Security → Microsoft gobbles up AV ground

I did a test download before I posted the url, and it is a valid ThreatFire 4.7 installer. It is not the latest release, but it will update to the latest release once you install it. At least it still did that today for me on a test PC...no guarantees what will happen tomorrow, or even an hour from now (I suspect that if/when Symantec detects that the installer file is still visible and being downloaded, they will kill that link, and possibly even kill new installs).

EDIT:
Oops, I just looked closer at the screen shot you posted, and you are talking about the download link on the »www.threatfire.com/download/ page, not the »www.threatfire.com/updates/ page.

When I tried the "Get Free" link on the »www.threatfire.com/download/ page, nothing happened (with either IE or SeaMonkey), and when I looked at the properties for that link, it did not point to anything other than that page (no executable):

+1

I'm running EMET 3.0 on WinXP SP3 and Win7 SP1 x64 systems. Setting it up is pretty easy and it comes with a chart at the end of the manual (PDF) showing how to configure most apps.

BTW EMET is not an A/V nor is it intended to replace one. It's surprising how many don't know of its existence and how little discussion there is of it in this forum.

Actually it is the second time that Symantec has bought PC Tools. They bought PC Tools the first time ~1994 when they bought Central Point Software (and they almost immediately shutdown that product because it made their Norton Utilities look wimpy in comparison).
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC ··· tware%29

Corporate arithmetic continues to puzzle me at times. Why buy out a small competitor (among many other similar competitors), just to extinguish their products? If they're small, they don't represent that big a chunk of market share to start with, only a part of which might even turn to your product if they disappear. I can understand a corporation's desire to buy out certain patents a little company might own to enhance their own portfolio or to bludgeon competitors with... but how much can those really be worth to justify buying the whole operation? Ditto for the idea of buying a little company for its "talent"... talent can (and does) simply migrate after-the-sale to somebody else. Yet, again and again, this same thing seems to happen... little outfits (with decent products) gobbled up and any trace of their products simply evaporating.

In some cases, the product being bought (and discarded) is so superior to the purchaser's product, that they simply want to make it go away and stop making their own product look so bad.

While EMET 3.0 seems to have some stability issues on Windows 8, IE 10 does have EMET built in as well as a few additions not included in the Windows 7 version of IE10.

"Internet Explorer 10 introduces significant improvements in memory protections to help make vulnerabilities harder to exploit, helping to keep users safe on the sometimes-hostile Web. These improvements will increase the difficulty and development cost of exploits, making life harder for the bad guys.

While socially-engineered malware is the primary way that bad guys get their code onto victims’ computers, that is largely because browser vulnerabilities have become less common and harder to exploit over the last few years. However, as more and more users upgrade to IE9 and benefit from the protection provided by SmartScreen Filter, bad guys have a renewed interest in attacking the browser and its add-ons directly.

In today’s post, I explain the threat environment, survey the existing protections available in IE9, and explain how IE10’s new memory protections provide even more security."

READ THE COMPLETE BLOG ARTICLE »blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/arch ··· e10.aspx

But why not simply re-brand the bought product line to their own name and go on with that? If it's truly better, that should give them a real marketplace boost. Like I said, I can't figure out the arithmetic.

I always assumed they were after a certain tech or patent contained in the smaller company's product to include in their own.

Actually that does sometimes happen, just not very often. I used to work for a mainframe computer manufacturer who bought out several other manufacturer's product lines, and did indeed rebrand them and use them as the basis for new products rather than simply taking a competitor's product off the market. Of course in the long run it did not help since the dinosaurs died anyway.

That same company (after they were bought by one of their European subsidiaries) also bought a well known manufacturer of quality PCs and PC based servers, as well as a manufacturer of mass produced low cost PCs. They started out rebranding the quality PCs, but eventually switched to the cheaper models and phased out the quality products. That did not turn out very well either. I saw what was happening and managed to leave with a small golden parachute a couple of years before that company totally disappeared.

In some cases that maybe the plan but as we all know things don't always go according to plan.

About 10 years ago I worked for a small high-tech company that was in a niche market. Although our products were highly regarded (at the time) there was a similarly sized company that was a thorn in our side. Through a number of circumstances we were able to purchase that competitor. The intent, at least the public one given by management, was to keep the acquisition essentially as it was. I figured that was a lie or at least wishful thinking and that turned out to be true.

Our company, because we owned that former competitor, tried to make them "conform" to our standards and systems. That pissed them off. We then (and I was one assigned to this task) copied their IP since it was now ours. That involved copying HD's (on the sly when possible), copying documents etc. That pissed them off even more.

To cut a long story short most of the employees left--many in a huff--leaving us with the physical stuff but with little knowledge of their products' operation and manufacturing processes. Being a small company ourselves many of us were assigned to figure all that stuff out. We essentially had to reverse engineer their stuff. Sucked time and resources like a vacuum.

After about a year my company essentially dumped large parts of the ex-competitors product line. They kept certain brand-names and supported some stuff out in the field but in effect that company was gone.

Maybe that was the intent all along but a huge amount of money and time was wasted if that was so. My guess is that they bit off more than they could chew.

BTW a few years later I was laid-off and a few weeks after that the President was fired along with a bunch of management. Last time I checked they still existed but in another, but similar, line of business.

The point of this? My bet is that some companies have gone through this before. Its easier just to shut them down (i.e. out of the market) rather than trying to keep them going.

see where to "click"

And that it comes with every PC that is sold to.

Hmm...tried Threatfire from that link. For whatever reason when I do a smart update, it downloads one, says it applied it, yet still has me at the base 4.7.0.17 version.

Wouldn't it be better to make its own OS a bit more secure in the first place?

Oh, wait a minute. I completely forgot the marketing:
Make OS insecure and then offer a program, that makes it secure. That's the way to do it, if you're in a business of making money form OS...

In order for that to work, you would need to charge for the add-on program. MS does not charge residential and small business customers for MSE (although there is no doubt that MS is making money from selling their OS products even if they don't charge for MSE).

If that's what it needs to make money - they will. Or it could be other millions way to benefit from that.

I don't believer for one second that they do something without a business plan (read - to make money).

I fail to see how they can claim the most uninstalled antivirus is the most used, just like that. They get their data from the Opswat AppRemover. What their data actually says is that the AppRemover has removed MSE from systems the most times.

Remove it? You can't remove Windows Defender. It is part of the OS. You can disable it but not remove it.

Who is talking about Windows Defender? I am talking about MSE.

And they have gathered the data for all the other AV:s the same way: the number of times people have uninstalled them using the Opswat AppRemover. Then they have decided that this means that the AV:s that have been uninstalled the most are the most popular and most widely used.

???? Windows Defender IS MSE. I guess you didn't know that.

Only in Windows 8. Which wasnt part of the study. During 90% of the time the data this study is based on Windows 8 had not even been released yet. And Windows Defender included with Vista and 7 definitely is not MSE.

Regardless, the data the study is based on was was gathered using the AppRemover, when a program is uninstalled. The chart show how often AppRemover has been run on a system with a certain AV installed.

Windows Defender isn't Microsoft Security Essentials. They are different products:
»answers.microsoft.com/en ··· db9ab9fd

MSE is a more comprehensive solution and will normally disable or uninstall Defender.

I suppose it's better than those people letting their trial av run out, and never replacing it. It's just like IE, some people use it as it's there, and that's about it.

MSE is called Defender on Win 8, and can be disabled by other software.

Windows Defender IS MSE on Windows 8 where it is built into the OS. Sorry, I wasn't ultra specific earlier, but then you know I have a new Win 8 computer from my posts in Road Runner forum so I didn't think it was necessary, (but I guess it was since we have been talking about different things here leading to unnecessary confusion. BTW, do you have any insight into the Netalyzr reports you asked about and that I did supply)?

I'm one of the ones that just roll with MSE... tried the layered super security approach for a while, it was a ridiculous pain in the rear end.

But I think AVs are mostly a scam.

I am all for free security, but what little malware I have ever run into not once did MSE stop it. The majority of repairs I have done for family is a result of MSE's failures. The real-time protection is terrible. I have had good luck with Avast and Comodo Internet Security.

As everyone can now see... Microsoft shot themselves in the foot when whatever moron decided to play flip flop between names.

It's sort of a MS legacy and a tradition up in the bunker at Redmond.