Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Microsoft has bought an anti-virus company

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    The Dealman

    see here http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jun05/06-21SybariCompletePR.mspx

    I can see it now download the anti-virus update then the anti-virus patch finally download the patch to patch the other anti-virus patch,, :lol:

  • User profile image
    leighsword

    The Dealman wrote:

    see here http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jun05/06-21SybariCompletePR.mspx

    I can see it now download the anti-virus update then the anti-virus patch finally download the patch to patch the other anti-virus patch,, :lol:


    why is not Norton? Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition is the world's greatest Enterprise anti-virus software.


  • User profile image
    Arran

    Is this the 2nd one they have bought?  I or is this just another announcement about the one they got months ago?

  • User profile image
    Arran

    leighsword wrote:

    why is not Norton? Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition is the world's greatest Enterprise anti-virus software.


    If MS tried to buy a company that big for anti-virus all there partners would have a fit and then loads of people would complain that they are now trying to take over the world of AV.  Then of course the M&MC would decided they had to step in and block the buyout.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    One less virus solution for Linux and Unix. Not that they get any viruses anyway.

    Perhaps it will end up Norton/McAfee/Sophos/Microsoft

  • User profile image
    daSmirnov

    leighsword wrote:

    why is not Norton? Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition is the world's greatest Enterprise anti-virus software.


    Well lets face it, they'd have to start from scratch anyway, because Norton does more damage then the viruses!

  • User profile image
    Mike Dimmick

    Yes, it's what we talked about before. This new announcement is just announcing that the purchase has gone through. The previous announcement was announcing the intention to buy Sybari.

    Sybari don't actually make an anti-virus scanning engine. They make a product which is able to interface between Exchange (and other mail servers) and a variety of third-party scanning engines, as Symantec were keen to point out. Antigen (Sybari's product) supports scanning messages with multiple installed engines simultaneously.

    Presumably Microsoft will now incorporate this technology directly in a future version of Exchange.

  • User profile image
    Spitfire15

    Muhahahahaha! They have realised their mistake from here. Well, that was strike one, and let's hope there isn't a strike two.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Arran wrote:
    leighsword wrote:
    why is not Norton? Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition is the world's greatest Enterprise anti-virus software.


    If MS tried to buy a company that big for anti-virus all there partners would have a fit and then loads of people would complain that they are now trying to take over the world of AV.  Then of course the M&MC would decided they had to step in and block the buyout.


    Yet another person that doesn't remotely understand competition and monopoly laws... I'm sick of explaining it but the above is just wrong.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    Spitfire15 wrote:
    Muhahahahaha! They have realised their mistake from here. Well, that was strike one, and let's hope there isn't a strike two.
    What mistake?

  • User profile image
    Badgerguy

    Spitfire15 wrote:
    Muhahahahaha! They have realised their mistake from here. Well, that was strike one, and let's hope there isn't a strike two.


    Ahh, I remember that software!

    The only mistake Microsoft made, was to never continue with the inclusion of Anti-Virus in the OS.  Had they done that, we may well have ended up in a much better situation than we are today - and perhaps have Anti-Virus technology built right into the OS, where it arguably should be.

  • User profile image
    Badgerguy

    Manip wrote:

    Yet another person that doesn't remotely understand competition and monopoly laws... I'm sick of explaining it but the above is just wrong.


    Competition laws aside, I doubt we'll be seeing Microsoft making any big muscle moves into the Anti-Virus market.

    We allready know they are planning to bring us 'Windows Onecare' as subscription software.  Some comentators have speculated that there may even be a 'basic' Anti-Virus product built into the OS.

    I don't think we're going to be seeing free Anti-Virus as part of the OS, nor any grand takeovers of large Anti-Virus vendors.  Such a move would generally be seen as an attempt to crush the Anti-Virus market, and despite the huge benefits free Anti-Virus in the OS would bring - the competition would undoubtedly cry foul.

  • User profile image
    Badgerguy

    sbc wrote:
    One less virus solution for Linux and Unix. Not that they get any viruses anyway.


    That doesn't mean that Anti-Virus software isn't needed.  Most of the growth in Linux to date has been in Servers - the desktop is still dominated by Windows systems.

    In such a mixed environment there is a case for Anti-Virus being installed on the Linux servers to ensure files being accessed by Windows desktops have not been infected.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Badgerguy wrote:
    Most of the growth in Linux to date has been in Servers


    Of course, POSIX systems tend to be "secure by design" so wouldn't be vunerable to anything like Slammer or CodeRed, but UNIX admins tend to be smart and wouldn't execute any programs they don't know about. But with the rise of Desktop Linux we may see some Linux viruses take off to take advantage of naive users.

    When people hear that "Linux is more secure than Windows", they might think: "Linux is secure, so I can open any viruses and no Very Bad Things will happen"... which isn't exactly true.

    If companies switch to Linux, Firefox, or Program X for reasons of security, they still need to remind their employees that the new software is still vunerable to user-initiated actions.

    Anyway AFAIK there were a few proof-of-concept Linux viruses a while back.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    Badgerguy wrote:
    Spitfire15 wrote: Muhahahahaha! They have realised their mistake from here. Well, that was strike one, and let's hope there isn't a strike two.


    Ahh, I remember that software!

    The only mistake Microsoft made, was to never continue with the inclusion of Anti-Virus in the OS.  Had they done that, we may well have ended up in a much better situation than we are today - and perhaps have Anti-Virus technology built right into the OS, where it arguably should be.


    I don't exactly recall but DOS -- I think MS DOS 5?
    had an anti-virus package bundle...

    and if I recall the problem was users got that for free and thought they were "covered" and never updated the definitions ....
    so it was a false percived security and MSFT decided that was not good and did not do it later.

    and given the problem of users not updating that was a good move at the time.

    this is also why I think some kind of update with a fee -- even a small one say 1 buck a month will be better for most folks than no cost.

    the user has to "Get it" that this is important and needs to be done -- some how.
    cause if they turn off auto upodates and just keep going then MSFT gets blamed for bad software.

    just like today some folks I supoport just never let auto-updates run... then I have to sit there and run them for 3 months of secuirty patches and other updates they should have had already....

  • User profile image
    msemack

    W3bbo wrote:
    Of course, POSIX systems tend to be "secure by design" so wouldn't be vunerable to anything like Slammer or CodeRed.


    Linux/Unix wouldn't be affected by those particular worms (since they are Windows programs), but there is nothing magical about Linux/Unix that makes worms impossible.

    The Morris worm attacked Unix systems, and was proportioanlly one of the most damaging Internet worms ever (it literally brought down almost the entire Internet).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm


    There have also been worms that targeted Apache and PHP.

    Either way, this has very little to do with the products make by Sybari.  Anti-virus software is not the same as a firewall.

  • User profile image
    Badgerguy

    figuerres wrote:

    I don't exactly recall but DOS -- I think MS DOS 5?
    had an anti-virus package bundle...

    and if I recall the problem was users got that for free and thought they were "covered" and never updated the definitions ....
    so it was a false percived security and MSFT decided that was not good and did not do it later.


    I think it was a version of DOS 6.something

    At the time getting a virus was still very much a question of passing infected files around from PC to PC through floppy disks and other means of transferring infected files.

    Not a vast number of people used the Internet, there certainly wasn't an inbuilt 'automatic update' feature to the two anti-virus products that I used.

    Before using the Microsoft solution, I used a Dr.Solomons solution - that began warning me I was out of date after 12 months had passed!

    This was a very different time, with very different patterns of computer use, and very different methods being exploited for viruses to spread.

    Had Microsoft left their Anti-Virus product in through Windows 95, 98 etc, they would have been able to introduce self-updating features either through Windows Update or a seperate mechanism.

    Had they (and I know this may be a point of some debate) got it right, every user would have free protection in their PC.

    As it is now, the virus problem has created a market, where people need to pay to keep their Windows installation clean, and Microsoft would have difficulty bringing in free, comprehensive protection at this stage.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.