Slashdot Mirror
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."
It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs.
I don't believe it as a main cause.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
How would product activation protect users? Piracy prevention only protects symantec.
The Television Wiki
Seems like the new standard - now they can enforce virus definition subscriptions as well - previously, reinstalling the product after a clean deinstall + registry clean would reset the subscription date for definition updates.
So the real question is - if there are 3.6M bogus copies sold, and (by RIAA numbers) an additional 360M pirated freely online, by enforcing the product activation, will the Internet see more viruses or less? (and yes, I know it's technically virii)
My vote is on more...
Subscribe for free to my show!
I am very disappointed with Symantec/Norton anyway, in recent weeks I have replaced 20 desktop licences with AVG by GRISoft. AVG found viruses on about 15 systems where Norton did not complain at all. Yes, Norton was up to date in all situations and many of the desktops were installed by other people, so no commonality there.
If I had shares in Symantec I'd be selling them now.
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.
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.
... they tell honestly that they want people to actually pay for the program? Norton AntiVirus is worth every buck you pay for it, and the online update features are very comfortable. I can't imagine of "bogus" copy's that don't work, and even if they existed, why counteract with a registration. if the bogus copy doesn't work, they don't have to fear it. Furthermore Symantec does a great deal in helping us for FREE (do you remember the W32.Blaster removal tool you could download even when you weren't a costumer of them?), so i think if you want to use AntiVirus from Norton you should pay for it, if you are greedy there are a lot of free alternatives
".Sig Stealer" was here
The only anti-piracy technology that really works is that which uses hardware.
It's difficult if not impossible to duplicate a hardware lock (parallel port dongle), and it costs money to do.
It would cost Symantec about $5 in mass production to include a dongle with their anti-virus software. It would cost the average person $25 to make that same lock, and would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate the firmware...
Software methods for anti-piracy were killed by copyiipc back in the 80's....
The thing is, in newer versions they do not include "innoculation". Innoculation used to simply take a fingerprint (CRC32) of your executables/libraries, and could be set up to refuse to run unknown, or, more importantly, changed executables. This is great because even if you're behind in virus signature updates, your virusscanner will still detect new and unknown virusses as long as they don't compromise the virusscanner engine itself; such virusses (as well as engine updates) are far and wide between, unlike signature updates.
Recent version do NOT check binaries' integrity using any sort of fingerprinting, be it crc32, md5, sha1 or whatever, thus forcing you to rely on the yearly subscription of virus signature updates. That's not because innoculation was broken or even not user-friendly enough (it was off by default), that's was a pure 100% unadulterated marketing decision!
Interestingly, the free-for-personal use personal firewall product I'm using DOES use checksums to check whether binaries that may have specific permissions (to access the internet or open ports) have changed!
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
because if you have every used a Symantec product like Norton Internet Security (NIS) or Norton Antivirus (NAV) you must have realized how easy those have been to install on multiple computers.
:)
:)).
I've bought one back home and run it on all of my (2) home Windowsses, after all Norton is almost a synonym for quality when it comes to Windows utilities. I've also installed few from some public www page, where NIS 2003 (includes NAV 2003) was spread in 40MB fully working package.
Maybe they are just playing it wisely, waiting for the fuzz about M$ fascistic moves calmed down and then switching their own system on.. Can't blame them, this is IMHO the only way to go, no other realistic options.. However, I doubt that this will give them much more money, as hopefully most of the commericial side is already using their products legally so this would mostly target home and lifeless w4r3z d00ds
Though I have to admit that I haven't read any recent statistics about pirated stuff used at workplaces, only heard news that it'd be going down all the time (at least here in Finland or Scandinavia.. I have very bad memory
-rzei
Er, freeware anyone? Try avast for example - it's free for home (desktop) use, and has free definition updates as long as ye register.
I personally can't see what extra features would make me fork out on a costly alternative, that i can only install on one machine due to product activation, even though i have more that one pc at home...
I mentioned this in a seminar in Redmond when we were discussing MS product activation and Windows XP. I'll admit that software companies are entitled to make a profit. I'll even admit that they have the right to license every copy of that software that's in use if that's the model they choose. I won't argue MS' claim that about half the commercial software in use is pirated - but: Since these companies are showing a profit now, the price of piracy is clearly built into the software now. If product activation is effective then the previously unregistered copies that get purchased are clearly pure profit for the software manufacturer. Everyone pays the price for software piracy - so I'd like to ask Symantec the same question I asked Microsoft a couple years ago - are you going to reduce the price of your products now that all those previously unregistered copies are bought and paid for? Anything else seems like a grab for profit under the guise of protecting intellectual property.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Get it here. It's free for non-commercial use, even if the interface is a bit baroque. But so is Norton's.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I've always thought it's a bit strange that a piece of software that has to phone home to work well (i.e. download signature files) was so incredibly easy to copy. I installed Norton Antivirus on my parents' old computer, and when they bought a new one I thought I'd have to go through some more or less complicated procedure to get the program to run on it. But nope, I installed it and not only did it work, I got 12 new months of free updates (only one year is included, then it's like $10 per year).
Martin
I've also noticed that after a recent "Live Update" and reboot of my machine that one of the Symantec executables (ccApp.exe I think) insists on contacting crl.verisign.com when it didn't before...
Personally, I am getting tired of all this extra effort just to use a damn piece of software I purchased legally. I'm also tired of every single application wanting to contact the mothership for some reason.
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
Imagine if every bit of software on your computer was tied to that one computer. All of your games, all of your utilities, your office software, etc. Everything.
Now imagine thinking about buying a new computer. You have all of that money invested in software which is tied to old computer. Suddenly, the cost of that new computer is a LOT more because you have to buy your software all over again.
Of course, defenders of product activation will say that you'll be able to remove the software from the old system and install it on the new system. But do we know that for certain?! It certainly didn't work that way for TurboTax users.
Essentially, switching will become a risk. You might be able to use some of your software, but some you will not. Plus, that old computer will have absolutely no software on it, thus, it'll be rendered useless.
Some will argue that installing software on two computers you own is illegal. They'd be right, BUT, and this is a big BUT, CONSUMERS ARE USED TO IT. They've been doing it that way from the very beginning. When consumers get used to doing something one way, they get pissed when it changes.
When product activation is widespread, Dell, Gateway, and every other computer manufacturer can kiss their asses goodbye.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
NAV 2003 turned out to be a dog. It took 4 installs & activations before it worked properly on my Win 98 box.
A month later, I replaced my Win 98 box with a P4 box with Win XP. I installed & activated NAV 2003, which failed. I uninstalled and reinstalled it, then tried to activate it. I was informed (by Symantec's web site) that I had exceeded the maximum number of installs and was politely asked to purchase another license.
Three phone calls to Symantec tech support were useless. They repeatedly told me that this was Symantec's policy and absolutely refused to give me more installs FOR THE PROGRAM I BOUGHT FROM THEM. (Not from a store, but from Symantec's Web site itself!)
I just bought MacAfee's product earlier this week. To hell with Symantec and all of their crap.