Chipzilla scarfs up McAfee
Lending credence to the saying ‘ fools and their money are soon parted’, Chipzilla has coughed up $7.68 billion for ‘security firm’ Mcafee. And Intel will pay in cash, says the BBC.
McAfee recently used Vanity Fair to claim two Canadian government agencies’ computer systems were infiltrated as part of a ‘massive global cyber attack spanning at least five years’ and, probably perpetrated by a foreign government.
This is in accordance with Mcafee’s long-standing practice of releasing shlock-horror reports to tout its questionable products. In April last year, “Computers in companies, hospitals and schools around the world were repeatedly rebooting themselves”, p2pnet posted. According to news.com.au, which had the online ’security’ company stating, “We are not aware of significant impact on consumers and believe we have effectively limited such occurrence.” Tell that to Swedish alcohol retail monopoly Systembolaget, said p2pnet. Thousands of computers running Windows XP with Service Pack 3 were affected”, it said.
But ‘No Big Deal’, in effect blogged McPherson Bazza McPherson (right) the man responsible for “overseeing all customer support programs and efforts, promoting multiple methods of support access, expanding self-assistance and self-diagnosing options, and increasing customer retention and loyalty. It was all down to a “false positive”.
“PS”, 
said McPherson,“In our ongoing efforts to protect our customers from a seemingly endlessly multiplying variety and volume of attacks, today we released a update file that clearly did more harm than good”, he says, adding >>>
There was a legitimate threat and we wanted to protect our customers, as we have done successfully thousands and thousands of times before. But in trying to do so, we created negative and unintended consequences for some very important people. Many of you.
Having talked to literally hundreds of my colleagues around the world and emailed thousands to try and find the best way to correct these issues, let me say this has not been my favorite day. Not for me, or for McAfee. Not by a long shot.
Not only but also, “On January 4, 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”) against McAfee, Inc. (f/k/a Network Associates, Inc.) (“McAfee”) alleging that from the second quarter of 1998 through 2000, McAfee defrauded investors by engaging in a scheme to overstate its revenue and earnings by hundreds of millions of dollars (SEC v. McAfee, Inc., C-06-0009 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.)). On February 9, 2006, the Court entered a Final Judgment against McAfee, to which McAfee consented without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint.”
How do Intel investors feel about the deal’? says the BBC.
Tim Danton, editor of PC Pro magazine, said the announcement came out of the blue.
“Intel does buy a lot of companies and it does have a lot of more cash than anyone else out there. So it making a big acquisition isn’t a surprise, but you may have thought it more likely to buy another hardware firm,” he told the BBC.
“No doubt Intel is looking ahead and seeing that the laptop and desktop market are probably past their heyday and the big growth area is mobile.
“For a company like Intel, it’s nowhere near as strong in the mobile area as it is in the laptop and desktop areas, so it’s probably looking for new ways to get streams and revenues in the future.”
But he added: “Perhaps that is Intel’s point of view but not everybody else’s. The reaction from investors has been quite negative.”
(Cheers Ralph)
August 8th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
McAffe, Symantec (Norton), and other ‘brand’ name antivirus companies have mostly been bought out already. They were brought out, not to improve the product but as cash cows. What were once products that exceeded the expectations of the users became products that failed more often than not. You would not catch me with either of these products as they just don’t work as advertised. Oh, they catch a few, here and there, but they are victims of their own past success. Since they became standards in the name brands, any self respecting malware writer is going to check to see their newest creation will pass these antivirus checks before distributing on the net.
Have you ever went to find out how to manually get rid of some pesky malware only to find the names listed in the ‘how to fix’ never match the names of the malware you have? It’s because just as soon as a signature and a method of removal is made, the malware writer has already changed the file names and redistributed. The antivirus finds it but it’s not quite the same critter that was originally IDed.
The antivirus industry will have to come up with a better way or the software writers such as M$ will have to lock down their products better in order to eliminate the malware problem. Till that is done, there is no reliable way to fight malware with the average users habits. There are ways to not get malware but most folks won’t take the time to study the necessary methods to ensure security nor put those practices into use. No matter how fan boys and corporations for antivirus trumpeted this and that method it simply will not change the real world where the average user doesn’t pay that much mind to security related issues. Either the software makes the environment secure for them or it won’t happen despite all the bells and whistles.
August 8th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Why are you posting this? It all happened a year ago. Just check out the posting date on that BBC article.
August 8th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
oops! ” You’re correct “Posted in August 2010. And “last updated at 11:14 ET”
August 8th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
No problem. In hindsight, I think I could have pointed it out more pleasantly though and I apologize for that.
You’ve really been through the wars lately and you’re still recovering, so we should all cut you some slack. Thankyou for continuing the good fight! (cheers smiley)
August 8th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
No problem here either.I can’t see the edges of some pages. Which may have something to do with it
Cheers And all the best …
August 9th, 2011 at 12:10 am
U.S. citizens Torture suit against Rumsfeld allowed
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/08/08/18526371.html
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago, upheld a decision by a federal judge in Illinois to allow the lawsuit to proceed despite efforts by the former Bush and current Obama administration to get the case dismissed.
Of course.
August 9th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Hey Jon, sorry about the anal warts while you were out of it at the hospital. Go get tested
Best regards,
Your nurse Bubba.
BC Online ‘greeting cards’ notify for sex infections
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Online+greeting+cards+notify+infections/5224670/story.html
It’s not an online greeting card you want to see in your inbox. That is, until, you realize the implications.
The electronic “greeting” cards are for people with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) who wish to notify their sex partners they should get tested. Recipients may not be happy to get such messages, but they will likely be grateful for the inSPOT (Internet notification service for partners or tricks) service just launched by the BC Centre for Disease Control.
yeeeesh.
August 9th, 2011 at 1:17 am
Video of UK riots the BBC refused to show (cops running from the protestors)
https://yfrog.com/0wtduz
London Riots: Canadian Blackberry to help Police, encrypted messages be damned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/london-riots-blackberry-messenger-looting
Patrick Spence, the managing director regional marketing at Research In Motion (RIM), confirmed that the BlackBerry manufacturer had contacted police to assist with the investigation.
…RIM complies with UK legislation on the interception of communication and co-operates fully with the Home Office.
…The manufacturer has previously insisted that even it cannot unscramble users’ messages when sent on the devices.
Needless to say, this will be interesting to follow.
August 9th, 2011 at 1:36 am
hm, this is interesting.
Facebook Claims It Can Use Kids’ ‘Likes’ As it Likes, Wants Class Action Tossed
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/08/38793.htm
Doesn’t Canada have laws in the books in regards to marketing and direct advertising to kids? Doesn’t Quebec have additional laws in regards to this?
The U.S. doesn’t? It’s a 1st amendment right?
Would be interesting to see how the courts take this one on in both Quebec and outside Quebec.