backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by Iketh.. on Dec 23 at 8:05 PM


The FTC has decided to permit Intel's acquisition of McAfee.  (Source: Flickr)
Company is now cleared to start its "hardware security" bid

Many were baffled by Intel's August announcement that it was acquiring McAfee, the leading maker of antivirus software, for $7.68B USD.  While Intel touted the promise of "hardware security" options, many felt that the deal was like trying to cross a cactus with an apple tree -- they just didn't go together.

But for better or worse the deal has been officially approved by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the government agency tasked with monitoring the market and making sure mergers and acquisitions don't represent a threat to competition.


While the deal has earned the FTC's blessing, Intel is reportedly having a much harder time convincing the European Commission -- the antitrust arm of the European Union -- to approve it.  The EC -- which recently fined Intel $1.45B USD for antitrust violations -- is reportedly concerned that the deal would prevent McAfee's security rivals from fairly competing with it.

They say that if Intel packages security on-chip, it would be effectively guaranteeing that most computers offered a built in advantage to McAfee.  That would hurt companies like Symantec in seeking to sell customers rival antivirus suites.

The fear is perhaps justified, given Intel's tactics in the past.  Intel has been caught modifying its compilers and other software to sabotage the performance of rival hardware makers' products, such as AMD CPUs or NVIDIA GPUs.

Even if the Intel/McAfee union gets the green light, significant challenges remain.  While Intel has some experience embedding a typically software-driven technology on its CPUs, with its vPro virtualization platform, embedding anti-malware functionality may be tougher task.  

On the one hand, putting security scanning algorithms on-chip could greatly enhance their speed and remove the burden they typically put on the CPU cores.  However, getting updated malware signatures to the core, with which to detect suspicious files would be no easy task.  In the first half of 2010, alone McAfee logged 10 million new malware variants.

Another possibility is that Intel might monitor specific instruction sequences to the CPU for signs of misbehavior.  Again, this would be very tricky to pull off, though.

In the short term, whether the deal is approved or not McAfee will likely function primarily independent of Intel.  Intel has already promised to run McAfee as an independent company, initially headed by Chief Executive Officer Dave DeWalt.

Intel CEO Paul Otellini promises big things from that collaboration, stating, "Only the combination of hardware and software … can yield this kind of innovation, and that's the reason for buying McAfee."

But how or when those nebulous promises of "hardware security" are actualized is even more uncertain than the acquisition's pending approval with European regulators.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: McAfee
By Etern205 on 12/22/2010 10:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
The new Norton is actually improved. There was a test and Norton didn't slow down the boot process.


RE: McAfee
By SSDMaster on 12/22/2010 10:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
Norton 360 takes something like 256MB of RAM. I've heard it described as "light weight". This is just horrible. At my company we have tons of ancient computer's with 512 or less memory. The first thing I do is replace Norton with NOD32 which is currently using 36MB on my computer right now.


RE: McAfee
By StevoLincolnite on 12/22/2010 10:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
Odd, my install of Nod 32 is sitting at 51mb of ram, might be because my rig hasn't been rebooted in a week.
Still, I love how little nod32 disk thrashes at random!


RE: McAfee
By Flunk on 12/22/2010 10:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
That's good, my Microsoft Security Essentials is currently using 66MB right now after being up for 4 days.


RE: McAfee
By Maximalist on 12/22/2010 12:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
Tried the new Microsoft Security Essentials 2 yet?


RE: McAfee
By fic2 on 12/22/2010 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't know that SE v2 was out. Is it worth downloading/installing vs v1?


RE: McAfee
By Maximalist on 12/22/2010 1:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
DT would not cover a new major release of security software from Microsoft (both Security Essentials 2.0 and Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010). Not sensational enough.


RE: McAfee
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/22/2010 1:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
He conveniently forgot to mention it's a BETA....


RE: McAfee
By Maximalist on 12/22/2010 1:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
False. It has been RTM and available for download since Friday, December 17, 2010.


RE: McAfee
By Ammohunt on 12/22/2010 2:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Correct its not listed on the main site its a seperate download link i have it installed on all my machines already from what i have read it has some very nice new features. Norton or any of the big names will never grace any of my machines again. I just need anti-virus not firewall/pc-tuneup/security bloatware.


RE: McAfee
By C'DaleRider on 12/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: McAfee
By Flunk on 12/22/2010 10:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's just one metric, They probably don't scan on startup so that they can claim that or delay scanning until after the system reaches the desktop.

You will never get an anti-virus that doesn't slow down your system, at least a bit. Right now I'd avoid Norton, McAfee and AVG because all three kill your performance.

AVG is particularly bad on terminal servers because it runs 3 processes for every single user.


RE: McAfee
By Maximalist on 12/22/2010 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 5
Here is my 2 cents on Symantec Norton.

I am an IT services provider and professionally deploy PCs for 12 years. My shop has had major grief with Norton security software several years after its acquisition by Symantec, who basically patched together a bloated half-baked security Frankenstein and successfully pushed it in the consumer segment for many years riding on the Norton brand.

Later on (circa 2007) a buddy of mine working at Symantec in Eugene, OR, revealed that the consumer security development at Symantec was just a handful of lazy hacks, who did very little since Windows XP era. Instead of optimizing Norton security software for evolving threats and operating systems (i.e., Vista), Symantec decided to complain and embark on an in- and out-of-court smear campaign against Microsoft. Other lazy hacks happily joined in. This tactic resulted in a major obstacles for Vista to realize its full potential.

After Vista's release in late 2006, my shop had a serious problem finding any Tier 1 or Tier 2 security software compatible with Vista until May 2007. This is like 6 months! We resorted to installing a 90-day castrated trial of Microsoft's Live OneCare as the only "designed for Vista" security software available at that time. It was ridiculous.

My shop develops for Microsoft platforms and, as a partner, I can tell that the industry had fully working Vista builds and documentation for 8 months prior to its release. One ought to think that major Tier 1 security vendors like Symantec could develop compatible software in time for the release. Instead, they sued and bad-mouthed the new operating system to keep the industry from moving on and stick to older technology thus impeding progress.

If we were, perhaps, neutral towards consumer Symantec's Norton brand before, since 2006, we refrain from using it and recommend others to stay away from Symantec Norton. To our relief, Microsoft realized that relying on the partner ecosystem (consisting of Symantecs of the world) is a bad strategy and released its own FREE security software that is optimized for the operating system.

With free Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 and now 2.0, I do not see any major reason for 3rd party consumer security software to exist. Hope that Microsoft does more consumer marketing/educating with regards to security.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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