Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Security

Microsoft Acquires RAV Antivirus 461

Posted by michael from the join-the-collective dept.
Webmoth writes "Microsoft has announced the assimilation of RAV Antivirus from GeCAD Software of Romania. This is significant, because RAV Antivirus was one of the few antivirus products that provided cross-platform email virus scanning and spam filtering, integrating with sendmail and postfix on Linux (among others). No word yet on the impact to non-Microsoft users. In the process, they've left RAE Internet, the (former) exclusive U.S. distributor of RAV Antivirus, along with a host of authorized resellers, in the dust."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Acquires RAV Antivirus More

Microsoft Acquires RAV Antivirus

Comments Filter:
  • perhaps this is part of the overall implementation [slashdot.org] to improve microsoft products that we've seen as of recent [slashdot.org].

    while the OS is becoming more and more bloated, a virus scanner seems to be one of the things that would actually be a welcome addition.

    • Re:maybe I'm just a half-full kinda guy... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stephens_domain ( 679473 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:52PM (#6165350)
      I agree it would be a welcome addition. To many people do not know enough to have a virus scanner and contribute to the overall problem.

      The downside is that it is unlikely that MS will continue the cross platform offerings that this product has now.

    • Re:maybe I'm just a half-full kinda guy... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:53PM (#6165352) Homepage Journal
      And rather anti-competitive, don't you think? I mean if they include it as part of the OS distribution and integrate it into the overall OS, wouldn't that hinder the efforts of other companies that make competing software? Think of the ramifications. What if they made a Internet chat application, Internet web browser, Internet connection software and services, word processors, or even spreadsheet programs and integrated them into their operating system. Oh wait...
      • One virus scanner isn't enough though you need more than one. The same applies to browsers, chat applications etc etc etc.

        People mainly use Microsoft for the convenience factor or because they don't know of any other - not because it's better software or that they want to. Yes, it does hamper IT competition - but there's plenty of competition in this field already. Microsoft have always made acquisitions - this is just part of their ongoing strategy to grow.
        • By "grow" you mean "continue using their illegal monopoly to continue doing illegal things that they have been proven guilty for in court", right? I'm all for companies growing, but MS is big enough already, dontcha think?

          If Norton Aquired McAfee, or if winzip aquired winrar, or whatever, that's ok, that's competition in the market. When MS *is* the market, it's a different story. Of course, they have bought enough polititions that it's not like anything is going to be done about it, even if anyone does

          • Re:maybe I'm just a half-full kinda guy... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Kpt Kill ( 649374 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @06:06PM (#6166020) Homepage
            -not a flame- I still dont understand why Microsoft cant put in whatever they want into their OS.(Internet Explorer, spreadsheet prog, ... anything they want.) It is MICROSOFTS OS. They should be allowed to put in whatever they want. I agree that microsoft has used ilegal bullying to sell their products, but thats another argument. XP has a built in firewall... and who uses that for their firewall? You can use whatever firewall you want. If I buy a Saab, it comes with a Saab steering wheel. If i dont like it, i can change it. Some people seem to reason that after i buy my Saab i should have to buy a third party steeringwheel in order to drive it. If consumers dont like M$'s business... buy another OS.

        • Re:maybe I'm just a half-full kinda guy... (Score:4, Funny)

          by Geek of Tech ( 678002 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:59PM (#6165945) Homepage Journal
          ...And in other news....

          Earlier today Microsoft announced that it had managed to form a deal with the federal government, giving Microsoft 100 percent possession of the senate, house of representatives and several minor state governments.

          At the press conference Mr. Gates said, "Uh, yes, We believe that we can make our platform more secure by outlawing all open-source or free software applications."

          The Redmond based company also plans to annex the continents of Asia and South America later this fall....

          In other news, the United States of Bill has annonced one free Windows XP licence for anyone knowing the whereabouts of one Linus Torvalds...

      • MSFT can aquire a company and *not* integrate it into windows you know.... So no, provided they don't bundle it with windows it isn't anti-competitive.

        Tom

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • The problem is that they can be "disabled" but they cannot be uninstalled. I want to be able to uninstall the web browser, the chat client, the netmeeting client, the e-mail client, and all the other applets that come with Windows. Alas, very little of that can be removed.

          All I want is an OS ... something that manages the hardware resources of my computer. Let me pick and choose which applications to use.
          • The problem is that they can be "disabled" but they cannot be uninstalled. I want to be able to uninstall the web browser, the chat client, the netmeeting client, the e-mail client, and all the other applets that come with Windows. Alas, very little of that can be removed.

            The current state of Windows is that the dlls for the web browser, the chat client, the netmeeting client, the e-mail client, the media client, etc...are all shared between mutiple aplications and these dlls are needed to make the OS wo

        • Re:maybe I'm just a half-full kinda guy... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mobets ( 101759 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @07:28PM (#6166695) Journal
          I tried to turn off Windows Messenger once...

          First, I told it to close, it refused.

          Then, I told it not to load on boot up. Fine, I don't see it. It's still in my process list.

          Next, I told that new program picker you speak of to disable it. Now it isn't even suposed to run in I try to run it. After a few reboots, it was still in my process list.

          After that, I went to windows components, unchecked it's box and it said it was uninstalled. After a reboot is was still in my process list.

          Finaly, I did a search for msmsgs.exe. It found 2 copies one of which was set as hidden. I deleted them both.

          Messenger isn't in my process list any more.

          A couple weeks later, I bought SUSE.
          • You are wrong. If you care to read what it says in the Add/Remove WIndows Components box, you would have read that it specifically states that it would only add or remove access to Windows Messenger from the Start Menu.

            You could also have used Microsoft Support to find out about this KB article [microsoft.com] that explains how to use the Policy editor to prevent it from running.

            Switching to linux doesn't bother me. What bothers me is your disinformation, which won't help anyone.
      • MS integrated a virus scanner into DOS 6.x and Windows 3.x. This is nothing new. Except for the fact that they have publically announced where they got the AV tech from, this time.
      • And what about timely releases for new virus defs? MS is sometimes quite slow to release other security patches...what makes you think they'll be quick on the draw with virus definitions.

        As much as I don't generally like the whole virus industry (they make their money from the misery of others; see lawyers), they are generally pretty good at early detection and fast updates...all without breaking other software!!

        This is a large undertaking. Will they rise to the occassion or will everything else suffer
    • What I am really concerned about is those of use who use RAV as a mail server virus scanner. RAV has been keeping the users at my current employer from even having attachments they could 'accidentally' click on. And I like it. Any guesses on whether RAV will be around for us mail server admins in the future? Can anyone recommend a good replacement for RAV?

      --Pope

    • Welcome additions, bye bye RAV (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:02PM (#6165446) Journal
      while the OS is becoming more and more bloated, a virus scanner seems to be one of the things that would actually be a welcome addition.

      Gee, well I'd like to see the OS an integrated dictionary that could be used by all applications but that would be too much like a useful feature. Why doesn't Microsoft include one? Because it would put a severe dent in sales of Microsoft Word - beyond the spelling checker, there are few killer features in Word that 90 percent of home users will ever want to use.

      Let's face it, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless features and applets that Microsoft could include in its OS but continually chooses to ignore simply because including them could hurt sales of its other products.

      On the other hand, where there is the real threat of a competitor's product gaining a position of near-dominance, or of a product potentially reducing users' reliance on Microsoft products, Microsoft does everything it can to smash the competition and bring them back into the fold. The Netscape/IE browser war is an example of the former, Java and Microsoft's flawed JVM is an example of the latter.

      I'm guessing that Microsoft will simply kill off this product. After all, the very words "cross-platform" are considered blasphemy to the folks at Redmond. The last thing it'll do is further develop a product that promotes secure computing on non-Microsoft platforms.

  • Possible addition to Exchange? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Influxx ( 591650 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:49PM (#6165320)
    This sounds like something they will bundle with their new version of Exchange server due out later this year.
    • Good probability ... although Symantec currently has a great product for corporate use, (see it here [symantec.com]) including Exchange mail filtering/virus scanning (Symantec AVF), and server/client management utilities that are great (Symantec AV Corporate Edition) that have proven very useful to our business in the past. I think Microsoft would be in for some tough competition, unless of course they bully Symantec out of the job.
    • I can't wait for exchange to do even more! Maybe it could open up a few more ports, because the 20 or so that it opens by default just isn't enough. I also look forward to having a wonderful MMC interface to set half of the documented features, and having to enter hex into the registery to enable the rest =P

      Okay, I'm joking. But seriously - is it just me or is Exchange really lacking in it's ability to do simple things like scan email and deny based off of attachments. Before someone replies with "tha

  • Microsoft Anti-virus (Score:5, Funny)

    by kismar ( 571560 ) * on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:49PM (#6165322)
    So which will come sooner, the patch detecting the virus or the patch to fix the hole in the operating system that the virus exploits?

  • So...? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:49PM (#6165328)


    So has MS decided that it's easier to chase the horse down after it escapes of the barn, rather than just closing the barn door?

  • not a history noo... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by greenskyx ( 609089 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:51PM (#6165340)
    Connectix - Who made Virtual PC...
    http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index. cfm?Art icleID=38080

    AND RARE - who made games for the Game Cube..
    http://cube.ign.com/articles/371/371768p1. html

    I'm sure this isn't a complete list...

    Here is a new business strategy:
    1. Create product for non-MS platform
    2. Sell to MS
    3. Profit!
    • aww.. common I wasn't trying to enflame anyone. :+) ... just trying to point out what I see as a common theme. It may just be that they purchase a lot of companies or it could be a pattern... Anyone want to comment on other purchases of companies that MS has made and see if those companies were heavily invested in non-MS platforms?
  • Watch for Microsoft operating systems to be more prone to virii in the future.
    • Create one software base so that it creates or maintains the demand for another software base? Doesn't sound all that unreasonable or unexpected to me. Maybe they think they can stop viruses and trojans better than the professionals that already do this since they have access to the full range of Windows bugs, I mean source code.

      Hey I just created this new nail that won't bend when you hit it like a little girl and won't snap when you have to "adjust" what you're nailing with a crowbar! The only proble

    • I got lambasted for using that not-even-close-to-a-word before, and you know, I was wrong to use it. Because it isn't a word. Really. Virii? Where did that even come from? Even if you incorrectly use the common rule and replace the "us" with "i" you get "viri". Where does the extra "i" come from?

      Please stop using this bastardization as I did. The last thing English needs is a new complex form of pluralization, the "add random letters for no reason" rule.

  • Hold on.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:52PM (#6165346)
    Wasn't Palladium supposed to make Windows boxes virus-free? Why bother buying up an antivirus company when their future plans are to make virus scanners obsolete?

    • Re:Hold on.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 )
      > Why bother buying up an antivirus company when their future plans
      > are to make virus scanners obsolete?

      See also: RAV Antivirus, _multi-platform_

      I'm not sure MS does _anything_ that _isn't_ anti-competitive. :)
      • "I'm not sure MS does _anything_ that _isn't_ anti-competitive. :)"

        The term anti-competitive in the context of monopoly legislation is so abused that the only way to stop being anti-competitve is to stop being competitive.
        • Well, I see your point, but I think MS has taken the behaviour to new heights. It's only frustrating to me because they have the talent inhouse to create the most amazing products ever, and that's not their focus. :(
    • I thought that the fact you could choose what EXEs are allowed to run was going to make XP virus and trojan free?

      I remember when the guy who made shields up was barking about how XP having unix sockets was going to spell the end of the internet the MS response was "you can control what EXEs are run, so you'll never have to worry about trojans, so irc bots and whatnot are never going to be an issue".

    • Re:Hold on.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 )
      From Microsoft's NGSCB Technical FAQ [microsoft.com]: (it's informative, you should read it)

      Q: Will the next-generation secure computing base stop spam or prevent viruses?

      A: Unfortunately, no. Despite some hype in the media, introducing these enhancements to the PC ecosystem will not, in and of itself, stop spam or prevent viruses. However, by using NGSCB technology as a foundation, a number of trust and infrastructure models can be built to help combat spam and viruses in new and effective ways.

      Let's look at spam fir

  • anti-competition? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by maliabu ( 665176 )
    Will it be built-in in the OS? it could be a good thing, but will other competitors take MS to court for being anti-competitive, like Internet Explorer vs Netscape?

  • Replacing RAV for QMail on Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rjamestaylor ( 117847 ) <rjamestaylor@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:56PM (#6165383) Journal
    I use RAV with my linux-based qmail email server (for a smallish ~50 person corporate domain). Works very well. Simple to install and maintain. CNET reported the product will not be developed further, so I will need to find another solution for spam-stoppage and anti-virus protection at the server level for my Outlook-bound Windows users. I'm thinking SpamAssassin and procmail -- what do you recommend?

  • do I hear another anti-trust? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pbranes ( 565105 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:56PM (#6165387)
    This sounds exactly like what happened with Netscape. Microsoft ignored the Internet for years as Netscape built up clients, then they came in and destroyed them.

    With viruses, Microsoft has ignored them for years - blaming virus writers and people who didn't patch their systems every 30 seconds. Now they have finally awoken to the fact that they have to take some responsibility for abuses of their system due to shoddy programming.

    How will Norton, McAfee, etc. survive this? Microsoft will force their product down our throats and will kill more competition.

    • How will Norton, McAfee, etc. survive this? Microsoft will force their product down our throats and will kill more competition.

      Norton and McAffe can survive two ways:

      1. Sue Microsoft for anticompetitive behavior (fat chance)
      2. Deploy their product for the Linux and Mac desktops.

      It's going to be a rough ride, though. :(

    • Are you suggesting that once MS installs their own AV software it will 'break' NAV or McAfee? They wouldn't do that now, would they? ;)

      MS used to be in the AV business back in the Windows 3.0/DOS days. Not sure what really happened then. I can see them making special hooks in the OS that makes their AV work better, more 'direct' with the OS, making the others seem slow in comparison. Actually, I can see them making damn SURE that other AV works slower by adding 'compatability layers' for them to work o

    • Microsoft will force their product down our throats and will kill more competition.

      Precisely. About a year ago, a Microsoft representative told me -- and a group of a few hundred other people -- that Microsoft was not allowed to produce an antivirus product as part of their anti-trust settlement. This stipulation was (apparently) one of the many similar provisions that formed the DoJ's wrist-slap.

      For once, I'm somewhat intrigued by Microsoft's latest dubious move.

    • The difference in this case is the counterpart.

      Both Microsoft and Netscape had to compete about clients and about pages using their extensions to HTML. Winning one side meant winning the other.

      But with viruses, if everybody uses MS Antivirus, that doesn't mean that every virus writer will make viruses detectable by MSAV. On the contrary.

      The antivirus market is less monopolizable.

      The way out I see is if antivirus buyers don't care about actual detection. They could put up with some level of viruses (all

  • Email virus scanning? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Electrum ( 94638 ) <david@acz.org> on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:56PM (#6165388) Homepage
    Scanning email for specific viruses is overkill. This solution stops more viruses (read: all of them) with far fewer system resources:

    http://qmail.org/qmail-smtpd-viruscan-1.0.patch [qmail.org]

  • Microsoft's strategy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by douglips ( 513461 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:57PM (#6165393) Homepage Journal
    First VirtualPC, and cease-and-desisting RealPC, now this. Seems Microsoft is intent on continuing their tried and true strategy

    1. Find company that sells something that enables use of other platforms besides Wintel/Palladium
    2. Purchase said company with change found in Bill's sofa
    3. Shut down offending product line
    4. Enjoy complete immunity from antitrust regulation in the U.S.

    Fortunately, this leads to a great new business model, especially in countries with IP laws that the RIAA finds not-so-friendly:
    1. Create a product that enables use of a platform other than Wintel
    2. Sell company to Microsoft
    3. Dig backup CDR of source code out from behind bookshelf
    4. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    Let's now wait and see if Microsoft maintains the RAV Anti-virus for mail servers product for all the non-Microsoft environments. Anyone care to place a wager?
    • I have to concur with your theory here... Here is another example.. RARE - who made games for the Game Cube.. http://cube.ign.com/articles/371/371768p1.html I wonder if they will make any more games for the Game Cube... And Bungie (made games mostly for Mac)? http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Jun0 0/BungiePR.asp I do think that it is possible they just happen to buy so many companies we just notice the ones that stick out like these examples...

  • I've had good look with AVG AV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stonent1 ( 594886 ) <stonent.stonent@pointclark@net> on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @04:57PM (#6165394) Journal
    AVG Antivirus http://www.grisoft.com [grisoft.com] Is a free (depending on your country of residence)windows based AV that does not use any spyware and has free updates. It has saved my neck quite a few times. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't currently have any protection. So far it appears to have mostly the same features as others such as Norton AV.
    • Before you praise AVG and tell everyone how cool it is and that it's available for free, maybe you should read their website.
      • The website specifies that the free edition of AVG Anti-Virus "can not" (doesn't specify whether it can not or may not - I find the latter more likely) be installed on servers, or in any networked environment.. The Internet is a network, so technically, you can't use this if your computer has an Internet connection. You also can't use it when your computer is connected to a LAN of a

  • linux market penetration (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maliabu ( 665176 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:00PM (#6165418)
    cross-platform email virus scanning and spam filtering, integrating with sendmail and postfix on Linux

    Is this one way to penetrate Linux server markets and make some money of out it? So even if you switch from Windows to Linux, you might still be paying to MS one way or another.
  • I always have enjoyed feeding time at the zoo.

    If this is not just another attempt to suck the air out of the room for everyone but MS I totally missed my guess.

    ---
    The more things change the more they stay the same.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:01PM (#6165428)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • few? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mossmann ( 25539 ) <mike@ossmann.com> on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:01PM (#6165429) Homepage
    Nearly every major antivirus vendor has a Linux product.

  • OMG! John Dvorak was actually RIGHT!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drgroove ( 631550 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:03PM (#6165448)
    Dvorak predicted this would happen in a PCMag editorial back in 2001:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,6271,00.asp [pcmag.com]

    His reasoning is fairly sanguine as well - Virus updating over the web gives MS a perfect excuse to connect to your Windows PC and - along with updating your virus software (perhaps daily!) - sniff around to see what apps you have installed, check out any illegal software/music/etc, look for that Linux partition (and corrupt it?)... pretty scary.

    MS connecting to your PC daily... Dvorak was right about something... its all just too much at once. Perhaps this article should be under 'Further signs of the apocalypse'?
    • trust me, if dvorak got something right, he must have read it somewhere else. That guy has to be the biggest tool in the industry, and it boggles my mind that he is allowed to continue receiving paychecks. The only thing that seperates dvorak from regular trolls is that he has a megaphone in the form of tv/magazine appearances. Plus, he smells kinda funny.

      Ok, i'm done ranting now.
    • the reasoning sounds paranoid. If this is about snooping around user's PC - they can already do that with their windows update. Hell, most of us running XP must have set up the Dynamic update utility that connects to microsoft everyday.

      It could be more to do with blocking generic viruses that arrive by emails - one step in the proactive direction rather than patching the system after abuse.

      I doubt they would bundle this with their OS though because of the legal implications.

  • Theories of not-enough-satisfaction of marketshare (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hackie_Chan ( 678203 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:04PM (#6165456)
    Here are a couple of harmless words by me, please be constructive with your critisism. I am a padawan nerd after all...

    Once again Microsoft do one of their trademark things; shady deals and corporate buyouts. There's no other reason why Microsoft bought this company other than it provided good services on another platform. This doesn't come as a suprise really. Seems to me that lately they're not really satisfied with owning 95%+ of the market.

    Never believe in the official word Microsoft give. That's rule number one. Look at the reason why they bought Connectix. The official word was because of the technology they had with running several operating systems on the same computer, or something like that. Well, it becomes even more obvious when you look at the fact that Connectix was the only Windows emulation software on the Mac, backed up by the fact that Microsoft have been lacking on updates for their Mac software recently. In other words, they want to kill Apple.

    Why? Seems to me that Microsoft is now doing whatever it can with in legal boundries to finish all the competitive forces. They're now piece by piece peeling the bana of Apple. Before you know it, Microsoft will kill Office for Mac and Apple will die of nothing is done about it.

    Infact, didn't Microsoft make an agreement or licencing deal with SCO a couple of months ago right before they started suing companies for stealing their code? Have none of you ever thought of that connection?

    In other words... Looks like Microsoft has pulled in to high gear in fear, by doing what they do best: kill the opponents by buying them away.
    • I think if Microsoft wanted to kill Apple, they would have simply purchased the company back in '97 , rather than cutting an investment-for-software deal. If MS killed Office on Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world - there are other office/productivity suites for the Mac (Open Office, Apple Works, etc).

      Actually, if RAV works on Mac, I would think MS would have every reason to keep it going - and, if it doesn't run on Mac, they would probably try to make a port of it. MS is in the business of selling s

  • I keep seeing "MS Antivirus"... (Score:4, Funny)

    by el-spectre ( 668104 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:04PM (#6165461) Journal
    ... and thinking "It is???"

  • one-window shopping (Score:4, Funny)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:07PM (#6165483)
    now you can get virus and anti-virus software from the same company.

  • Another Free Option Is... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TAZ6416 ( 584004 ) <mccormackj&rocketmail,com> on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:08PM (#6165484) Homepage
    Avast at http://www.avast.com/index.html

    Using it on my Windows XP box and I'm very happy with it, apart from the scary siren and ladies voice that shouts "Warning, Virus Detected" and scares the crap out of you when you're not expecting it :)

    They have a Beta Version for Linux for download.

    Jonathan
  • Duh! Open source is a virus, right? What better way to see who's running Linux than a virus scanner! Of course!

  • that's the point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 73939133 ( 676561 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:13PM (#6165531)
    This is significant, because RAV Antivirus was one of the few antivirus products that provided cross-platform email virus scanning

    Yes, that's probably the whole point.

  • Whew! (Score:3, Informative)

    by rsax ( 603351 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:14PM (#6165543)
    Thank God I chose to buy Sophos [sophos.com] licenses instead of RAV. For anyone who's looking to replace RAV (on linux, bsd, whatever) check out Sophos. They support a plethora of operating systems, hopefully they won't get bought by M$ too ;)
  • ...make sure RAV can't detect Outlook viruses?

    Oh, wait, you mean Microsoft _didn't_ mean for Office to be the Microsoft Virus Developers Kit?

    My bad.

    There I go again confusing results with intentions.

  • Technology broker (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:19PM (#6165589)
    This once more illustrates that Microsoft is not a real 'technology company'. They buy other, smaller companies and integrate it as a component into their code base. They also do not provide cutting edge technology, they simply wait until a small company has proven to have a good product and then buy out that company. The leading software company for consumer software in the world is nothing more than a rather shallow business model: take the ideas of others, integrate them and sell the stuff. In itself, that's okay, but it feels a bit cheap. Why not being original? Is it all about money and nothing else?

  • Cross platform (Score:5, Funny)

    by ActiveY ( 198629 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:21PM (#6165607)
    I believe Microsoft will follow RAV's cross platform tradition. The products will be available on all major platforms including Windows 9X, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows CE.
  • Homer : I reluctantly accept your proposal.

    Bill Gates : Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!

    Homer : Hey, what the hell's going on!

    Bill Gates : Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane laughter]
  • Any issues of MS buying the patents of RAV Antivirus, which would affect others who develop security software for Linux?
  • Microsoft already tried to include a virus scanner in DOS 6. IIRC, it was really, really bad. Here is a link to a usenet posing talking about it:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=MSAV&start=110 &h l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_ mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=31&as_maxm= 12&as_maxy=1993&selm=0019.9304021149.AA05068%40fir st.org&rnum=119

  • Mr. Balmer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GeneralEmergency ( 240687 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:27PM (#6165648) Journal


    So does this mean that you're standing down from your goal of "Secure Computing" to something more akin to "Kinda Almost OurFingersAreCrossed WeKnowMoreThanTheHackers WeAllCarryRabbitsFeet Computing"?

    And to think I once believed in you guys.

  • Conflict of interest? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FroMan ( 111520 )
    Or a protection racket?

    Sure, we'll sell you an anti-virus, you wouldn't want anything "bad" to happen to your data would you? We'll keep you nice and virus clean. What, you think we put those bugs in there accidently?

    I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner.

  • Fantasy vs. Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:29PM (#6165662)
    There are always two sides to PR releases:
    What they say and what they mean.

    What they say:
    "Customers told us they needed a safer, more trustworthy computing experience to help combat the threats posed by those who write viruses and malicious code," said Mike Nash, corporate vice president of the Security Business Unit at Microsoft. "This acquisition will help us and our partner antivirus providers further mitigate risks from these threats."

    What they mean:
    Trustworthy Computing isn't everything we promised. Palladium only addresses security and DRM through encryption, not vulnerabilities. We need outside eyes looking at our problems.

    Say:

    In addition to developing new solutions, Microsoft will use (embrace) the GeCAD engineering expertise and technology to enhance the Windows® platform and extend support for third-party antivirus vendors so they can provide customers with increasingly secure and comprehensive levels of virus protection.

    Mean: We think that this is another market we can exploit. Seeing how we developed this market we can use our monopoly to force out everyone else. Note that they even use 'extend'.

    Thoughts:
    Well, the problem is that AV tools are only good at preventing a problem from reaching you if you know about it before it reaches you. It doesn't prevent the problem. They help in clean up but after you've been hit. Virus and worm writers are very inventive. They'll find vulnerabilities no one ever thought about.

    Predictions: MS will create a new MS AV product like Norton or McAfee. But it will come bundled with their software. Later they'll rewrite Win APIs so that their AV works faster or has more access.

    Note the quality of the product is unknown. I would think it will be worse because audits work best when neutral third parties are invovled. By buying this technology, it would seem that over time RAV will lose any edge it has now.

  • Has nobody thought about Hotmail/MSN? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yourruinreverse ( 564043 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:30PM (#6165670)
    I have done a quick search on this page for two keywords: "Hotmail" and "MSN" when it had already gathered about a hundred responses. No hits!

    Has noone thought about the likelihood that Microsoft has bought multiplatform antivirus software to protect their Hotmail/MSN e-mail services, rather than implement it in a desktop OS? Microsoft has been talking for a long time about rental software services, and not moving the actual software to the desktop system, but implementing it behind the webinterface is actually a rather good solution to fighting e-mail born viruses. I don't expect you'll see this software in Windows, ever.
  • It was announced today, that after long negotiation, Microsoft has purchased the final remaining piece of intellectual property on Earth, the cyrogenically preserved head of Linus Torvalds...

  • Ooops (Score:2, Funny)

    by arf_barf ( 639612 )
    Friend of mine is using RAV in his security appliance based on OpenBSD. Supposedly RAV had realy good licensing terms as compared to other 'professional' AV companies. Anyhow, talk about fate, he finaly dumped MS completely in favor of Open/Free BSD and then a year later MS is back ;-)

  • Watch out (Score:3, Funny)

    by blate ( 532322 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:35PM (#6165733)
    I thought Microsoft *is* a virus.

    When a virus and and antivirus come together, is it like matter and antimatter?

    Glad I don't live in Redmond...

  • What's left for MS ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by t482 ( 193197 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:40PM (#6165779) Homepage
    I was just having a conversation with a friend about this. The only areas in software Microsoft didn't have a product are Autocad, High End Photo processing (Photoshop) and Anti-virus, (plus some veritical industry apps).

    One more category now gone.

    Anthony

  • OT: A lull in the storm? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:43PM (#6165798) Journal
    Did I miss something, or has /. gone almost an entire day without an article on $CO?

    My god, how will I live without another forty or fifty threads on how SCO is a bunch of scum-sucking MS agents? (Not that I mind...)

  • The right solution to the wrong problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ptaff ( 165113 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @05:53PM (#6165876) Homepage
    Is it really easier to deploy a 3rd-party app than to secure an app/OS?

    A virus scanner will block only certain signatures - how many virii use the same core but are recognized as different by scanners?

    A simple vulnerability could result in tens if not hundreds different viruses, all exploiting the same hole.

    Let's say scanners are updated and catch all the virus variations - the same vulnerability is _still_ present, just waiting for another iteration of the same core.

    Just like letting your child at home with a list of people he's not allowed to let in, instead of just locking the door...

    I think the move is only political Look, we're really trying to make it look like^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsecure.

  • ClamAV! ClamAV! ClamAV! (Score:5, Informative)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @06:14PM (#6166081) Homepage
    You know the old saying: when life throws you a curve ball, make lemonade. Or something like that.

    I think we all agree that we like multi-platform virus scanning. This just goes to show the biggest advantage of free software: no one can ever take it away from you.

    If Microsoft decides to, they can terminate all versions of this product but the Windows versions. If we can get a really effective free alternative, that can never happen. (The very worst thing that can happen is slow updates to the virus definitions.)

    I have always thought that anti-virus software was an ideal candidate for free software. Non-coders can easily contribute: whenever they find a virus that the scanner doesn't know, just send it in. (They can find the virus either by using a payware virus scanner, such as Norton Antivirus, or they can find it the hard way by getting it. However they find it, they can send it in.)

    Heck, I'd be willing to keep one machine with Windows on it, running Norton, and also run the free scanner on it, just to help out the community.

    So, is there a free virus scanner? Yes. Two, actually.

    First came OpenAntiVirus [openantivirus.org]. But that project's virus database was last modified in October 2002. The better alternative is ClamAV [elektrapro.com].

    ClamAV is available for a whole bunch of platforms, including Linux and FreeBSD. It can be set up to scan mail on servers. There is a library you can use to add antivirus scanning to your own applications (maybe OpenOffice should do that?).

    I hope that lots of people will start running ClamAV, even just as a test project. Remember that you can put ClamAV on as many computers as you want, for free, but you can still buy a few payware virus scanners to hedge your bets if you want to.

    If lots of people run ClamAV, and send in viruses that it misses, it should be able to find all the viruses that the payware can find.

    steveha

    • Re:ClamAV! ClamAV! ClamAV! (Score:4, Informative)

      by ddkilzer ( 79953 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @07:43PM (#6166803)

      I've been using clamav [elektrapro.com] for virus scanning since it appeared in Debian [debian.org] unstable. It is used by amavisd-new [www.ijs.si] for virus scanning and with spamassassin [spamassassin.org] for spam scanning of my incoming (and outgoing) email. Amavisd-new is then integrated with postfix [postfix.org] and cyrus-imapd [cmu.edu] (2.1.x) for my mail server. Works like a champ on a Power Mac 8600/200 with 512MB RAM!

      The only problem with using clamav is that it needs more mirrors [elektrapro.com] to distribute the virus definitions. The main virus definition download site was down over this past weekend, I'm guessing because of the BugBear.B worm.

  • This is hilarious!The gem:
    While it is entirely possible that MSFT purchased RAV to make a statement to Linux users, it is not likely unless Bill woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day

  • Time to partner with Norton (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @09:37PM (#6167543) Homepage Journal
    Make a opensource AV solution but work with norton for it to use their definitions.. software is free norton makes $$ from definition subscriptions and updates..

    That way the AV designers work on the product and dont have to worry about providing the tons of manhours required to get the newest updates out within 24 hours or whatever Norton does right now.

    This could use any av's signatures norton just came to mind due to it's fast updates IMO.

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close