Intel ditches McAfee brand: 'THANK GOD' shouts McAfee the man Intel has announced plans to phase out the infamous McAfee anti-virus brand over the next year in favour of a new Intel Security brand. The re-branding will begin immediately, but the transition will take up to a year before it is complete with the introduction of new versions of security software products from the technology …
I think John McAfee was far more damaged by association with that shit software than vice versa. I actually find the guy pretty cool. A programmer who personally made it on to a South American president's hit list, got himself smuggled across borders, waged an espionage campaign against said corrupt politicians with bugged laptops, honey traps and has a sense of humour too (see video).
Versus a processor-munching piece of shit that you have to download a well-hidden utility just to uninstall and which it's almost impossible to buy a laptop without. A piece of software whose sole utility is to make Norton look good.
The only disappointment in this article was I thought we would *actually* be getting rid of the software, not simply same shit, different name.
I can't help but wonder what you people are doing wrong. I have McAfee SaaS End Point protection which is just a cloud managed version of their AV software and it runs great. I've seen no slow down on Windows 7 or 8. Updates and Scans happen when no one is looking so they don't hinder a thing either. I was able to show my kids the reports that showed how many times they visited risky websites and they actually took the information and modified their behavior. After the third month they started heeding the warnings and their computers have not had to be re-imaged since. (Re-imaging was an every other month affair when they discovered Minecraft mods)
Mike
This post has been deleted by its author
And there I was thinking that was the Symantec Norton mess (just try removing it). Early versions were OK, but as of about 2006 it brought a powerful quad core machine with MASSES of RAM (6GB, well, it was big in those days) to a crawl. After a lengthy uninstall process (I cannot count the times I must have said "Die, Symantec!! DIE!!!!"), and install of a competing (free) product, the same machine was back to it's responsive self again.
I am happy to take McAfee's word for it, but other contenders for the title of worst software abound, I suppose.
Should the reg introduce IT Razzies?
It's not that difficult to remove Norton software with the right equipment.
http://www.jaybeehammermills.com/products.html
The DIY solution: KMnO4 + Fe2O3 + Al (with a strip of Mg for the fuse)
Or let the pros from 36th Civil Engineering Squadron do it their way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_xt-0fLhKI
Icon added in case you're not sure which solution I endorse.
Not used Norton in a bazillion years - memories aren't good, but McAfee (not the man, the shit software) must at least be a contender for the very worst ubiquitous software award.
I suspect the real reason for the name change is that most people agree, and Intel are simply unable to shift enough disks of the crapola.
All AV software eats pretty much all available CPU + 10% as soon as you start opening files. I tend to use ClamWin + ClamSentinel (mainly because it's open-source, having used AVG, Avira, and half a dozen others in the past). Having AV running typically makes "patch Tuesday" a case of leaving the machine installing updates overnight.
Not all of it. Back in the day I used and recommend software called E-Safe. It had a very light foot print and never let any of the bad stuff in. It was so paranoid it wouldn't even install it's own signature updates without your explicit approval after the file was downloaded. People tended not to like it because you had to spend a fair chunk of time teaching it how to handle things. At some point I had issues trying to get a license for it and switched to something else, so I can't speak to how well it works these days. Back when I was using it I think they were based in Israel, these days they run out of Seattle, Washington.
Apart from where I have had to use a work provided Windows machine, I haven't used AV since I stopped using my Atari ST.
I have a home windows machine which has internet access, I don't run programs I find on the internet, I disable all browser plugins, and I'm particular about what software gets installed - nothing from Adobe. If you send me an excel or a word document, I'll either ask you to re-send in text, csv or pdf, or just ignore it.
I do all my banking etc on a non windows machine, the windows one is for games really.
This seems to keep me plenty safe - I suppose the only vector still open is drive by malware targeting chrome - but I was wondering are there many other thrill seekers out there?
I used to do this, but I used my Windows box as my main one, and had Flash player and Java installed. I got cold feet purely from these two attack vectors, so installed Kaspersky.
I dont really notice the speed loss with an SSD, but it definitely screwed up my boot time on my old SATA drive-run antique.
@Tom 38
I can very well understand this point of view. And I share it. I might get a virus on my gaming winbox but its better than certainly having a virus because I intentionally installed it.
I gave up on antiviruses when they slowed my machine to a crawl and couldnt tell the difference between my pic programming software and a trojan. Now I work on linux machines and have a winbox for my games.
I occasionally get told that without this software I wont know if my machine is infected. I respond saying that neither will they (very poor detection rates) and if it reports a virus they will likely ignore it and use the machine as usual anyway (no matter how many times I tell them to reinstall) either assuming a false positive or (my favourite) have stuff they cant lose so cant afford to reinstall.
"I have a home windows machine which has internet access, I don't run programs I find on the internet, I disable all browser plugins, and I'm particular about what software gets installed - nothing from Adobe. ... but I was wondering are there many other thrill seekers out there?"
I used to have this mentality, i.e., "as long as I don't do anything risky, nothing bad will happen." Unfortunately that's not true with Windows. I ended up getting Sasser back when it first came out (no defense against that), and then a couple years later I mounted a friend's drive with some videos and my OS got p0wned when Explorer tried to generate thumbnails for the videos. (If you ask me, that's several counts of software engineering fail. What is the user benefit of the file manager crunching and grinding on external code to pick out a seemingly-random frame of video and display it at a resolution that makes it unrecognizable anyway?)
Shortly thereafter I switched to Apple, don't run any AV software, and haven't had a problem since. Plus I can do my work better anyway since OS X gets along with Unix-y software/files/protocols/etc. Well worth the extra cost.
Norton never stopped a virus. It just told you your machine was infected by disabling itself in the system tray.
The software equivalent of curling up in the corner and crying "Not in the face! Not in the face!"
Mcaffee ground your machine down to such a crawl, that it was literally too slow to catch a cold.
AVG is schizophrenic. The resident shield runs as a system service, and therefore can detect viruses locked away in system restore snapshots, screaming bloody murder when it does, but since the triggered scan runs under your account it sees nothing and reports "dunno what you're on about, mate", only for the resident shield to scream "VIRUS!" a few minutes later.
Sophos is the mega paranoid tin foil hat wearer, flagging almost anything you download as "suspicious behaviour"
MSE by contrast could be advertised like a feminine hygiene product. "You won't even know it's there"
> Mcaffee ground your machine down to such a crawl,
There was a time when, a few months after buying the latest machine, you could walk into a shop and the machines on display would be noticeably faster than the one at home. After just a year or two you would decide that it was worth while to upgrade yet again and get a machine with a CPU several times faster.
That all changed at the beginning of the new millennium when even budget machines became 'good enough' and the shop machines were not a noticeable improvement. This has now resulted in fewer PCs being sold each year as users fail to upgrade so often. In fact I have just replaced the machine that I do most of my work on due to a complete disk failure - it was from 2003, and was trailing edge then. But for the fail would still be good for another few years. (It wasn't Windows though - Mandrake 9.1).
So other means had to be found to keep sales going. By making existing machines slow down it would then seem that new machines would give a worthwhile improvement. This was done by having disk access timing increase based on the time since last install. The main effect was on anti-virus software which access all files. Vista made the mistake of making the slow-down all at once so it was too obvious and was noticeable even on simple file copies. Windows 7 had to repair this and make the incremental throttling over a much longer period. Too long as it turned out. With XP and Windows 7 it has taken much too long and consequently sales are 20% down this year.
Windows 8 took another track and, instead of slowing down disk access, they deliberately slowed down the user interface, the idea being that new touch screens would be faster and this would fuel replacements of existing PCs.
I have to grudgingly agree about MSE. It's not amazing, but wherever it doesn't have to be, it just works, and keeps out of the way. Plus it updates with Windows, so you just forget it's there.
I set my (web dev) partner's Win 7 PC up with Comodo. That's my favourite for Windows machines. I haven't used the others for years...
Yep, it's light weight, unobtrusive, looks after itself with updates and is free for both personal and business use (on up to 10 computers). There's a lot to like about Microsoft Security Essentials.
The only thing it isn't, unfortunately, is very effective. In my experiences, it's not even as effective as AVG, which isn't saying much.
Queue up all the people who say that they've been using it for X amount of time and never had a problem. I can personally say the same for using no antivirus software. See this shit in the field, with the very users that need protection the most, where it fails to stop and/or fails to remove something it's already let get hooked.
It's an easy mistake to make, to be impressed with security software if all you do is watch their gyrations on a clean computer and let them nag you with ominous sounding messages about trivial objects or actions they block, or worse... pop up messages that a file or web site is deemed to be safe. (Fuck off, Norton)
I have stopped installing Microsoft Security Essentials on customer computers, and I remove it on sight these days and install something stronger (Avast, Avira, even AVG for grandmas that have gotten along well with it in the past. Sometimes something they already know is the best choice.) If someone wants to buy something, I like Eset Nod32.
NEVER those asshole Internet Security suites though. (Cure worse than disease)
I've never used it but was surprised when geeks on malware forums said they used it to good effect. The user reviews on CNET aren't encouraging, and they don't look like shill reports. However you can block a good chunk of most of the junk that gets on the PC by running as a restricted user account, and running a good file cleaner like CCleaner. This will take care of a lot of the miscreants you might catch out there; but if you don't keep your applications, and operating system up to date and to a tee, a zero day vulnerability could wipe out that advantage.
Many of my clients like utilities like SpwareBlaster, Spybot Search & Destroy, Windows Defender(the anit-malware one). and Winpatol, for freebees that can keep a lot off your computer in the 1st place, and for free. Everyone I know, in the PC maintenance field seem to agree that the only anti-malware worth buying is MBAM. I like to keep Super Anti-Spyware on board as a fast scanner, to double check the other blended defenses. I don't recommend buying it, because I'm not really convinced it does any more than the restricted account to help keep crud off the account before it can be established. It is okay as far as the administrator account. This is only an opinion on free anti-malware comparisons. This is also only the tip of the iceberg on a good blended defense.
The computer works as fast as the day I bought it, and still boots up in a few seconds.
All the software I use is purchased, or popular shareware and free. And I don't surf the web into dodgy territories or install any so called 'download managers' I see on many sites.
But I see my computer as a tool, for a job, not some kind of install everything sponge.
Why are people installing these massive, bloated and complex AV beasts on their systems?
Well, because that pirated copy of Photoshop, and that 'try before you buy' game could have all sorts of nasties in them, and you don't want that now, hey.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
