Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm

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

Evidently they wore out the first one...

windows hungry! want more!

Bad move for Linux

This is Microsofts second purchase of Anti-Virus sofware which runs/ran on Linux. Sybari announced Linux support last year and RAV was a very popular Linux based product already.

Good for Microsoft, bad for Linux and bad for consumers.

LoB

ClamAV

There's always www.clamav.net

Re:Not updated fast enough.

I can't find the link, but the irconic thing is that ClamAV, the free virus scanner, was once evaluated and found to update its database sometimes faster then both symantec and mcaffee.
Regards,
Steve

Maybe this is great for Linux?

If Microsoft is buying Anti-Virus software companies that have versions for Linux then there is now a whole lot more incentive for Anit-Virus companies to put out Linux versions of their software.

Re:Bad move for Linux

Kind of like the Bungee purchase. Take the strongest supporters of your competition and make them Windows only. Fortunately they make too much money off VPC to kill it.

Nothing for you to see here

No Antitrust for you to see here, please move along.

Re:Nothing for you to see here

This is vertical integration. They are purchasing software to make their product more complete. Antitrust would be involved if they purchased Apple, Sun, IBM or Red Hat, as they have Operating Systems.

Tell that to Real or Netscape.

Re:Nothing for you to see here

> It's like complaining about Antitrust because Microsoft bought Bungie.

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

Eh? Antitrust laws do not simply protect against monopolies/cartels, but instead protect against anything that intentionally restrains trade (as vague [cato.org] as that is). There are several solid pages on vertical integration/antitrust (one [fsu.edu], two [aw.com] ). Isn't payola [wikipedia.org] a clear case of vertical integration? If you can control the channels of production, it doesn't matter if you have lots of competitors who will sell at a lower price than you; the customer doesn't have access to their product.

Microsoft Business Plan

1. Make bad software 2. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software 3. PROFIT!!!

Slight correction:

1. Make bad software
2. PROFIT!!!
3. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software
4. PROFIT MORE!!!

Re:Slight correction:

I don't really see your point since I wasn't bashing Microsoft in my post, only rebutting your comment about Linux.

Re:Microsoft Business Plan

At long last, we have an answer to the Underpants Gnome's business plan

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?

Wouldn't it be better if Microsoft was to fix their bloody insecure software instead??
-russ

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

You obviously haven't read the summary:
The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

Well, the interesting thing here is that some people on the Free Software Business mailing list claim that the economic model for open source has a flaw. You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right? You make mistakes and then you profit from them. And yet here's Microsoft doing the same thing. So while I agree that it's a flaw, it doesn't seem to be limited to open source software!
-russ

Re:Wouldn't it be better?

The biggest difference is that with open source I can fix the bugs myself if I want to. With Microsoft software I cannot.

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?

It leaves you with a free market of people who *do* know various implementations of C and are willing to help you at a market rate.

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?

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?

You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right?

Except that:

• support doesn't just mean fixing bugs, it can mean configuration, integration, and custom development;
• I can be hired to support software I didn't write;
• other people can be hired to support the software I wrote

Re:What?!?!?!?

I see. So I have a $1. I should give that dollar to Microsoft. Who takes 90 cents. Which then gives 10 cents to Bill as salary and stock. Who then takes 9 cents. Who then gives 1 cent to the poor.

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.

Well, of course.

The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.

I don't see how they couldn't, without risking further anti-trust-related accusations.

And in other news...

Manufacturer of spontaneously-combusting household furniture today announced that they would be charging customers for fire extinguishers.

What did they do with RAV?

"Bucharest, June 10, 2003 – GeCAD Software has announced a definitive agreement with Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash., USA, by which Microsoft will acquire GeCAD’s antivirus technology. Microsoft has stated its intention to integrate GeCAD’s technology into products and services that will help secure customers."

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 >:(

Internet Explorer

I wonder how they can argue that IE has to be a fundamental part of the operating system that they give away*, but a virus scanner is an add-on? Controlling which programs run seems like it should be an OS fundamental.

(* re: IE vs. netscape browser wars and the monopoly verdict)

Build it and they will come...

Microsoft have certainly done a first class job in creating a demand for these services. Kudos.

They're not buying an AV engine, though

As we noted over at Ars [arstechnica.com], Sybari doesn't make an AV engine. Their main product allows customers to plug in AV engines developed by other companies, and in fact can support multiple engines at once.

Of course, MS does have their own engine now, which they bought back in 2003.

Scifi

Kinda like a B grade Scifi movie, release a disease and charge money for the cure.

Only "thinking about" charging?

Well, they've almost four years before anyone is even remotely likely to take them to court for anti-trust/anti-competitive behaviour.

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.

RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus)

Microsoft bought RAV some time ago- who made a fine Windows and Linux AV program. They also made RAV for most all of the UNIX mail programs such as qmail, courier, sendmail, postfix, etc.

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:

At least Microsoft isn't getting into the condom business. "Introducing Microsoft Condom 3.0, now it actually prevents pregnancy!"

There could be patent issues

According to some very informative posts [yahoo.com] on the Yahoo SCOX stock board, Symantec has the rights to a very key patent in this area and McAfee has a perpetual, fully paid-up license to the said patent. Neither company would relish MSFT moving in on their nice little market and may well have solid legal grounding for setting $FELINE amongst $AVIANS.

Stupid for Microsoft

*IF* Microsoft were to become a big player in the anti-malware arena, it would add even more weight to the belief that Microsoft creates a bad product by design. Current percieved motivation for making inferior products:

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.

I interviewed with this team...

I recently interviewed with this team, but did not sign any NDA's. The hiring managers were vague about the project, but intentionally gave me enough information to put together what they are doing.

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

first there was an OS monoculture..
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:

• the numerous security fails discovered in these product in a regular fashion.. some of them very stupid and dangerous: attachment that open by itself and execute, by using audio/x-wav mime type.
  
• bad default settings: hidden extensions (what have they done to prevent double extension scam in OE ?), netbios and co active by default on the internet connexion..etc..

microsoft created a ground very favorable to virus, spyware, worms: we could euphemistically that that they have some responsability here..

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:Swindle?

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?

Or you could go to Symantec's site and use their online ActiveX virus scanner.

Why does "ActiveX virus scanner" sound like an oxymoron?