Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Intel Security

McAfee Brand Name Will Be Replaced By Intel Security 180

Posted by Unknown Lamer
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McAfee Brand Name Will Be Replaced By Intel Security

Comments Filter:
  • Interesting... (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) *

    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.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:02PM (#45888047)

      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.

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

        Sorry just noticed the typo.

      • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)

        by cusco (717999) <brian.bixby@gmai l . c om> on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:13PM (#45888141)

        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.

        • 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.

        • by ArhcAngel (247594)
          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.
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        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

        • 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 whe
          • by gstoddart (321705)

            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.

        • by kimvette (919543)

          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.

      • by Havokmon (89874)

        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 ne

      • by multisync (218450)

        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 acceptabl

        • 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 compl
          • by multisync (218450)

            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 i

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        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.

      • 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 administrati

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jd2112 (1535857) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:08PM (#45888101)

      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.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)

      by nevermore94 (789194) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:53PM (#45888559)

      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.

    • by Larryish (1215510)

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

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @11:47AM (#45887917) Homepage

    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.

  • I knew it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @11:50AM (#45887939)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @11:59AM (#45888019)

      How to remove McAfee Antivirus [youtube.com] featuring John McAfee himself.

    • by jd2112 (1535857)

      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.

    • by cusco (717999)

      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.

      • by mooingyak (720677)

        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?

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

    • 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?

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @11:52AM (#45887963)

    "McAfee murders viruses!"

  • 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?

    • by rvw (755107) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:12PM (#45888135)

      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.

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Next up: Intel Secure Core with integrated virusscanning.

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

      • by PhxBlue (562201)
        Funny you should say that. Intel has, for some time now, been researching ways to stop return-oriented programming [af.mil], or ROP, exploits, with assistance from the Defense and Homeland Security departments.
    • 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!

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

    • by unixisc (2429386)
      I think Intel can port McAfee to Itanium, build it into the core and find something useful for the Itanic to do
      • by David_W (35680)

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

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

  • This video he made on how to uninstall McAfee software http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg [youtube.com] in case anyone missed it before.
  • by frovingslosh (582462) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:03PM (#45888053)
    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.
    • Re:Well said John (Score:4, Informative)

      by Scutter (18425) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:13PM (#45888149) Journal

      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.

  • by OglinTatas (710589) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:03PM (#45888059)

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

  • by rccorkum (1752644) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:14PM (#45888153)
    I guess they couldn't get the domain pileofshit.com
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:28PM (#45888283) Homepage

    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.

    • by herve_masson (104332) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @01:50PM (#45889177)

      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....

      • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

        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.

  • Dear John,

    Please tell us how you really feel about this?

    Thanks!

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

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

  • A long long time ago, Symantec purchased Intel's AV business [symantec.com] 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 [symantec.com]?

  • Given that Intel is one of the most important branches of the NSA.
  • John McAfee's good name!

  • 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 anywher

  • At least people will stop pronouncing it "MACAfee"

  • 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!

  • 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 whe

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...