Is Microsoft Buying Anti-Virus Companies to Undermine Linux? (LXer)

Posted Jun 23, 2005 20:01 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

These companies' scanners detected Windows viruses on Unix, not Unix viruses. It's so Unix mail servers can filter out malicious attachments.

MS is probably banking on the theory that virus scanners are a "killer app" for email, and so without one for Unix, people will have to run Windows mail servers. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly sounds plausible.

Posted Jun 23, 2005 20:28 UTC (Thu) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link]

Yes, that is exactly what the author is saying. However, it's not just about making the platform *appear* incomplete -- if you are hosting email for Windows clients, AV software is not merely a nice-to-have checklist feature, it is absolutely required (alas).

Posted Jun 24, 2005 3:58 UTC (Fri) by Mithrandir (subscriber, #3031) [Link]

Is it just me, or does this seem like anti-competitive behaviour? Isn't this kind of thing illegal?

Posted Jun 23, 2005 20:51 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

2 reasons why free software is likely to be behind closed software in the field of detecting Windows viruses are:

1. Researching and developing a combination of signatures and algorithms for detecting perhaps 100,000 Windows viruses, with another 1000 every month is going to be a very expensive and tedious operation. If you have such a collection you are going to need people to pay for you to maintain it and allowing your competitors free access might not help pay for maintenance of your library.

2. Making your virus detection signatures and algorithms public might help enable virus writers to design approaches which escape your algorithms. It can be argued that this kind of security through obscurity doesn't work in most cases, but this one might be an exception, given that the security software in question is designed to detect a large number of threat programs, with many of these containing self-encrypting features to avoid presenting a common detection surface or static signature.

If there were well-enough funded collaborative interest in developing an open solution then presumably these problems could be overcome. I for one would certainly be more willing to submit proven or suspect virus samples for analysis to an open project with the resources to analyse these and develop signatures and detection algorithms than a closed one.

Posted Jun 24, 2005 17:33 UTC (Fri) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]

Err yup! Two years ago when a certain notorious email virus was on the loose CLAMAV updated on my system a couple of hours before the first AV security firm reported to the press then on their sites. Kind of funny, late one night I was reviewing logs and there was the signature update. I couldn't find it anywhere on the web so I went to bed and the next morning it was in the headlines. So astounded was I that I tracked down every AV company and news source to see who had the first release. Obviously I couldn't be certain but it looked like the CLAMAV people acted on a malicious virus spotted two days earlier who's effects were unknown and populated the database. Their response was quicker than *ANY* commercial product.

Posted Jun 25, 2005 13:19 UTC (Sat) by riteshsarraf (subscriber, #11138) [Link]

They need not do much. They just need to hire the lead developers or the
project to try to kill it. Just like they did with Gentoo.

Posted Jun 24, 2005 22:19 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

"Anti-competitive" behavior is not contingent on "absolute monopoly."

For that matter a monopoly doesn't have to be absolute for it to be
unethical, illegal nor for it to run counter to the public interests.

Finally Microsoft doesn't have to be using the aquisition of AV software
companies as the sole means of accomplishing some (possibly anti-competitive
or monopolistic) goal.

Just becomes there are *some* other AV software companies doesn't mean that
MS doesn't intend to eventually buy the rest of them. Possibly they
may also discreetly enter into private agreements with those that they
don't buy. Also all competitors are not created equal and the criteria
for attaining their (putative) strategic goals isn't necessary just
market share. Perhaps they are targeting those who have an AV offering
which is embedded in some SMTP mail gateways that compete with theirs.

So, your argument that the aquisition of two or three (out of ten or
so) companies doesn't constitute and anti-competive practice isn't
compelling. Of course the original argument is anecdotal; the author
isn't trying to prove that MS *is* doing this. I see him as posing
the question: "Is this part of a pattern?"

While many of us would consider ClamAV a great alternative to the
commercial/proprietary offerings there are many companies that still
feel that the need "a throat to choke." Those are the ones that are
buying per seat licenses from Red Hat and Novell, for example. The
purported strategy here could be a showstopper for many of those
companies.

JimD