Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm 344
thejuggler writes "Excite News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to buy Sybari Software Inc., which makes programs designed to protect business computer networks from viruses, worms and other threats. This is Microsoft's second purchase of an anti-virus company. The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software."
Second Purchase (Score:5, Funny)
windows hungry! want more!
Re:Second Purchase (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Second Purchase (Score:3, Funny)
Bad move for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for Microsoft, bad for Linux and bad for consumers.
LoB
ClamAV (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not updated fast enough. (Score:5, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
Re:DO NOT MOD IF YOU CAN'T READ. (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe this is great for Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New business model, but certainly not innovativ (Score:3, Interesting)
Sell a crappy OS, then sell people the ability to protect themselves from it. Could this be a new form of double-dipping?
Re:Bad move for Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bad move for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything,
a) that gives legitimacy to Linux
b) that encourages A-V development on Linux because if you do it right, you'll get acquired by Microsoft (or some of their Linuxless competitors)
Nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:3, Interesting)
Antitrust would be involved if they purchased Apple, Sun, IBM or Red Hat, as they have Operating Systems.
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to Real or Netscape.
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out Commerce looking into this matter as anticompetitive and potentially not compatible with other product liability regulations. As always, follow the money:
Microsoft established in the past decade that it was not selling software, but a license to software (hence pushing EULA down the justice system's throat). This model was important to convert software to a quasi-recurring revenue model. Microsoft's rationale was that it needed to expire so
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:2)
The first thing that came to my mind as well was conflict of interest. It just makes no sense. A virus detector is essentially a flaw detector. How can MS be in that business?
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's more like complaining about Antitrust if Microsoft could/did purchase Gimp and only produced a Windows version.
Since Microsoft was found guilty of illegal use of its monopoly in operating systems against other operating systems, it should NOT be allowed to remove products from the market when they provide products for OTHER operating systems. IMHO.
LoB
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Slight correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slight correction: (Score:2, Insightful)
Step 1: Find useful piece of software
Step 2: Change name strings to claim as own
Step 3: Note that it is your special version of previous software
Step 4: Sell
Step 5: Profit
Re:Slight correction: (Score:2)
Re:Slight correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slight correction: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slight correction addition troll (Score:2)
1) Popularize use of computers in business and home
3) See scum take advantage of new capabilities via internet
Re:Microsoft Business Plan (Score:5, Funny)
1. Steal Underpants.
2. Let dogs play with underpants. Ignore dog for as long as possible.
3. Charge original owner to clean underpants.
4. Profit!
Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
-russ
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Interesting)
-russ
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft are not doing the same as the open source businesses(sp?). Microsoft sell you the product, sell you the support, sell you the fixes.
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
With Windows, you're stuck with a binary that you can't decompile, and a single company with the source and little motivation to fix your bug.
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:2)
And before anyonce accuses me of being a Microsoft shill (again), this post is being made from a RH9 laptop.
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:3)
This is still far better options then you have with closed source. All you can do there is be patient.
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you are a savvy computer person.
What about the rest of us?
One slightly tinfoilish concept is that there is plausible deniability (and we thought that was only for US presidents and stuff) when using commercial software. In other words, since it was paid-for, blame can be placed elsewhere so that everyone "gets off the hook".
Given most users'/executives' level of knowledge about software and hardware, this is maybe an effective "out" for problems whose origins are probably elsewhere. After all, who has the patience/critical analysis ability to listen to/can comprehend stuff like the following:
"Well, you see, at the specific time you saved the file, the cron job was interrupted due to an unscheduled backup caused by an errant RAM issue on the server. Not the server you actually were using, but because the upgraded version of the current database was not compatible with the..."
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:2)
Well I guess you could just wait for the official updates from the company you got the distribution from. Or, if by "you" you mean a company, you can get a support contract (that is actually what the open source companies are selling).
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm at work it's going to piss my boss off if I have to fix somebody else's bug instead of doing the job that I'm paid to do.
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:2)
We all have our hobbies. Personally I'd rather be coding with my friends than getting drunk, but each to their own.
"If I'm at work it's going to piss my boss off if I have to fix somebody else's bug instead of doing the job that I'm paid to do."
Sounds like a bad boss. I've spent way too much time working around small bugs in software (Lotus Notes in my case) when it would have taken me a lot less time to have just fixed the bu
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that:
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:3, Interesting)
it's sadly logical that they'd get more money if they got a cut of that market instead of eliminating it.....
though.. msav.. nothing new.
Crack dealer (Score:2)
What?!?!?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Why, being the major operating system vendor on the planet and then charging subscription rates for anti-virus and anti-spyware would guarantee Bill Gates billions more $ to give to Africa, India, China and any other country he wants to (NOTE: Not an intended pub-<) curry favor with, by aiding the sick and the poor and generally being a heck of a nice guy in the public eye.
What do you have against all these people?
Re:What?!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, I could still have the dollar and give it to the poor myself. Of course, I don't make the newspaper, as I only give in the hundreds, not the millions. Of course, there are also billions of "me"s and only one Bill Gates.
Better for whom? (Score:2)
Sell you insecure systems, then charge you for security...
"here, buy our doors.. oh, and our locks too"
Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:2)
And already the OSS community has been attacked [slashdot.org] by spyware. If this vulnerability, done by a JavaScript can effect Firefox on Unix, then any browser can be compromised.
Now, that said, I do believe that MS shou
Why'd they even get into these markets in the firs (Score:2)
I'd think long and hard about it too if I were MS. I could charge for it and compete like everyone else in those markets. Or I could give one or both away to consumers. I'm either going to completely undercut the competiton in perhaps a manner that get's anti-monopoly noise going again, or I could charge and be blasted for profitting from the flaws in my own software.
Makes me wonder why they eve
Re:This is sleight of hand folks (Score:2)
In retrospect, they could have introduced these features into the install package years ago and been applauded (obviously for free or as a fraction of the price). Even if they weren't as good as third party software they would have been "fine" from a legal standpoint, and acceptable from a PR standpoint.
As it stands now, I can't see how they come out on top on both points, or even one point.
Re:This is sleight of hand folks (Score:2)
There will be stern warnings embedded into the OS for home users who chose to use "unprotected" email clients or web browsers so that average users are scared off switching.
There will be a full version for sale whi
Well, of course. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how they couldn't, without risking further anti-trust-related accusations.
Re:Well, of course. (Score:2, Funny)
If they charge for it, well, I'm sure there's some subtle differece between that and extortion, but it escapes me.
More likely if bundled (Score:2)
Charging for it would look like they're being fair to competitors.
Re:More likely if bundled (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like a halloween doc said that they would hire key open source developers, this is just a variation on that. They're purchasing products/companies which help enhance the usefulness of Linux in the enterprise. They did this to JAVA too.
LoB
Re:Well, of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, of course. (Score:2)
In other words, given their current position as a convicted monopoly, the suitable option is not to get into the anti-virus business at all. Apparently they haven't decided to take that option. Is it any surprise they get blamed no matter which subtle variant of a fundamentally foolish decision they mak
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in other news... (Score:2)
It's actually a sensible decision by Microsoft if they do charge for it, rather than bundling it with their software free of charge which would have the end result of forcing other competitors out of the antivirus market.
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they are!
Or do you think modern virus/worm/spyware writers re-implement TCP/IP stack (hmm, bad example, would put some blaim on U
Re:And in other news... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the analogy is sound if you merely believe Microsoft is negligent in the propagation of viruses. That is, did they do everything reasonable to both protect their sofware from infection and prevent it from being a vector? Anyone who sells infrastructure is responsible for taking *reasonable* precautions against abuse of that infrastucture.
Asking any software to be total
Thinking? (Score:2)
What did they do with RAV? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.ravantivirus.com/
RAV produced RAV AntiVirus Desktop for Linux [8.1.4]
By all accounts it was a really good product. MS scuppered my plans to try it out >:(
Re:What did they do with RAV? (Score:3, Interesting)
Internet Explorer (Score:4, Insightful)
(* re: IE vs. netscape browser wars and the monopoly verdict)
Build it and they will come... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior art as... (Score:2)
(1) +create buggy & vulnerable software
(2) +"fix" bugs by selling newer software
(3) -extremely long delay in new OS release
(4) +buy antivirus and antispyware companies
(5) +subscription fees for AV + OS Updates
(6) ++profit!
They're not buying an AV engine, though (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, MS does have their own engine now, which they bought back in 2003.
More midrange mediocrity (Score:2)
Barring that it's probably another link in the chain of DRM dominance. Just how I haven't figured out yet but I'm pretty sure it's there.
Scifi (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Scifi (Score:2, Funny)
Kudos... (Score:2, Funny)
Only "thinking about" charging? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it comes down to this - can they bankrupt enough of the opposition, within the four years, to seize control of the market and prevent anyone else entering it?
As for arguments that Microsoft should fix their software - nice try, but the lemon laws don't apply to software and there's nothing else that's likely to compell Microsoft to change. Unless someone would like to try talking the most conservative Congress in living memory into applying standards to software - are there any geeks rich enough, other than Bil Gates? - I don't see a single reason for Microsoft to change what has always been a profitable tactic - sell trash, then sell an even trashier "upgrade" for lots of money, and THEN convince the consumers that they have the better end of the deal.
If it's patentable, lemon laws should apply (Score:2)
RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus) (Score:4, Interesting)
Was sad to see it go... apparently it was also to include its technology, but if you ask me, it was more to get it out of the antivirus mail server market.
This is nothing new-- Microsoft buys anyone who has something to offer them or their competititors... yippie
-M
Look on the bright side: (Score:5, Funny)
At least Microsoft isn't getting into the condom business. "Introducing Microsoft Condom 3.0, now it actually prevents pregnancy!"
Re:Look on the bright side: (Score:2, Funny)
Great idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
For their definitions . . . (Score:2)
Unless MS wasn't to market their code to the Unix server market which seems unlikely, this is probably just a case of MS using it's money to squirt out a reasonable product in the least amount of time.
Virus definions and AV engines are pretty orthogonal, so MS can just buy two competeing companies and integrate their strengths. Voi
Pilgrims Progress Approach Vs Infect,Scan,Remove (Score:2)
In comparison, right from the outset, open source desktop platforms and applications have relied almost wholly on closing the infectable vectors, the exploited vulnerabilities used by malware, as quickly as possible.
Read the following Usenet thread from 2000 that covers the argument in detail [google.com] [google.com]. David Harley and Robert Moir are two Anitvirus industry leaders. It also includes
There could be patent issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Missing the real danger! (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti-virus software companies tend to share virus definitions. They race to find them and release them first, but for the most part (not always) they share the definitions for the damaging stuff. This is the only way for these companies to keep up with the flow of viruses. Microsoft has access to this same information.
However, Microsoft also has (a) a vested interest in NOT telling people about viruses until it can plug the hole, (b) the bank acc
It only makes sense... (Score:2)
If a huge corporation packaged a good enough anti-virus suit with their operating system, that would seriously hurt Norton, McAfee, AVG, etc... The same reason why they were forced to provide a slimmed down version of their OS that didn't have a media player... it's unfair to the competition.
Avoid lawsuits and make a few bucks? Yea... I think they're going to charg
new business model for microsoft? (Score:2)
It's like Ford [cnn.com] selling fire extinguishers and fire insurance for their customers. It's just not right.
Thought there was a law against this sort of business practice. Like those companies that sell anti-spyware programs to remove their spyware that they install without the users permission in the first place.
Charging for AV? (Score:2)
I think I see the plan (Score:2)
1. Write virus suseptible OS
2. Buy anti-virus program.
3. Buy more anti-virus programs.
4. Charge people to use AV
5. Profit!
Very well thought out too. No ??? anywhere.
Stupid for Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Create user desire to upgrade
2. End of life for products meaning no more security updates, goto 1
there will be a third -- to keep their antivirus business running.
Microsoft is partly responsible for this problem and now they intend to profit from the problems (the millions of dollars lost in time wasted, the vast amounts of data, on and on) for which they are responsible? I think even pro-microsoft people would think badly of this move.
But to buy businesses that utilize and support Linux? Highly anti-competitive and I'm surprised the DOJ isn't raising an eyebrow to this one.
Re:Stupid for Microsoft (Score:2)
Umm...? (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be considered corporate blackmail? To sell a product that's knowingly full of holes and offering to fix it "for a price"?
Where's the friggin' Justice Department when you need them?
---
Yeah, you can mod me down all day, but you know I have a valid point.
I interviewed with this team... (Score:3, Informative)
The team has been around for over a year, and is part of the Windows group. They will be offering some sort of subscription ($) based security service. I'm sure this acquisition and the acquisition of the anti-spyware technology are not unrelated.
The team was placed in the Windows group in order to improve communication and turn around time with the developers. Hopefully this will mean faster resolutions and hotfixes to security issues.
Also, there is apparently some client code that provides a "heartbeat" back to the Microsoft servers.
I hope none of this information is sensitive... if it was I assume they would have had me sign the NDA.
microsoft's cynism at its best (Score:3, Informative)
then by including its browser and mail client in their OS, and preventing by its maneuvers other products to have a chance (ie: being included by the OEM), microsoft forcibly extended its mono-culture to two other important vectors of virus and spywares...
combined with:
MS attempt to make money with antivirus/antispyware not only shows their opportunism but also their prevalent cynism.
i guess that a antivirus and antispyware mono-culture is what we needed :/
BTW for those poor fellows still using OS oses ;) there is a great paper about network services minimization on windows 2000/XP [www.hsc.fr] (also available in french [www.hsc.fr]) a good way to close some present and future security holes, thanks to herve schauer consultants.
Re:Five dollar??? (Score:2)
Re:Swindle? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't use antivirus software and have never gotten a virus yet.
I guess you also have no mirror, but know you look great?
Re:Swindle? (Score:2)
I guess you also have no mirror, but know you look great?
Or you could go to Symantec's [symantec.com] site and use their online ActiveX virus scanner.
Re:Swindle? (Score:5, Funny)
Or you could go to Symantec's site and use their online ActiveX virus scanner.
Why does "ActiveX virus scanner" sound like an oxymoron?
Re:Swindle? (Score:2)
It makes sense. Spyware companies use ActiveX because they need a high level of access to your system in order to infest it. It follows that you would need at least that level of access to scan for the resulting infestation.
Re:Better colours (Score:2, Informative)
The "it" pages on slashdot (as in "it.slashdot.org") use a pretty annoying color theme. By changing it to an unknown value, you can force the web page to use the (more reasonable) defaults.
Re:Hope their service improves (Score:2)
Re:Symantec must be worried (Score:2)
Symantec should be worrying more about ISPs like Adelphia, which are offering free Internet security packages and weekly updates to all Windows subscribers.
Re:MS-DOS antivirus (Score:2)
Re:It's a Shame...Sybari make really Great Product (Score:2)
I really hope MS doesn't put their own particular stink on it. It would be really nice if they included it as an Exchange feature pack or something.