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.
" 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.
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.
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
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...
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.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!
They also need to use their brain. A cow-irker of mine was baffled when I said that I don't run any antivirus or antispyware products on my home PC, and I don't have problems with said threats.
They said, "How do you keep from getting infected?"
To which I replied, "I don't use IE, I don't go places I shouldn't and I don't run suspicious programs."
Protection programs are all well and good, but users need to also learn proper usage techniques.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion