Slashdot Mirror
Symantec's Genesis to Usher in a New Age of Trust?
eldavojohn writes "Symantec has announced that they will be creating a massive security package called Genesis. Semantec has set their goal to 'Security 2.0' which is proposed to be
'a new age of trust on the Internet.' From the article: 'Symantec plans a one-stop software service tying together anti-virus, anti-spam, firewall and a host of other PC optimization technologies...' This is certainly something the common computer user could buy instead of having to fork over cash for every component. I don't think I'll be purchasing it though."
Let's hope it was designed intelligently then...
But seriously, I'd rather have the security problems fixed at the source, instead of having to add layers and layers of so called "security software".
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
Symantec and Norton antivirus and security packages (on machines I have experience with) use an absurd amount of memory and processor resources. Any hope that this will change someday?
Really, this doesn't seem all that revolutionary -- Symantec, like McAfee, like any other company serious in the business, ALREADY offers an integrated suite of tools (Internet Security) and no matter the advancement of interplay and integration I have a hard time believing that Genesis will come across to the average user as being so much more. Wait and see, I guess.
For the love of god.
"_____ 2.0" is going to be the "______ killer" of 2006
I have already left slavery for the promised land. Lots of those strange penguins around though...
DYWYPI?
Genesis? Sounds good.
Secure from malware at last!
So, is it Linux?
They may try and bring this in along with vista. The new age of windows OS is supposed to be better, faster, stronger, and more secure. With Microsofts deep pockets, do you think they may help syman. try and make things even more secure? Or maybe try to make it seem like it, give people a better hope of security. just an idea
Well if it isn't the leader of the wiener patrol, boning up on his nerd lesson...
FP
So when did anti-virus, anti-spam, and a firewall become optimization technologies? My computer seems to run slower with these things installed.
PC optimization technologies? I wonder what they mean? Security optimization?
Genesii (That's multiple Genesis to you and I) have a history of utter failure.
Genesis (Sega): Defeated by SNES
Genesis (STWoK): Stolen by Khan, and he damn dear destroyed the enterprise with it
Genesis (Band): Ushered in the era of HORRID 80's music
Please Symantec, can we call this something that has a history of goodness attached to it, like Campbells?
If it's similar at all to any of the Symantec home all in one AV type packages it will be an enormous mess. The last time I worked on this, a 256MB machine used 270 MB of memory with nothing but Windows XP home and the Norton package running. Worse, when I disabled things they didn't need, like the firewall or spam scanner, it didn't actually unload them from memory.
I stopped using Symantec for AV a while ago. But home users will still buy this for the same reason they buy a dishwasher with 19 different settings when all they ever use is the pots and pans setting.
Too bad Microsoft already has an almost-mature software suite in beta that handles pretty much every single function this handles.
Shouldn't we be able to trust them now? Oh wait, since it took them 2 weeks to get the definitions out for a keylogging virus...I guess the answer to that is no.
Personally, after seeing Symantec corp take 2 weeks to release the definitions for a keylogger a customers network had...All symantec products I have out there are going to go away.
My choices are getting narrowed down quickly. McAfee lost out a few years back with the Nimda virus and failing to return phone calls....at all, not just late by a few hours or even a few days, a week later I heard from them. By that time I had already moved on since more than half my customer base was infected the DAY of the outbreak, not a week later.
But then, both of those 2 are really good at annoying the ever loving crap out of a user, which inturn causes the user to ignore all those little popups. I've even been guilty of it because I see them like 80 times a day. JUST DO YOUR JOB! You don't have to tell us what a wonderful job you are doing, just tell us when you need us to do something.
that megalomania is still alive and well in the corporate boardroom
...in their own mind
all they need are the sharks with frickin' laser beams and some wagnerian operas playing in the background and symantec's domination of teh intarweb is complete
grandiose schemes like this should signal to someone that they need some medication
it's one thing to think big, it's another thing to think RIDICULOUSLY DRAMATICALLY HUGE! (cue gong)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I personally would like to know why CowboyNeal wouldn't use this package? Does he use something instead? Or has he found a secret mystical power to protect his PCs from attacks? Maybe he uses *nix? etc etc
/. users out there use or recommend?
What do other
With anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, intrusion prevention, firewall, PC optimization and maintenance elements all bundled togetherm this is gonna be one hell of a system performance issue.
"Both Genesis and the next versions of Norton's traditional security products will be designed to work on Vista, Microsoft's forthcoming operating system, due later this year, as well as Windows XP."
Well, seems this does not do linux. Only Windows XP. But looks like Microsoft already has OneCare which does the same stuff. So I guess this is too late a genesis for symantec.
I fail to see why rolling multiple mediocre products into one big sack is a good thing. On one hand it's a nice idea to give Joe User a comprehensive set of security tools, but if Joe User is savvy enough to install one, he's probably aware of the others. No discernable benefit.
On the other hand, Symantec doesn't have the best software quality reputation these days, and while I'll still recommend NAV by itself, the enterprise all-in-one versions are so full of bugs & memory leaks (and yes an internally-known 0-day here and there, with fixes frozen in interdepartmental political glaciers) that many of their own cognicenti and consultants run competitors' tools. So for the geeks there's no discernable benefit here either, and quite possibly the new stuff-sack of products could be worse than the enterprise turd-burrito packages they've already shoveled out the door.
Like our friends in Redmond, Symantec would do well to refocus on that whole "quality" thing with many of their existing products before launching off into yet another direction. You sure as hell won't find their products running on any of my systems.
-Me (posting anonymously because of former employment at Symantec)
~~~
/adware /ms antispy beta ... all free)
Symantec Roadmap Includes Massive "Genesis" Suite
~~~
knowing Symantec when they say "massive" they mean system resource useage.
yeah no thanx....
firewall (sygate pf ) thanx symantec for killing it off... oh well still avail for now (or there is always kerio) plus i have a m0n0wall boxen as a perimeter firewall. (FREE)
antivirus... AVG Free or Avast Free
antispy wall (spywareBlaster / Spybot
whatever to teh rest of it.......
mainly i will not install any symantec crapola on my computers.....
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Hey, I just thought of a new name for my Mac; "Genesis."
And, to save you the effort: Nerrrrrdddddd!!!!!!
I have seen more problems caused by Symantec's software then I could count. I feel that if you have to run Windows then any extra layers of protection that you would need can be provided by free applications online. For example: Ad-aware, Spy-Bot, AVG Anti-Virus, ZoneAlarm, and the best firewall protection, SmoothWall.
I have unyielding hate for Symantec. I've spent countless hours trying to get their products to properly allow connectivity for various programs for other people, and even more hours uninstalling it after it wouldn't listen to my yelling.
Nothing Symantec has is good, or can't be replaced by a free alternative.
Anti-Virus? AntiVir (If you want to pay, they have a premium version, too)
Firewall? SP2 comes with a moderate firewall that works well. There are a good deal of free firewall programs out there, not to mention that many routers now have some sort of firewall software on them.
Ad-aware and MAS have taken care of any spyware problems I've had to deal with (except for some of the really evil ones.)
Any and everything else can be taken care of by good judgement and learning some PC common sense. Don't arbitrarily accept downloads that IE pops up with. Don't open every attachment that claims to be a dancing Ronald McDonald. Don't listen to every e-mail propogated by the feces of the internet that various programs in your windows folder are viruses.
There is absolutely no need to pay $100 for Symantec's horrible piece of crap. People would be better off without it.
I honestly hope I'm proven wrong, but I just don't see "a new age of Internet trust" happening.. ever. To even put a dent in the mal-ware industry, this new software will have to use up every last bit of resources the Vista-generation computers might have. Even then, there will always be a way around it! Any/every new feature this new software might introduce will also introduce, along with it, a new flaw; another vulnerability which will have to be patched. Thus, the circle will continue, only in another location: Vista.
A proud provider of services through the Microsoft Reboot Engineer Certification since 1997!
.....do a google for "System Mechanic Pro"
Symantec (Norton) was a good company in the DOS days. They had some powerful, useful tools. When Windows came along, they fell in love with eye candy. They started coming out with useless junk, and started churning versions.
I got fed up when they came out with PCAnywhere 9 (should have been 8.3) that claimed to have a faster file manager. It wasn't faster. The darn thing would re-sort the whole file list as it added each file in the directory. Even local file lists were slow as a result. Did it get better with 9.2, 10, 11? No. File transfers where also prone to crash. I replaced PCAnywhere with Ultra VNC, and Ultra VNC SingleClick (Free GoToMyPC anyone?).
Shall I start in on Norton Antivirus? Oh what the heck... How about a program that can bring some machines to their knees and not others? When a user says to me: Man, my machine is slow! The first question that pops into my head is NOT "Do they have spyware?", it's "Do they have Norton Antivirus?". How 'bout a program that trashes your machine when you install another version over it, Leaves TONS of junk in your registry after an uninstall, and has no clue about new viruses (no heuristics)? I replaced Norton Antivirus with NOD32.
How about support for products they bought?
Powerquest made some dandy products like Partition Magic, and Drive Image. I owned both. I tried several times to find anything on the Symantec web site about Drive Image. Nope. The only thing was a press release saying they had bought Powerquest. No upgrade path, nothing. I tried recently to reinstall Partition Magic. There is a web registration/unlock required before you can use it. Guess what? The registering company does not recognize anything about Powerquest anymore. I had to toss Partition Magic in the trash. I replaced Partition Magic with Acronis Disk Director, and replaced Drive Image with Acronis True Image (You don't think I would buy Ghost do you?).
Symantec? Dont trust 'em. Good riddance.
NOD32... Believe me it just works. The day before I installed this nice little program on a pentium III 700... It just worked, and without crippling it I might add. They also update often, sometimes several times in a day. Well i don't want to sound like advertisement, but it just works.
Symantec and McAfee are about as effective at problem solving as the Bush administration. These are two products that render a machine useless by loading hundreds of megs of unnecessary graphics and who-knows-what while simultaneously blocking network communication, and popping up every four seconds to tell you about the "attack" so narrowly averted thanks to it. Every so often it asks you for more money.
I went red and started recommending Kaspersky, but my clients have trouble getting it installed thanks to its ridiculous registration system. Instead of a stream-lined system, you have to download a key file and 'show Kaspersky your papers,' if you catch my drift.
Now I just install the free version of Avast. No problems so far.
The first one of you to write software that blocks terra attacks from the inner-web is not going to have any trouble paying off that student loan. Promise.
Semantec...yummy stuff right there. Whats next on their list? Condoms that protect you against virii and bacteria?
*yes I know seman isnt how you spell semen*
I wonder if this is going to have another spyware-ridden root kit in it too!
If the guys at Symantec/Norton think I'm EVER going to install/recommend ANY of their products EVER again, they're still smoking the same stuff that they were smoking when they thought that root-kitting all their customers was a good idea in the first place.
Hey Symantec - PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY!!!!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
...by how quickly the copy protection is defeated on it.
Every big-name commercial security product I've ever installed on Windows had made my system SOO drastically slower, less stable and more prone to ridiculous UI interactions (security popups instead of advertisement popups, as an example... just as annoying!) that I honestly believe these "solutions" are worse than the software they are trying to block.
Needless to say I haven't had any installed for years now, and I also haven't been hit by any viruses or spyware.
One more generation of crapware filters should just about bring Vista to its knees.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The assumption appears to be that we trust Symantec...
Symantec's already got a product that does most of this - it's called SystemWorks. Why are they trying to rebrand it?
Because it's shit. Pure, unadulterated SHIT. The memory footprint is huge, it conflicts with several commonplace corporate apps, and when coupled with Norton Internet Security it can effectively lock a business user out of the rest of the network.
If Symantec's looking to improve on their product line, I have the perfect suggestion: bash each Symantec product's head in with a shovel and the delete key. There's nothing that Symantec does that a good lobotomy couldn't do just as well.
Symantec: You can rename your product line and add a few extras in, but calling anything that comes out of your company "Genesis" is tantamount to me taking a huge shit and calling it heaven.
If Symantec is trying to teach people to "trust" the Internet, they're doing people a disservice. The Internet is a way for people to communicate with other people; any communication includes the possibility of lies and fraud. Yes, the Internet introduces new technical types of ways for people to cheat and attack each other (phishing, OS vulnerabilities, viruses, trojan horses, etc.) but even if you solve all the technical issues, you still fundamentally have people communicating with each other. Strangers should not blindly trust each other regardless of context.
If Jane AOLer meets Joe MSNer on IRC, even if she has "Genesis" and "Leviticus" too, should she trust him any more than if she met him in real life? No. If Jane AOLer shops at FuzzySlippersOnline, should she trust them any more than she trusts her local brick and mortar CoolBootsEmporium? Of course not. The online world is not to be trusted, any more than the big blue room outside is to be trusted.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!1 !!
stupid lameness filter. stupid stupid lameness filter.
Unless this product gets a lot more concrete and directed, I don't know who is going to buy it.
I can see use for an "automated services" system like this -- patching problems, looking for malware, updating software, providing a link to toll tech support for your computer, etc.
Currently, you can cobble together something for your Windows-using relatives with AdAware, some sort of virus scanner, occasionally (maybe once a year) dropping by to update software and having them call you when things break. But that's a pain, and very wasteful of time, since a lot of these issues are common to a lot of people.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
This is Symantec's big push... in the wrong direction.
Now, how much you wanna bet the cost is going to be roughly that of all the componants?
Also, who's to say that this'll work? If it's all integrated, and a virus turns off one part, it's all off. I take great pride of my multiple layers of defense. You get rid of my hardware firewall, I have a software one. You get rid of that I also have multiple virus scanners. Top is all off with good backups, and the ability to kill my machine, strip it, clean it of dust, and completely rebuild in 4 hours, I'm not too worried.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
Pure crap and bloatware who helped user in the era of 5000 icons in the xp notification area
hahahaha computing these days is so retarded.
Symantec's Genesis is owned in only seven days and then the world reboots.
I hope they make a Mac version for my new 20 inch Dual Core, so I can protect it from all those vir... uh... nevermind.
Uhm, yeah... its called a Mac and it was "been there done that" like, twenty some years ago
KHAAAAN!
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
...and sell Trend Micro Internet Security instead?
I've been using Trend Micro for the last couple of years. It's already got the full meal deal Symantec is promising, and it's actually updated in near-real-time (every three hours).
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
In my experience, anti-X software has been nothing but a waste of time and money. The majority of users I've seen using anti-X software have still had disastrous problems with their machines. I've also noticed that mainstream "live protection" anti-X software bogs down system resources and does nothing but slow things down.
Personally, I've been browsing "safely" (with Firefox, I might add)... even with a Windows XP machine... and I can't remember the last time I've had a virus or major spyware infection. Not once have I installed anti-X software on any of my machines.
In my experience over the past couple of years, there are few PC 'optimizations' as effective as uninstalling Symantec antivirus, firewall, spamfilter and associated applications..
It is absolutely *astounding* the percentage of techsupport calls coming in at an ISP helpdesk are the direct result of a malfunctioning Symantec application. Especially Norton Antivirus -- after a while, you almost start to suspect that Symantec released that program as a practical joke.
McAfee is a distant second, while AVG and Avast rarely cause any problems. It's amazing how many problems, lock-ups and corrupted email problems magically disappear simply by uninstalling Norton Antivirus and installing the free version of AVG instead.
Somehow, I am rather sceptical that things will get better by them slapping their entire product line in a single box, and trying to cram in a pony on top of it. Jack of all trades, master of none.
Heh, and I am already thinking to switch over to NOD32 cause NAV is massive!
PS: It is due to such news that people have started thinking 'security' is a work of software and not the OS.
I forgot to be anonymous.
Or, and I'm just thinking out loud here, I could just use a Mac or Linux or a BSD and not give Symantec, who has recently been credibly accused of installing rootkits and ignoring spyware developers who give Symantec money, any of my money.
Just a thought.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Is there going to be an OS X version?!? ...oh wait.. nevermind.
Why should I "trust" Symantec? Hell, I don't trust Google... why should I trust a company whose entire revenue stream is built out of "fixing" "broken" boxes?? D:
Mod me redundant if you'd like but let's be serious here - money doesn't build trust. Never has. Never will.
So what is this, hm, "massive security package" is supposed to do?
It has been shown time after time again these packages *alone* cannot make your computer secure. People either don't know or forget that security is a process. As Bruce Schneier put it, sticking a big, massive, spike in the ground isn't going to make your house secure, You need other things, things such as procedures.
Knowledge is your best countermeasure.
Despite its enormous power, protomatter is highly unstable and its use has been made illegal by civilized worlds in the galaxy.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Release something usual (same as it was with a few upgrades), but make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread. Someone's been watching Steve Job's strategy with each new release of OS X.........
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
a bundling of Symantec's Systemworks and Symantec's Internet Security?
If it is, I didn't trust either of them in the old-days of Windows XP. Both are bloatware that take up too much memory and processing power. And as recent news has demonstrated, Symantec doesn't have a good track record in terms of actually fending off against viruses. They seem more in the interest of keeping themselves alive than doing any good. (Ghost debacle with SpyBot?)
I'd entirely agree - it (multiple layers from multiple vendors) is also absolute basic security.
End consumers need to understand that it's like putting loads of security on your house and car, which all works with one key. More convenient, but with an obvious point of failure.
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh
Wow, lots of hate! Is Symantec really that bad? What's the best one then?
I've been using Norton Client Security for the past 2 years on all my machines and I'm pretty happy with it. But then again I'm not an enterprise level network admin either.
I needed something that would install on my Windows 2003 file server and that would also let me manage my loser roommates' computers so they don't bring home any stupid viruses and ruin my day.
If anyone has any better suggestions I'm open to hearing them.
Want a firewall? www.jetico.com - "Jetico Personal Firewall" *freeware*.
Don't be put off by the "personal" bit. It's actually rather close to iptabls et al in the Windows world--rulesets, various logging levels, lots of different protocols, etc. It *will* confuse you initially (UI in particular), but then again, I did say it was like iptables... Both are rather unpatronising.
Want a cheap (not free, but try it--I paid for it), fast, small anti-virus? www.nod32.com. Works, no fluff or animated 3D logos, un-installs without ripping out your computers nervous system. Very small memory foot-print.
That is all.
Carol: It is our intention to introduce the Genesis device to a preselected area of a lifeless space body, a moon or other dead form - the device is delivered react with wonder instantaneously causing what we call the Genesis effect.
Matter is reorganized with life generated results.
Instead of a dead moon, a living breathing planet, capable of sustaining whatever life forms we see fit to deposit on it...
SPOCK: Fascinating.
Recently aqurired my first virus in years doing something I shouldn't have been doing, which is how I got my last virus years ago also. I only run a cheap linksys hardware firewall and nothing else. I use thunderbird to check email which has js and images disabled and I don't use IE at all.
I ran the usual tools like hijackthis, adware and so on. Tried getting rid of it myself by reading some info on it and editing reg and safemode and the whole business. Nothing was working so I decided to start trying demo's. I tried norton first, didn't do shit. Symantec next, it found a slew of virus's that norton didn't but still didn't get rid of it. On to Panda, found more viruses but didn't get rid of it. Next trillian, nope. Then ZoneAlarm. It found even more virus files that the others didn't, it also added the two-way firewall which kept catching my computer trying to connnect. ZoneAlarm demo ran out, fine for a day or two and then noticed some virus processes running.
I understand the BS that I should have these useless programs running 24x7 because then I would be safe, but what the **** good are these programs if they can't get rid of any viruses. If i'm stupid enough to click on programs which are most likely viruses then why would I be smart enough to not just let them pass through the virus software anyway. The software sends about 20 popups an hour at you, if you don't already understand computers then what good are their techy explanations anyway?
Since reinstall is the only real way to get rid of a virus (apparently), how about putting the $120 O/S on a flash card instead of a disc which takes me an hour to install. Now thats a solution I would be interested in hearing about.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/01/13/73792_03 OPcringley_1.htmll .3.299903.10
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joe
Personally, I wouldn't.
Backup Exec - bloated pile of shit
Norton Antivirus - annoying piece of shit
So, let me get this straight, i'm supposed to trust Symantec to write secure software?
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
... the white stuff lying around all over the place is not manna from heaven (do not try to sniff it) and the critters, in the water, the ones with the triangular fins, those are Microsoft salesmen, they bite!!!
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Because Symantec has one of the (of not the best) anti-virus research organizations around, I don't mind using their products. But, their consumer products have grown in bloat and complexity far beyond user friendliness.
As such, I use Norton Anti-Virus corporate edition 10. It's basically a simple GUI mounted on the engine with virus defs. Simple, clean...and effective.
Too bad Symantec doesn't market this version to the masses. It's the best version and the most easy to use IMHO.
Life is not for the lazy.
Norton Systemworks has pulled all these "security and optimization" things together for a while now, and all I've ever seen it do is gobble up memory and CPU time while pretty much not doing anything but actually making the system MORE unstable. Is it really such a great idea to have so many program with different agendas all sinking their API hooks in to your windows environment? I personally couldn't trust any package of independently developed applications to not accidently bump in to each other. Just look at all the weird behaviors older Norton Systemworks suites had a habit of introducing (i.e. breaking dos compatibility, even in 98!) and now that we have a new package being pulled together, it's another opportunity for the same mistakes to be made over again, only this time with a suite of more intensive, more invasive types of applications.
I've been using a neural modelling programme called
GENESIS for over ten years. Does Symantec intend to buy the rights to the name or what?
A number of applications which, when combined, don't provide full security is all of a sudden ushering in a new age of trust, because they're now sold in one cardboard box instead of multiple boxes???
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Ha! Buy and install Genesis? You can imagine what that would do to your head and your system!
1. After installation you need to set it up
2. Firewall blocks all the stuff you want
3. Won't recognise any 3rd party scanners
4. Demands a heap of bandwidth to update its modules almost daily
5. Chews memory and slows all apps from opening and saving
6. Decides that the email you've been waiting for with that very important attachment can't be shown
7. Breaks as its front end is html based and screws up if a module isn't downloaded or out of sequence
8. And when you try to uninstall it, won't recognise your password, can't recognise its own install CD
9. Search their site to find removal tools to try and uninstall it, editing the registry just for fun
10. Give up, format the drive and install AVS which is free, better, has a small footprint and talks to you as well.
FUCK OFF SYMANTEC
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
It's called Linux (well, OK, and BSD in various guises). No, seriously, I'm not claiming it's always been 100% good, but if this product is going to claim that I sure hope they have a good insurance - Linux (and especially) BSD have always been ahead of the curve on threats, and where they didn't get it right the exposure didn't last very long.
Having said that, I'm in two minds if I want to see Windows to become more secure. Most virus writes follow the Pareto (80/20) principle, why put in effort for Linux when abusing Windows is so much easier?
The upside of a safer Windows, however, could be that we'd suddenly have all that wasted bandwidth back..
Insert
Genesis? Is system FORBIDDEN! Money, more...
Check out Polaris. It's a way of giving each process on XP it's own ACL. Have a look at the rest of erights too if you want to get an idea of what people who put security *first* are thinking.
http://www.erights.org/new.html
Funnily enough, if you start from a good place, security often follows on naturally without getting in the way, unlike most mainstream operating systems.
Also have a look at EROS - a pure capability operating system which allows such fine grained access control that the closest you can get to the Priniciple of Least Privilege with the most locked down system in windows is a joke when compared to it.
http://www.eros-os.org/
so nowadays "2.0" is the new "xp"
dont we love them buzzwords
web 2.0
business 2.0
security 2.0
...and the revelation will be in the shape of a many-headed beast of a program. Which will be difficult to excorsize, like Symantec products tend to be. A bug-haunted plague of biblical proportions. No thanks... Next thing you know you'll need some special number to be allowed to run a program...
--frank[at]unternet.org
From problems with uninstalling and problems caused with having Symantec stuff to a system with fully up to date Norton Anti-Virus defs - 18 viruses found... use AVG, Spybot & Adaware.
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
Why wait?
some CEO's wet dream... I mean, all this new-age-of-trust-and-security crapola sounds so..utopian. I'm still waiting for domed cities, flying cars, and electricity that's "too cheap to meter."
.... when you can identify which security software someone is running by the error code from outlook express... Gone are the times that a majority of user problems were actually user-related... 90% of email problems I get phone calls about are cause by security software. (doing 1st line support for a major ISP) It's a good thing that more and more people are buying Apple noawdays. Apples never have software problems, just user problems and broken hardware.
Symantec plans a one-stop software service tying together anti-virus, anti-spam, firewall and a host of other PC optimization technologies...
so basically it's just a fancy name for Systemworks
Norton stuff seems to be king of the "We'll change your computer all around just for our software and it will run slower" manufacturers.
Over the years, I've developed best-of-breed for myself. You probably have others you like:
1) Firewall - Sygate. Doesn't try to do too much which is good because its small, fast, and it's easy to reconfigure to do pretty much anything. Oh, it's free, too. I can see why Symantec bought it and killed it.
2) Anti-Virus - AVG is the only virus protection I've used that doesn't bog down the computer. And it's cheaper than Symantec too. I think the only reason it doesn't get rated higher by magazines is they like suites that throw in the kitchen sink. I like small utilities that work well.
3) Anti-spyware - Webroot Spysweeper. It has worked consistently well for 2-3 years now.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
So they're going to usher in a new age of trust on the internet by bundling several products together in one suite. Yeah, that's a winner, just ask Netscape. In all seriousness, the only thing this is ushering in is a new age in which you have to put all your trust in one software vendor to do everything you need security wise correctly.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
The trouble with Zonealarm is that it's hard to configure to do stuff they don't want you to do.
For example, if you want one machine to connect to another via your wifi connection to share a hotel hotspot, zonealarm is very hard to use primarily because it isn't an expected option, so you can't just say to it "Allow IP address xyz to connect to me on port abc".
Plus, in the past, I found zonealarm was slowing down my ethernet connections significantly. Maybe they fixed that. I don't think it's the worst firewall, but it's far from the best. Sygate's is good (if you can still track it down), Kerio is good, even though they killed off their free version in reaction to Sygate's demise. I'm sure there are others, but Zonealarm may be a fine all-in-one product, but its a pretty mediocre firewall.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
will I finally be able to install Norton and then use my computer afterwards? Haven't been able to do that since I had Norton Utilities 2000 running on Win98SE. It's pretty bad when you actually have to download extra software just to uninstall a program. and even then you may still have to format your hard drive to get rid of it.
Now they're promising something even bigger which goes even deeper into the OS. Pardon me if I feel less than enthusiastic.
Norton Utilities 4.5 was the last good product to come from the "Norton" stable (I still use "NCD"). After that it was downhill all the way.
PS: Antivirus? Get AVG....
No sig today...
I hate Norton as much as the next guy, but for the sake of some good uses of the word Genesis, please look at the Panavision Genesis camera - the world's BEST digital cinema camera bar none: http://www.panavision.com.au/News/Genesis.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_HD_camera With a little luck (and a good amount of funding!!!) I will be using this camera to film my first feature film later this year...
Visceral Psyche Films
I sure hope that this new genesis thing will have Blast Processing, because Symantec's apps are usually sluggish
Now we only need to buy a BlueGene/L (IBM) to support the processing power that it will need :P
OK, isn't that what "System Works" is? I stopped using Norton stuff a while ago because it got so big and bulky...I like the idea of a one stop shop, but, not if it's simply taking all their existing software and putting a mass installer around it and installing 4-5 different apps at once. If somebody could come up (or WOULD come up) with a single application that looks for viruses, spyware and spam in one app, rather than one service doing virus hunting, one service doing spyware hunting, etc...no wonder these packages slow a PC down so much. Now, I am no software developer, just a web developer, but, isn't it possible, since one service is already scanning inboard data, to have it scan for everything, rather than a service for each type of threat?
dB Masters
Genesis (Bible): The universe was created.
As Douglas Adams has said, this has been generally viewed as a bad idea and should never have happened.
Symantec used to be a very good quality program, but in the last couple years they really seem to have tanked. Symantec Antivirus and Norton Internet Security are probably second only to viruses as the reason PCs are brought into our shop for service. NIS just flips out sometimes if a virus attacks, and just plain shuts down everything. Who in their right mind would make an automatic rule that could block incoming email and web browser??? answer! Symantec! Thank you for saving me from my new mail and home page...
Maybe they should make their current version of software work before they think about integrating it all together? I think at this point installing several symantec products all at once would turn your computer into a train wreck.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
From AHD:
trust n.
9. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or industry. --See Synonyms at monopoly.
As long as you keep that definition in mind when about anything having to do with Microsoft or Windows, their meaning is quite clear.
Khaaan!
We're talking about Universal Armageddon!
The fundamental problem with securing Windows is that for every part of the operating system you secure, every part of the operating system that uses it breaks.
I'm curious as to what you use and if it is for personal or corporate use.
PCAnywhere - pile of shit
So, what's better, VNC? Yea, Right!
Backup Exec - bloated pile of shit
As against what, ArcServe, Legato? Both bloated piles of shit as well.
Norton Antivirus - annoying piece of shit
Granted there are lots of choices here but, the generally accepted top providers all seem to be more or less the same. Symantec, McAfee, CA eTrust, etc...
I've used all of these products for more than 10 years and they all suck. What have you found that sucks less?
to the Age of Empires series?
As I've commented several times before in previous Symantec-related stories, the company cranks out pure junk. Perhaps even more distastefully, has done so using the name (and for some time, even a head-shot photo!) of Peter Norton, a GOOD developer from back in the MS-DOS days, who has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the Windows-based anti-virus and disk repair utilities they've been hawking as though he wrote them.
As a few others have occasionally pointed out; anti-virus, anti-spyware or anti-spam type software are perfect examples of cases where open source makes the most sense. There's too much incentive in commercial versions of such products to cheat the end-user. (EG. Who's to say that if you sell an anti-virus product and sales get slow, you wouldn't pay off some hacker in a 3rd. world country to make a new virus that your product can then detect and clean first?) If not open-source, then at least products that are essentially "freeware".
Besides, if you're going to have to add these layers of code to an OS just to keep it running securely, you want them to be as "lean" and unobtrusive as possible. Symantec and most competing commercial products are the exact opposite - because they're very concerned about "flashiness" and "substance" to try to make the user feel like he/she really got something for their money.
I really doubt that many of them spend nearly as much effort on making good, working detection engines as they do on the "control panel" interfaces they have. Just last week, I cleaned up a virus mess on a guy's Windows XP machine. He was running Trend Micro's anti-virus product, but it kept doing full system scans and reporting no viruses found. Something was obviously wrong though. (You could even see several programs running in the task manager that didn't belong.)
I tried running Avast anti-virus on it, and it detected a handful of trojan horse downloader viruses in the WINDOWS directory, all with random filenames starting with things like ABAAA, ABAAB, ABAAC, and so forth.
I looked in the directory and found THOUSANDS of these files, yet Avast was only seeing random sprinklings of them. I then installed the free version of AVG anti-virus and scanned it again. Guess what? It detected over 3,000 of the files and deleted them all! So once again, the *free* product did a MUCH better job than 2 commercial ones.
"Trust" and "Symantec" used in the same sentance is a bit... Well, silly.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
I have the best anti-badware known to man: Common sense.
$signature_views++;
Making one chunk of software (Windows) more secure by adding another chunk (Norton) is not as effective as it might seem. By adding the second chunk, you increase the overall potential vulnerability footprint of the box, by virtue of the fact you're got more lines of code running. More code means more potential bugs, holes, etc. Symantec has previously had to patch holes in their code (as has most everyone else, of course).
Assuming that Symantec code is about as good/bad as Microsoft code, how much of the potential benefit of Symantec's proprosed security is nullified by the increased vulnerability footprint?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
...and popup windows on your desktop.
"Your subscription is about to expire!"
"Warning! Auto-protect is disabled! Your computer is at risk!"
"New Genesis updates are available! Click here to download!"
Age of trust? Pfft. I have a better slogan for them:
"Who needs spyware when you have Symantec?"
So, who will protect us from Symantec's registration and copy protection software?
Hey, I've got an idea; how about instead of selling security as an add-on package, we:
BUILD IT INTO THE FARKING OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> "a new age of trust on the Internet"
Symantec doesn't control the internet, let alone the dynamic interactions that happen on the internet. Yet they're promising to make the interactions trustworthy using technology?
Bah! Pure marketing nonsense. Symantec certainly isn't going to lead the pack in making the internet a safer place. They're a company that believes in being "quick followers". They're sheep, not a shepherd. They usually acquire innovation and creativity -- not because Symantec's employees aren't creative, but because big corporations aren't structured to allow creativity to flourish. Instead, they're structured to reduce risk to stockholders -- and internal creativity is usally too risky.
If anyone is going to usher in a new age of trust on the Internet, it will be the little guys that do it. Big corporations will follow like sheep, by acquiring or copying the innovators.
Is this going to be anything like the Age of Aquarius? Or perhaps it is New Age technology... Lots of crystals and such. Oh, Lord, now I have images of people with lots of hair dancing with their computers. That can't be good.
It doesn't say that that AV and Firewall are optimization, it says that the program is going to come with AV, Firewall AND optimization software. Think Norton System Works blended with Norton Internet Security.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security. nsf/6fffc7260966992188256bf300818635/40814e0bdb4a5 2d188256c130072ca45?OpenDocument&src=bar_sch_nam&s eg=hm
This takes a little while , eg try searching for one of the numeric strings on a production servers registry , I have spent hours recently uninstalling 7.5, 7.6 and 8 client and server editions and it is a pain in the ass.
If it wants your custom installer package to deinstall itself and cant find it
(dumped onto a temporary directory on a long ago cloned master ) then your outlook is effectively :
"you are screwed , use slow drawn out uninstallation process"
This is great but when you find you actually have components installed like parts of the SSC installed combined with fragments of NAV 7.5 server complete with AMS etc overlaid with the CE 8 client then it really starts to suck.
Security is not a Product. It is a Process.
Symantec can promise the world, but true security is quite a bit beyond the reach of installing a "security daemon" and forgetting about it.
I've said it many times on other forums...
Peter Norton should sue Symantec for Defamation of Character.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Come on, guys. This is no more news than any other bullshit press release cum advertisement. This is just Symantec dropping some more dubious functionality into a suite of software that hasn't worked for shit since its inception, in the wake of competent competition rising up while they blunder around.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not inclined to trust a company (Symantec) that makes smarmy backroom deals with spyware vendors (Sony) to not protect my computer from malware.
Nobody else with a lick of sense should trust Symantec either.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.kaspersky.com/ A lean, strong application with a web-based encyclopedia of malware defintions and nightly definition updates. And no, I'm not getting kickbacks for this.
Symantec. Isn't that one of the anti virus companies that turned a blind eye to Sony's virus?
Why would anyone trust them?
I have to believe this is how the mighty want to do things as well.
The Trusted Computing system relies on the notion that "security" processes are done on another processor.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Semantec has set their goal to 'Security 2.0' which is proposed to be 'a new age of trust on the Internet.'
Yes, Symantec is certainly the first company that pops into my mind when I hear the word "trust"...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I suppose "could" is the right word. I suspect that many will even buy this rubbish, thanks to the effervescent sales pitch made by the local computer shop or supermarket.
A company that writes software that cannot uninstall itself, needs more privileges than an Administrator account on XP, needs you to download three files just to remove itself and stops your actual email from being downloaded, yeah, that's something the common computer user could buy.
I've now spent countless man hours removing this crap from client machines after they were told that they needed it. For me, AVG, SpyBot S&D and AdAware seems to work just fine and the computer still responds without the need to install Ghost, Live Update, Live Register, and 27 other little programmes.
To top it off, it doesn't even actually work. That is, stop infections.
Hmm, "could" indeed.
Perhaps I should buy shares...
|>>?
Genesis (Band): Ushered in the era of HORRID 80's music
Well, sure, but they also gave us "Lamb Lies Down in Broadway". They also gave us Peter Gabrial, one of the greatest philanthropists ever to walk this planet (from the interviews I've seen, his work even puts Bono to shame).Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Apparently, you missed that part of the summary. My first thought was how much of my memory would I have to give up to run the basic service, and how much of a performance hit would I take and for how long when it's doing a full scan. I haven't bothered with Norton for a couple years now, and it was bad enough then.
Aren't there enough of these? Free and otherwise? We've been using Unfied Threat Management devices to augment desktop AV, particularly because of the better network monitoring that can be achieved.
Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnhnnnnn nnnnm!!!!!!!
This is all about Symantec saying Windows Vista and Windows OneCare aren't going to make their products irrelevant. And to tell their investors that they'll still have a business when Redmond is delivering a/v, anti-spyware, and the other security goodies for little or no additional cost.
A hardware firewall goes without saying. But I use a software firewall to control programs that seem to like to chat to some distant server without permission. I think its essential.
As to "just not clicking" on stuff, I think Windows has shown that you can be infected without clicking; the WMF fiasco is just the latest in a long list of exploits that can be invoked by just visiting a web page.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Real security means designing the OS correctly in the first place. These are schemes to get corporations/government software on your computer acting as gatekeeper. Eventually the gatekeeper, under the guise of keeping you safe, will slowly take away your internet freedoms. I call fraud on these people. You can sprinkle sugar on shit all day long, but in the end it's still shit.