Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Launches Anti-Spyware Beta
daria42 writes "Symantec has launched the beta test version of its anti-spyware application, which will be sold from June as part of Norton Internet Security 2005. The company's Norman Kohlberger said the main aim of the new combined product was to make PC security as easy as possible for the end user. 'The computer is not a toy anymore. It has turned into a toaster and microwave -- it has become an integral part of the home environment,' he said. 'We have to reduce the complexity. People do not want privacy software, firewall, antivirus, spyware, adware and blended threats. The average individual is saying I don't want this anymore. Just fix it. What we are doing is reducing the complexity.'"
Here is what I want to know: Why is Symantec forking their projects into Spyware on one side, virus protection on the other, firewall on the other, subscription on the other? Why don't they have these services in one package?
I'll tell you why. They want to make more money off of this. Each and every service that Symantec provides is a de facto necessity to windows users, whether they get the services from Symantec or from some other company.
My challege to a startup out there: Create a complete Windows package that protects users, AND charge very little money for it.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Why they did not simply have put that in Norton Antivirus a long time ago? They sure have all the scanning tools!
No sig for now.
It seems that every other piece of software my end-users install on their home systems conflicts with the symantec antivirus that came with their stock system, now I get to deal with their half-assed attempt at spyware removal. w00t!
" It has turned into a toaster and microwave "
Between the heatsink and the wifi card.. hes not wrong y'know!
R
-- Jobsy
Is that it keeps detecting itself as spyware and removing itself.
Symantec has had spyware scanning and removal built into itscorporate version of Symantev AV for almost a year now. In my experience it has been fairly effective and its effectiveness has been increasing with every update.
I'd like to know if anyone can explain the difference between this new product and the corporate version that's been around for a while.
I don't use kitchen appliances for pr0n or playing games.
With all of the Spyware utilities out there, I am surprised that Symmantec would waste their time with this one. They ought to worry about what they are going to do with three backup products now that they own Veritas.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
What we are doing is reducing the complexity.
And what the rest of the industry is doing, is fixing the problem instead. I just love marketing BS... Consumer says fix it, company says we've reduced the complexity, customer still sitting waiting for fix.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Just fix it. ... with baindaids.
Sorry to say, but most people seem to be missing the point. Most people have been brainwashed to think they need anti-virus programs, they need spyware removal apps... they really don't. They just need a secure enviornment - web browser, OS, etc. Even windows can be secured to the point where you don't need antivirus, it's just not set up that way by default and is of course "inconvinient"
The release of Symantec Antivirus Corporate 9.0 (and possibly earlier versions?) has included spyware checking, and it came out late last year. It's built into the antivirus scanner as opposed to being a standalone utility.
Adding to the bloated Symantec suite...
If you want a simpler system that resists spyware (and viruses) by a mac or run linux.
(and yes, my kid's grandmother gets around just fine with KDE...)
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
The man, not the company. I saw him on TV when I was a kid, probably about 15-20 years ago, and he seemed like a real nerd's nerd. Now he's like Betty Crocker, just a brand name.
Just how effective is anti-spyware software made by anti-virus companies, anyway? It seems to me that 'malware' (spyware, adware, etc.) is much more sophisticated than their viral counterparts, especially when they enlist user interaction as part of their process. After all, all a user need do is click on a link, open an attachment, look an an email or a webpage, etc., and they have implicitly given their permission for this malware to do its thing. The only way for software to protect you against such things is to either warn you that what you are doing may be dangerous (most users just click past that anyway) or flat-out stop the user from doing certain things, which reduces utility. It seems to me that any attempt to tackle the malware problem from a viral viewpoint is doomed to fail. Our company recently installed the McAfee anti-spyware add-on to our corporate anti-virus solution. My recommendation: don't waste your money...it's worthless.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"What we are doing is reducing the complexity."
By adding another product? Wha?
Sounds like a great idea!
Windows with all network code removed.
Windows XP NN?
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I briefly worked for a Symantec call center in the anti-virus division, and very often the call would consist of me telling people: "Go to lavasoft and download AdAware" because we refused to try and fix a computer loaded with spyware. Now, the call center people (relocated to India since two years ago) can tell the customers to buy Norton Anti-Spyware instead.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
I'm rather confused by their claims of anti-spyware incorporation. They stated to have it in SAV9.x and indeed I saw it finding spyware on machines -- and it did a poor job. Adaware and spybot always found more. Now, their marketing is like, "now with anti-spyware!" Uh huh, you've said that already.
Also, their installs are some of the worst to deal with. Their auto-uninstalls of their old products -- which occurs prior to upgrading -- is horrible. We had to spend tons of time writing our own scripts. We finally tried out Trend Micro and found that it did a better job of auto-uninstalling Symantec's products than Symantec did.
I'm still talking enterprise here, but Trend has a far better admin console than Symantec. Trend gives tons of information on each system. Symantec is childish by comparison. Trend reporting is far better too. Trend has more of a "build your own wheel" feel to it, but for sys admins it rocks. Symantec's roots are from the single, desktop computer and that's the feel you get for it as an admin. Administration is an afterthought. Trend seems to be built by administrators for administrators and I like it.
Besides all that, the answer to spyware isn't what Symantec would have you think -- namely, *them*. The answer is first: install Firefox (install it fool!) and ban IE. Second, make patch management a priority. After that, you can put gravy on it by removing root off workstations for users, but FF and PM are key. As a matter of fact, I argue that if you do those two things you just about don't even need AV -- especially doing Firefox. Hey, can you tell I like Firefox?...
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
If it runs as slow as their dog-slow antivirus solution, then their anti-spyware solution bundled together with their existing antivirus software would create one of the best anti-spyware/antivirus solutions out on the market.
You don't believe me?
Running both tools on the same box would lead to absolutely no CPU cycles left over for either virus or spyware to run...
Symantec had always filled the gap for M$ from you average home user stand point. Given M$'s "Embrace and Extend" policy which we all know what it did to companies in the past,
How long do you think M$ is going to spare Symantec with M$'s "new focus" on security ?
When I got into the computer repair business, I installed Symantec products on almost every machine that came through my doors (if they weren't already equipped already). Now I am a strong advocate of AVG antivirus. I can't tell you how many times I've seen computers with Norton Antivirus that had a) up to date subscriptions b) up to date definitions and c) reported that the system was clean after scanning. Then, I'd uninstall Norton and install AVG, bamf, 6 viruses found.
If their spyware removal is as effective as their virus removal (lately), you'll equal luck trying to remove those rogue search toolbars with a blender.I can see it now, you run this application in the background, possibly with a little icon in your system tray. It monitors all your activity, and every time it thinks that you need to be notified of something related to spyware, it phones home to Symantec, opens up a window, steals focus, and you get to read about how something you just did can increase your penis size^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H likelihood of having spyware.
Since most users tolerate this type of behavior already, especially after installing that helpful little Bonzi Buddy program, Symantec should be laughing all the way to the bank.
3. Profit?!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I was shocked to find out that it doesn't drop ICMP requests. Every other firewall I've ever used can do that even the Windows XP one.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
It just isn't. Computers are complex things, and it is both logical and more importantly, reasonable to expect people to do a minor amount of work to maintain them, the same way you do a automobile. Surely, any motorist knows how to check his tire pressure, oil, and can replace a flat when necessary. A car is an investment, and people who do not treat one as such do so to their detriment. A computer is no different.
Similarly, anyone using a computer should be able to understand and implement basic security practices and do minor OS and hardware maintenance and repairs. The fundamental problem is that people are just too damn lazy to learn how to do these simple things, and Symantec is capitalizing on that.
What would you rather have your Windows box devote most of its resources doing?
1. spyware/malware/adaware
2. Excessive amount of utilities from various vendors to prevent spyware/malware/adaware.
Oh that's how it works! The anti-spyware TSRs take up so much memory there's no room left for teh evil sofwtare to get a foot in!
I don't like the fact that we have to run all these scanners to look for viruses and worms and spyware and what have you.
It is because of a flawed operating system design being operated by, in general, the computer morons out there that is 90% of our society. Most of the computer users will always be clueless, and that is why we need a safe operating system.
Although Windows is flawed in this respect I must admit that I'm a computer professional that has been around for a while, and I didn't foresee that we would get these massive problems. I used Windows 95 and although I complained about lots of stuff it never entered my mind to say "this is going to be vulnerable to worms and spyware".
So that is a bit of an excuse for Microsoft.
But that doesn't change the fact that this situation pi**es me off.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
So I guess symantec is into writing virii and spyware now.
Spyware programs access the Internet a lot, and frequently via low-level calls. By monitoring what programs access the Internet, they can indeed know what spyware is on your computer faster than by scanning.
Their virus package does include support for 'expanded threats' including spyware.
But their antivirus engine is designed to assume 'all viruses are bad.' This new product can --and does-- tread more carefully. It tells you what programs will stop functioning if a given adware module is removed. (according to Symantec.) I do not touch Symantec's products, though it is getting more and more tempting.
If a company does good research, you think they could write good, lean, code without dependencies on TCP/IP. Uninstalling the program is a pain (for some), and manually uninstalling it without removing the TCP/IP dependency.. results in no Internet connection.
With XP's system restore, I would be willing to take more risks, and this is a 'beta' product, but still..
Two questions; Why should we have to buy a pro
Why is the major software vendor offering an add-on to protect its operating system?
That chaps my ass, Microsoft is making an operating system that makes the entire internet vulnerable and they're getting rich doing it.
For as long as Norton has been in business, its business has been propping up Microsofts POS OS.
Best regards.
There are lots of spyware detection and removal applications out there for Windows. They're even pretty simple to install, use and are even fairly effective. This is product placement, not news.
Deleted
I feel exactly as the parent poster: People are brainwashed into thinking that viruses, spyware and crashes are something usual in computer environment, and every PC magazine out there fanfares in EVERY SINGLE "computer security"-related article that people should "keep their anti-virus software up to date."
10 years from now Windows PC's will emit random electrical shocks via keyboard or finglonger or whatever interface we use then. And the users have to lease antishock software. Gzus christ, I just don't get it - it's as if people voluntarily used torture devices on themselves and regularly paid the manufacturer more money in hope the pain went away, or at least lessened.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
To get into this game? Their product line seems like it covers everything from virus protection to speed improvments to firewall stuff. And now very late (even after Microsoft) they release a "beta" version?
Anyone else convinced Symantec has a secret room somewhere with a bunch of Russian nerds developing new vriuses and spyware every day? This business is wayyyy too convenient for them.
On the other hand, M$ needs to integrate FREE spyware protection into its swiss cheese OSes.
Bullshit.
The only requirement for windows users is a firewall and a clue.
I run XP home SP2 on an adelphia cable modem connection. I have never, I repeat, never been infected because the first thing I did was install zonealarm.
Even windows firewall is enough for most users who do casual browsing. Most viruses are not browser exploits, they are bundled with software you give permission to run or are attachments to email.
Their idea of simplicity was in my case just deleting my entire thunderbird mail archive because there was a viral attachment in some piece of mail it had junked. This was after I told it -not- to look at my mail because I was sick of getting notified about the 50 or so of those I receive daily. After that incident, I just uninstalled the damn thing - I've yet to catch any virii as far as I know.
It's called capitalism. Creating a first-class OS is not necessarily conducive to long-term cash flow.
They have to leave enough vulnerabilities to maintain relevance on an on-going basis.
Google Web Accelerator
Funny, I never saw a toaster with gigs of removable storage, a 19" display, FireWire, and a state space of quadrillions of points. I think that the computer is, *of necessity*, a leeetle more complex than a toaster, and always will be. It's long past time for people who wish it weren't to get over it and join the rest of us in the real world.
Turn it around if you prefer: I never saw a word processor whose only preference was Light...Dark.
Einstein had it right: as simple as possible, but not simpler.
There are more than 20,000 Windows known viruses and worms in the world with new ones being added every day. Do you really think that it is unreasonable for a particular anti-virus product to miss a few at any particular moment? This is why people who are serious about virus protection have ALWAYS run at least two different vendor's products. The easiest way is to run one vendor on the servers and another on the workstations but, some people go so far as to run the two different vendors concurrently on the same system.
Now I am a strong advocate of AVG antivirus.
That's wonderful! Do you really believe that AVG is 100% effective? Have you tried sacnning an AVG scanned machine with another vendor's product to be sure that AVG is getting everything? Have you scanned that machine with CA eTrust, Symantec, F-Prot, Kaspersky or McAfee?
You actually think AVG is 100% effective? Are you kidding, or just stupid?
if I actually used any symantec products, I think I might hate them more than Microsoft; all they do is leech off the weaknesses of the Windows OS. perhaps what pisses me off the most it that a long time ago, in times of great ignorance, I actually thought it was cool to use their version of Defrag.
Every damn body is coming out with anti-spyware!! Pretty soon, we'll be downloading anti-anti-spyware-ware.
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
Norton is not even that good at detecting Viruses on a computer, how are we supposed to think that it will actually detect Adware also? I highly doubt it. I, like many others on this forum have found that AVG and Trendmicro do a much better job at finding viruses than Norton. I will also stick with Lavasoft's adaware and Microsoft's (Giant) Antispyware to tackle my customer's computer problems.
I work at a "mom and pop" type computer store. 80% of these computers that come in had Norton Systemworks installed, with the latest definitions. Yet still they are full of viruses that both AVG and Trendmicro's Housecall detects. The sad part is, the sales of Symantec's products are driven by the need for Best Buy employees to sell more product. So with every new PC they are telling customers to spend money on useless virus scanning software.
The fact is, the best virus scanning and adware scanning software is completely free. Without any hitches. So why would I want to pay for anything when the free product is better in almost every way?
I have also found that Norton fails to uninstall properly in many comptuers. They even have removal utilities to remove their software. I think that this is completely rediculous. If software can't be removed properly from a machine, I dictate that this is no better than Malware. So in essence, installing Norton on your computer is no better than installing Bargian Buddy.
its called linux
hint: $$$
I'm not clear on your meaning. On a per host basis, the Corporate version is already cheaper than the consumer version. Why would Symantec want to make their more expensive product, more expensive. They run the risk of pricing themselves out of the market that way. It's not like they are lacking competition.
We do run Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition 9 in our company and it hadn't detected a SINGLE spyware!
You'd better use Microsoft Antispyware/Spybot/Adaware because Symantec's offering for corporate market is still lacking decent antispyware protection, although it is a great antivirus, much better that a Nortor Antivirus.
Then the average user needs this I hate to sound like an Apple fanboy because I've only had mine for the past few months. But after spending all day fixing spyware/adware/viruses on PC's it is nice to come home to the Mini and USE the computer.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
Is this toaster/microwave mentality. If you want a toaster on the internet, buy a msnTV, or some other "dumb" terminal. More game consoles should work on making functional browsers for them. Sega had the right idea with the dreamcast, but just horrible execution. Computers are not appliances. They are tools. Tools require proper maintanance and use for them to be safe and work properly. An appliance just does what its supposed to do with minimal oversight and maintanance. Symantec is just further contributing to the problem if they inject this type of mentality and false sense of security into the market place, and does not deserve our funding. As one of the "front line" soldiers on the internet, I see on a daily basis that these products do very little to keep the pox off peoples computers, regardless of how often they are upgraded.
Click here for the best software to remove spyware for free. ;D
According to popular Internet news/blog site Slashdot (http://slasshdot.org/), well-known companty Symantec has, in an unprecedented act, issued a press release in order to promote its products.
"This is truly a breakthrough in marketing approaches," said a Slashdot employee who asked not to be identified, "never before has a company gone to such lengths to promote a product. Slashdot is proud to break the news of this historic event." While some believe that this was an inevitable extension of current marketing approaches, many more are stunned by the sudden change in tactics.
Mary Weatherspoon, a seasoned marketing consultant, is one of those surprised by Symantec's sudden release. "The whole industry has been turned upside-down. We'd heard inklings of using mass-media to promote products, but none of us had ever thought about treating new products -- especially products that aren't really groundbreaking -- as actual, hand-to-god news," she said.
Slashdot management did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
I have had the opportunity to test AV in my lab, okay I worked in a computer shop... but I was able to crack some really infected machines..
Far and away, the best at finding viruses is Panda. Not only does it find on average two to three viruses that Norton's and Mcafee will miss, but it also doesn't bog down your system.
It used to be the lowest priced AV, and while this is no longer the case (probably due to the drop in the dollar -- they are Spanish, er Basque) it is worth the price. Their latest product -- Panda Platinum outscans most products for spyware: even webroot, Spybot and adaware. It also head and shoulders above any anti virus and includes a nice firewall (which I haven't tested, but if it is like their other products, it's the best)
I highly recommend their free online scan and would also recommend downloading a free trial of their software.
http://www.pandasoftware.com/home/default.asp
I was half expecting your system to get the blue screen in the middle of you posting this very scary message.
Seriously tho. You don't know what you might have! You could have all kinds of problems with your suggestion to run a naked system.
Firewall is not enough. Whoever you are, your advice could be very costly to a customer of yours. If you're in techsupport, can you tell me where you work so I can avoid using your company in the future?
No, the problem is that the computer geek world in corporate America continues to support an OS that is a vast pile of diseased, steaming monkey shit. The poor home users want something that matches what is at work or is most popular, so they get stuck with this shitpile.
And then asshole I.T. folks pick on the home users when the home user, who just want to read a damned web page or send some email, is confronted with this huge array of invasive code. Home users with lives that, sorry geek-fucks, don't revolve around computers. I know hard working people in complicated careers who just don't have the time to maintain a Windows box to the level of care that the braindead broken thing needs. Many of them have gone to Macs where this bullshit is not required.
I can operate and maintain a car without having to install a patch every goddamned day. The whole car analogy just shows how bugfuck stupid most geeks are outside of computer knowledge.
FUCK YOU, I.T. ASSHOLES! Fuck your miserable hides to hell. You made the world this way by buying Microsoft SHIT over and over again. I KNOW former IT people who admit to me (now that they are out of the industry) they picked Windows because it justified their jobs.
So shut the fuck up with your criticism and blaming of the victim bullshit.
Yeah, mod this down, but many of you out there know this is true.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The customer is sitting there wondering why their "antivirus" (or worse, "internet security"...I love that one) software isn't protecting them from a self-installing, replicating program they didn't want installed, which crashes their system and/or slows it down. I've seen spyware/adware/malware act like viruses (modifying/inserting itself into DLLs and whatnot) and worms (searching for other systems to infect) and trojans (how some of them "hide" from the user in plain sight). Snooty computer scientists get all huffy when you call a spyware program a "virus", but let's be completely upfront here- spyware/adware is just a trojan/worm/virus with commercial purpose.
Every uneducated computer user whose system I've fixed for spyware has asked the same two questions: "why doesn't my antivirus software protect me from this?" (and indeed, the software is installed, definitions are current) and "isn't this spyware stuff a virus?"
Fact remains that for all the crap hype- in at least a decade, "antivirus" technology hasn't improved. Much/all of it is based off the good old standby- definition files. Those worked when viruses took weeks to spread. Now they spread in hours- or less.
My favorite story about how useless antivirus software can be comes from 2000, when one of the worms going around got right past our antivirus software on our mail server. We looked at the one that got quarantined, and the one that didn't- and for an hour or two, we couldn't find any differences. Only when I loaded both onto my powerbook and opened them in BBedit, turning on "show all hidden characters", did I see that one had carriage returns and line feeds- the other only had one (CR's, I think). Because of this very simple change, the worm got right past our antivirus software. How idiotic is that?
Please help metamoderate.
Is there a FAQ on that somewhere?
Also, see here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I just installed this to test it out, and it ran very slow. The spyware protection is nothing more than what is included in the latest versions of NAV. What a gyp. It is now uninstalled. AVG, Firefox, and Spyware Guard and Blaster do me just fine.
SYS 64738
Wow...that was fun...
Maniacal raving flames aside, I'll be the first to agree with you. As an I.T. guy (not former), I readily admit that the piss-poor state of M$ operating systems keep food on my table.
I LOVE spyware...spyware alone pays my mortgage.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
And i'll say it again. 3 apps, 1 file.
Ad-aware.
Spybot S&D.
Avast! Antivirus.
A good HOSTS file.
$0 spent for world-class protection.
Symantec's stuff, spend a bundle, pray that it installs and actually runs without having to pore over endless documentation or downloads. Or worse, calling their tech support line and PRAY that their system does not hang up on you. Not my kind of idea spending a afternoon dealing with software issues.
Oh, did I also mention that Avast has AV distros that are built for *nix servers? Symantec does not have a single application that does that.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just look online for the plethora of previews and beta reviews, such as this one from PCWorld. Sorry, Symantec, I don't want to install 314MB of files, 11 services, 3 startup items, 2 toolbars, and 2 BHOs (Browser Helper Objects) just to "prevent spyware".
Symantec lost the game a long time ago-- there are much better (and cheaper) ways to keep your PC afloat.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Best remedy to fix both the virus, adware, spyware... problem AND to reduce complexity is to use a Mac. Easy as that!
You don't reduce complexity by adding yet another application. This just adds complexity.
Try this: Install another operating system that doesn't have the problems in the first place. Try Linux, OS X, Solaris, etc. This is just an attempt to move more money from their customers pockets into theirs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Users are saying, 'I don't want to know all the nitty gritty details, I don't want to know the technical stuff, just let me do what I need to do on the Web'. They just want it to work," said Kohlberger.
Yeah!! Bunch of assholes, right?
Every version of NIS and it's predecessor @Guard has in it's advanced settings the ability to block ICMP requests, if you'd like. /. post of someone who's never RTFM.
Typical
'We have to reduce the complexity. People do not want privacy software, firewall, antivirus, spyware, adware and blended threats. The average individual is saying I don't want this anymore. Just fix it. What we are doing is reducing the complexity.'
I am sick and tired of companies pandering to people too lazy to learn anything. Computers are complex and they aren't getting simpler -- because people demand more and more from them. If someone doesn't want to invest the time to master the use of a computer, then they shouldn't operate one.
These are the same stupid whiners who are in tears when their hard disc crashes because they never backed up anything. They are the ones who are standing in line in front of us at the computer store having hissy fits because they want the techs to install a DVD-R/W drive while they wait -- because there's no way that they would consider learning how to put in four screws and three cables (power, IDE, and audio) themselves. They are the ones who install adware on their systems and are then shocked at the results. They are the ones who stare blankly like deer looking at headlights when the salesman asks if they have USB ports into which their new digital camera can be plugged.
All that this kind of initiative by Symantec does is help the ignorant remain so while increasing the under-the-hood complexity even further. So when something in the automated mass of hundreds of megs of files breaks, the user doesn't have a prayer of being able to fix it.
If you aren't willing to learn how a radio works, then the FCC won't give you a HAM radio license. If you aren't willing to learn the rules of the road, the DMV won't give you a driver's license. We need a computer license and people who won't learn the basics about computers shouldn't be allowed to own and operate a computer.
Yeah, I doublechecked too (because you're post made me think I was turning into a bot), the only thing I posted more than once(and I wrote both posts separately) was my testing of search engines that found Yahoo to be the best at finding answers for VB and Access... I get hyper-puppy when I find things that go against the status quo. I apologize.
For full disclosure, while I used to sell a lot of Panda when I worked in a comuter shop, I wasn't on commission -- I sold it because it worked and I wouldn't have to fix their computer again. I haven't sold the stuff in about two years. Additionally, I don't use Antivirus software except at work where we have enterprise Norton's >> which isn't as bad as personal edition. Still, I'd rather use Panda's Enterprise, but I am just a coder not an admin.
I have downloaded the trial version of Platinum to fix a friend's computer and was impressed how it did what adaware, spybot and spysweeper couldn't.
Sorry about the sales pitch, but I am amazed that Panda is so unknown and I figured where better than an slashvert for Norton's to spout about!? It's a good tool for any tech.
See you at the MIT meeting.
Your post was missing the obligatory "step" format... :o)
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
That must mean theyy are developing their own spyware...
The generic term "spyware" is no longer appropriate since many programs are designed for a purpoase other that "spying". A more appropriate term would be "scumware".
How long will it be before Symantec gets sued by one of the scumware creators for identifying their program as "spyware".
"The computer is not a toy anymore. It has turned into a toaster and microwave."
Well, if you're using Intel processers, yeah...
You can barely sneeze with IE without catching some form of spyware. Admittedly, there are too many things to worry about and someone with SP2 on their system has many of the pre-requisites torwards safety, but the holes are there.
I installed it on a infested computer found 0, spybot found 180, adaware 84. SO ill try it on some others systems.
These became available from Dell yesterday and can be shipped on any new system. They are designed to compete with McAffe which is currently the leading seller of the all in one package from a big name (other than spybot and ad-aware). The price is $79 and it includes the antivirus software, a firewall, and of course spyware removal. This is ten dollars more than the competitor (McAffe).
And can I install it using apt-get install norton?
Think for yourself.
... someone has to make the claim that he runs Windows without anti-virus/anti-spyware and doesn't have any problems.
First off, if your router has a DMZ, then you are running a firewall.
As for the rest, without running current anti-virus software, you won't know if you have a virus.
The same with spyware.
The fact is, "common sense" will not prevent you from accidentally typing in a wrong URL and ending up at a site that would exploit IE.
The same with Outlook Express. There is nothing stopping someone else from sending you email with a virus that would exploit an auto-run sequence.
"Common sense" is knowing that Windows is vulnerable and needs to be protected.
"Common sense" is running the necessary protections and keeping them updated.
Trend Micro's PC-Cillin has been doing this for about a year now, and has detected spyware (limited) for a couple years. I realize that scanning for spyware and viruses are quite different processes, but honestly, it wasn't that much of a stretch for Symantec to at least keep up with what their competitors are doing.
For those of you keeping tabs on the corporate side of things, Office Scan does spyware as well now and that's something I don't think Symantec even has plans for on their corporate suites.
Kinda makes me wonder why people think Symantec is still so great when they've been falling behind the underdogs for the last several years. Remind you of Intel, anyone?
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
and I can tell you that the real reason for breaking out spyware from viruses is legal. If we detect one of these programs (which as you say, are unwanted, self-installing, etc.--just like a virus) and call it a virus, there are legal issues.
In fact, it's worse than this: our current products' interfaces now say Spyware/Greyware... and I have it on good authority that this is because of the threat of legal action from the producer of a spyware program who insists that their product is legit.
If Joe Sixpack sees that our antivirus software is detecting software from Sleaze Inc. as a "virus/spyware" he'll tell his friends, and there goes their business model.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I'm open to trying non-Norton AV. Besides effectiveness, I'm concerned with bloat. I hate having dozens of TSR's running. I also like FREE.
Which would you recommend, Trend or AVG, and why?
Thanks!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
You pathetic twat! How can his querying the difference between two products be bullshit?
Did you mean to say that the effectiveness of Symantec AV CE is bullshit? If so why, because YOU have never had an spyware detected by it? Who is to say that YOU have configured it properly? Who is to say that it is even turned on? You do know that in Symantec AV CE, spyware detection is turned OFF by default, right? You do know that you have to manually turn it ON, right?
As for your statement, "You'd better use Microsoft Antispyware/Spybot/Adaware", this just tells everyone that you are use to working in a small shop or at home. None of the products that you suggested are able to be managed on a large scale basis. None of them allow remote installation. None of them allow policy based configuration. None of them have central reporting or management. None of them are usable solutions for organizations with more than 30 systems!
Try turning the spyware features of Symantec AV CE on before calling bullshit. Your post is BULLSHIT! You pathetic twat!
Yeah, it's called a Mac. I don't deal with this crap on OS X.
I just downloaded this beta and installed it, getting a message about how I would have to purchase Norton AV by the time the trial period expires (keep in mind I was running NIS 2004 w/ AV before this). Well, the trial period ends...today (5/6/2005). That's just a waste of my time.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
I also agree with others, Norton doesn't do the trick. Iv'e personally delt with multiple pcs with the latest Norton defs and it didn't pick up anything. When doing a Trend scan I found about 20 viruses, and removed them successfully.
They AREN'T good at what they do. None of the spyware products are. Virus scanners are quite good these days. It's to the point that if you have a good one (like AVG) I basically don't worry about you getting viruses, I'm confident it'll find and stop any of them.
Not the case with anti-spyware apps. There's plenty of spyware they just seem to be unable to remove. MS is the best of the lot, but even they have plenty of work to do. Like receantly I came across a computer with the iSearch toolbar on it. Both MS and Adaware found it and claimed to remove it, but they didn't do the job completely. When the computer rebooted it was gone, but it tried to reinstall itself (MS blocked that at least). to get that to stop I had to grab A2 and manually locate the things trying the reinstall and remove them. Went through the same shit with a different spyware that has unclassified a couple weeks ago.
If Symantec can make a spyware remover that actually works, then more power to them, I'll try and get it licensed at work. Right now the available ones are just not that good.
Money is the only reason why spyware isn't considered a virus.
If i were to make an email with an attachment of some dancing bunny, that happened to install software in the background that tracked what websites you go to, what applications you used, what your ip is, etc, etc, and every once in awhile display a webpage that has a paypal link to give me money to remove this annoyance, I would be deemed a hacker and virus writer and probably go to jail.
However, if i spend the time to make up a marketing company for removing software and do pretty much the same thing, i'd just be norm.
Complete hypocricy if you ask me.
I miss his cheery white shirted grin on the cover of the boxes ;)
Jonathan
here... :)
It's (still) only in Dutch, but it has a very easy click-and-remove action using multiple anti-spyware programs (spybot, adaware, etc).
It will at least save you the drive to [name family/relative/friend name of choice here], in case their (Windows) computer slows down again
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
The beta installs the whole security package. Antivirus, Antispam, Antispyware. The whole tamale. It slowed my computer to a crawl and somehow bumped up the security to the point where my profile wouldn't load, so a default profile loaded instead. I've never been a big advocate of Symantec products and this is a perfect example of why not to go with Symantec. I unistalled it and luckily everything went back to normal.
Anti-Spyware exists for bad user rights models. You should be able to set up a static configuration for the machine and user settings. If a program tries to change those on your behalf, you are prompted to re-authenticate prior to making those changes. There's your anti-antything-bad-ware.
Apparently, inciting fear and blowing things out of proportion is what gets people mod points.
The only real threats to Windows users are: Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and whatever server packages Microsoft makes.
The only time a Windows user needs a firewall is right after installation to quickly get the Windows Updates. A third party software firewall isn't going to help in that case, but a router or hardware firewall will.
The only time a Windows user needs virus protection is when they are downloading pr0n.vbs off of Kazaa or using Outlook Express. I've yet to see a 'real' virus in Windows; their prevalence has been blown out of proportion by antivirus companies to make a buck.
The only time a Windows user needs anti-spyware tools is when they install freeware/shareware left and right without research or thinking, or when they're using Internet Explorer.
There are tons of people who have used Windows without any protection whatsoever, but because of their expertise in managing their system, they haven't had a problem.
I ran Windows for 10 years, and never had one of these 'real' problems. I only ran trusted binaries, and binaries I didn't trust, well, I disassembled them and saw for myself.
Look, if you're stupid enough to use Internet Explorer, Outlook, or any other retarded Microsoft product that is not an operating system, yeah, use every protection resource you have. If you're stupid enough to run all sorts of files from untrusted sources, or if you're stupid enough to think a 5kb script file is that hot mp3 you want, then yes, you need protection. If you don't understand how to disable system services and startup applications, then yes, you need protection. If you're stupid enough, if you're stupid enough, if you're stupid enough. Get the point?
It's like TLC says: don't go chasing waterfalls, please stick to the lakes and rivers that you are used to.
And for the record, I now use Linux, but not for security reasons. It Just Works. There's none of the ass-backwards tweaking that Windows needs to work properly.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I use linux, but my girlfriend's computer has Windows. We installed norton anti-virus, and it really has sucked the life out of her machine. We upped the memory to 1G (was 512M) and that helped, but it's still noticably slow. I've looked for anti-virus overhead and slowdown benchmarks or reviews, but it just doesn't seem to be out there. All the comparisions I can find appear to be more a "look, this one has a shiney box in the store and a slick gui when you install". Blah. Lots of others have posted what we learned the hard way. Norton is a resource hog. But what is better? Seen several comments about AVG. Should we switch? Sounds a lot cheaper than another gig of memory and a cpu/motherboard upgrade. Is there a really good (and honest) comparision of the resources and cpu cycles each of these anti-virus products takes up? If you know of any, please reply with links. Thanks. By the way, she's really pretty knowledgable and for years went without any anti-virus software and didn't have any (visible) infections. She uses mozilla (since long before firefox) and never IE, and she knows email attachments you weren't expecting are hazardous, even if they appear to know from someone you know. Our home network is behind a debian-based firewall running minimal services. So, for a long time she went without any infections. Still, one virus got by. It was probably there for a while and I eventually noticed occasional traffic in the firewall's logs. It didn't have any visible effect on her machine and only made very light, very infrequent communication (to a site that was shut down). It appears to have been an attempt to harvest/steal game registration keys. Many others have posted here that they are careful and don't need anti-virus software on windows. Well, I used to think that, since she was indeed quite careful and went for many years (since the mid 90's) without any problems. But if you don't run a virus scan (or firewall), something like this one she got could be hanging out indefinitely (until you eventually have to reinstall windows for one reason or another), and you'd never know it. Also, one final gripe about Norton. It likes to make a lot of noise every time it detects a virus in an incoming email. Maybe there's a way to shut it off, but it wasn't apparant. For years, we've used spamassassin on our little server and it tagged most viruses as spam. And she simply disregarded any others. But with Norton, its pops got to be really annoying. I finally had to install ClamAV on our server to filter out the viruses so she would have that annoying popup every morning. Blah. What a pain in the ass the windows world is, and I don't even use it. Maybe Linux will be similar someday if it gets popular, but for that to happen, it's going to take widespread adoption of really stupid software that lets users easily run executables (with system access, not in a sandbox). At least for now, pretty much all linux apps at least try to have some reasonable security. How stupid is it to simply allow executables?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Certainly. The last time I was infected (stoned? jerusalem? I don't remember). I could totally tell that I was infected. I mean, who could possibly miss the extra 25 cycles it took to start a program? And the extra 2k of RAM that had gone away?
That was a while ago, but I believe that there is still malware today (botnets come to mind) that are designed to not be visible. And it is certainly possible to write software that remains nicely hidden.
So unless you're running tripwire from a clean boot CD or something equivalent, I really don't think it's a matter of course that you can tell whether you're infected. Just because many trojans are badly done does not mean that all are.
Seems like everyone is coming out with an anti-spyware these days. I always used Lavasoft then I started using the Microsoft one. I'm still not truely satisfied with any I've used. Seems like you can always scan with the same or another product and fine more spyware. Jeremy Whittaker MCSE MCSA CCNA http://www.n2networksolutions.com/ Arizona Computer Consulting
The company's Norman Kohlberger said the main
... or does every company have a Norman Kohlberger that I don't know about? :O
I'm assuming they mean the company's spokesman or CEO, Norman Kohlberger, or something to that effect?
ftp://ftp.symantec.com/misc/sabu/nis_beta_2005/NIS _ET.EXE
I have tested this product already. It added 11 services and increased my boot time by 41 seconds. After 2003 Symantec products have become bloatware. They run slow and they try to do things they can't, like antispyware. Stick to a basic antivirus and Webroot Spysweeper. Spysweeper is by far the best out of all pay and free programs. Don't get me wrong adaware and spybot are great utilities but Spysweeper kills both.
Considering how problemmatic Symantec's software has been, and how their programs have disabled the functionality of my computers moreso than from me ever being hit by spyware, I want to knew if their new product will uninstall Norton Utilities? Seriously. In many ways, Symantec's obnoxious mafia-control-payment scheme is more annoying than most spyware.
Their Internet Security software isn't very good, recently it locked down all ports except for port 80. Had to remove it just to get internet working fully again (eg. blocked port 443)
Also the license stopped working a full month before it was going to expire. will never use their software ever again.
Norton was a swear-word at my last place of work.
:)
; try removing Norton2004/2005 after a trojan hihacks the update process.
Hopefully they've fixed this...
Still, make me money
In Corporate version 9 when you scan for expanded threats, it's worthless because it scans for the spyware, finds it, then promptly ignores the stuff you want to remove because it *might* violate a thrid party agreement.
I wish there was a checkbox for "I take full legal responsiblity - zap the sucker!".
Yes... U are right... a computer is a tool just like a hammer... or a car... we do not need to be a "qualified personnel" to service and operate our cars or hammers (or toasters)... they work... and so should computers !!!
Welcome to two months ago.
I had read about the Beta a week or so ago.
Much to my surprise, this product is being SHIPPED right now. I just installed a new PC (arrived last week from Dell) that has this NIS 2005 edition on it!
I was pretty surprised when I saw it.
So, what does Beta mean again?
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Remember the articles stating Symantec settled with several of the big Spyware companies to not label their products as such, but as non-invasive adware?
How good can their product be when you know right off the bat it will not catch all of the offenders, often the worst ones?
Copied from download page:
"Please note that installing this beta will upgrade prior Norton AntiVirus, Norton Internet Security, and Norton SystemWorks products. Please ensure that you have your prior product media to re-install from once the beta expires.
The beta will expire on June 1, 2005. At this time you will need to uninstall the Beta and re-install your prior Symantec product or purchase the full version and install it."
I thought a public beta was for the benefit of the developer.They should make it easier to revert back to old configuration instead of having to go through long involved process of re-installing.
The closer to your soul you choose your goal, the nearer to your heart the work can start.
ftp://ftp.symantec.com/misc/sabu/nis_beta_2005/NIS _ET.EXE 33.5 MB
Here's what I really want to know. Will their anti-spyware program be as bloated and overpriced as the rest of their software? (Why the hell should I pay 70 bucks for something I can get from other sources, that's just as good if not better, for FREE?)
SO the biggest piece of spyware on my computer at the momment is Windows XP (read the EULA).
Will Norton allow me to prevent that from happening?
Has anyone used Symantec Internet Security 2005? This program is horrible. 1. Doesn't catch all viruses which negates any use of having an anti-virus. 2. Takes way too much system resources and can bring a fairly decent computer to it's knees. Now they want to add anti-spyware into the mix. Why don't they fix thier current products first before releasing even more crap?
I work in a small Windows shop, and customers ask me "So I'll buy Norton and I'll be fine?" and in my head I scream "No! You're going to get infected again! Computer security is not a product you can purchase!", but it instead it comes out as "It'll help." and I take their money.
So what if they decide to release their own Anti-spyware/adware software? I'm seriously not trying not to be a flamer here, but don't you think they may be a little late? I don't see how anything they can create could outdo Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Microsoft Anti-Spyware... so unless they really innovate this idea, it's just going to go straight into the ground... IMO.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
I am sick and tired of companies pandering to people too lazy to learn anything. Computers are complex and they aren't getting simpler -- because people demand more and more from them. If someone doesn't want to invest the time to master the use of a computer, then they shouldn't operate one.
Fine. You go to 290 million people in the U.S. and educate them -- every man, woman, and child -- on how to deal-with, operate, and upgrade computers. God knows that learning about computers should be the key goal in everyone's life. The guy investigating prostate cancer online after bad news from his doctor? He should stop what he's doing and take lessons from you about computers.
Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.
Fine. You go to 290 million people in the U.S. and educate them -- every man, woman, and child -- on how to deal-with, operate, and upgrade computers.
It's not my job to personally educate everyone in the U.S. about computers. Just as it's not my job to teach them traffic laws and how to operate a motor vehicle -- yet we expect them to learn those thing before we license them to drive.
God knows that learning about computers should be the key goal in everyone's life. The guy investigating prostate cancer online after bad news from his doctor? He should stop what he's doing and take lessons from you about computers.
Again, I'm not offering lessens. The guy investigating prostate cancer online should have learned about computers long before being diagnosed with prostate cancer. That's like saying that he should be allowed to drive to the library on the wrong side of the road at 90mph because, damnit, he has prostate cancer and doesn't have time to learn about traffic laws and cars.
Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.
People shouldn't have to take self-defense courses and carry pepper spray. They shouldn't have to worry about identity theft. No one should get prostate cancer. Life's not fair. Deal with it.
I am sick and tired of companies pandering to people too lazy to learn anything.
Apple seems to make a mint doing exactly this. Not that I mean to characterize Apple users as "people too lazy to learn anything", but the original impetus behind the macintosh was "the computer for the rest of us".
Computers are complex and they aren't getting simpler -- because people demand more and more from them.
Computers are certainly getting simpler (to operate by an untrained user) - contrast a room sized specialized calculator operated through a glorified teletype by specially trained operators with today's GUI based systems which a majority of the population (in the west) use on a daily basis to accomplish a wide variety of tasks. I mean, my grandma sends me email!
If someone doesn't want to invest the time to master the use of a computer, then they shouldn't operate one.
I sincerely recommend that you read the book "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum" by Alan Cooper. Coming from a developer's world view, it hurts to read this book, but the insights are invaluable. Throw it against the wall once in a while, but pick it up and finish it anyway.