[Rys]

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/...acquire-mcafee

I'm not sure what to make of this at all. Any best guesses as to why, other than they're just buying a profitable software company?

[Malo]

Maybe they're looking at going back to trying to enable anti-virus in the chip level.

[Florin]

I reckon it might've been wiser to buy a more modest antivirus player like say Eset or Avast. But I suppose it is all about McAfee's extensive patent portfolio.

[Davros]

Originally Posted by Malo

Maybe they're looking at going back to trying to enable anti-virus in the chip level.

I used to have a motherboard with an enable antivirus option

[3dilettante]

I was worrying that Intel's processors were becoming dangerously overfast. Integrating Mcafee should fix that.
I guess we now know what all those unused cores will be doing from now on.

Intel's interest is in formulating platforms, and adding more on the software side would give it a further edge over competitors like AMD. Then there's the number of vertically platforms in the tablet level and below that have shunned Intel so far.

I don't know. Integrating a more aggressive security scheme into the firmware and hardware level may keep Mcaffee below the level of a root kit, perhaps. Given the number of bumbling, inefficient, and ill-advised security measures and hooks AV vendors have implemented at the OS level (to the point of compromising Vista and Windows 7 even further than they already are), I can see some problems coming if they are granted even lower access.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

I was worrying that Intel's processors were becoming dangerously overfast. Integrating Mcafee should fix that.

Thanks, I needed that.

[rpg.314]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

Then there's the number of vertically platforms in the tablet level and below that have shunned Intel so far.

Call me stupid but I cannot see how an av would help them in that market either. That market relies on a hard lockdown of platform to achieve security, and is for the most part reasonably effective. And for this, they paid ~$7.5B. In CASH.

This is going to be controversial, but if you need an av to run your system, then your OS is a failure. If I can't have justifiable peace of mind running all my stuff, without the burden of this needless junk, then I don't need AV/firewall/malware defender, I need a better OS.

[3dilettante]

The new thing is for malware and spyware to be installed in the factory, perhaps through compromised security at the manufacturer or distributor, at least for certain embedded products.

Maybe Mcafee would be used in a more active extension of Intel's Trusted Computing initiative.

[rpg.314]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

I was worrying that Intel's processors were becoming dangerously overfast. Integrating Mcafee should fix that.

Or they could just cripple it on AMD cpus

[digitalwanderer]

My only question about this acquisition would have to be why?

[rpg.314]

I am not a businessman, but can someone explain me the rationale behind it.

HW anti virus would cool, it's efficacy, viability and it's coming to market is another question.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

I was worrying that Intel's processors were becoming dangerously overfast. Integrating Mcafee should fix that.

ROFLOL!

Originally Posted by rpg.314

I am not a businessman, but can someone explain me the rationale behind it.

I can only speculate it may be due to Intel's continued push into mobile x86 computing. With their new cellphone SoC/chipset, maybe they feel being able to offer an antivirus solution along with their hardware platform would bring them a competitive edge.

HW anti virus would cool, it's efficacy, viability and it's coming to market is another question.

HW AV would probably make Intel run afoul of antitrust legislation. Besides. I don't see how it would be viable from a practicality and performance standpoint.

[itsmydamnation]

macfee do a lot more then just AV. Hell most of US DOD firewalls are Mcafee. there firewalls do reputation based blocking which as far as im aware none of the other big EAL4+ firewall players do ( juniper/cisco/check point).

they have been trending up and to the right on all of gartners magic charts, so a company with a good base of customers with unique features and the potencial to take market share in the near to mid term.

doesn't seem like a bad buy if you have the cash.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

But most people who know about these things would kill themselves rather than install any McAfee products.

Does it still screw your system and email when you try to uninstall it?

[Bludd]

Only good McAfee product imho is the AVERT Stinger scanner.

http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/

[Arun]

I think this is even worse than the Wind River acquisition one year ago. It seems to me that there's no point for Intel to be making all this money. Given how stupidly they spend it (WiMax & Clearwire anyone?) I can't help but think there is something to be said for AMD's previous business model of "lose money by the truckload" and NVIDIA's current "fail hilariously at execution" - at least they don't get to waste it all on useless gimmicks.

[Alexko]

Originally Posted by Arun

I think this is even worse than the Wind River acquisition one year ago. It seems to me that there's no point for Intel to be making all this money. Given how stupidly they spend it (WiMax & Clearwire anyone?) I can't help but think there is something to be said for AMD's previous business model of "lose money by the truckload" and NVIDIA's current "fail hilariously at execution" - at least they don't get to waste it all on useless gimmicks.

Seriously though, I don't understand why Intel bought McAfee either, but they might have some sort of grand master plan that we just don't see.

I know they have deep pockets but I doubt even Intel would spend over $7 billion on a whim…

[Ike Turner]

Answers : Intel exec Renee James discusses goals for McAfee http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20014160-64.html

[3dilettante]

The prospect of including hardware-based security components is interesting, but the point has been made that there is a good chance that an Intel/McAfee security solution that would stir up legal fights with the rest of the security industry and regulators.

Whatever hooks Intel puts into its platform would then need to be opened up, so Intel has payed billions of dollars for the priveledge of a future product that it will need to open up to the competitors of its new acquisition.

There is some risk involved, such as a low-level flaw or compromised backdoor into Intel's platform at the level of hardware implementation. That could be more embarassing than an FDIV problem.

The McAfee name and its infrastructure and ties to many institutions is valuable, though, even if the security interface needs to be made open.

[rpg.314]

Originally Posted by 3dilettante

The prospect of including hardware-based security components is interesting, but the point has been made that there is a good chance that an Intel/McAfee security solution that would stir up legal fights with the rest of the security industry and regulators.

Whatever hooks Intel puts into its platform would then need to be opened up, so Intel has payed billions of dollars for the priveledge of a future product that it will need to open up to the competitors of its new acquisition.

There is some risk involved, such as a low-level flaw or compromised backdoor into Intel's platform at the level of hardware implementation. That could be more embarassing than an FDIV problem.

The McAfee name and its infrastructure and ties to many institutions is valuable, though, even if the security interface needs to be made open.

Intel is dominant in cpu's, so whatever regulators will do, it will be to help amd and via, not other av makers. I don't know, but I am doubtful if McAfee is dominant in av market. For instance, regulators haven't forced intel to open up hooks into their networking controllers for instance.

A bug in hw av will be quite disastrous. But there are a lot of things that can be done (which will actually help) like hw packet filtering/checksum offloading etc. without needing to buy McAfee.

[3dilettante]

Originally Posted by rpg.314

Intel is dominant in cpu's, so whatever regulators will do, it will be to help amd and via, not other av makers. I don't know, but I am doubtful if McAfee is dominant in av market. For instance, regulators haven't forced intel to open up hooks into their networking controllers for instance.

Regulators, or the threat of them, were what made Microsoft provide kernel hooks for the likes of Symantec and McAfee, which significantly compromised security in general.
There would be serious concern that the dominant computing platform AV software must run on could preferentially hook into one AV suite or deoptimize competitors.

A bug in hw av will be quite disastrous. But there are a lot of things that can be done (which will actually help) like hw packet filtering/checksum offloading etc. without needing to buy McAfee.

There's the infrastructure McAfee has, and its name, which is valuable all by itself. That is something Intel could not provide for its products on its own.

[Rolf N]

I wonder if this is about the patent portfolio more than about products.

[Davros]

Intel should have place a big advert
"hey mcafee programming dudes work for us we'll give you 5x your current salary"
An order of magnitude cheaper than 7billion

Davros wonders why he isnt ceo of intel

[rpg.314]

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/08/...bought-mcafee/