why the performance issue!! ya ya McAfee sucks but I have never seen thus. Either your team still has Pentium IIIs with 256 megs of ram in all XP/IE 6 glory or something is not set right?! I have never seen this and shows mass incompetence
      I would quit if you have enough experience as if upper management had any brains IT will be outsourced if they are that bad and the cio untouchable.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  22. Re:so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to run this? good thing intel cpus have the power to run this shity software.

    What do you mean will be needed?

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  23. A long long time ago by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

    A long long time ago, Symantec purchased Intel's AV business including what became their corporate product. The bloat increased over time, but was still a halfway decent product for a few Symantec versions. So maybe McAfee's remains will grow into something better.

    What's going to happen to the Intel and Symantec Alliance?

  24. Makes sense by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Given that Intel is one of the most important branches of the NSA.

  25. Re:so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed by David_W · · Score: 1

    ... and find something useful for the Itanic to do

    Um, this is McAfee we're talking about...

  26. Big business bad for consumers by ravenswood1000 · · Score: 1

    Bring back Snapgear!

  27. Re:Don't leave us hanging by Lazere · · Score: 1

    Windows 8

  28. Wouldn't want to tarnish... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    John McAfee's good name!

  29. When you uninstall McAfee by msobkow · · Score: 1

    When you uninstall McAfee, it leaves your registry littered with corrupt references to *their* versions of a VB interpreter and such.

    You need to download a utility from the McAfee website to properly clean the software from your system after doing the uninstall. Otherwise, you'll find that things like a PostgreSQL install fail, because there is now *no* properly registered VB interpreter (which is required by the PostgreSQL installer.)

    Of course, this little "feature" of McAfee is not announced anywhere on the front pages of their website. You have to use yet *another* product to find the page where you can download the clean-up utility: Google.

    Absolute crapware. The only reason it was on my box is it came pre-installed. One of the first things I did was remove it in favour of Avast.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  30. incorrect link by mpicpp · · Score: 1

    the link to "My elation at Intel's decision is beyond words." does not point to a quote by McAffee but to a story about CES

    1. Re:incorrect link by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Since that's where McAfee said it, I would imagine that it doesn't qualify as an "incorrect link".

      The controversial founder of the security business, John McAfee, told the BBC he was overjoyed by the news.

      "I am now everlastingly grateful to Intel for freeing me from this terrible association with the worst software on the planet. These are not my words, but the words of millions of irate users.

      "My elation at Intel's decision is beyond words."

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  31. Pronunciation by HeyBob! · · Score: 1

    At least people will stop pronouncing it "MACAfee"

  32. Yes. Your average consumer isn't very savvy. by Draconix · · Score: 1

    They get their computers from big box retailers like BestBuy, Office Depot, etc. and are clueless as to how to protect themselves, so they just listen to the retail associates who offer to infect their computer with McAfee or Norton. Worse, these users usually end up lulled into a false sense of security because they think that McAfee/Norton is keeping them safe and they can do whatever they want because the antivirus will catch anything bad! I have found malware on FAR more PCs with active antivirus subscriptions (especially McAfee and Norton) than otherwise.

    Also, speaking from experience (I've worked as a tech for one of those big box retailers) I would strongly advise telling your less savvy friends and family to NEVER take their PC to a big box retailer for support! The techs in these places are usually just college students who know more about PCs than your average user, but they're not trained technicians. Their job is to run some software that gets a diagnosis, then once the repair service is sold, they connect the PC to a low-paid remote technician who's basically just following a checklist and does not give a single fuck about whether or not the PC actually gets fixed.

    --
    By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
  33. I always thought that McAfee was marvelous! by Ernest · · Score: 2

    I always thought that McAfee was a marvelous virus stopper!

    McAfee did it by the excellent and novel way of using up all the available CPU cycles which neatly prevents viruses from working at all! Never any risks!
    And it was smart enough to scale if you added more CPU or RAM. Furthermore it actually prevented viruses from reaching your system by gobbling up all the available network bandwidth as well!

    All praise Intel!

    --
    Ernest J.W. ter Kuile
  34. Good to know what "intel security" is by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    I could rant on McAfee for hours but I never do.

    As an IT professional (meaning that people PAY ME actual real money to do work on computers, important ones, mission critical systems and networks) I have had the occasion to rant and "go off" on NORTON products.

    People pay for Norton products all the time but I cannot in good conscience ever recommend any product from them. I have repaired computers that were literally damaged by simply installing norton products. I could go on and on (and have, many times when appropriate) about how this software doesn't work and is literally worse than nothing - based on MY OWN personal observations, and I am NOT alone.

    But I don't go on about McAfee, I simply sum up McAfee products with one line: The only thing WORSE than any of the Norton products is anything from McAfee.

    Not even worth the breath.

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  35. This all started in a bar in Silicon Valley by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

    "Hey you know what would be totally funny?" said a drunken engineer in a Silicon Valley bar some decades ago.
    "What?" responded a drunken Market Manager
    "If we took the most slow operation a computer can do and make it slower!", responded the engineer
    "Why the hell would we do that?" asked the market guy
    "Hear me out!" shouted the engineer even though the bar was quiet and the market guy was right next to him. "We make this," the engineer said between hiccups " this software and convince people to install it. We make this software run random useless algorithms on every file that is written or read to the disk all the time! It would make the user computer inoperable! It is the perfect virus!"
    "That is the stupidest idea ever, people go to jail for that Engineer!"
    "But it would be so funny!" retorted the engineer.
    "I known, I know, but you can't just do that for kicks... Wait! I have an idea! How about you make that software, but you call it an 'anti-virus' and we charge buttloads of money for it?" proposed the market guy.
    "You weasel, that is so anti-ethic! You sicken me mister. You sicken me." argued the engineer.
    "I give you 25% of the profits" offered the market guy.
    "You sick bastard I don't sell my principles so cheaply!" angrily answered the engineer.
    "30%" the market guy responded.
    "Deal!"

  36. Re:Don't leave us hanging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    EMACS?

  37. Bad associations? by doccus · · Score: 1

    Well, certainly Intel isn't concerned with being associated with ineffective bloatware, if they're so proudly putting their name on the worst AV out there! And , it really IS...