Slashdot Mirror

Got this in the mail yesterday:

--

Subject: Sunset Plan for L0phtCrack (LC) Products

Dear LC Customer,

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Symantec Corporation is
discontinuing its L0phtCrack (LC) product line and will no longer
provide product code updates, enhancements or fixes to this product
line.

Key dates in this process are listed below.

Last Order Date: February 28, 2006

Last Ship Date: March 3, 2006

Customer Help Until Date: December 16, 2006

Symantec will continue to use reasonable commercial efforts to provide
available customer support by email to US and Canada based customers who
purchased L0phtCrack (LC) products through the dates indicated above.
As a courtesy to LC customers, we offer customer help via email
regarding product usability inquiries through December 16, 2006.

An FAQ for Licensed Users of L0phtCrack (LC) Products is also attached
to help answer commonly asked questions. If you have additional
questions about our notification, please contact us by email at
mailto:Americas-LCcustserv@symantec.com.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Sales Operations
Symantec Corporation

Dear LC Customer,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Symantec Corporation is discontinuing its L0phtCrack (LC) product line and will no longer provide product code updates, enhancements or fixes to this product line.
Key dates in this process are listed below.
Last Order Date: February 28, 2006
Last Ship Date: March 3, 2006
Customer Help Until Date: December 16, 2006
Symantec will continue to use reasonable commercial efforts to provide available customer support by email to US and Canada based customers who purchased L0phtCrack (LC) products through the dates indicated above. As a courtesy to LC customers, we offer customer help via email regarding product usability inquiries through December 16, 2006.
An FAQ for Licensed Users of L0phtCrack (LC) Products is also attached to help answer commonly asked questions. If you have additional questions about our notification, please contact us by email at mailto:Americas-LCcustserv@symantec.com.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Sales Operations Symantec Corporation

Dear LC Customer,

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Symantec Corporation is discontinuing its L0phtCrack (LC) product line and will no longer provide product code updates, enhancements or fixes to this product line.

Key dates in this process are listed below.

Last Date to Order LC5: February 28, 2006

Last Ship Date: March 3, 2006

Customer Help Until Date: December 16, 2006

Symantec will continue to use reasonable commercial efforts to provide available customer support by email to US and Canada based customers who purchased L0phtCrack (LC), products through the dates indicated above. As a courtesy to LC customers, we offer customer help via email regarding product usability inquiries through December 16, 2006.

An FAQ for Licensed Users of L0phtCrack (LC) Products is also attached to help answer commonly asked questions. If you have additional questions about our notification, please contact us by email at mailto:Americas-LCcustserv@symantec.com.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Sales Operations

Symantec Corporation

FAQ for Licensed Users of L0phtCrack (LC) Products

Question: What versions of the L0phtCrack (LC) product line are impacted by this Sunset Plan?

Answer: All versions of LC product line are impacted as described in this notification to customers. Symantec will discontinue its sale of the current and previously available versions of the product as well as its provision of product upgrades, updates and fixes for all versions of the product effective per the dates mentioned above.

Question: Why is the LC product line being discontinued?

Answer: The LC product line no longer fits into Symantec's future product strategy. As a result, Symantec will not be applying any future development resources to this product line and will discontinue all sales.

Question: What form of customer support is available to licensed users/customers of LC products?

Answer: LC Customers did not pay for technical product support as part of their LC license agreements, and Symantec does not offer technical support for this product line. Customers based in the US and Canada can inquire about general product use/usability by email to Americas-LCcustserv@symantec.com through December 16, 2006. Customers who re-install their licensed copy of LC and need an Unlock Code can submit an email request to Americas-LCcustserv@symantec.com with the following information through December 16, 2006:

LC version number (2.5, LC3, LC4 or LC5):

If LC5, please indicate if you've purchased the Professional or Administrator edition:

LC Serial Number:

Company Name:

Complete Company Address (street, city, state/prov, zip/postal code):

Company URL:

Nature of Business:

Commercial or Public Sector (if Public Sector, please specify government, military or police):

Contact Name:

Contact Phone Number:

Question: Can LC licensed users continue to use LC products after this Sunset Plan notification has been sent to Customers?

Answer: Professional and Administrator users have perpetual license to use the LC product they purchased. Consultant users have one year license from date of product receipt to use the LC product they purchased.

Question: Where can the customer get more information about LC5 and the FAQ Documentation about the product?

Answer: LC5 product information is available with the software installation of the product under the Help menu. Licensed LC customers may also submit product inquiries to Americas-LCcustserv@symantec.com with the following information through December 16, 2006:

LC version number (2.5, LC3, LC4 or LC5):

If LC5, please indicate if you've purchased the Professional or Administrator edition:

LC Serial Number:

Company Name:

Complete Company Address (street, city, state/p

Some replys suggest xcopy32 or Norton Ghost to make mirror backups. I suggest Robocopy ("robust copy") from (yea, I know I know) Microsoft. It comes in the Win 2003 Server RK, or Google it. It includes a lot of options more suited to performing mirror operations, especially when copying over a network.

I agree with him as far as "Linux users using Linux" goes. People that already use Linux don't need over simplicity.

However, 90% of everything I do is simplifying something to the point that a complete and total moron can use it. If I didn't make something overly simple then I would have to explain things to the people, who are in fact overly simple.

For example, if I sent this out as an email:

SimbOS.Cardtrp.J http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/symbos.cardtrp.j.html has infected one of our roadwarriors. Please check your mail carefully.

I would spend three days with the following conversation ad nausium:
user: What is that SimbO thing?
me: Follow the link it will explain everything.
user: What link.
me: i re send link
user: what is that for?
me: that is the link for the information for the SimbOS threat you were asking me about.
user: oh that SimbO thing? Is it in my e-mail? Do I have it?
me: slamming my head against the monitor until i'm rushed to hospitol for the only vacation time i'm allowed.

I don't understand anyone who thinks it was some kind of security risk to publish this. Are you kidding me? For one, this is pretty well known informaton (it's not exactly hard to google for a list of common passwords). Two, pretending that such lists don't exist won't get you anywhere. Thousands of people use insecure passwords, users are stupid, etc. End of story.

I mean, fuck, Symantec publishes stuff like this without batting an eye. [scroll down]

The other day I spent over an hour fixing a friend's computer. She couldn't visit secure sites with IE. To help me determine if the problem was with IE itself or the system's networking in general, I downloaded Firefox, and it couldn't get online at all. A little googling showed me the problem was due to Norton Internet Security being fucked up. Learning that, I had to jump through many hoops to uninstall it.

Fuck Symantec.

...where they go and buy Norton AntiVirus for Macintosh.

Your post rang bells in a dark recess of my mind labelled 'Elder Virus Lore', and I had to check with Google.

January 5th is Joshi's birthday.

Never mind the Nazi stuff, I think the Sober guys are just paying tribute to a viral classic :)

Computer Associates does. As does Microsoft Defender. I couldnt find anything about Lavasoft. Also I didnt see anything on Symantec, other than that Sony is an OEM partner

Symantec Antivirus 10 which is coming out soon integrates spyware/adware detection and removal with their standard AV client.

Now he says that clicking on the popup in question installs an Apropos spyware.

Automated - honeypots
this web page is based on that concept.
https://analyzer.symantec.com/default.asp

1. Ad-Aware SE
2. Spybot Search & Destroy
3. SpywareBlaster
4. Microsoft Anti-Spyware
5. Some Anti-Virus Program that you like (at my work, we install Norton even though it is a resource hog, but never Norton Internet Security since it eventually always fucks a computer up)

Set your Anti-virus program to scan at least weekly, and automatically update itself, Update and sca with Ad-Aware and Spybot weekly at a minimum, and update and protect with SpywareBlaster weekly at a minimum.

It is absolutely ridiculous that a person should have to do this to keep their computer running decently. We get so many Windows machines in the shop that it isn't even funny, but thusfar, whenever we have managed to convince someone to upgrade to a MacOS X machine (Typically when their Dell, Compaq, HP, E-Machines has a motherboard failure). They have came back completely excited and astonished that they don't really have to worry about spyware and viruses so much.

My reccomendation on keeping your WIndows XP machine in top performance. Go buy a high-end Mac and run VirtualPC if it can run whatever program you NEED to run (Note: Games do not count), if you cannot run your Prorgram under VPC, buy a low-end PC and keep it off the network.

This rootkit was designed to hide a legitimate application, but it can be used to hide other objects, including malicious software.

McAfee(R) AVERT(tm) recognizes that this program may have legitimate uses in contexts where an authorized administrator has knowingly installed this application.

Microsoft is only removing XCP, not the DRM. I haven't been able to find any statements from Microsoft regarding the DRM at all.

It has been reported that music CDs released by Sony BMG contain a so-called rootkit, a tool that is normally meant to hide a backdoor, a tool used by hackers so that they can break in at a later time. Some viruses contain a rootkit so that they can hide themselves.

This particular rootkit is used to hide the Digital Rights Management software used by Sony BMG to prevent illegal copying of their CDs. However, several security experts have found that viruses and backdoors can easily be hidden using this rootkit. This rootkit also has been known to cause systems to crash. In addition, attempting to remove the rootkit by deleting the files will cause your CD drive to be disabled.

Due to this finding, we must ask that you not play any copy protected music CDs in any ***** ******* computer at this time. If you are not sure whether a CD is copy protected, do not play it. In addition, we recommend not playing copy protected music CDs, especially those released by Sony BMG, in your personal computers.

If you would like to find out whether your system has been infected by this particular rootkit, please follow these directions:

1. Create a new folder somewhere on your hard drive, naming it test (without the quotes).
2. Make sure that the folder is there, and then rename it to $sys$test (again, without the quotes).
3. If the folder disappears, you have the rootkit. A removal tool is available at: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/FixR yknos.exe

Again, thank you for assisting our efforts in preventing the spread of this rootkit.

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/securityrisk.aries.html
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/FixR yknos.exe

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/securityrisk.aries.html
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/FixR yknos.exe

You want to run games? Great! [snip]

Doing some development? Nothing but the best for Windows users [snip]

Let me add to your post:

Like viruses and hackers bringing down your computer? Enjoy spyware? Great! Check out these things:

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/vinf odb.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8& q=windows+worm+virus&btnG=Search+News

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=gn&ie=UTF-8& q=windows+spyware&btnG=Search+News

"WARNING: Removing this security risk...may violate the manufacturer's end-user license agreement."

I don't believe they ever released a patch that outright disables this functionality (that'd be stupid); rather, they fixed the problem with their software:

Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the Windows Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec security software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and is available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products. The update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you have the Windows Security Center installed.

The blame solely lies on Symantec, who had months and months to prepare/patch their software (they didn't even have to wait for SP2 to come out.) In fact, many other AV vendors had already updated their APIs before SP2 came out.

It will come up because it is true.

As for the worm, I didn't say it was a flaw in Linux, I was merely pointing out that security issues that affect Linux systems will rise as the success of Linux rises.

Maybe you should mod that as 'master of the obvious', but it doesn't make it any less accurate.

True, very true. Unfortunately, AWStats is extremely popular on personal and small business web servers. Its presence is extremely probable as it's a free and feature complete log analyzer. :-(

I really do wonder if the script can infect an OS X machine running AWStats? Many posters seem to think the answer is 'No'. Sadly, the article is shy on details, but I think the answer may be 'Yes'. Which could make this the first available Mac OS X Virus.

What's really interesting, however, is the fact that the worm is very similar to the Slapper worm. The only difference is that it exploits common PHP/CGI software rather than Apache itself. A coincidence, or a new revision of the same virus?

Symantec has a more coverage description page at http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/linux.plupii.html including links to XML-RPC PHP1.x library vulnerabilities used by this malware. This worm is also known as Linux.Plupii and Linux/Lupper.A too. Internet Storm Center has a lot of technical information at their http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=823

McAfee sucks for real info, look at symantec or at my at summary. In short: Update your software on time. There are some small inconsistencies between what the worm attacks and what needs to be updated though.

From http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/securityrisk.aries.html

WARNING: Removing this security risk manually may damage the compromised computer's operating system and may violate the manufacturer's end-user license agreement.
Symantec Security Response strongly recommends installing the software update provided by the manufacturer

Isnt that wonderful? "Removing this security risk may violate the manufacturer's EULA"

Yes, I would hate to do something illegal. I think I'd much rather install the *new* version of their spyware instead

Symantec and others are reporting the existence of an in-the-wild "linux worm". Symantec calls it Linu.Plupii. Naturally I submitted the story to Slashdot several hours ago and they rejected it! It's not really a Linux worm but a worm that exploits a PHP language library called XML-RPC for PHP. Many bulletin board/forum boards are affected.

There is now a story on the Register about it as well. Patch your XML-RPC for PHP!!

Hope you weren't joking.

I wonder how that would work. Forgot to pay your annual Norton bill? Didn't download the latest virus definitions? Will it be illegal to run XP without keeping it updated and protected? Grandma's being taken off in handcuffs for buying a Walmart box and not properly attending to the security issues?

The only ghosts I see at office is Norton Ghost. Oh, you mean a different Ghost. Nevermind. [grin]

Actually, it's more like "If you use windows, make sure you have the right ghost!"

"while Linux is generally regarded as more secure". Ya, just like Firefox is more secure then IE. http://www.symantec.com/press/2005/n050919a.html

While the author is smart enough not to make the statement definitive ("regarded as"), the implication is clear. Just remember, Firefox was "regarded as" bullet proof until it started gaining market share, and as soon as it did, there came the holes.

The Linux market is so incredibly tiny that no hacker looking to make money takes the time to hack Linux. The fact of the matter is Linux, by all market saturation to security flaw/bug ratios (e.g. bugtraq), is just as vulnerable as Windows and OSX.

Two exceptions for Windows that don't apply to OSX/Linux is that the Media reports MS holes, and "techies" try to come of age by bashing MS.

Look at many of the people on Slashdot, some are talented and have some good personal reasons for hating MS, first hand, but most don't. Read the posts and most of it is a bunch entry level guys just out of school trying to sound like they know what they are talking about... they just blanket bash MS with a vengeance. Others spread FUD about MS just as much as MS spreads FUD about Linux. Again, intellectually dishonest.

Media? Look at Google News, they headline MS holes for weeks, and rarely a mention of Apple's never ending software updates. Linux, well, anyone who uses it knows the answer to that, no press though.

I'm so tired of people bashing MS just for the sake of it. Admittedly MS isn't perfect, and puts out some crappy products, but not all, and the alternatives aren't all rosy like the Linux/OSX group like to pretend. The reality is MS makes a flawed product, just like OSX, and just like ALL the Linux distros. Get over it.

Alright, I'm off my soap box. Begin the /. flaming.

...it may very well be game over for Symantec.

I'm not so sure. While it's true that Norton/Symantec Anti-Virus is one of Symantec's big packages, it's not the only software they sell. Their recent acquisition of PowerQuest gave them all that software, including Partition Magic. They have a very active Ghost division, a division that while it might not be quite as profitable as AV, likely makes a fair bit. They've also got several other products like spam/virus filtering. The lists of their Home, Small Business, and Enterprise products are pretty large. If Symantec did completely close down it's AV division, while it might hurt the company for a while and cause a number of jobs to be cut, they have plenty of other products available to keep on going, at least long enough to re-group and put their focus someplace else.

On another topic, these issues are interesting. It's not so much that Microsoft is trying to bully Symantec out of business as it seems they are really trying to improve the view most people have on the security of Windows. XP SP2 gave users a "free" firewall which has drastically cut down the spread of worms and the like. It only seems logical that the next logical step in securing an OS is to control and protect the content already on the system, namely with an Anti-Virus agent.

You could look at this as saying that the reason that Symantec and others were able to sell AV and firewalls in the first place was because Microsoft was deficient in OS security. Now that they're catching up with it, any specialized companies that took advantage of this niche are going to hurt unless they can focus on something else. "Diversified interests" applies to large companies just as it does to personal portfolios.

Yes, it sucks for these companies, but it's not the same thing as if Microsoft started offering Office free with Windows.

...it may very well be game over for Symantec.

I'm not so sure. While it's true that Norton/Symantec Anti-Virus is one of Symantec's big packages, it's not the only software they sell. Their recent acquisition of PowerQuest gave them all that software, including Partition Magic. They have a very active Ghost division, a division that while it might not be quite as profitable as AV, likely makes a fair bit. They've also got several other products like spam/virus filtering. The lists of their Home, Small Business, and Enterprise products are pretty large. If Symantec did completely close down it's AV division, while it might hurt the company for a while and cause a number of jobs to be cut, they have plenty of other products available to keep on going, at least long enough to re-group and put their focus someplace else.

On another topic, these issues are interesting. It's not so much that Microsoft is trying to bully Symantec out of business as it seems they are really trying to improve the view most people have on the security of Windows. XP SP2 gave users a "free" firewall which has drastically cut down the spread of worms and the like. It only seems logical that the next logical step in securing an OS is to control and protect the content already on the system, namely with an Anti-Virus agent.

You could look at this as saying that the reason that Symantec and others were able to sell AV and firewalls in the first place was because Microsoft was deficient in OS security. Now that they're catching up with it, any specialized companies that took advantage of this niche are going to hurt unless they can focus on something else. "Diversified interests" applies to large companies just as it does to personal portfolios.

Yes, it sucks for these companies, but it's not the same thing as if Microsoft started offering Office free with Windows.

...it may very well be game over for Symantec.

I'm not so sure. While it's true that Norton/Symantec Anti-Virus is one of Symantec's big packages, it's not the only software they sell. Their recent acquisition of PowerQuest gave them all that software, including Partition Magic. They have a very active Ghost division, a division that while it might not be quite as profitable as AV, likely makes a fair bit. They've also got several other products like spam/virus filtering. The lists of their Home, Small Business, and Enterprise products are pretty large. If Symantec did completely close down it's AV division, while it might hurt the company for a while and cause a number of jobs to be cut, they have plenty of other products available to keep on going, at least long enough to re-group and put their focus someplace else.

On another topic, these issues are interesting. It's not so much that Microsoft is trying to bully Symantec out of business as it seems they are really trying to improve the view most people have on the security of Windows. XP SP2 gave users a "free" firewall which has drastically cut down the spread of worms and the like. It only seems logical that the next logical step in securing an OS is to control and protect the content already on the system, namely with an Anti-Virus agent.

You could look at this as saying that the reason that Symantec and others were able to sell AV and firewalls in the first place was because Microsoft was deficient in OS security. Now that they're catching up with it, any specialized companies that took advantage of this niche are going to hurt unless they can focus on something else. "Diversified interests" applies to large companies just as it does to personal portfolios.

Yes, it sucks for these companies, but it's not the same thing as if Microsoft started offering Office free with Windows.

Yep. They should've pulled Systemworks on version 2.0, which was simply a repackaged version 1.0 with a couple of extra third party programs to "round it out". Version 1.0 and version 2.0 were identical except that they added Dantz Retrospect Express Backup and Aladdin Spring Cleaning and called it version 2.0. I've boycotted their products ever since.

They actually had a version 3 at one point, it's still on their site. And they even have the nerve to sell it with NUM, which they discontinued for the Mac, what, last year...

To be used at the owner's expense...

WinCE.Duts.A
Category 1
Discovered on: July 17, 2004

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/wince.duts.a.html

Symantec, does indeed need to create fear of threats where there aren't any. They sell an anti-virus for Palm OS even though most Palms don't connect to anything. They cite an actual TWO threats discovered in the wild in 2000.

Symantec's business smodel is to get US$29 or so per year from EVERY computer on the planet. They can't let any platforms go "un-taxed."

Symantec the-company-that-sells-security-software-oriented- to-Microsoft-products says Firefox isn't really that much more secure than IE:
http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39 152423,00.htm

But Symantec the-company-that-sells-security-information (through its controlled company SecurityFocus) says IE 6 SP2 has 57 unpatched vulnerabilities, compared to Firefox's 3:
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?l=1 &c=12&vendor=Microsoft&version=6.0%20SP2&title=Int ernet%20Explorer
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?l=1 &c=12&vendor=Mozilla&version=1.0.6&title=Firefox
http://www.symantec.com/press/2002/n020717.html

Hmm, conflict of interests...?

Care to support that assertion with some solid facts and numbers?

Care to support that assertion with some solid facts and numbers?

Care to support that assertion with some solid facts and numbers?

Care to support that assertion with some solid facts and numbers?

Well, here's just one example of what I was talking about (and this isn't the AUTOEXEC.NT and/or CONFIG.NT issue).

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/sunset-c2002k b.nsf/9b60813077fffd2385256ee60055ac57/87712b45887 8809c85256edf00520ef4?OpenDocument&src=bar_sch_nam

This virus has been in the wild since at least early 2002.

Here's Symantec's take on the virus:

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc /data/linux.rst.b.html

They dont have security stuff other than for winblows

That's right, there's no Norton AntiVirus for Mac, nor is there Norton Internet Security for Mac, and there's definitely no Norton Personal Firewall for Mac.

Oh, hang on...

They dont have security stuff other than for winblows

That's right, there's no Norton AntiVirus for Mac, nor is there Norton Internet Security for Mac, and there's definitely no Norton Personal Firewall for Mac.

Oh, hang on...

They dont have security stuff other than for winblows

That's right, there's no Norton AntiVirus for Mac, nor is there Norton Internet Security for Mac, and there's definitely no Norton Personal Firewall for Mac.

Oh, hang on...

Oh well, Symantec of course, riding on the proprietary platform of Microsloth is going to be biased.

Mozilla browsers have the most vulnerabilities

During the first half of 2005, 25 vendor confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers,
the most of any browser. 18 of these were classified as high severity. During the same period, 13 vendor
confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for Microsoft Internet Explorer, eight of which were high severity.

  Mozilla browsers have the most vulnerabilities

The Web browser is a critical and ubiquitous application that has become a frequent target for
vulnerability researchers. In the past, the focus of security has been on the perimeter: servers, firewalls,
and other systems with external exposure. However, a notable shift has occurred, with client-side
systems--primarily end-user systems--becoming increasingly prominent targets of malicious activity.
More and more, Web browser vulnerabilities are becoming a preferred entry point into systems.
During the first half of 2005, the Mozilla browsers, including Firefox, had the most vulnerabilities of all
browsers. During this period, 25 vendor confirmed Mozilla vulnerabilities were disclosed, compared to 32
in the previous reporting period and two in the first half of 2004. 18 of the 25 Mozilla vulnerabilities in this
period, or 72%, were classified as high severity. This is up from the 14 high-severity Mozilla vulnerabilities
in the second half of 2004 and one in the first half of 2004.

During the first six months of 2005, 13 vendor confirmed Microsoft Internet Explorer vulnerabilities were
disclosed. This is a decrease from the 31 documented in the second half of 2004.26 During the first half of
2004, seven Internet Explorer vulnerabilities were confirmed by Microsoft.
The average severity rating of the vulnerabilities associated with Internet Explorer during the first six
months of 2005 was high. Eight of the 13 Internet Explorer vulnerabilities disclosed during the current
period, or 62%, were considered high severity. 18 Internet Explorer vulnerabilities were considered
high-severity in the last six months of 2004, amounting to 58%. In the first half of 2004, four of the
seven, or 57%, were rated high severity.

[...]

The fact that Mozilla browsers had the most vendor confirmed vulnerabilities over the past two six-month
periods may suggest that Mozilla is currently acknowledging and fixing vulnerabilities more quickly than
other vendors. This could be because the Mozilla browsers are open source and may be more responsive
to reports of new vulnerabilities and subsequently developing and delivering associated patches. For
instance, except in certain instances,60 Microsoft releases fixes on a relatively fixed schedule rather than
as needed, potentially increasing their acknowledgement time.