Symantec Adds Product Activation

maliabu writes "GlobeTechnology/CNET reports that Symantec has added an antipiracy technology to the new version of its main virus-zapping program, in the form of compulsory product activation. It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs. The company estimates at least 3.6 million bogus copies of its programs are sold annually, causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that the software isn't doing the job."

Comments

lie

[mirko]

It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs.

I don't believe it as a main cause.

Re:lie

[Mhtsos]

True. Symantec has no delusions that a cracked version will be available. But those who use it will know they have pirated software (because there will be no need for activation). This is trying to protect users that try to buy a legitimate product and find out that they have an illegal copy instead. This is IMHO a Good Thing if implemented correctly. I know it can turn nasty though if enough thought dosen't go into it to make sure legit users can always activate their product no matter what.

Product activation works.

[mumblestheclown]

I dont care what the tin-foil-beanie crowd here thinks - product activation is a reasonable anti-piracy strategy.

while NO anti-piracy strategy is foolproof (we can only talk about rates of piracy, not absolute values), the fact of the matter is that product-activation can be done without sending the user's SSN and first-born through the lines.

Actually, I'm just pissed off that some asshole russians wrote "crack" programs (still widely available on all those cracks sites) to break the security of a previous version of some shareware i wrote (cost of shareware: $20 and for a very specialized audience). So, in a later version of my software, I included a type of product activation and wrote a code in such a way that the compiled stuff would be harder to figure out. 2.5 yeas later - still no crack out fot the software that I can find anywhere, plus I am secure in the knowledge that my reg codes are doing a lot less walking.

Fair is fair.

Re:How?

[sql*kitten]

How would product activation protect users? Piracy prevention only protects symantec.

Because Symantec's product relies on regular updates of virus definitions from Symantec. I assume - tho' I have not checked - that Symantec requires some form of authentication for this, after all, they sell subscriptions and that's what pays for the database to be kept up to date. Counterfeit copies of the product will be unable to access these updates, lulling users into a false sense of security. Everyone loses - Symantec lose because they don't get the money, the user loses because they paid for a counterfeit. The only one who benefits is the pirate.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to inconvenience your legit users in order to reduce illegal copying, just tell it like it is. Protecting the consumer against illegal copying would just require signing the software, no mandatory activation.

I ditched their products ages ago..

[wfberg]

The thing is, in newer versions they do not include "innoculation". Innoculation used to simply take a fingerprint (CRC32) of your executables/libraries, and could be set up to refuse to run unknown, or, more importantly, changed executables. This is great because even if you're behind in virus signature updates, your virusscanner will still detect new and unknown virusses as long as they don't compromise the virusscanner engine itself; such virusses (as well as engine updates) are far and wide between, unlike signature updates.

Recent version do NOT check binaries' integrity using any sort of fingerprinting, be it crc32, md5, sha1 or whatever, thus forcing you to rely on the yearly subscription of virus signature updates. That's not because innoculation was broken or even not user-friendly enough (it was off by default), that's was a pure 100% unadulterated marketing decision!

Interestingly, the free-for-personal use personal firewall product I'm using DOES use checksums to check whether binaries that may have specific permissions (to access the internet or open ports) have changed!