Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 23:49:20 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: FreeBSD Firewall vs. Black Ice Message-ID: <007101c0a548$c9dce820$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <15010.60451.584145.191384@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Mike Meyer > >Um - from what you said earlier, you can't get virus filtering using >MS products. Correct - Microsoft produces NO antivirus software, very likely due to an agreement they have with Symantec/AKA Norton. While I can't say for sure (secret agreements are just that, secret) it is very suspicious that when DOS6 came out, that the anti-virus in it was produced by Central Point Software, who was later bought by Symantec, and for years later Symantec continued to maintain current virus signatures for DOS antivirus on their FTP site. Since the antivirus that shipped in DOS, Microsoft has made no release of any antivirus software themselves since that time. It may be pure coincidence, but the founder of Symantec was one of the early Microsoft Central Committee members. I have no evidence for this but it is facinating how Microsoft has been in so many other markets, even browser markets and e-mail client markets where they made no revenue on their products, yet strangely they have never entered the Windows antivirus market, even though there is obviously quite a bit of revenue to be had in that market. Another interesting thing is how Symantec Winfax Lite is bundled with Outlook client. That's another market where Symantec is and Microsoft isn't, with no obvious explanation. Even more suspicious is that Microsoft included fax software in Win95 then stopped doing it in later OS's. I think that if you look at the history of Symantec, at no time has it ever introduced products that were in direct competition to Microsoft, and at no time has Microsoft introduced products that were in direct competition to Symantec. This is extremely unusual because Microsoft has introduced directly competing products to every other major Windows software vendor - including markets where the other Windows software vendor as there first, and Microsoft never was in. > That they *acknowledge* that they have a problem is no >excuse for shipping things with the problem installed. If MS Exchange >included virus filtering, I might agree with you. But it doesn't. > I think that from Microsoft's point of view, anyone installing Exchange is mandated to separately purchase Norton anti-virus, thus they assume that anti-virus is going to be running on the Exchange server. >On the other hand - what does MSN provide as a default UMA, and how is >it configured? Or do the MSN mail servers filter for such things? > I think that MSN filters this - any large ISP is fool not to, because script virus replication generates a tremendous large load on the mailserver which increases expotentially the more users on the service. For thier OWN defence they would have to do this. >> I'm also recognizing that when I set up a mailsystem with Microsoft mail >> clients and a BSD server, that Microsoft isn't being compensated >for their >> effort spent developing the mail client software. So, if I'm >going to take >> advantage of the free Microsoft mail clients without compensating them, I >> had better not complain about their deficiencies. > >Personally, I think that anyone who is engaged in "dumping" deserves >to be taken advantage of that way. Oh, I agree - but of course don't forget that every Microsoft e-mail client that you install takes a sale away from Qualcomm (remember, they are still selling Eudora) and also that this attitude was responsible for destroying Netscape, because everyone went to the free IE webbrowser and stopped paying for new Navigator copies. History has shown that dumping is usually a precurser to an attempt to monopolize the market. It is, in fact, illegal, although it's very difficult to prove that it's going on. Of course, I also consider >reporting deficiencies in a product I use to be a favor to the >developer - and yes, I believe that even if I'm the developer in >question. After all, nobody can fix they don't know about it. > Oh, believe me larger and richer and more powerful corporations have already screamed to Microsoft about this. Trust me, they know about it!I think that it's pretty obvious that they have deliberately decided not to close this hole, the mystery is why. My only answer is that they have a vested interest in pushing people into running full-blown anti-virus software. I personally believe, with no evidence of course, that they are getting a kickback or something from Symantec in exchange for keeping their products virus-friendly. (because this spurs people to buy antivirus) Now, the $64 question is not whether or not this is ethical (it's obviously not ethical to keep the script hole, let alone accept bribes) but whether in the long run it's a Good Thing to force lusers into buying antivirus. Well, I have to say that from my point of view, this IS a good thing - because everyone should be running antivirus anyway, and I know that 90% of computer users are cheap bastards that won't buy any software that they don't feel that they absolutely must have. If keeping the script hole in the mail clients will convince people to spend the $50 on antivirus software, then I'm willing to look the other way, even though I know darn well that Microsoft is blackmailing users into doing it. In fact, I'm happy they are doing it because it makes people realize that Outlook really isn't free, when you add in the cost of antivirus, and that helps Qualcomm. (which as a company is far more UNIX-friendly than Microsoft ever will be) Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?007101c0a548$c9dce820$1401a8c0>