If I had to guess, it's all of them. By "them" I mean all the anti-virus packages that are targeted at consumers and small business. That seems to have been part of the business model starting over a decade ago. My guess is that the negative effects of anti-virus is what prompted Microsoft to first build free products and then eventually roll anti-virus into Windows.
I'd put it this way. My first inkling that something was wrong was when Norton Anti-Virus shifted to a subscription model and charged me full retail for a renewal back around 2006. What does disabling virus updates for ordinary users with the explicit intent of leaving them vulnerable says about a company's attitude in regard to long term trust?
I left Norton for Kaspersky and paid it protection money for a few years. It seemed refreshing at first. One day, a few years later, I learned how to look at my LAN traffic and saw how often I was sending data to its servers. It was more often than seemed reasonable. That's about the time Microsoft started providing its own free anti-virus and I started switching machines...the Windows XP Professional x64 box stayed on Kaspersky despite my misgivings until I upgraded it to Windows 7 because Microsoft did not port its anti-virus to that platform.
Spyware is often the basis for free software. Adobe Reader and Google Chrome and the Ask toolbar that shipped with Java are pretty obvious examples.
If I could take a guess I'd say its likely to be Avast, which has multiple browser extensions that send all your browsing activity to them, while simultaneously offering a service to remove other browser extensions.
They'll even set their own search engine as your default homepage.
I'm not anonymous. You can identify me by going to my profile if you'd like.
To be completely honest, I don't remember. It was 2 years ago and I sit on lots of these pitches. I remember pushing back on them about the methodology, hearing how the sausage was made, and noping right out.
I want my team to be able to spend marketing dollars efficiently but I would never compromise my ethics to do so. Luckily I work somewhere that I can give a justified 'no' and keep my job.
Actually, I can't identify you from your HN profile. I guess I could google your username or something, but I'm a little unclear why you wouldn't just, you know, say where you work.
> > [I'm not anonymous. You can identify me by going to my profile if you'd like. ...] Luckily I work somewhere that I can give a justified 'no' and keep my job.
I'd put it this way. My first inkling that something was wrong was when Norton Anti-Virus shifted to a subscription model and charged me full retail for a renewal back around 2006. What does disabling virus updates for ordinary users with the explicit intent of leaving them vulnerable says about a company's attitude in regard to long term trust?
I left Norton for Kaspersky and paid it protection money for a few years. It seemed refreshing at first. One day, a few years later, I learned how to look at my LAN traffic and saw how often I was sending data to its servers. It was more often than seemed reasonable. That's about the time Microsoft started providing its own free anti-virus and I started switching machines...the Windows XP Professional x64 box stayed on Kaspersky despite my misgivings until I upgraded it to Windows 7 because Microsoft did not port its anti-virus to that platform.
Spyware is often the basis for free software. Adobe Reader and Google Chrome and the Ask toolbar that shipped with Java are pretty obvious examples.