McAfee Brand Name Will Be Replaced By Intel Security 180
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.'"
Interesting... (Score:2, Offtopic)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 AM
Sorry just noticed the typo.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, I'm no rocket surgeon, but why not schedule the scan for Saturday?
That prevents people from having a decent Tuesday lunch break.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like someone needs to add a rule "don't scan network drives" to it.
I don't have access to the config so I don't know if this is what they're doing, but it would certainly make a lot of sense. I sent off a helpdesk request to see if someone will check into this, which I doubt they will. At this point there have been so many complaints about the virus scan I think IT just set a rule that anything related to the issue just gets filed in the deleted folder.
If someone does get back to me and it's that simple of a fix kudos to you.
why use that method?
It's required for security standards complianc
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what I am doing and I am a senior tech
Unless things radically changed the McAfee scanner still runs even with their uninstaller if you use a process monitor from sysinternals. The dll files are replaced after an install that can't ne undone even with a restore
Re: (Score:2)
I know what I am doing and I am a senior tech
The dll files are replaced after an install that can't ne undone even with a restore
One of these two things is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, "bath salts" will now be known as "Intel salts".
Re: (Score:2)
It would come with a new computer as crapware and nagware, threatening you with virus doom if you didn't upgrade after 30 days.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I still don't know why Intel bought that garbage but if it means mcCrappie is gonna be bundled with Intel PCs? One more reason to buy AMD I guess.
or mac. I've never had a virus and the OS has a blacklist built-in that's updated and pushed out daily by apple. queue the "macs haz virors!" but the fact that each instance makes the /. front page says how rare it is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. It's ok to recommend linux here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
At least your hard drive will be Thetan free.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest reason to use McAfee is because it has antivirus scanners for AIX, SPARC Solaris, Linux, and other UNIX variants.
Not like this does a single thing useful. However, it does make the legal eagles happy, and in a lot of companies, they have some sworn statement that all computers on their network have antivirus on them... which means when you cut yourself another LPAR, you toss on McAfee and two cron jobs. One updates the definitions, the second does a filesystem scan. It won't ever detect anything but a false positive (barring the machine being used to store documents or Windows stuff), but it does check that box.
As for Windows, I just use the enterprise version of MSE (System Center Endpoint Protection.) All AV products suck, so might as well use something that is ICSA certified, makes the legal eagles happy, and doesn't completely useless-ify a machine. For the real malware protection, a content filter that blocks ad and malware sites by IP is used, in combination with a decent IDS/IPS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As chuckugly points out, the purpose of AV software on a server is not to protect the server, it's to find malware in end-user's data that's stored on or passes through the server (depending on its role). And that's often worthwhile, if the load is light.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because AVG has Linux support as well, and there's ClamAV as well obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Application whitelisting, OS patching, application patching and user education are also great at stopping malware.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
McAfee may not be what I'd recommend for home use, but I would for enterprise. Their suite of tools and being able to pull together a very accurate and real time picture of a huge environment makes it very worthwhile. That, and a properly configured agent and virus scan shouldn't interfere too much outside of doing a regular full scan, and even then, the computer should still be usable, if a bit slower.
Re: (Score:3)
McAfee may not be what I'd recommend for home use, but I would for enterprise.
Not if you need support. I have heard enough swearing over their incompetent support (one main reason we ditched them), and I have experienced it first hand. We had a virus that had disabled the virus scanner, so our people were busy reimaging PCs. We sent a VM with the problem to McAfee. After two weeks (yes, two weeks), they asked what hypervisor it was on... I ended up identifying the problem and a fix.
Should I mention the false positive that took down all XP machines?
Not for our enterprise, that's for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
"There was never a good reason to use McAfee or Norton. Not even in dial-up days when you'd buy software boxed. In those days Panda was available and way less of a nightmare than the competition."
Nonsense, youngster.
What happened to McAfee was the same thing that happened to Norton. When Peter Norton was running Norton Utilities, it was among the greatest software around. It started to suck less than a year after his company was bought out by Symantec.
McAfee used to be a great product. It began to suck soon after the company was acquired by Intel.
Both founders have stated they were glad to be as distanced from the "modern" product as possible.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Norton, on the other hand, was ground-breaking in its day.
Also, I might add: one of the reasons people disliked anti-virus software so much was that they used it wrong. They'd have 4 different utilities running in the background all the time, killing performance. In reality, it was almost always fine to run it manually once a week, or scheduled for 3:00 a.m., and disabling all the background crap.
Re: (Score:2)
"Norton is pretty bad right now."
Yes. It sure is. I stopped using it or recommending it about 2 years, more or less, after Symantec bought that company. That was a long time ago.
When it was actually being run by Peter Norton, it was great.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Norton Utilities was amazing at the time. I remember using his disk sector editor to find the sectors of a friend's thesis (only copy of course) and rebuild the FAT for the floppy so she could copy her thesis to another disk. The tools were just so well done.
I also learned the bigger part of x86 assembly from Peter Norton's book. It had fantastic examples - like building a basic disk sector editor. Ah, here it is:
http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Nortons-Assembly-Language-Book/dp/0136619010 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
" also learned the bigger part of x86 assembly from Peter Norton's book."
Man, I had forgotten about that book. I didn't learn assembly from it (I did that in school) but I had it as a reference. Just recently, as I was going through things in storage, I donated it to a local charity. I haven't done any x86 assembly in a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
McAfee used to be a great product. It began to suck soon after the company was acquired by Intel.
McAfee started to suck long before the Intel acquisition, probably some time after the Network Associates merger. I'm using a corporate version of McAfee stuff (Antivirus, HIPS, Endpoint Encryption) for a long time and their level crappiness hasn't changed much after Intel took over. Still has a horrible UI, takes forever to scan drives.
Endpoint Encryption is still security via obscurity - to decrypt or recover data, you need a "password of the day" (can be found in online forums), a special CD with the rec
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree... cryptography shouldn't rely on the fact that most people won't go on a treasure hunt to find the key.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the warning...! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (Score:5, Funny)
How to remove McAfee Antivirus [youtube.com] featuring John McAfee himself.
Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's not his own company anymore, for at least 15 years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (Score:5, Funny)
This video was clearly John McAfee's effective way to make Intel get away from the McAfee name: obviously Intel doesn't want to have drugs, half-naked women and guns associated with their product.
Because people might mistake them for GoDaddy!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly John McAfee is the heterosexual in that story.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be hard-pressed to tell which of them is worse.
Speaking of Norton... (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
He objected to the advertising slogan (Score:5, Funny)
"McAfee murders viruses!"
Java, now with Intel Security? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Java, now with Intel Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to run this? good thing intel cpus have the power to run this shity software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and find something useful for the Itanic to do
Um, this is McAfee we're talking about...
So John McAfee's best work is now obsolete? (Score:5, Funny)
Well said John (Score:3)
Re:Well said John (Score:4, Informative)
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.
A rose by any other name... (Score:3)
Also, a pile of shit by any other name is still a steamer.
Intel Security vs McAfee (Score:4, Funny)
Name change to hide reputation.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Name change to hide reputation.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Really? (Score:2)
Dear John,
Please tell us how you really feel about this?
Thanks!
Alternate names unavailable (Score:2)
"Intel Security" was chosen because Batshit-crazy Security was already taken.
Name only? (Score:2)
Too bad its not the entire product line, the resource sucking hog that it is.
A long long time ago (Score:2)
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]?
Makes sense (Score:2)
Big business bad for consumers (Score:2)
Wouldn't want to tarnish... (Score:2)
John McAfee's good name!
When you uninstall McAfee (Score:2)
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
Pronunciation (Score:2)
At least people will stop pronouncing it "MACAfee"
I always thought that McAfee was marvelous! (Score:2)
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!
Good to know what "intel security" is (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this purchase of McAfee *is* their "security" department.... Now if we could just get Adobe Reader to stop pushing that McAfee "security scanner" that is checked by default and 95% of everybody who downloads/installs Reader installs AND which totally fucks up the machine and is a MAJOR pain to get off.. I've made a fair amount of $$$ removing that crap from neighbors machines, not to mention weaning them off of Adobe Reader..
Re: (Score:2)
Since that's where McAfee said it, I would imagine that it doesn't qualify as an "incorrect link".
The controversial founder of the security business, John McAfee, told the BBC he was overjoyed by the news.
"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."
Yes. Your average consumer isn't very savvy. (Score:2)
They get their computers from big box retailers like BestBuy, Office Depot, etc. and are clueless as to how to protect themselves, so they just listen to the retail associates who offer to infect their computer with McAfee or Norton. Worse, these users usually end up lulled into a false sense of security because they think that McAfee/Norton is keeping them safe and they can do whatever they want because the antivirus will catch anything bad! I have found malware on FAR more PCs with active antivirus subscr