rumors "microsoft might buy symantic"

[saakeman]

hi all

i just want to start off saying that i did some reachers about this
and many persons say that they will (if they are going to do it) make it a produc on the market like any other av program that you can buy

i say they must look into this diffrently
like make an spuper av that are already installed on windows ( like windows defender)

into the control panel , that updates with windows updates or if defenisions are avalable
that you configure when you start windows for the first time and forget when you start email , web browse, play games , work
( i mean you might be typing a very importat document and has no time thinking about anti virus)
it must be inside control panel (like windows defender on windows 7)
with norton's blocker
and kaspersky's realtime
with a firewall that are designed with internet explorer 8,9,10 ( like zonealarm forcefeild)
comodos hips
a type of malewarebytes on demand scanner

when you startup your windows for the first time
thy ask you do you want to use it or not (if you have a nother av in mind for that new pc )
when you choose yes , they run you through the config and the way you like it
when you choose no , then you are asked to install other anti virus
i mean like you setup the av
it updates with windows or when needed
it deletes virus
it blocks unsafe sites
it scans
without you even knowing that it is running

like when you go to buy a operating sytem you look at the security
it will be windows with mac's security

Please reply with more support or questions


thanks saakeman

 

[pparks1]

They aren't going to build in a super AV that is part of Windows. Because if they did, they would be threatened with all kinds of lawsuits from the third party vendors claiming anti-trust and anti-competitive business practices.

 

[saakeman]

They aren't going to build in a super AV that is part of Windows. Because if they did, they would be threatened with all kinds of lawsuits from the third party vendors claiming anti-trust and anti-competitive business practices.

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???
and its there software so they may do what they want
i understand if they asked like example they "asked kaspersky lab for the real time"
but otherways id say they could do as they please

 

[pparks1]

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

 

[saakeman]

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

your 100% right they will be forced by the law
but i just persons who buy windows for that much money get a nice produc
its like buying windows and right after that you get informed by the action centre that you need an av now you need to go buy av

 

[jimbo45]

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

Hi there
I think this is where it gets into "dubious" legal waters.

If you are writing an OS you can of course ensure that the KERNEL can take whatever actions it needs to protect itself (and hence you the user) from Viruses and Malware -- so I doubt whether a Court would suscribe to the view that this is "Anti competitive" or runs foul of the anti-trust legislation.

At what point does the code become "An application" that a 3rd party supplier could reasonably offer as a competitve alternative will have the Corporate Suits very profitably employed for months with probably no satisfactory result concluded either.

You could by the same token say that an OS should protect itself by having a decent Backup program included too. It's all about where the boundaries and responsibilities of the OS Kernel itself end and what an application can do and should offer.

If MS wanted to acquire Symantec for reasonably commercial reasons then it would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other business wanting to take over another firm.

In the case of Symantec it would actually make sense to incorporate Backup and AV protection strategies and there is nothing wrong in MS acquiring this type of knowhow to improve its product line (for example MS Backup is really feeble when compared with the commercial opposition).

Until this is properly tested in a Court I suspect MS will go ahead and do what IT thinks best for its business and shareholders anyway - even if they do get fined eventually it will be so small as to make a mockery of the whole legal process anyway.

I doubt also if the US govt would be happy at MS upping stakes and moving out of the country completely -- literally 1000's of job losses at a stroke.

Mr Obama nearly fell for the same trap in ranting against BP before looking at the underlying CAUSE of the problem -- people in the US want CHEAP GAS in their cars --end of story.

I think actually MS would get away with this one if they really wanted to buy Symantec.

I'll keep an eye on the Stockmarket -- MSFT is the epic code. MS currently down a bit at 23.85 USD or so.



Cheers
jimbo

 

[saakeman]

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

Hi there
I think this is where it gets into "dubious" legal waters.

If you are writing an OS you can of course ensure that the KERNEL can take whatever actions it needs to protect itself (and hence you the user) from Viruses and Malware -- so I doubt whether a Court would suscribe to the view that this is "Anti competitive" or runs foul of the anti-trust legislation.

At what point does the code become "An application" that a 3rd party supplier could reasonably offer as a competitve alternative will have the Corporate Suits very profitably employed for months with probably no satisfactory result concluded either.

You could by the same token say that an OS should protect itself by having a decent Backup program included too. It's all about where the boundaries and responsibilities of the OS Kernel itself end and what an application can do and should offer.

If MS wanted to acquire Symantec for reasonably commercial reasons then it would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other business wanting to take over another firm.

In the case of Symantec it would actually make sense to incorporate Backup and AV protection strategies and there is nothing wrong in MS acquiring this type of knowhow to improve its product line (for example MS Backup is really feeble when compared with the commercial opposition).

Until this is properly tested in a Court I suspect MS will go ahead and do what IT thinks best for its business and shareholders anyway - even if they do get fined eventually it will be so small as to make a mockery of the whole legal process anyway.

I doubt also if the US govt would be happy at MS upping stakes and moving out of the country completely -- literally 1000's of job losses at a stroke.

Mr Obama nearly fell for the same trap in ranting against BP before looking at the underlying CAUSE of the problem -- people in the US want CHEAP GAS in their cars --end of story.

I think actually MS would get away with this one if they really wanted to buy Symantec.

I'll keep an eye on the Stockmarket -- MSFT is the epic code. MS currently down a bit at 23.85 USD or so.



Cheers
jimbo

yes , great point jimbo
just remeber this is just my idee of what they could do to make there produc fly through the roof with sales !
and roughly i would recomend them from doing so
as for other av compynies if they want to stay in the game they would hook up with microsoft to make them part of this protection plan

thanks saakeman

 

[Corrine]

The only source I found for that rumor was at Microsoft might buy Symantec - News - Fudzilla, with multiple references back to the same article. I contend that it is a lot of hogwash. Microsoft had a commercial product for home users with Windows Live OneCare and replaced it with the free Microsoft Security Essentials and has the licensed Forefront Client for businesses.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi Corrine
It might make sense -- especially as Backup particularly is a really weak point in MS'es offering --being non existent in its server ranges which are gradually eating into the Linux market.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[jav]

The only source I found for that rumor was at Microsoft might buy Symantec - News - Fudzilla, with multiple references back to the same article. I contend that it is a lot of hogwash. Microsoft had a commercial product for home users with Windows Live OneCare and replaced it with the free Microsoft Security Essentials and has the licensed Forefront Client for businesses.

more source: Microsoft rumored to be making an offer for Symantec

Microsoft bidding for Symantec? Why the rumor seems very odd)

Both these and your link refer to "Jefferies & Co. analyst Katherine Egbert"'s statement on VeriSign (VRSN) and Symantec (SYMC):
Security Software: VeriSign “Likely” Deal Target, Jefferies Says - Tech Trader Daily - Barrons.com

 

[saakeman]

hi all
great posts

i am using mse (microsoft security essentails)
the whole reason of this post are to give some idees as for making windows more securer
and to try and incorporate such security ellement in windows control panel
but please keep on debating

thanks
saakeman

 

[Borg 386]

All I can say is it wouldn't surprise me...McAfee and Intel are sleeping in the same bed

Why not have a few other partner up?

 

[saakeman]

but mcafee has gone down the drain with there security
thats my piont of veiw

thanks
saakeman

 

[Borg 386]

It could well be we're seeing the future of AV companies changing.

Intel, for example, mentioned that it would incorporate hardwired instructions of the AV on a chip, thus making it harder for a virus to get past since it would have to override the code.

That could be a swing point, if Intel can improve McAfee (and God knows they have their work cut out for them) this could be a selling point, having an "integrated" AV. That would give them an edge over AMD.

What concern this is to MS is somewhat cryptic. I would have expected AMD to hop into bed with Norton next. But who knows, maybe they will combine the codes to some extent. Who knows...

It's hard to tell if the Intel/McAfee combo will even make it, some are predicting it won't. But you have to admit, McAfee's track record is less then stellar lately and any help they could get would be a plus.

Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened...probably rumors, but not surprising if it does

 

[jimbo45]

It could well be we're seeing the future of AV companies changing.

Intel, for example, mentioned that it would incorporate hardwired instructions of the AV on a chip, thus making it harder for a virus to get past since it would have to override the code.

That could be a swing point, if Intel can improve McAfee (and God knows they have their work cut out for them) this could be a selling point, having an "integrated" AV. That would give them an edge over AMD.

What concern this is to MS is somewhat cryptic. I would have expected AMD to hop into bed with Norton next. But who knows, maybe they will combine the codes to some extent. Who knows...

It's hard to tell if the Intel/McAfee combo will even make it, some are predicting it won't. But you have to admit, McAfee's track record is less then stellar lately and any help they could get would be a plus.

Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened...probably rumors, but not surprising if it does

Hi there
How could you build AV code into a CPU chip which is just executing a set of Machine code instructions -- there ISN'T AN OS at this point so how could it "protect" itself from a Virus.

C'mon guys -- just think for a minute ----What does a VIRUS actually attempt to do.

Usually it wants to mess around with the OS and destroy or extract data and transmit to person or person(s) unknown.

Now in a bare CPU there IS NO OS, you haven't loaded a file system so there's no data to destroy and in any case the CPU doesn't even know what OS you are going to boot -- could be Windows (any version) Linux any distro or even something like VMWARE's ESXi or equivalent.

Having "Virus" protection in the hardware sounds like a nice idea but until the whole OS is embedded in the CPU chip it 'Ain't going to happen.

Cheers

jimbo

 

[Tews]

^^^ This...

Thanks Jim!

 

[jav]

It could well be we're seeing the future of AV companies changing.

Intel, for example, mentioned that it would incorporate hardwired instructions of the AV on a chip, thus making it harder for a virus to get past since it would have to override the code.

That could be a swing point, if Intel can improve McAfee (and God knows they have their work cut out for them) this could be a selling point, having an "integrated" AV. That would give them an edge over AMD.

What concern this is to MS is somewhat cryptic. I would have expected AMD to hop into bed with Norton next. But who knows, maybe they will combine the codes to some extent. Who knows...

It's hard to tell if the Intel/McAfee combo will even make it, some are predicting it won't. But you have to admit, McAfee's track record is less then stellar lately and any help they could get would be a plus.

Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened...probably rumors, but not surprising if it does

Hi there
How could you build AV code into a CPU chip which is just executing a set of Machine code instructions -- there ISN'T AN OS at this point so how could it "protect" itself from a Virus.

C'mon guys -- just think for a minute ----What does a VIRUS actually attempt to do.

Usually it wants to mess around with the OS and destroy or extract data and transmit to person or person(s) unknown.

Now in a bare CPU there IS NO OS, you haven't loaded a file system so there's no data to destroy and in any case the CPU doesn't even know what OS you are going to boot -- could be Windows (any version) Linux any distro or even something like VMWARE's ESXi or equivalent.

Having "Virus" protection in the hardware sounds like a nice idea but until the whole OS is embedded in the CPU chip it 'Ain't going to happen.

Cheers

jimbo

Everyone used to believe that people can not fly. But look now, we ARE flying.

In my opinion, it can and will happen. development in IT isn't staying in one place. Progress is going.

And why so much hater towards it?
Intel is far from first company in research of hardware Antivirus.

Well, I hope we all still remember that earlier this year Kaspersky got patent for Hardware Antivirus:
Kaspersky Lab patents cutting-edge hardware antivirus solution

See, they already even have a patent.
So, basically in my opinion saying it is impossible is being fundamentalist. Have faith in the future! It is possible.
We are not living in golden age, and there are a lot of things we yet have to discover

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
No I don't think we are Intel haters.

My position with regard to a Hardware AV is STILL VALID. Until you have a FILE SYSTEM of some kind you won't have any DATA to destroy, or tamper with.

This is part of a NATURAL law just as a Prime number on Earth is STILL a prime number on the planet ZOG and WILL STILL BE a prime number in 20 Billion years time.

If of course the CPU comes built in with the OS etc then that's another issue but building an OS into the CPU will certainly reduce the flexibility of the product - unless you want all computers to become essentially smart phones -- a HORRIBLE IDEA.

I still stand by what I said -- It Ain't gonna happen.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Borg 386]

It's been a while since I read the article, but here is a quote from the story. It won't be inbedded in the actual CPU chip apparently....

Don't expect to see security software hardwired onto the chip, said Tim Bajarin, president of analyst company Creative Strategies. Rather, there will likely be a bridge on the core CPU (central processing unit) to a security element, much like there are bridges to additional graphics chips and modems, he said.
"This particular deal allows Intel and McAfee to work together to tie future generations of software security to the processor via some sort of SOC (system-on-a-chip) solution," Bajarin said. "Today if a hacker wants to come into a system it almost always is done through software. But Intel and McAfee are capable of adding even another level of security, which would make a hacker have to break the hardware code as well as the software code."

Here's the whole article:

With McAfee deal, Intel to bake in security | InSecurity Complex - CNET News

 

[jav]

Hi there
No I don't think we are Intel haters.

My position with regard to a Hardware AV is STILL VALID. Until you have a FILE SYSTEM of some kind you won't have any DATA to destroy, or tamper with.

This is part of a NATURAL law just as a Prime number on Earth is STILL a prime number on the planet ZOG and WILL STILL BE a prime number in 20 Billion years time.

If of course the CPU comes built in with the OS etc then that's another issue but building an OS into the CPU will certainly reduce the flexibility of the product - unless you want all computers to become essentially smart phones -- a HORRIBLE IDEA.

I still stand by what I said -- It Ain't gonna happen.

Cheers
jimbo

Yes, sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone.
Everyone has right to his own opinion, and I do respect you point.

But I don't think the largest acquisition in IT security was done just for the sake of it.
And Intel clearly stated that this acquisition was meant for development of "Hardware-enhanced security"
(Intel to Acquire McAfee)

It dose not have to mean that they will integrate it into the chip.

I already showed you the example of Kaspersky:

The patented device is installed between a drive (hard drive or SSD) and the computing unit (CPU and RAM) and is connected to the system bus or integrated into the disk controller. The hardware antivirus solution allows or blocks writing data to disk, providing threat alerts and information about its operation to the user (user dialog is possible if the hardware antivirus control utility is installed on the PC). The device can work on a standalone basis or in conjunction with a software antivirus application.

The patented device uses its own updateable antivirus databases that are protected from malicious code and faulty records during updates. Since the device has a CPU and RAM of its own, it does not consume any resources on the computer to which it is connected. A separate power supply can be connected to it if necessary.

Intel can create similar system with McAfee just like Kaspersky.

But, who knows?
Maybe I am wrong and you are right...
Time will show.