Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security

Security Vendor McAfee to Pay $50 Million Fine 229

goombah99 writes "RedHerring.com reports that Security Vendor McAfee has agreed to pay a fine of fifty million dollars stemming from false SEC filing. McAfee cooked its books, overstating its revenues one year by 131%, or half a billion dollars. The method employed was 'channel stuffing' in which compliant re-sellers are effectively paid to buy and hold inventory they may never sell. The shipped goods are booked as revenue and the payments disguised in the books. When it caught up with them, McAfee's stock price crashed, wiping out a billion dollars of shareholder capitalization. The story quotes an analyst saying this maybe the swan song for the once dominant vendor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Security Vendor McAfee to Pay $50 Million Fine

Comments Filter:
  • Microsoft Rescue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bagboy ( 630125 ) <(ten.citcra) (ta) (oen)> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:06PM (#14400677)
    Seeing as how they (MSFT) are playing the anti-spyware role, maybe McAfee is ripe for a MSFT buyout and integration with Vista?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:06PM (#14400679)
    No wonder corporate fraud is so popular. Even if you get caught, the cost is less than the benefit.

    This will continue until a lot of these people end up in prison for a few decades.
  • Good bye, so long (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Admiral Frosty ( 919523 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:06PM (#14400680) Homepage
    Never liked them anyways. 'Stuff was crap.
  • by wiggles ( 30088 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:10PM (#14400735)
    The true punishment should be fines and jail time for the COO, CFO, CEO and all the other Cx0's

    I thought this what Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to do. Anyone more knowledgeable than I know for sure?
  • Re:Oh, what a... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by donnyspi ( 701349 ) <`junk5' `at' `donnyspi.com'> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:15PM (#14400781) Homepage
    I see plenty of Norton demo expiration alerts appear on computers I fix. I think it's misleading and annoying to have virus protection expire after 90 days of use. I've seen plenty of people who see that Norton or McAfee is still on their system so they think they're protected. Of course, the responsibility of wise computer use should be that of the user, but let's face it, most users don't know much anyway and having their anti virus expire on them just confuses them more.
  • Who cares? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:17PM (#14400804)
    Their software is shit anyway.
  • by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:30PM (#14400942) Journal
    Dude, the whole function of the corporation as we know it is designed as such to shield individuals from direct legal action. That's why they're so popular.

    Dude, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Corporations shield their owners from bankruptcy and civil courts (to an extent). They do not shield the officers of those corporations from criminal charges. Just ask Enron Chief Accountant Richard Causey [cnn.com], who's serving seven years in jail for his role in the corporation's implosion. His old bosses, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, are about to get their day in court in the next few months, too. If they can find an impartial jury, that is (if they're smart, they'll try to plead out, but if they were smart they wouldn't have cooked the books in the first place...but that's another story).

    I don't know where this myth of corporations protecting people who out-and-out break laws came from, but it's not in the least bit grounded in reality. The cases where corporate executives get away with murder, figuratively and literrally, have more to do with state corruption than the legal fiction behind the "corporate veil". The infamous Union-Carbide tragedy was as much an exemplar of the corruption in certain parts of the Indian government as it was the amorality of company officials.
  • by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:30PM (#14400947)
    The shareholders only really ended up getting fucked because they got caught. If everything had remained covered then the shareholders would have been quite happy with the situation. Infact, the only reason to do what was done, was to keep the share price high and the holders happy.

  • by Reducer2001 ( 197985 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:32PM (#14400960) Homepage
    As far as I can tell, SOX only causes pain and suffering to IT and accounting departments, and does not actually prevent executives from doing anything wrong. (IMHO as a low-level network flunky as part of a publicy-traded company)
  • by rmjohnso ( 891555 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:53PM (#14401192)
    Actually, auditing is NOT fraud detection. The following wording is taken from a standard audit opinion letter:

    http://www.dsbcpas.com/services/accounting/audit/o pinionaudit.html [dsbcpas.com]

    Notice that fraud is NOT included in the opinion. The idea of fraud is to go undetected, and you cannot audit for collusion. Therefore, unless the environment suggests fraud is taking place, fraud is discovered by the company or auditor in the normal course of operations or the audit, or if the company reports to the auditor that fraud is taking place, it is extremely difficult to audit for fraud, if not impossible.

    The following link is to the auditing standards by the AICPA
    http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/auditstd/auditing _standards.htm [aicpa.org]
    See:
    SAS 1 - Responsibilities and Functions of the Independent Auditor
    SAS 99 - Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit
  • by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:55PM (#14401211)
    "Fines are not enough and hurt shareholders more than those who are responsible: the executives."

    Who are the people that voted the executives into their jobs?

    The more shares a holder owns, the more responsible they are for putting these yahoos into these positions to begin with, and the more their bottom line should hurt. Don't like it? Don't invest; that will certainly clean things up in corporate board rooms.
  • by Fishstick ( 150821 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @01:00PM (#14401265) Journal
    Well, it's not like they got to keep $500 million -- that was smoke and mirrors meant to prop up the stock by overstating earnings.

    That all came crashing down and the stock (from the summary, I haven't RTFA yet) lost <drevil>ONE BEEELLLIIIOOOONN DOLARS </drevil> in market cap.

    Assuming they didn't get out before the stock crashed*, they didn't benefit much.

    *yes, I realize that there probably was some profit taking during this period, but execs tend to have lots of stock compensation laying around, and I would doubt if any of them are any better off in the long run, since they probably have a bunck of stock and options that are permanently under water at this point.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05, 2006 @01:12PM (#14401360)
    From the original post at the top of this page...

    McAfee cooked its books, overstating its revenues one year by 131%, or half a billion dollars. ... When it caught up with them, McAfee's stock price crashed, wiping out a billion dollars of shareholder capitalization.

    Look at the real victims of this; the shareholders. Damnit, the people in charge of McAffee should be doing lotsa years in "slam me in the ass" prisons, NOT getting slapped on the wrist with a $50 mill fine!

    Maybe after a few of them actually spend time in prison, this shit would stop!
  • Re:Oh, what a... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scronline ( 829910 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @01:41PM (#14401676) Homepage
    I can't disagree with that. Personally, just about every mainstream AV/Security company has irritated the ever-loving-crap out of me lately. But there is a difference between techs and tech savvy people vs. Joe the average user. I don't think it's so much that they want it easy, it's more that there's alot of laziness going on. I'm mean, I can't even tell you how many customers are calling us for net support and they just don't read the screen.

    notification: "Your Norton needs to update some of it's program files would you like to run liveupdate to update your progam now?"

    Customer: "I have this yellow screen on my computer and I can't do anything with it being there"

    support: "What does the window say?"

    Customer reads off the window

    support: "That's to help you keep your antivirus up to date and keep your information current so you are protected. Just click yes and follow the instructions"

    Customer: "Oh, so I just close it then?"

    One thing I have to give credit to MS for is the way they are applying automatic updates. "Download and ask me to install..." is a great way to do it. When the user shuts the computer down, updates that are downloaded are installed. I don't see why that can't be done with AV software as well. Definitions are one thing and don't require a reboot, engine updates are another. If they would just do it instead of nagging alot of the problems would go away. I have to agree it's a pain to take the time to download the updates to turn around and reboot your computer...you just booted the damn thing up.

    BUUUUUUT like you say. The crap out these days is resource hungry. Either rate, I would like it if they would get their heads out of their butts and just do what needs to be done and quit jerking everyone around with excuses or "look at me!! I must stay in your head!! Remember my name!! Buy more from me!!"
  • Re:Oh, what a... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrlpz ( 605212 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @02:36PM (#14402236)
    "Mainstream AV is too intrusive..."

    And you KNOW why it ends up being that way ? Two reasons....

    1. The bloody OS is a more porous than a sponge for all sorts of junkware.

    2. Because they ( the Symantecs, and McAfee's of the world ) feel that they have to demonstrate blantantly to the user "Look how useful I am to you !! Look at me !!", so that they can try to justify in the user's minds the ridiculously overpriced license fees they charge for every nickel and dime piece of glopware they plaster your PC with. AV upgrade..Cha-Ching, Spamware upgrade...Cha-Ching, Firewall "upgrade" (c'mon you couldn't get it right the first time ? )...Cha-Ching !

    All this as a self-sustaining, self-parasitic cycle of poo that consistently and repeatedly gums up the collective wheels of personal progress, for millions of people everywhere.

    Now, would I navigate the waters of Windows World without an AV ? Hell NO. But that's why there's Free AVG ( Thank you Grisoft. Now, if only you could make it so that the default install wouldn't automatically set a schedule to make my PC perform an "ENTIRE" scan at 8 AM in the morning, I might actually give you higher marks. ).

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Working...