Anti-Virus's control fetish

NAI lawsuit exposes industry foibles

"Network Associates would never sponsor nor condone attempts to censor anyone anywhere."

Uttered for Forbes by NAI el Jefe Gene Hodges and published 4 February in an article in which he denied the company had tried to churlishly prevent Vmyths founder Rob Rosenberger from going forward with a commentary embarrassing to the firm. It is my favorite quote this month.


It's unparalleled, even ballsy, meretriciousness. What guts it must have taken to say it, knowing that someone could peremptorily clothesline you publicly over the issue of censorship, but betting that they would not!

But luck was no lady, the dice came up snake-eyes, and three days later New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a lawsuit against Network Associates over an odious clause -- a "restrictive covenant" in the parlance -- that the company had employed in its end user license agreement to hinder the public's ability to criticize its software products. "It is unconscionable that a reputable software developer such as Network Associates would seek to chill and censor public speech . . ." read Spitzer's boilerplate PR.

And so everyone got another opportunity to acquaint themselves with how Network Associates wrenches true causes false ways. In this case, the messy job of damage control was left to a fixer from the legal department. "We only want to ensure that potential reviewers of our software have the most current version" is an approximation of the cant prepared for the job. It was an exquisite misapplication of language because it allows the company just enough wiggle room to discredit all potential future bad news about its product by claiming the review inaccurate due to lack of current version -- the current edition being always whatever the company says it is, always potentially one minor revision ahead of the disobedient consumer.

You must admire the propagandistic skill that went into coming up with such a thing. To twist the interpretation of a demand that is inimical to consumers into something that almost sounds solicitous takes no small measure of ingenuity. And getting a reporter to print it without immediately following it with something supercilious is an even more awe-inspiring talent.

However, this is just in the natural character of corporate anti-virus.

Too Animalistic

You see, way back in the mists of time -- like the late '90s -- the American anti-virus market was a great deal more competitive than it is now. It was accurate to call it a mutually antagonistic, animalistic industry where everybody woke up to the new day hoping everybody else had failed the night before.

Inspecting the software of competitors for the purposes of planting bad news and nasty reviews was an industry game. Many played it clandestinely; the makers of the McAfee anti-virus, however, often wound up in the spotlight for such oafish practices.

For instance, in 1997 McAfee's (now Network Associates) beta-test division uncovered a security gap in Symantec's Norton Utilities. The company promptly went to Windows Sources magazine with the information. The magazine subsequently published the code McAfee Associates had ferreted out. Outing someone's internal mess for the sake of business embarrassment is, of course, pro forma comsec practice. But I do not recall any McAfee employees checking with Symantec to see if they had the correct version of the software before publication of product hostile information.

The same year, the company "reviewed" the software of a UK-based competitor in a strange press release that complained of a "cheat mode" present in the rival product.

It read: "The cheat mode can cause Dr. Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit to show inflated virus detection results when the product is being reviewed by trade publications or independent third party testing organizations..."

At the time, Dr. Solomon's Anti-virus Toolkit was regularly detecting more viruses than the middlebrow McAfee anti-virus, so -- in a sense -- one could, indeed, sort of say that Solomon's virus detection rates were "inflated" with respect to the other.

As a claim, though, it sounded so irrational it had no effect other than to provoke gales of laughter in anti-virus circles at the martinet-like behavior of the company.

In 2002, however, there are far fewer competitors to wake up hating. Real competition has long since fallen by the wayside; the anti-virus industry is a long-stagnant domain. But the corporate propensity for paranoid bile remains an institutionalized part of its character. It is never surprising, then, when it spills onto consumers or any outsider who might choose to say something unfavorable.

Anyone who has worked in the anti-virus industry since the late '80s knows its fetish for controlling behavior is deeply rooted, and unlikely to be muted by just one lawsuit.

© 2001, all rights reserved.

Related Story

NY sues NAI so you can say McAfee sucks

Other stories you might like

  • Twitter founder Dorsey beats hasty retweet from the board
    As shareholders sue the social network amid Elon Musk's takeover scramble

    Twitter has officially entered the post-Dorsey age: its founder and two-time CEO's board term expired Wednesday, marking the first time the social media company hasn't had him around in some capacity.

    Jack Dorsey announced his resignation as Twitter chief exec in November 2021, and passed the baton to Parag Agrawal while remaining on the board. Now that board term has ended, and Dorsey has stepped down as expected. Agrawal has taken Dorsey's board seat; Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor has assumed the role of Twitter's board chair. 

    In his resignation announcement, Dorsey – who co-founded and is CEO of Block (formerly Square) – said having founders leading the companies they created can be severely limiting for an organization and can serve as a single point of failure. "I believe it's critical a company can stand on its own, free of its founder's influence or direction," Dorsey said. He didn't respond to a request for further comment today. 

    Continue reading
  • Snowflake stock drops as some top customers cut usage
    You might say its valuation is melting away

    IPO darling Snowflake's share price took a beating in an already bearish market for tech stocks after filing weaker than expected financial guidance amid a slowdown in orders from some of its largest customers.

    For its first quarter of fiscal 2023, ended April 30, Snowflake's revenue grew 85 percent year-on-year to $422.4 million. The company made an operating loss of $188.8 million, albeit down from $205.6 million a year ago.

    Although surpassing revenue expectations, the cloud-based data warehousing business saw its valuation tumble 16 percent in extended trading on Wednesday. Its stock price dived from $133 apiece to $117 in after-hours trading, and today is cruising back at $127. That stumble arrived amid a general tech stock sell-off some observers said was overdue.

    Continue reading
  • Amazon investors nuke proposed ethics overhaul and say yes to $212m CEO pay
    Workplace safety, labor organizing, sustainability and, um, wage 'fairness' all struck down in vote

    Amazon CEO Andy Jassy's first shareholder meeting was a rousing success for Amazon leadership and Jassy's bank account. But for activist investors intent on making Amazon more open and transparent, it was nothing short of a disaster.

    While actual voting results haven't been released yet, Amazon general counsel David Zapolsky told Reuters that stock owners voted down fifteen shareholder resolutions addressing topics including workplace safety, labor organizing, sustainability, and pay fairness. Amazon's board recommended voting no on all of the proposals.

    Jassy and the board scored additional victories in the form of shareholder approval for board appointments, executive compensation and a 20-for-1 stock split. Jassy's executive compensation package, which is tied to Amazon stock price and mostly delivered as stock awards over a multi-year period, was $212 million in 2021. 

    Continue reading
  • Confirmed: Broadcom, VMware agree to $61b merger
    Unless anyone out there can make a better offer. Oh, Elon?

    Broadcom has confirmed it intends to acquire VMware in a deal that looks set to be worth $61 billion, if it goes ahead: the agreement provides for a “go-shop” provision under which the virtualization giant may solicit alternative offers.

    Rumors of the proposed merger emerged earlier this week, amid much speculation, but neither of the companies was prepared to comment on the deal before today, when it was disclosed that the boards of directors of both organizations have unanimously approved the agreement.

    Michael Dell and Silver Lake investors, which own just over half of the outstanding shares in VMware between both, have apparently signed support agreements to vote in favor of the transaction, so long as the VMware board continues to recommend the proposed transaction with chip designer Broadcom.

    Continue reading
  • Perl Steering Council lays out a backwards compatible future for Perl 7
    Sensibly written code only, please. Plus: what all those 'heated discussions' were about

    The much-anticipated Perl 7 continues to twinkle in the distance although the final release of 5.36.0 is "just around the corner", according to the Perl Steering Council.

    Well into its fourth decade, the fortunes of Perl have ebbed and flowed over the years. Things came to a head last year, with the departure of former "pumpking" Sawyer X, following what he described as community "hostility."

    Part of the issue stemmed from the planned version 7 release, a key element of which, according to a post by the steering council "was to significantly reduce the boilerplate needed at the top of your code, by enabling a lot of widely used modules / pragmas."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022