symantec.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-07 00:55 · Score: 0 · on Symantec Support Gone Rogue?

I'm not surprised. Norton makes an anti-virus/anti-worm/anti-spyware product.
Not a general anti-malware/anti-adware product.

The sad thing is that this is about Norton 360:

Comprehensive, automated anti virus and anti spyware protection

Re:Uhm...? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2009-03-06 21:35 · Score: 1 · on Symantec Support Gone Rogue?

Here's a response from 2005 that was NOT cut and pasted:

The original URL was https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=103&message.id=17080, but they removed it. However, Google cache reveals all:

(Post from was Bob Sanford)

Attached is the final email received from the Backline Support Engineer from Symantec. For all interested in purchasing this product... think twice.

Our problem was scheduled reports fail and no email attachment is generated.

The software performs correctly in demo mode but does not work once we enter the serial number.

I guess buyer beware!

Here is the message:

Chris / Bob,

I left voicemail for each of you explaining the present status of this case?s issues. This email will give further details. The first issue where scheduled report jobs could not be run with SBS licensing will be addressed in an upcoming HotFix. I do not know the exact release date of the HotFix. The Second issue regarding Report Job email notification not attaching a report when configured will not be addressed at this time. This was looked at by engineering and was determined to be in a different area of code from the scheduled job issue and since yours is the only case we have received related to this particular issue, the priority is not sufficient for developing an immediate patch. Since this case was opened through Dell, I have notified our internal Dell representative about the issue and status. From a Tech Support, we have done all we can do. Bob, since this issue is obviously of great importance to you, I would recommend working through Dell to engage engineering or sales to raise the priority / visibility of this issue. If you have any questions, please let me know. The link below is for the TechNote released to cover the issue:

http://support.veritas.com/docs/281743

Regards,

Russ Perry

Backline Support Engineer

Symantec Corporation

www.symantec.com

Office: 407-357-7237

russell_perry@symantec.com

Re:Unbalanced? by Serious+Callers+Only · 2009-02-12 06:41 · Score: 1 · on Next Pwn2Own Contest Targets IE8, Firefox, iPhone

Please provide one example of a worm that spreads automatically on OS X.

OK. Because of people like you, anti-virus vendors have created a worm for OS X (I believe there are other examples):

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-021715-3051-99

It's not a commercial worm, but this sort of worm is possible on OS X, just more difficult. You talk as if this sort of exploit is impossible somehow on OS X, it is not.

Quite apart from that, you were wrong to say it has not been owned remotely - it has on multiple occasions had remote exploits via the browser. These require the user to visit a page with malicious javascript, that is all. Then a remote exploit commences. They do not require local access to the computer. Some have been patched, some are still open. Other browsers have similar exploits.

To quote your initial incorrect statement :

It's a lot more important to be secure from the 35 million people out on the internet than from the 2 that have an account on your computer.

The exploits I listed are not ones which require a local log in by the hacker, and this competition will specifically be testing browsers too.

Now you can play semantics, and try to twist remote to mean 'remote with no user action' but that's not what you said initially, it would not be a real world test, and that's not what the later stages of this contest test - last year I think they progressed from default locked down config, to services on, to visiting a web page. Last year the macbook was hacked via visiting a web page. A fair test given that most users don't leave their machine with no services on and never visiting web pages.

Vulnerabilities in web browsers certainly should not be dismissed as 'local' exploits - they only require minimal user intervention (clicking a link), and if that can lead to the system being compromised, it should be considered insecure. Indeed, after one initial infection, a worm could easily spread this way by emailing/iming contacts with a URL.

PS I run OS X, and don't run a virus scanner due to the lack of worms/viruses, but I don't view it as invulnerable, and neither should you. Your munition/shoe analogy doesn't make any sense, and implies that you really think that using OS X makes you somehow invulnerable to any exploits - it really doesn't.

Re:FireFox is right. by Phroggy · 2009-02-09 11:08 · Score: 1 · on Firefox Exec Says Windows Bundling Is a Bad Idea

In any case, this isn't like 1994 when people did not know how to download software. Right now, people download stuff all the time, from chat programs to games and utilities, and wallpapers, songs, and more. None of that is bundled, but people manage fine. Same thing with browsers.

No, users do not know how to download software, any more than they did in 1994. Most of those things you listed are available in a web-based form (e.g. chat, games, virus scan, radio, etc. etc.) and people are accustomed to jumping through the extra hoops you have to jump through to avoid downloading and installing new applications (e.g. using a web-based e-mail service instead of setting up a POP3/IMAP client).

I mean, Paint is bundled with Windows, but that hasn't stopped anyone from making their own paint programs, now has it?

How many can you name, that an average user has heard of? Paint Shop Pro is the only one I can think of, other than Photoshop and GIMP.

Re:See to believe.... by AmElder · 2009-02-05 23:05 · Score: 1 · on UK Conservatives Slammed Over Open Source Stance

It reeks of FUD.

Absolutely.

And all the security articles online have a dog in the fight, from Semantic's report earlier this year to the January edition of Linux Journal. It's all opinion or studies by partisans.

In debate, the reasons why FOSS projects should be secure -- many eyes, many hands, short development cycle, etc. -- they convincing. Something firmer than theory would be nice, though. More positive data, standards to help analyze and compare, would be good and healthy. We all know that bugs and design flaws can persist in open source.

Maybe the security criticism is an opportunity to examine more closely.

-whew first post out of the way-

Re:Windows 7 == Financial Calamity by tomhudson · 2009-02-01 05:00 · Score: 0, Troll · on More Indications Windows 7 Is Coming In 2009

Once the millions hear that they can get $50 back from Microsoft by refusing the EULA click-through, AND they can get an OS that doesn't need an anti-virus program, AND that most of their existing software, including games, will still work, they'll switch.

Saving $50 when a computer cost $5,000 didn't make sense. Saving $50 and getting rid of the virus problem (and its' associated costs) when a computer costs $250 makes a LOT of sense.

conflicker/downadup, antivirus2009.exe, coolwebsearch, etc., will keep on giving people incentives to switch.

Re:lame by MightyDrunken · 2009-01-30 03:33 · Score: 1 · on Obama Looking To Symantec CEO For Commerce

Symantec produces software that slows down your computer, makes your other software stop working, and makes itself difficult to uninstall. Pretty much the same as a virus.

As a long term victim of Symantec software you are absolutely right.
Though their anti virus software does work, it out competes any malware completely leaving no room for them to run, or anything else.
Symantec Endpoint Protection sucks, just view the Symantec forums for ample evidence.

Re:Symmantec out for the count by Buelldozer · 2009-01-28 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative · on Obama Looking To Symantec CEO For Commerce

What's your point? :grin:

http://www.symantec.com/norton/macintosh/antivirus

Re:Could it be hijacked... by achurch · 2009-01-24 22:00 · Score: 1 · on Downadup Worm — When Will the Next Shoe Drop?

Their might be built-in functionality in the virus itself for such operations, but I'd think that would increase the size of the binary too much.

In this day and age? Hardly. Not when the virus writer got around a blocking attempt by including a 75k data file right in the virus itself.

Re:Could it be hijacked... by arkhan_jg · 2009-01-24 13:46 · Score: 3, Informative · on Downadup Worm — When Will the Next Shoe Drop?

According to this analysis, the writers anticipated the daily domain-generation algorithm it uses to check for updates being reverse engineered, and they put in additional protection so that it would only download code from the original authors - presumably using some kind of key signing.

Technical examination by Prune · 2009-01-24 11:36 · Score: 5, Informative · on Downadup Worm — When Will the Next Shoe Drop?

There's a more technical examination of the virus at https://forums.symantec.com/t5/Malicious-Code/Downadup-Small-Improvements-Yield-Big-Returns/ba-p/381717

Re:ease of deployment by symbolset · 2009-01-18 06:49 · Score: 1 · on Windows 7's Media Hype Having the Opposite Effect As Vista's

Right now, ghost is still the most efficient way for us and our number of users, but I can see that changing.

And yet another corner of the mighty IT Ecosystem gets pulled under the Microsoft umbrella, with predictable results for competing platforms. It's a good thing there are open source solutions Microsoft can't kill.

They're after Adobe, too. All you Photoshop fans should be really nervous.

Re:so what? by m0n5t3r · 2009-01-11 11:19 · Score: 1 · on Storm Worm Botnet "Cracked Wide Open"

it's not like automatic virus removal hasn't been done before (remember the W32.Welchia family?) ;)

It's called software streaming. by RulerOf · 2008-12-19 10:50 · Score: 1 · on New Game Download Site Offers Play-As-You-Download Service

Software streaming is nothing new. Altiris, Citrix, and Microsft all offer solutions.

Microsoft's application streaming is the best of the three (in my opinion, from demoing each of them). They acquired it from another company, and the technology was formerly called SoftGrid.

It allows amazing flexibility, because all you really need to do is "sequence" the app, and it creates a file called Feature Block 1, which contains only the portions of the program required for initial launch. The rest of it is streamed on-demand as other parts of the app are accessed, and also in the background at all times.

You deploy apps by associating them with security or distribution groups, and as long as the client machine has the app-v client, you're set.

I've used it to sequence apps like Quake 3, Counter-Strike, and Warcraft 3 for my home network.

Re:Wrong, and bad summary, as usual by ThrowAwaySociety · 2008-12-03 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Apple Says Macs Are Safe, No Antivirus Needed

Nice post, but you have one MAJOR fallacy included.

Wrong. Totally wrong. Mac antivirus software ONLY scans for W32 viruses as those are the only payloads that there are definitions for.

Wrong. Totally wrong.

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/threatexplorer/azlisting.jsp?azid=O

Yes, there are fewer than a dozen OSX.* malware variatns for which definitions exist, and most of them are essentially never seen in the wild...but that's infintely more than none.

Re:Wrong, and bad summary, as usual by daveschroeder · 2008-12-03 09:02 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Apple Says Macs Are Safe, No Antivirus Needed

E.g.:

Symantec: The attached installer will automatically update Norton AntiVirus for Mac virus definitions and engine files to detect and repair the most recently discovered Macintosh and PC viruses.

Sophos: Integrated cross-platform virus detection means Windows viruses can be deleted and cleaned on a Mac OS X computer.