backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by mtaki14.. on Aug 29 at 9:18 AM


  (Source: Digital Trends)
Intel hopes acquisition will help its "hardware enhanced security" efforts

Intel, the world's largest maker of computer processors, on Thursday announced news that shocked the tech world.  The firm would be acquiring antivirus software vendor McAfee at a price of $48 USD per share, for a total acquisition price of $7.68B USD.

Assuming the deal receives Federal Trade Commission approval, McAfee would become an Intel subsidiary, folding into the company's Software and Services Group.  

Intel made it clear that one major reason for the acquisition was to expand its wireless security offerings.  Intel, a major maker of wireless chipsets, believes that the industry is failing to address mobile security even as the market explodes with smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices.

Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO, comments:

With the rapid expansion of growth across a vast array of Internet-connected devices, more and more of the elements of our lives have moved online.  In the past, energy-efficient performance and connectivity have defined computing requirements. Looking forward, security will join those as a third pillar of what people demand from all computing experiences."

The addition of McAfee products and technologies into the Intel computing portfolio brings us incredibly talented people with a track record of delivering security innovations, products and services that the industry and consumers trust to make connecting to the Internet safer and more secure.

The acquisition also will allow Intel to expand what it calls "hardware-enhanced security".  Similar to Intel's hardware-enhanced virtualization technology, the idea here is to directly implement security features in hardware, an approach that can offer energy savings and faster performance.  

States Renée James, Intel senior vice president, and general manager of the company's Software and Services Group, "Hardware-enhanced security will lead to breakthroughs in effectively countering the increasingly sophisticated threats of today and tomorrow.  This acquisition is consistent with our software and services strategy to deliver an outstanding computing experience in fast-growing business areas, especially around the move to wireless mobility."

McAfee is coming off a strong year in 2009, in which it earned a total revenue of $2B USD, the most of any dedicated security firm.  The company was founded in 1987 and is based out of Santa Clara, Calif., the same location as Intel's headquarters.  Intel was founded in 1968.

The surprise announcement has approved a boon for investors with McAfee shares.  Share prices soared over 50 percent from around the $30 mark to above $47.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow
By DigitalFreak on 8/19/2010 10:36:45 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder if Intel can turn McAfee's products from shit to gold?




RE: Wow
By jajig on 8/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By DigitalFreak on 8/19/2010 11:00:39 AM , Rating: 5
I've used all 3 big name AV products (McAfee, Symantec and Trend Micro) in both personal and corporate settings as a Sys Admin. Both McAfee and Symantec have consistently been crap from both a performance and false positive / destroy your system standpoint.


RE: Wow
By B3an on 8/19/2010 11:55:44 AM , Rating: 3
Not to mention they're massively bloated, and i'm normally the last person to call a piece of software bloated.


RE: Wow
By Mitch101 on 8/19/2010 1:16:53 PM , Rating: 5
A nice feature of McCrappy would be the ability to clean an infected file not just pretend to try.


RE: Wow
By borismkv on 8/19/2010 1:32:02 PM , Rating: 5
When I was working in a Managed Services NOC, we had a client with McAfee's ePO solution. Whenever it found a virus in someone's email, it deleted the *entire exchange database*. It did this *twice*. Even after we told it to stop scanning the folders with the databases in it.


RE: Wow
By BikeDude on 8/21/2010 3:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that is one way of making sure nobody receives any malware through e-mail in the foreseeable future.

I have suspected for a long time that anti-malware have caused more damage than malware.


RE: Wow
By callmeroy on 8/23/2010 9:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
yeah but it got rid of the infected file ! :)


RE: Wow
By carage on 8/19/2010 7:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
In my experience with these three, it was Trend-Micro's that did this.


RE: Wow
By tastyratz on 8/19/2010 8:07:30 PM , Rating: 3
It all depends. From a personal consumer standpoint mcafee has been out of the running to me for years just like symantec. From a corporate sys admin angle it gets pretty hard to beat EPO unfortunately. I wish something like that could be coupled with a more corporately targeted avast.


RE: Wow
By plewis00 on 8/19/2010 11:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
At a guess I'd say it's because a lot of the tier-one manufacturers insist on installing it on new systems, many of which won't let you use them until you register or click-through a number of screens. Coupled with a short subscription trial, it's just annoying bloatware to many. I think if their business model didn't appear to be 'get it onto as many computers as possible' (coupled with a short subscription) they would have a better reputation.

My Dell for work came with a year's subscription so I gave it a shot and to be fair it's been fine for me, no problems or slowdowns.


RE: Wow
By CheesePoofs on 8/19/2010 11:07:48 AM , Rating: 5
Having worked in a computer store for a long while, I saw far more computers come in infected to the gills with McAfee installed than would seem normal. Not that NAV was any better.


RE: Wow
By mcnabney on 8/19/2010 11:23:49 AM , Rating: 5
In the day and age of MSE why is anyone giving McAfee (or Norton) their money?

Seriously, I am going to sell all of my Intel shares because apparently their leadership has lost their freakin minds. $7.68B for McAfee? Not even in the .Com age!

Also, gee thanks, but I don't really need crappy and amazingly inefficient AV software on my Droid. Some of us bother to keep the integrated security of Android OS in mind when installing apps.


RE: Wow
By watkinsaj on 8/19/2010 2:33:38 PM , Rating: 5
I would have valued McAfee at $2.56B, maybe $5.12B at the most.


RE: Wow
By roadhog1974 on 8/19/2010 9:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
no love for $10.24B ?


RE: Wow
By fleabag on 8/20/2010 3:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
worth more like 1024M at the most..


RE: Wow
By ARoyalF on 8/20/2010 11:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
64m?


RE: Wow
By mattclary on 8/19/2010 11:53:06 AM , Rating: 5
I've seen an equal share of McAfee and Norton/Symantec (mainly because they are the biggest) and just about every other kind out there. The only thing that will really protect you is common sense, something that is sorely lacking amongst most.


RE: Wow
By jtvang125 on 8/19/2010 11:27:15 AM , Rating: 5
Did you forget the last false positive with McAfee where it thought a Windows system file was a virus and deleted it? I'm sure thousands of system admins had a $hitty morning that day.


RE: Wow
By Proxes on 8/19/2010 1:27:25 PM , Rating: 5
The XP SP3 svchost.exe.

Yeah, that day sucked.


RE: Wow
By AlexWade on 8/19/2010 11:37:21 AM , Rating: 3
The problem with McAfee is that it is so bloated. I don't know about the latest versions, but earlier versions replaced what Windows did so efficiently with its own inefficient version. Why replace the Windows security center? Why reinvent the wheel?


RE: Wow
By StevoLincolnite on 8/19/2010 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why replace the Windows security center? Why reinvent the wheel?


Love Nod32, Tried PC-Cillin, Kaspersky, McCrappy, Snortin' and they all fail in comparison to Nod32 which is light and efficient.
Most Virus scanners slow down even the fastest of systems with a conventional mechanical HDD, with Nod32 I don't even know it's running most of the time except for the occasional alert.

Regarding Windows Security Center.. I can't say I have ever relied/used it, but my set-up works extremely well so I may as well stick to it. :)


RE: Wow
By xti on 8/19/2010 12:43:21 PM , Rating: 5
windows one isnt bad at all, i rather use it than norton.

but nod32 is godly with its tiny footprint.


RE: Wow
By Exodite on 8/19/2010 1:17:30 PM , Rating: 3
If you enjoy trying out different protection schemes I can recommend Avast. Currently running Avast Internet Security (the one with included firewall and improved heuristics) on our home rigs but the free version is excellent as well.

IMHO anyway, just throwing it out there as an option worth investigating.


RE: Wow
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2010 8:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
One reason to own Avast is just so you can feel like a pirate.

Yar....


RE: Wow
By inperfectdarkness on 8/19/2010 1:21:01 PM , Rating: 3
i've tried AVG, norton, mc-cafe (i'm not loving it), bit-defender/defender-pro (SUCK). also tried f-secure (which i enjoyed using for 3 years). i like kapersky. i'll have to try nod32; but it's hard to imagine having something much better than kapersky.


RE: Wow
By HrilL on 8/19/2010 6:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
I agree 100% Nod32 is the best and we are rolling it out company wide currently. They have the best detect rate and lowest false positives. It uses low amounts of resources and doesn't thrash your hard drive when scanning. Its also programmed in assembly to make it very efficient.

I used to be a field tech and clean Virus infections a lot and Nod32 would find a lot of viruses the big 3 would fail to detect at all.


RE: Wow
By MrBungle123 on 8/19/2010 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
I used to use McAfee a few years ago... The last straw with their ever more intrusive bloatware was when it minimized my Doom 3 game during a fight with one of the bosses to tell me that a worm was quickly spreading across Indian and Chinese networks... not that it was on my computer... but that it was on a bunch of Chinese computers.

Ever since I'm only interested in security sofware if I can forget that its even there until it finds something ON MY COMPUTER .

I've moved to AVG free and never looked back. Its not intrusive and with a little common sense when it comes to what you click on when on the internet its been pretty effective.


RE: Wow
By koenshaku on 8/19/2010 10:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
lol mcafee has been really bad for many years even to a point where an update crashed windows 7 systems. I think this was a bad purchase decision because these third party anti virus apps are going the way of the dinosaur because of microsoft's free offering MS security essentials.


RE: Wow
By Visual on 8/19/2010 11:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
ms security essentials is not licensed for office computers though, only personal ones.


RE: Wow
By GaryJohnson on 8/19/2010 11:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
The (paid) business equivelant of MSE is Forefront.


RE: Wow
By bruce24 on 8/19/2010 11:01:33 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think they bought McAfee because they wanted to sell Anti Virus software. I think they bought it because they want to add "hardware-enhanced security" to their products and reduce the impact on a systems of running Security related software.


RE: Wow
By mcnabney on 8/19/2010 11:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
That is a hell of a lot of money to invest for those limited goals. Maybe the record revenues at Intel has gotten to them. Maybe those fabs really do print money.


RE: Wow
By bruce24 on 8/19/2010 1:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Limited goals? I think their goals, include but are not limited to, trying to give people a reason to buy a new computer as well as give their processors a capability their competition doesn't have.


RE: Wow
By strikeback03 on 8/19/2010 11:29:59 AM , Rating: 4
I just hope McAfee doesn't cause the processors to run like crap.


RE: Wow
By Marlowe on 8/19/2010 3:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
In the future if the cpu detects a trojan it will disable all but one memory channel, throttle the integrated gpu and disable half the L2 cache ;-)


RE: Wow
By Phynaz on 8/19/2010 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 4
You don't realize that PC Antivirus is a small portion of what MacAffee does.

Intel bought them for their embedded security.


RE: Wow
By putergeek00 on 8/19/2010 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 3
I remember going to an Intel Channel Conference about 8 years ago and the Intel Rep talked about the Network Card detecting virii and then disabling the NIC. They even went as far as to say it was 100% effective with no false positives. The problem was that it was hardware based(no way to turn it on/off), and they were apprehensive about implementing it because of what would/could happen if NICS started disabling. Kind of a catch 22. Looks like this may be the ticket they were looking for.


RE: Wow
By Paulywogstew on 8/19/2010 1:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
McAfee just acquired WaveSecure. I use this on my HTC EVO it allows me to track my phone if someones using it and lock it down looks like this is where intel is going with there acquisition of McAfee


RE: Wow
By fteoath64 on 8/21/2010 12:13:57 PM , Rating: 1
Well, shit is shit even if it is wrapped in silicon. Intel just wanted some niche software business to diversify. Unless one believe some primitives of anti-virus technology can be hard-wired in silicon ?. I doubt it.

Intel tried with desktop management software in the past and had not made much headway there. Their venture into networking switches did not make much impact as well.

I really wanted Intel to focus on the NAS market and DAS devices with USB2, USB3, eSata and later Light-Peak interfaces. The market in Add-ons for storage has great potential that Intel can harvest. I think they can make a serious difference in this area.


If they were smart...
By Shin Messiah on 8/19/2010 11:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
they would have purchased ESET, makers of NOD32 and Smart Security suite. By far the best security client I've used in my experience. They would have probably saved a lot of money and would have a much better product to boot. I couldnt tell you many computers I've worked on that were riddled with viruses and malware that got through the McAffe security package. Where I used to live in Maryland, Comcast offered a free A/V package featuring McAffe products. Still believe the Norton/Synamtec products are the worst. Even their corporate offerings fall short. Just my opinion.




RE: If they were smart...
By xti on 8/20/2010 10:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
if they would have bought ESET, I would have been disappointed. the guys at ESET deserve to get paid the way a corp giant like intel would pay for their years of hard work and AV development, but then the community would have lost a great product as we all know what happens when great software companies get bought out.

anyone remember what winamp USED to be like?


RE: If they were smart...
By mtaki14 on 8/29/2010 9:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
That IS the way MusicBee seems to be taking right now...


AMD
By infodan on 8/19/2010 12:03:52 PM , Rating: 5
OEM's can expect mcafee prices to go up for AMD based units.




It's great
By TechIsGr8 on 8/19/2010 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think just one big corporation should own all the computer industry and services. We're heading in that direction, it's only a matter of time. That would be such a fine achievement for the free market.




WOW^2
By ChipDude on 8/20/2010 12:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
How does a marginal software security company help a hardware company put security into chips when it can't even do it with software!

How does spending 7 billion for a security company help Intel win the mobile space with x86 when ARM is so ahead, thru security? How about thru superior power/performance.

This will go down in history as intel's biggest mistake worst then Itanium, worst then all their internet bust purchases. Damm the spent more money on McAffe then ARMs current market cap.




Huh?
By grebe925 on 8/20/2010 8:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
I sincerely hope Intel shareholders reject the deal.There is zero synergy & McCrappy has zero innovation expertise, unless you count subscription nag screens and sticking software tentacles so deep that you need a crowbar to pry it off a new system, because that's the first thing I do with one before replacing it with so many great free offerings out there.




Kaboom
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/20/2010 9:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
Intel is foolish for wasting 8 billion on this. I can see where they would need a popular AV program so they can get a good list of the sort of instructions they might want to add to their instruction set. But they could have bought any number of smaller companies and accomplished the same thing. ESET for example. This is Netburst arrogance at its finest.




By C'DaleRider on 8/20/2010 9:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
AV-Comparatives latest testing of AV/suites.....

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test...

.PDF file.....approx. 500K, so not too big.




By Calidore on 8/20/2010 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
The key sentence is "McAfee is coming off a strong year in 2009, in which it earned a total revenue of $2B USD, the most of any dedicated security firm." Regardless of quality, more people are throwing more money at McAfee than anyone else. Just like voters will repeatedly reelect bad people, they as consumers will repeatedly buy bad products. If quality=survival, you'd see more quality.




Who cares?!
By ipay on 8/20/2010 12:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
McAfee is a crappy AV anyway. It almost never even makes the list in reviews. Like here: http://TechReview.LIEconomy.com




Intel
By kroker on 8/21/2010 7:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Our acquisitions are not like your acquisitions.




marketing? or just being stupid?
By serkol on 8/19/2010 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 1
Looks like a waste of money, or a marketing step to me... I don't see any logic in paying 7B for this... Security is breached because of some bugs in hardware/software - just fix the freaking bugs. What do they expect, McAfee fixing their bugs, or what? From my point of view, you don't need any software/hardware antivirus crap if there are no security related bugs.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki