Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Competing Unfairly Against Spybot?
frankbaird writes "Symantec has been claiming for months that the anti-spyware program Spybot-Search & Destroy corrupts Norton Ghost images. Spybot has tried to convince them this is a false positive. After having been ignored, and this is the second time Symantec has claimed a false positive against Spybot, the makers of Spybot have gone public. They claim that rather than compete fairly with quality products, Symantec is resorting to libel."
If symantec was not the biggest antivirus (or virus) making company, they would not have done such a thing.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Norton/Symantec software is garbage.. i have use spybot S&D to restore many 0wn3d systems due to malware and spyware. Its advanced tools make it easy to weed out nasty programs and clean a system up.
Symantec asserts that SpyBot is corrupting Norton Ghost images - well, is it, or isn't it?
I mean, this isn't like determining the existence of god is it? The image is either corrupt, or it is not. So which is it?
Anyone?
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Wow I wish my companies IT guys made such important decicions based on a story with no actual result as to whether it is true or not.
How much do you charge, you're hired!
Or an example of really clever free press.
I can't help but think that no matter which way this goes, Spybot is the one clearly coming out ahead; they'll loose some enterprise business if they really are corrupting Ghost images, but otherwise, a lot of people will hear about 'em. If Symantec was engaged in libel, then there is a whole David vs. Golliath thing going on. If Spybot was making up the whole thing, everyone grumbles a bit, but a lot of people checked out their website and/or decided to give the software a try.
All of which will make proving damages in court rather...interesting :-)
Please help metamoderate.
One of the first things I do for any system in distress is REMOVE Symantec. Of course, it's a pain since they are like a plague. They infest the registry like lice and do not remove themselves when you run their deinstallation tool. Bottom line, they are big, but they hogs.
Sysmantec can whine, but no one who knows anything is listening or buying.
I donate to Spybot and promote McAfee.
ay
havent the spybot guys put up the address of the product marketing manager of Symantec - Mr. Guido Sanchidrian as a plain mailto: address? Prolly they want his inbox to be filled with SPAM :| Not fair IMO.
Everything is possible, but if Symantec had reasonably good processes in place they should have been able to provide the orginal reasons and symptoms that caused them to write that knowledgebase article, however incomplete, along with "we will investigate this matter further"
I don't use windows much anymore (just linux, and we all know what spyware and viruses mean to a linux box).
What do they mean? Do you think Linux is immune to spyware and viruses? Do you know what every piece of softare is doing on your Linux box? Every Firefox plugin? I suppose Linux has never had a security hole, either.
A week should be sufficient time to pop down to see the developers, ask them to look up in the version control system who added this detection rule and why, and to even chat with that particular programmer. This should give Symantec's representative plenty enough detail to provide a competent reply to Spybot, but for some reason they haven't done so.
Isn't it great when companies use AC posts on Slashdot to astroturf? We really have grown up. For thje record, if a huge competitor was libeling my better, and FREE, product out of existance for its' own gain, I'd give it 7 minutes, not 7 days to correct itself before taking more agressive action, and the /. community should be right behind them. Syamntec had the business, and moral, obligation to verify this fully before saying word one, the fact that they didn't gives greatest weight to the charge that this is just a tactic to destroy a superior competitor.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
If Symantec has in their knowledgebase that Spybot S&D corrupts Ghost images, one would assume that they would be readily able to prove that it does, in fact, corrupt Ghost images. It doesn't take a week to say, "Well, yes, it does, and here's the scenario(s)." Unless of course, it doesn't corrupt images or they cannot prove that Spybot is the program/issue corrupting said images.
It is relatively simple.
Yea.. god forbid a company that size can respond to a virii threat in 24 hours.. there's no way they could post up their proof given a week. :D
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your statements about Microsoft installing spyware with Windows update are just patently false. If you're really seeing what you describe, you haven't done a good enough job of cleaning spyware from Internet Explorer before you run Windows Update. Try using Spybot S&D in addition to Adaware, and be sure to use all of the immunization features.
Breakfast served all day!
Can you use QtParted to multicast a system image to 5000 machines? To 1 machine? Nope. Then it's not a replacement at all, is it?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
While this is all quite suspicious and Slashdotters love the very idea of a conspiracy, I'm not yet in Spybot's camp here. First of all, one week to investigate and respond to an issue is way too short for a company as large as Symantec. Who does Spybot think they are to demand a one week response. Even the Department of Justice couldn't make such a demand, and if the DoJ did Slashdotters would be all up in arms over the evilness of it all.
..... wtf do they think they're doing?
Absolutly NOT true. If Symantic had done enough investigation to make sure that they were right when they named Spybot on their site in the first place, the evidence would be handy.
And if they *don't* have the evidence handy
My experience with the newest version of Acronis is that it is far better than Ghost.
Acronis is not perfect, but much less stupid than Symantec, in my experience.