Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Symantec To Acquire PGP and GuardianEdge

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the well-that's-different dept.

Businesses 160

An anonymous reader noticed the news that Symantec has bought PGP and Guardian Edge for $370 million. They plan to standardize their encryption stuff on PGP keys.

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

suckitude (4, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032344)

Let the soul sucking begin!

Re:suckitude (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032470)

It means hold on to your current PGP versions.

I wont be trusting Symantec with it.

What are good open source alternatives?

Re:suckitude (5, Informative)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032538)

GnuPG [wikipedia.org] is what you're looking for.

Re:suckitude (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033802)

GnuPG is what you're looking for.

Is GnuPG what you need when what you are looking for is a uniform GUI for the non-technical end user and enterprise deployment and management tools for your business?

Re:suckitude (4, Informative)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034088)

It *is* uniform if you pick one of the available GUI's and standardize on it.

Re:suckitude (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036388)

GnuPG (gpg) is the underlying tools and libraries. As locklin states parralel to me, there are plenty of GUIs out there.

Have a look [gnupg.org] but realize that there are even more out there, these are just the hilights.

Re:suckitude (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032838)

Because you trusted it when it was in the hands of McAfee? LOL.

Encrypt file containers, partitions with TrueCrypt (5, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033226)

TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] is reliable, reputable, fast, free, open source, and works on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

The TrueCrypt documentation is very good, but not perfect.

TrueCrypt can encrypt a file that contains other files (a drive letter) or encrypt an entire partition, even the boot partition.

No one I know has any connection with TrueCrypt. We are just happy users.

Re:Encrypt file containers, partitions with TrueCr (3, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036408)

Truecrypt is not the same thing as PGP/GPG. Truecrypt is great, mind you, but it is not public key cryptography and signing, with web-of-trust. It's just data encryption and hiding.

Re:suckitude (0, Redundant)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033378)

Check out TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] for full disk encryption. Not many FDE vendors left after Symantec scoops up these two. FreeOTFE [freeotfe.org] does volume encryption but no boot loader for FDE.

Of course, if you're not stuck on Windows many recent distros support installing on an encrypted root volume. The Ubuntu alternate install CD is one of them.

Re:suckitude (2)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033492)

TrueCrypt is great for hard drive or file encryption, but PGP does a lot more than that like email encryption, digital signatures, certificates and the "web of trust" feature [wikipedia.org] .

Re:suckitude (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033912)

OSS alternatives?

If you want basic signing and not using smart cards, gpg is very good. Hard disk encryption, TrueCrypt is the utility for Windows.

But unfortunately, there are features that PGP has that you are not going to find in other places, and most have to deal with business/enterprise level requirements. Some examples:

Smart card support, especially on boot.
Ability to use smart cards to sign/decrypt PGP format files.
Whole disk encryption on the Mac. One can say FileVault is good for that, but there are laptop thieves more interested in what license keys a Mac has (so they can "borrow" them) than what is in someone's home directory.
Key servers.
Key recovery.
Enterprise infrastructure requirements. These don't matter to individuals, but the ability to recovery data using an ADK is crucial for regulatory compliance in some cases.
Hard disk encryption with multiple passphrases.

I'm sorry to say, but I hope Symantec treats their product lines well. It will suck if this is lost.

Re:suckitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034590)

I wont be trusting Symantec with it.

Yet you trusted Network Associates? No difference between the two companies.

Re:suckitude (5, Informative)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032614)

Not off-topic at all.

Symantec will more than likely manage to screw this up just like they screw everything else up. Seriously, once upon a time their virus stuff was good. Now, you've gotta jump through hoops to remove it, their enterprise-level customer service is garbage, so I can only imagine how bad their home user support must be, and at some point their code base for the AV stuff grew so bloated you could run a Toyota (poorly) off it.

What's wrong with pointing out that they're simply gonna screw it up?

Re:suckitude (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032730)

Symantec will more than likely manage to screw this up just like they screw everything else up. Seriously, once upon a time their virus stuff was good. Now, you've gotta jump through hoops to remove it...

Symantec has always made great virus stuff. That shit fucks up a system to no end, and is hell to cleanly remove.

Their anti-virus stuff on the other hand, has always been shit. It fucks up a system to no end, and is hell to cleanly remove, and doesn't do it's job.

Re:suckitude (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033310)

-1 funny...you win at the internet sir.

FWIW, I thought it was amusing. Like little kid amusing, you know, when your friends retarded brother eats a crayon or something.

Nah, I kid. Your comment was spot on. :)

Re:suckitude (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033324)

... and doesn't do it's job.

hey hey now.. that was uncalled for - last time i checked Symantec makes a lot of money off that crap, i'd say it is serving it's intended function quite well

Re:suckitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32035358)

I'd disagree here. Norton as a home product is one thing, but Symantec's enterprise offerings have been pretty good overall. Symantec Enterprise Protection is something I'd recommend to businesses. One of its biggest advantages is that it isn't yearly subscription based like the Norton line is, so come 366-367 days, a machine that has a copy of SEP still will be grabbing virus definitions and remaining up to date.

Of course, these days, I'd probably give a client a choice of A/V software. For home/SOHO work, MSE, Avast!, or AVG work well. For business/enterprise use, I'd probably go with Forefront, SEP, or a utility that suits a client's needs the best.

Negative is too positive, in this case. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033348)

Considering my extensive experience, you are being too positive about Symantec.

Re:suckitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034338)

If you think Symantec is bad you should look at McAfee. McAfee is a pain in the ass to deal with. Symantec only to the extent they sell you more than you really need. Although even what you really need is the anti-malware/virus part and even that doesn't really work because the stuff you really need is actually a fix to the holes which can only be provided by Microsoft and a handful of other companies that provide the proprietary components people are using. Which leads us to what people really need is free software solution that can be streamlined into one package management and update system. Ohh that would be Ubuntu. haha I sell that. Now if I could only get more people to buy into it. Actually I'm doing a pretty decent job of selling it. What I'm lacking is the financials to keep the damm products in stock.

Re:suckitude (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034854)

Yeah no crap, and not just their AV. Anybody remember when Norton Utilities was actually good? Man those were the days, we wouldn't hardly let a PC out of the shop until they had bought a copy of Norton Utilities. Hell Norton's Disc Doctor was light years better than anything MSFT had for Win9X! Then Symantec bought it and it went from a "must have" to a tool more likely to cause screw ups than to actually fix them. Norton, Partition Magic, man it seems like every decent tool Symantec gets their hands on turns to big piles o' poo.

Well to the guys that made PGP...it was nice knowing you, thanks for all the encryption. I hope your next business is as successful as your last, but hopefully not successful enough to get bought by Symantec. Oh and for those old timers that miss the AIO goodness of Norton Utilities I would recommend Tuneup Utilities [wikipedia.org] . Great tool for keeping a Windows machine humming nicely. I use it myself as well as sell it to my customers and they couldn't be happier. Registry, broadband, startup, defrags, you name it, Tuneup will automate it. Gotta love their "turbo" button if you are a gamer, as it kills all unnecessary background tasks, turns off any themes, and generally kicks your game a little kick in the pants.

You can get a free key for last year's version here [mytechquest.com] if you just want to give it a spin. I have a feeling once you try it you'll probably buy the latest version like I did, as like Norton before Symantec they get better every year. damned shame about PGP though, this old greybeard hates to see any decent company get swallowed by such a craptastic company.

Re:suckitude (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035436)

It was the "Norton Utility" in its early days; NDD appeared later and it was great for DOS but didn't catch up with Windows early. Symantec did a good job with Ghost, you have to give them credit for that.

As for PGP, I don't have a problem with them buying the PGP company. Keeping in mind that GnuPG is the real deal, if "Symantec PGP" means more clueless people using good security that's more power to us since it weakens the "if you hide it then its not legal" argument and it also decreases the signal to noise ratio for cryptanalysts.

Re:suckitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034920)

Symantec currently makes a great security solution. Instead of following religious dogma or popular opinion bashing you should do some research and fact checking [av-comparatives.org] for yourself. They did go through a pretty bad spot for a while so the criticism isn't unwarranted but it's no longer accurate. I always recommend people review their security solutions annually. Sometimes a good vendor can go through problems and not be the optimal solution through a given software version. Both Kaspersky [kaspersky.com] and AVG [lunarsoft.net] have had serious problems as well.

Symantec, Kaspersky, AVG, MBAM and several other major vendors have pretty good support forums to help users. What is wrong with your point is that it relies on FUD to support it not facts.

Symantec provides local, intranet, and remote backup solutions. I would guess this acquisition is to support their products and provide their user base with a more secure solution.

I'm posting AC because I'm moderating and no I didn't mod you down even though your "informative" post isn't really all that informative or insightful.

Re:suckitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034954)

Symantec will more than likely manage to screw this up just like they screw everything else up.

Too bab, PGP Corp already did that. Big $ licensing fees and annual subscription renewals? Get lost.

You know the only time PGP is actually useful? When you and other people you know use it. Putting big $$$ in the way doesn't help this.

Re:suckitude (1)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034092)

Nice to see that Symantec is continuing its tradition of buying terrific products solely to bloat them, screw them up, and effectively turn them into shit.

BackupExec, Norton Utilities, Brightmail... it's like they've got some kind of bizarre scatological alchemy going on.

I do hope that the whole disk encryption solution that PGP was offering for Mac and Linux will continue to be supported; IIRC Symantec tends not to focus overly much on non-Windows solutions.

Not bad (5, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032350)

It's Pretty Good Proprietory!

Re:Not bad (2, Insightful)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032808)

But, according to my bosses, that proprietary stuff is better! It has support contracts and since we buy the license, that must mean it's good.

It's not like Opensource stuff comes close, right?

Well, that is true for Outlook email client interfacing, which is a crapshoot anyways. The rest OpenSource handles quite well.

Re:Not bad (1, Offtopic)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032914)

The rest OpenSource handles quite well.

Which is why professional graphic design have all dumped Photoshop for Duh GIMP? And all those people who work in professional video arena have dumped all their proprietary tools for KDenlive?

Re:Not bad (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033022)

Here's where we get into the point of "professional tool" vs. "something I install on my home PC". For professional people, the cost of software like Photoshop, VS.Net, Final Cut Pro, and others is almost completely insignificant. Compared to all the other costs of doing business, it's almost crazy not to pay for it. However for the home user, or hobbyist, these products seem completely out of range with what you get out of them. When you pay $300 for a computer, even $50 on a windows license, or $50 for a word processor seems like a lot of money. That's why in a lot of cases you'll see the companies offering cut down versions for much cheaper, or even free, which will get the job done. Keep the mindshare, and still get professionals to pay for the full product.

Re:Not bad (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033246)

Here's where we get into the point of "professional tool" vs. "something I install on my home PC".

The GP was talking about software for his job. So no, your point has nothing to do with the topic.

For professional people, the cost of software like Photoshop, VS.Net, Final Cut Pro, and others is almost completely insignificant. Compared to all the other costs of doing business, it's almost crazy not to pay for it. However for the home user, or hobbyist, these products seem completely out of range with what you get out of them.

That's why home users buy Photoshop Elements [amazon.com] and they will download Visual Studio Express.

Re:Not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033876)

Reading comprehension. You need to learn it. You just regurgitated CastrTroy's point.

Re:Not bad (2, Informative)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033152)

I was specifically talking about PGP vs. GPG.

Re:Not bad (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033602)

Which is why professional graphic design have all dumped Photoshop for Duh GIMP? And all those people who work in professional video arena have dumped all their proprietary tools for KDenlive?

GIMP started as a toy project. It's much better now, but would certainly profit from a major redesign (and I'm *not* talking about UI here). As far as video editing is concerned, what about Lightworks? :)

Re:Not bad (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033094)

Where's the "sad but true" moderator category when you need it?

Re:Not bad (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033280)

You shouldn't be using PGP for email encryption anyways. S/MIME is built into almost all modern email clients. The real reason that email encryption has not caught on is that it is basically impossible to implement it in webmail clients. (although signing is still possible).

Re:Not bad (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033420)

True, as I was looking at S/MIME with openSSL. That implementation would be quite clean, with the right certificates.

Turns out they wanted more than S/MIME and GPG/PGP was the next tool on the list to look at.

Also true about the webmail client. I have a firefox addon that'll do both sign and encryption for gmail, but never really have a use for it.

Re:Not bad (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033434)

how does "signing is still possible" imply "encryption is basically impossible"?

SSL is encryption.

Re:Not bad (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035088)

Maybe you should look up what a signature is...

Re:Not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32036400)

my point was that you should look up encryption......

Re:Not bad (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036508)

Start reading. [wikipedia.org]

You apparently have a very minimal understanding of what SSL/TLS actually are.

S/MIME trust model (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034742)

You shouldn't be using PGP for email encryption anyways. S/MIME is built into almost all modern email clients.

Does S/MIME work with a web of trust like that of PGP and other implementations of OpenPGP, or does it rely exclusively on central commercial certificate authorities?

Re:S/MIME trust model (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035110)

S/MIME relies entirely on central certificate authorities. Of course in a corporate environment you would create your own certificate authority.

Re:S/MIME trust model (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036538)

Which is great and all, for everyone who don't have a magical CA available to them, or the cash to shell out to a commercial CA.

Re:Not bad (3, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034776)

If I want top notch security and not trusting some firm (possibly a CA that is offshore and is hostile to anything the country I reside in anyway), I will be using a PGP/gpg web of trust. I will either get a copy of the public key of someone face to face printed physically with a fingerprint (and will download and verify the public key and has from a keyserver), or I will agree on a passphrase that is used only once, and that is to send and receive a copy of the public key.

I also don't like keeping my public key that would be needed for S/MIME on an online machine. My secure private key resides on a machine that isn't Internet connected, it will reside on a smart card, or it will be on a smart card and used on an offline machine, so an attack would have to be done on a physical/local level in order to compromise my private key material. I do use S/MIME and a client key, but that is mainly a stopgap, better than nothing measure, compared to actual end to end manual encryption of data with gpg or PGP.

PGP WOTs were in use a lot in the early to mid 1990s by cypherpunks, but for the most part, convenience won over security and it is extremely rare for someone to use a public key of someone to send mail. A good WOT is far better than a CA. I have more trust in a public key claimed to be someone that is 3-4 links out from me on my PGP/gpg keyring than I do a key that is signed by a CA and told "hey, trust us." Of course, creating a WOT is a lot harder than just letting a CA do the work, but like Phil Zimmermann said, it is better to pack your own parachute when security is critical.

Another use for PGP over S/MIME is signing of files. A signed E-mail is difficult to forward and keep the integrity intact. However, if I have a file and a PGP/gpg signature of it (or just a PGP signed file), I can forward it, archive the two files, back them up to whatever backup media, and all it takes is a validation in the future to ensure that the file and the signature were not tampered with, assuming I have the public key in my keyring, and that hasn't been tampered with. Of course, I can use facilities like the file signing capabilities built into Acrobat, Word, or other software, but again, I have to use a third party CA, or pay for a special signing key, as opposed to a secure WOT. Plus, some files (archives and such) can't be signed internally, so having a separate .sig file is needed.

S/MIME is decent, built into most dedicated E-mail clients, and is better than nothing. However, if you want reliable E-mail security, you are best off using a PGP/gpg WOT.

Re:Not bad (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035174)

I just want a nice lock icon in clients inboxes. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. :P

Re:Not bad (2, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033376)

    You know, I've seen a lot of that in the corporate world. That's why folks have gone with RHEL rather than Fedora. They get to pay for something, so they feel better about it.

    Of course, Microsoft servers are that much better, in that they can pay more for them. :)

    Way back in the day, one boss was interested in going to Linux, but he couldn't find anything that satisfied his needs to pay for it. That was primarily a BSDi shop, but it switched over to Windows because we could pay. Even under BSDi, they had paid for licenses, but didn't want to pay to upgrade to current, so we had quite a few problems, including getting network and SCSI card drivers that worked. It became a quest to find new hardware that was still supported by the older version.

  It was a hosting company, and it broke anyone's sites with CGI's on them, so they grudgingly allowed customers to request to be moved back over to the *nix platform machines.

    {sigh} I hate it when the misguided interests of the bosses are in conflict with the customers. Needless to say quite a few customers jumped ship when their sites broke and the migration path back to a *nix platform was very slow and manual.

    Another place I was at was bent on support contracts. They refused to believe that a free version of Linux could run their custom software. They still refused to believe it when I demonstrated on my Slackware workstation. When I asked how many times they had requested support, they admitted it had never happened. It's not a matter of *using* the contract, it's a matter that it's there to make them feel warm and fuzzy.

Re:Not bad (1)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035898)

Actually, CentOS is the free version of RHEL; Fedora has an 18 month lifecycle.

You'd have to be some kind of masochist to deploy that as a server to an environment of more than a few servers.

Re:Not bad (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036240)

There are a few OpenSource email clients that do a decent job. Evolution works as well as Outlook, and Thunderbird + Lightning trumps Live/Windows Mail. Where OpenSource falters, is they don't have a solution that works better, or equal to Exchange and costs less. There are open-source Exchange-like servers, but are generally hindered in some way for the open-source version, or require a closed-source plugin to be really effective with Outlook, and/or other exchange clients. Usually this licensing winds up being more costly than even hosted Exchange solutions, while providing lower service levels.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032356)

toast

Smart move (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032370)

This is a smart move on their part, but I just have a really bad feeling about this.

I have zero trust when it comes to Symantec.

Scary (1)

desertjedi85 (1701804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032392)

Having my data encryption in Symantec's hands makes me feel extremely safe..... NOT!!!

Re:Scary (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032752)

Just another enterprise company that Symantec will acquire, make a half-hearted attempt to integrate it into their company, then systematically lay off all the workers, outsource product development to India, release a nearly completely nonfunctional successor to it, and eventually cancel it outright after the support contract revenue dries up. I've seen this worthless company pull this stunt too many times to expect anything different.

Note to CEOs: getting acquired by Symantec is corporate suicide. If you care at all about your employees or your product, the correct answer is not "no", but rather "hell f**king no". Just saying.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033786)

Ye but on that note, the CEO Dunk I'm sure is sitting pretty with what that SOB got out the deal.
Nice move dude, sell your soul why dont you...oh too late.

PGP leadership already bolted. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32035908)

PGP co-founder takes OS security job with Apple
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/22/jon_callas_joins_apple/

Pretty Bloated Privacy (1)

Fraggy_the_undead (758495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032406)

oh great, just what everyone was waiting for.

Re:Pretty *Bogus* Privacy (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032608)

You can just bet there will be backdoors for the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc in no time.

Re:Pretty *Bogus* Privacy (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032690)

>> You can just bet there are already backdoors for the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Pretty *Bogus* Privacy (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033214)

There was a time when despite not being Open Source licensed, the source was available. I don't know if it's still the case.

Re:Pretty *Bogus* Privacy (3, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034058)

Regardless, I would assume the NSA has its fingers everywhere. Backdoors are not trivial to catch in the source code, like the famous if (uid = 0) test on an obscure flag combination on an obscure call.

Don't get me wrong, I'll trust OSS a lot more if the code can be read by anyone,but what good is the potential if no one actually does it?

The beauty is the I don't do anything the NSA cares about, I just like my privacy. Anyone powerful enough to get my personal data has bigger fish to fry.

Re:Pretty *Bogus* Privacy (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035964)

but what if the agent just needs a few XP to "level up"??

Re:Pretty *Bogus* Privacy (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032712)

Some years ago PGP was bought by Network Associates Inc (which was a merger of McAfee + Network General).

McAfee, Symantec? Meh...

Open Source Alternative (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032452)

GPG is out there { http://www.gnupg.org/ } and we should use it.

Privacy is a human right. Democracy can't work if it's citizens are controlled like slaves in the roman empire.

Freedom is ours to take! Long live the RPG!

Re:Open Source Alternative (5, Funny)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032616)

Freedom is ours to take! Long live the RPG!

Rocket propelled grenades?

Re:Open Source Alternative (2, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033500)

    Ya, that doesn't quite make sense. An RPG survives until it hits the target. While I like explosions as much as any pyromaniac, they aren't designed to be long lived items unless you never use them. What fun is a box full of RPGs when you don't use it?

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033942)

I think he meant Final Fantasy.

Long live Final Fantasy indeed.

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034638)

Bah, Shin Megami Tensei is so much better.

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034366)

Long live ROT13!

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032648)

We live in a democracy ???? What country are you in?

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033616)

We live in a democracy ???? What country are you in?

Slashdot.

Be a patriot! Mod this comment up!

Re:Open Source Alternative (4, Funny)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032666)

And the sniper rifle. I've always been a stay out of harms way type of player:)

Re:Open Source Alternative (3, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033344)

"...that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of BOOM HEADSHOT!"

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033596)

+1 Frag

Re:Open Source Alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033878)

Fucking campers.

Re:Open Source Alternative (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035136)

As most of the powers in WWII figured out, the most efficient means of getting rid of a pesky sniper involves an excessive use of explosive directed in the general direction of the sniper. That said, those RPGs can come in very handy. ;)

in 3 years from now (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032516)

You can get a PGP key AND free 60 day trial of Norton 2013!

I his shocked. (0, Troll)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032554)

I his shocked at this development.... so shocked, I stole the summary's "h".

I don't trust Symantec (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032728)

This really sucks. In dial-up days, I used a cool, lightweight firewall application published by WRQ [wikipedia.org] called AtGuard [cryogenius.com] . Symantec licensed the product and incorporated it into their own software; the stand-alone product known as AtGuard then disappeared from the market. I used to use Partition Magic [wikipedia.org] . Again, Symantec bought it and it exists no more.

With that little bit of sample history, I'm sure we can bid PGP farewell.

Good news for GnuPG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032790)

You should all be using gpg =)

Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32032832)

PGP was bloatware before. Now that the most talented producer of bloatware in the world (Symantec) bought it, the PGP software will might soon win the bloatware of the year award.

Re:Lol (4, Funny)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032928)

> PGP was bloatware before. Now that the most talented producer of bloatware in the world (Symantec) bought it, the PGP software will might soon win the bloatware of the year award.

If Adobe bought Symantec I suspect the massive concentration of bloat would cause the creation of a super massive black hole that would eat instantaneously eat up the whole solar system.

Re:Lol (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32032966)

eat instantaneously eat up the whole solar system

Wow, so it eats it twice :-o

Re:Lol (1)

someSnarkyBastard (1521235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033224)

I think this just drives home how much suckage there will be if that were to ever come to pass.

Re:Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033902)

Bloat by definition is low density. I don't think we have anything to worry about with regards to black holes.

Re:Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034326)

If Adobe bought Symantec I suspect the massive concentration of bloat would cause the creation of a super massive black hole that would eat instantaneously eat up the whole solar system.

Not quite the whole solar system, you'd need to add SAP to the mix for that.

Re:Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034806)

I think that blackhole combination would take out the galaxy...

Re:Lol (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036032)

Only if done in a consortium along with T-Systems, Motorola and EADS.

Oh. My. God. (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033156)

I work for a giant TLA. [irs.gov] Our AV is Symantec. Our removable media and whole-disk encryption products are in mid-migration to all-GERS (from a combination of GERS and WinMagic).

We're headed straight to hell, aren't we?

Re:Oh. My. God. (4, Funny)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033440)

I work for a giant TLA. [irs.gov] ... We're headed straight to hell, aren't we?

humm I believe you have already arrived

Re:Oh. My. God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32033508)

He works for the IRS dosnt he? So yeah, he has his own slice of hell.

Not really... (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034568)

It's a pretty nice place to work if you're in IT. Other parts of the organization vary widely. Generally speaking, if you're willing to work hard at helping people, you can find a place to do it here.

This may be blasphemous, but I actually *like* my job.

Re:Not really... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32035038)

It's not blasphemous.. your fortunate that you like where you work and what you do.

personally i like where i work but not exactly what i do.. but i'll take the good with the bad to not have to live in an over crowded city and have more than a 15-20min commute

What is this, aquire and merger week? (4, Funny)

frambris (525874) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033174)

Everybody seems to buy eachother this week. By the end of the year the Internet is run by three companies: MicroApple (software), HP (hardware) and Ciscoogle (Internet)

Re:What is this, aquire and merger week? (3, Funny)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033468)

What do you mean? MicroApple has always been at war with Oceania!

Acronym change (3, Funny)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033366)

Now, it's Pretty Good Privacy. Soon, it will be Poof Gone Permanently.

Re:Acronym change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32034094)

Fork
Fork
FORK!

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32033708)

The good side to this is, they'll cram it into a package and force it down everyones throat, meaning more people will use encryption. This will at the very least make encryption more well known and possibly get normal people talking about it. Right now theres really no reason for any normal person to use encryption, regardless of what the paranoid slashdotters say. This will help get people thinking about it even if they don't need it.

The bad side is, it'll be a bloated, slow pile of shit.

The ugly side is, it'll encrypt everything just fine, but the password input mechanism will come with your password already entered for you so all you and visible in clear text, effectively rendering it useless ... just like their AV products.

This is fantastic! (4, Funny)

JonJ (907502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32034472)

I've always wanted encryption-software from people who can't write a fucking uninstaller properly.

Great, I can't wait for this to be pre-installed (1)

dwinks616 (1536791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036364)

I wonder how long until this becomes part of the Symantec Suite of malware that comes pre-installed as a trial in most big-box computers. Just think of the kind of money they'll rake in when the 60 days is up and the user is unable to decrypt their data... Of course, I'm sure it won't be encrypted by default, but it will certainly have some big red flashy box letting users know their computer is "at risk" and give them a shiny button to click to set up whole disk encryption. Then when the trial period is over, the passphrase quits working until they re-activate their encryption. Brilliant!!!

I'm still using PGP freeware version, heh (1)

simetra (155655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32036522)

I've kept a copy of the installer for the freeware version of PGP before they started getting uppity about it.
Works on XP just great. Version 8.0.2.... dunno if this version is still found in the wild....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>