Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux 521
jasonmicron writes "As previously reported on Slashdot, Microsoft has completed the aquisition of Sybari Software this morning. Before the ink was even dry, Microsoft cut all new antivirus support for all Unix and Linux definitions. Current customers will continue to receive support but new customers will not have the option to purchase the software under Unix / Linux. From TFA: Post acquisition, Syabri becomes a Microsoft subsidiary focusing on marketing anti-virus and anti-spam protection for Microsoft messaging and collaboration servers. It will continue to market Sybari's Lotus Domino products but will not sell Antigen versions for Unix and Linux."
And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I remembered who runs the DoJ....
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be picked up by DOJ's anti-trust dept, only if they embed their AV in the OS and distribute it freely, making it harder for other AV companies like Nortan/Symantex to sell their products.
I am not their fan either, but they are withing their rights here, Besides who really needs a AV for unix anyway ?
Ofcourse your point about who owning the DOJ makes every thing moot.
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Interesting)
besides i had never even heard of this AV company before, and I suspect their *nix AV products were not exactly selling like hot cakes. So from a business POV this makes perfect sense.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Insightful)
When Dahmler-Chrysler was formed, two companies that competed in the same space with the same type of products got rid of redundant offering within the same space. This is horizontal integration. This is not what Microsoft did.
When Standard Oil bought up all the producers of oil barrels to deny their competitors access, it was performing vertical integration to remove tools needed by competitors. This is what Microsoft did.
Microsoft has bought a product that makes UNIX and Linux servers more attractive by giving them needed security protections and has destroyed it for the express purpose of making UNIX and Linux servers less attractive. This is similar to what Standard Oil did only a little less drastic because you can still sell and use non-Windows servers without virus protection unlike oil without barrels to carry it in.
Whether this is an antitrust violation is a question for experts in the area, but it's certainly anticompetitive behavior.
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly I see your point. But you are taking it one step too far. Microsoft didnt buy ALL of the makers for unix / linux antivirus. They bought a single one.
I think your assumption/point would be correct had Microsoft purchased all of the AV databases available on the market. Then this would prevent any
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true. But while this makes it practically different than monopolizing oil barrels, I do believe the intent is the same. If MS could buy out all *nix AV makers, do you think they would? I do.
Bashing MS is
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:4, Informative)
Uhh... anyone running a UNIX (or Linux) server (file, mail, etc) that has Windows clients?
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:4, Informative)
The idea of antitrust is to prevent a monopoly from using its exclusive position in one market to create monopoly positions in new markets, which is what MS tries to do at every opportunity. Bill is VERY against antitrust law, for obvious reasons.
But as you say, this DOJ is owned by MS and hands-off ideologues. There will not be antitrust movement against MS in this generation - if ever.
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if the Unix/Linux box is a mail server you can run all routed messages through an antivirus filter before delivering them to Windows machines.
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:3, Insightful)
With this step, they effectivly destroyed a reasonably good platform from which companies were doing this. It is anticompetitive behaviour and it don't matter one hoot because there will always be alternatives. The REAL Problem is that Microsoft is actually patenting and acquiring patents to virus methods. This makes the usage of virus definitions for other comp
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cutting off their nose to spite their face mayhaps?
Nope. The virus scanners have to be bought, so if MS has killed the linux choice, then you will be buying a windows server to scan viruses. This is leveraging a monopoly, pure and simple.
No big loss either. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No big loss either. (Score:2)
Which company, Sourceforge? OSDN?
I don't think MS will be buying out GPL projects any time soon. I'm not sure they even can.
Re:No big loss either. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they're doing it so that more Windows machines will be responsible for Windows being more secure. Most antivirus tools for Unix and Mac systems are not really about protecting those systems from viruses. Instead, those tools are often used to scan for *Windows* viruses and prevent the machine from becoming a carrier for further Windows infections.
This whole thing is somewhat amusing anyway,
Re:And you're surprised by this... (Score:3, Insightful)
My first one was....
So, how many people used the unix/linux version
to scan for unix/linux viruses? Erm... very few.
I would imagine that anyone using an anti-virus system under unix/linux is using the unix/linux
box to scan Samba shares and/or Windows networks.
That's what I do. I use Sophos anti-virus on a linux box to serve the Sophos updates to Windows boxes.
Additionally, how many people are reaslistically going to _buy_ anti-virus software for linux from Microsoft????!!!
Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Virus scanners on unix are only any good for protecting downstream windows clients and clam is ideal for this, although admittedly not quite ideal for real-time scanning of NFS/SMB shares, but for mail / web virus scanning its more than sufficient.
If clam continues the way it is, there will be a very small market for unix virus scanners.
Jason
Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! (Score:2)
Re:Whee! I looooove monopolieeees!!! (Score:2)
I'm tired of this crap (Score:3, Insightful)
All of this in-fighting and patents/closed source/non-standardization needs to end... and NO Linux is not the be-all-end-all solution as it is just as bad at times.
Hey, it's a smart move (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey, it's a smart move (Score:2, Informative)
RTFA--it's about software for checking email for viruses on the mail server.
Re:Hey, it's a smart move (Score:3, Insightful)
Why AV on Linux/Unix? (Score:3, Informative)
I assumed the Unix/Linux versions of Sybari products were typically purchased for this purpose - in-line virus scanning of corporate email as it went thr
WAY OT: Polar bear ice cream... (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a bit of Useless Knowledge(tm) for everyone: I seem to recall reading somewhere that polar bear milk was something like 40% fat, which seems like it would therefore be suitable for making ice-cream from directly...
I leave the technical challenges involved in milking the polar bears and trying to market "walrus-vanilla flavor ice cream" to a more enterprising individual...
Re:I'm tired of this crap (Score:2)
What "this"? Discontinuing useless producs nobody was buying anyway?
Re:I'm tired of this crap (Score:4, Interesting)
Like 30 piss-poor similar programs with no 1 solid one... Look, I'm all for variety but getting a SINGLE solid set of apps out before branching 30 mediocre ones into even more mediocre ones serves nobody.
Linux has had some of the same fundamental flaws for all of those 10 years, most are still not fixed... but people rag on MS for not fixing things that are broken for 6 months, not sticking up for MS but it is the truth.
In-fighting exists everywhere and stifles creativity and innovation. For those who say that everything is fine as it is, please get a clue.
Patent-slinging is degenerative, it hurts companies ability to innovate and it also stifles Open Source. They are broken and it is holding everyone back.
These are just a few off the top of my head, I can go on if you'd like but I think you get the drift and can come up with a bunch of your own. Year after year fo the same tactics grows old and really makes me wish for a wholesale change.
Unix Viruses? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unix Viruses? (Score:5, Informative)
This is true, however, it is nice to be able to scan for Microsoft viruses on your Unix file and email servers. Oh well. Good thing there is ClamAV.
Who cares (Score:5, Informative)
ClamAV [sf.net] is actually becoming usable, more hands might light work etc
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Interesting)
from their site:
ClamSMTP is an SMTP filter that allows you to check for viruses using the ClamAV anti-virus software. It accepts SMTP connections and forwards the SMTP commands and responses to another SMTP server. The 'DATA' email body is intercepted and scanned before forwarding.
Re:Who cares (Score:3, Informative)
ClamAV is a part of the official Cygwin port repository and I believe there's a GUI available for it as well (for those inclined to those kinds of things). Just as importantly, if using Cygwin, one can easily set up a mail system such as:
POP3 -> Fetchmail -> Procmail -> mbox
or, going the other way,
client -> SSMTP -> YourISP_SSMTP_Server
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Informative)
We used to run Trend's Interscan VirusWall for SMB on our mail hub, and would get a few false positives every week (out of approx. 40000 messages). Not anymore. Now we run ClamAV with Postfix and ClamSMTP, and we have had exactly zero false positives and zero false negatives since we switched (shortly after the MYTOB update was released).
My users are delighted that they're no longer getting viruses, and my monthly "Warning! There's a new virus that our Trend Micro scanner isn't catching yet" messages. I'm happy that I don't have to re-send and apologize for the false positives anymore. My boss is happy that he no longer has to shell out $5000 per year for Trend's crappy product. It's all been good.
Okay, Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Okay, Okay (Score:3, Funny)
I agree, it's like leaving your child to the care of an ex-pedophile.
what if he wasn't convicted? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure he could a Smooth Criminal, but maybe he's just a fun guy who the kids think is a real Thriller!
Re:what if he wasn't convicted? (Score:2)
Less is more, man.
Re:what if he wasn't convicted? (Score:2, Funny)
That was lame...just Beat It.
This is good! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is good! (Score:2, Informative)
FTA:
Anti-virus products for Unix servers occupy a useful niche in the market not because there are many viruses that infect Unix platforms but because they help prevent these servers from hosting Windows malware. ®
Silly readers@! (Score:3, Funny)
sounds like an admission by Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Well this says to me one of two things:
You be the judge.
I guess I'm just happy Microsoft can't buy linux and drop all support for that.
Re:sounds like an admission by Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
Big News Flash
Microsoft buys Linux and drops all support for it.
Oh wait, there wasn't any.
Re:sounds like an admission by Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
No one used these products to stop Linux/Unix machines from getting compromised. This software was run on Linux/Unix machines to stop Windows clients they served from getting compromised. It filled a real need, if one filled by other products as well. MS killed them because it probably plans to integrate the functionality into its Windows server offerings and does not like offering software that does not lock you in to their OS's.
so what (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so what (Score:2)
Re:so what (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, for a company which has been demonstrated to have predatory business practices, buying a company who makes software for your competitors, and dropping support for those companies might be perceived as bad.
What if they bought a company who made only Mac software, just so they could discontinue support for Mac's? In the short run they could say "we're going t
product in search of a problem anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a good reason for this... (Score:2)
You gotta love this (Score:4, Funny)
Point at Foot - Pull Trigger (Score:2)
So MS is doing all they can to not close down this route of Windows malware distribution. This benefits who?
Remember folks (Score:5, Funny)
Innovate onward, kind Microsoft!
Re:Remember folks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Remember folks (Score:3, Informative)
That MS isn't supporting Linux in it's AV efforts is highly unsupprising. You should be happy, in fact, as it's a selling point for those that compete with them. You can get AV
Well, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
5. Customer decides to ditch all remaining windows installation and use only Unix in the future, ceases to care about malware
6. Customer saves money (for licenses), saves more money (for administration), and also saves time and hassles
7. M$ loses customer
8. M$ loses money.
They're really gambling here - they take away the middle path and hope that out of the remaining options, you'll choose the one that gives them more money instead of the one that gives them less money. Obviously, they think they *can* pull it off, but in the end, nobody likes a bully, so even if they gain some money in the short term, they do lose customer trust over the long term.
The fact that they fail to see this and *still* think that they can base their business model on terrorizing people instead of acting in a benevolent way where the customer is king just shows that despite everything, they still aren't thinking about what'll happen in the long term and where they'll be in, say, 50 or 100 years.
Which, incidentally, is exactly the timeframe where the current high-ups like Gates and Ballmer and the like who cashed in big time won't be around anymore to care about the losses that will come.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
7. Windows servers get infected with a virus.
8. Virus shields stop functioning because the Windows servers are infected.
9. Everyone becomes infected.
10. Companies wish their virus sheilds were still running on *nix.
OhNo! (Score:2)
Re:OhNo! (Score:5, Funny)
#!/bin/bash
echo Scanning memory for viruses...
sleep 2
echo OK. System clean.
Go figure... (Score:2)
Don't think so... (Score:2)
The Linux/Unix versions were all about protecting Windows anyway.
What this does is send a signal to IT depts that the XP workstations on your network aren't considered to be virus-protected unless you ensure that Windows Server serves those workstations. If you serve those workstations with Linux, then MS will consider then unprotected or "untrusted" or whatever.
It will only backfire (Score:2)
Thank-you Microsoft for helping to push all the alternatives into the open-source fee-for-service world.
They don't even *try* to hide their intentions... (Score:2)
innovation, MS vocabulary (Score:2)
Whatever. Don't even listen to me. If I had the money...
evolutionary (Score:2)
MS proves the point that FOSS is the only real way to ensure one's system isn't going to be ripped out from under you. Ironically, as they themselves are eroded as the server platform of choice by repeatedly asking consumers to hop to their nextbigthing every few years. Plus, all the "lessons learned" shops have to endure as MS finally "gets it".
MS may have finally gotten the ideas of "the web", "security", "portal" and so many other trumps to their idea factory, but they have yet to understand how t
Opportunity (Score:2)
So stop wasting time whining about it and start a Linux antivirus software company or a SourceForge project depending on your philosophy / free time.
Really odd (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft needs to expand into the video game market. They buy the one game company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then ends).
Microsoft needs to expand into the virtualization market. They buy the one virtualization company with heavy support for macintoshes (which then suffers).
Microsoft needs to expand into the antivirus email filter market. They buy one of the antivirus companies with support for linux/unix (which then ends).
Funny how these coincidences work.
Re:Really odd (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Really odd (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just good business sense. If you could cripple your competitors' OSes while acquiring things you wanted, wouldn't you do it?
It is also blatantly illegal under the Sherman Act in this case. Don't hold you breath until the DOJ takes action though, we also saw them bought and paid for years ago.
Re:Really odd (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, I thought the free market was supposed to encourage things that were good for customers. It doesn't seem like crippling competitors by taking away features helps anybody but the company that does it. Sounds like a market failure to me.
Re:Really odd - more (Score:3, Informative)
And Microsoft bought OneTree and promptly killed commercial quality version control for MacOS (they dead-ended the format and only with much begging allowed others {MW} to make clients.)
However, Bungie sold themselves because they didn't have deep pockets, were starving, and the gaming industry drove them that way. Microsoft needed that flagship killer app. They didn't just wax the MacOS release, they delayed the W
Interesting (Score:2)
I guess they reckon this is the only way they'll ever make their OS more secure than Linux.
Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
i don't think it will make much difference because I didn't even know virus software for Linux existed and i've been using it for quite a few years.
The software was for Linux/Unix servers and stopped viruses and worms from infecting Windows clients served by them. For example if you run a Linux based mail server to serve a office full of Windows boxes (as many people do) this software filtered viruses out of the e-mail before they could infect the Windows workstations.
Is it unethical to sell your business to Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Discuss, discuss
OHS NOS! (Score:2, Informative)
There's ClamAV, which does an admirable job of keeping up with the stream of crap slung by the rest of the 'Net.
For commercial products, I've really liked Sophos' software. They were one of the only companies that supported the vast Unix/Linux versions we had when we made the selection.
Both work
RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus) (Score:5, Informative)
First the sales stopped, then the virus definitions took a few days to get updated on each big 'outbreak', then they stopped coming at all... *sniff*
Fortunately by then, ClamAV had matured more than it did when we purchased RAV for our mail servers, and it was kicked to the curb.
In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY (since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
-M
RAV *nix developers were hired by Kaspersky Lab (Score:2, Informative)
Why *buy* anti-virus software when ClamAV is free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, good quality free (speech and beer) anti-virus software is available from http://www.clamav.net/ [clamav.net] - and it's packaged in many linux distros.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people may recall a company called Sequent. [wikipedia.org] Here's a perfect example of a company who had a great product, and threatened a titan in the industry (IBM). IBM purchased them, took the technology that they wanted (low-level locking that exists in AIX 5L today), and trashed the rest of the company. It left all the PTX customers out to dry. But why would they care to continue developing PTX on Sequent platforms when they wanted to advance their POWER-based servers running AIX?
This is really nothing exciting IMO. So Microsoft acquired a company and dropped support for *nix. That is the most logical thing they could have done with the acquisition. Please try again for interesting news instead of touting the "you bastards!" picket sign outside the Evil Empire's headquarters.
Not the first time they've done this (Score:4, Insightful)
We switched to Vexira from Central Command. Midway through our contract, CC was kind enough to tell us we had to upgrade to their new software, and by the way, you have less than a week to do it. This was between Christmas and New Years. Did I say the the new software didn't support our existing OS? (RH 7.2, patches from Progeny.)
Every time we've used proprietary AV software we've gotten screwed.
Solution: apt-get install clamav.
In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
BFD (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, do you really trust Microsoft enough to use an anti-virus product from them?
Open Source Alternatives (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.clamav.net/ [clamav.net]
OpenAntiVirus Project
http://www.openantivirus.org/ [openantivirus.org]
Actualy I have an Email server setup wit Postfix + AmavisNEW + SA + ClamAV, and I'm yet to see a virus that passed undetected.
Check our virus detection statistics here:
http://integracao.saude.rio.rj.gov.br/amavis-stat
We're behind the main corporate server, so our department depends on it to send or receive email. They use a NortonAV server, but more than once an infected email passed trough, and it were stoped by our Server.
So I now wonder how ClamAV would perform against the proprietary alternatives...
I really want to try it, but our "corporate policy" states that every email traffic must pass trough the "homologated" AV solution. We're actally the only department that is really using Linux for real, and the rest of the company still has this strong Microsoft culture and don't quite trust Open Source...
Re:Open Source Alternatives (Score:4, Informative)
Actually quite well, in my experience.
We installed a spam/virus scanner to handle incoming internet mail before it goes into our 'internal' mail server, which runs Symantec(tm) Antivirus.
The scanner is running ClamAV via ClamSMTP. Since installing this, the Symantec logs have only shown ONE virus hitting the mail system...which came from someone internal who brought the virus in on a laptop (grrrrr...) and not from the internet at all. So, thus far, it looks like ClamAV is catching everything that Symantec would have caught, and possibly more.
Re:Support (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And why should they support Linux/Unix? (Score:2)
So, did they let go the Linux parts, or did they kill, dismember, burn, and disperse them?
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Informative)