Slashdot Mirror


McAfee Anti-Virus Causes Widespread File Damage

AJ Mexico writes, "[Friday] McAfee released an anti-virus update that contained an anomaly in the DAT file that caused many important files to be deleted from affected systems. At my company, tens of thousands of files were deleted from dozens of servers and around 2000 user machines. Affected applications included MS Office, and products from IBM (Rational), GreenHills, MS Office, Ansys, Adobe, Autocad, Hyperion, Win MPM, MS Shared, MapInfo, Macromedia, MySQL, CA, Cold Fusion, ATI, FTP Voyager, Visual Studio, PTC, ADS, FEMAP, STAT, Rational.Apparently the DAT file targeted mostly, if not exclusively, DLLs and EXE files." An anonymous reader added, "Already, the SANS Internet Storm Center received a number of notes from distressed sysadmins reporting thousands of deleted or quarantined files. McAfee in response released advice to restore the files. Users who configured McAfee to delete files are left with using backups (we all got good backups... or?) or System restore."

76 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Help! by vjmurphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I need virus protection from my virus protection!

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
    1. Re:Help! by spellraiser · · Score: 4, Funny
      Okay - but after you get that, are you still safe?

      NO!

      You're going to need some virus protection from your virus protection from your virus protection to be absolutely safe.

      Thankfully, I am offering those at very reasonable prices. Buy one now and receive a free fragment from the Eiffel tower as a value-added gift.

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    2. Re:Help! by xtracto · · Score: 4, Informative

      What about a *nix firewall with antivirus software on it?

      You only need that headless pentium 3 (even a pentium pro could make it!) that you are using to rest your feet ;-), plus you will be able to forget the burden of whatever "ANTI-*.* " software that wastes your precious resources.

      Of course that is if you use Windows (for whatever reason, I also do it).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Help! by rikkards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's great but what if someone introduces a virus through other means i.e usb key, infected laptop, etc. Firewall won't help much internally

  2. The Risk by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think it's funny how on McAfee's site, they list the risk of the virus they are trying to identify:
    Corporate User : Low
    Home User : Low
    Did they forget to include that the risk of installing McAfee Anti-Virus for any user : High?

    Wait a minute, it is identifying some system files that Windows put on my machine! I guess the Mac & 'nix freaks are right, Windows really is a virus. I hope it's only a matter of time before my next virus definition assesses Internet Explorer & Windows Media Player as full blown Trojan viruses distributed as malware with my OS.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Risk by Aspirator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the commonly percieved risks of viruses is that
      'they will delete your files'.

      In one fell swoop it seems as though McAfee may have deleted more files
      than all the viruses it has removed would have.

    2. Re:The Risk by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, just install the new patched version of McAfee. I believe the internal name for this release is called Skynet.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:The Risk by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >McAfee may have deleted more files
      than all the viruses it has removed would have.


      go figure, no big system admin has wanted automatic (witout testing) updates for some time, to their OS. I guess sys admins got lazy on testing virus scanner updates before rollouts.

      I know I am not alone in turning off all runtime virus protection on my PC, because it has historically had more impact on system stabilty, and speed than most virii. (ok it seams the latest scanners on winXP may actually work...) Wouldn't save me from this problem, except my system scans only occur weekly, so may be luckly my weekly scan didn't occur (I do have nightly complete backups from backuppc.sourceforge.net ).

    4. Re:The Risk by fuyu-no-neko · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess the Mac & 'nix freaks are right, Windows really is a virus.

      But aren't viruses meant to be small and efficient? O.o

      --
      Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
    5. Re:The Risk by justthinkit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Score one for AVG (http://free.grisoft.com/). Much as I liked McAfee (back in Win98 days), I stopped using it due to (1) huge memory footprint, (2) onerous yearly fees.

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:The Risk by noone42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the things that nobody's saying here is that the default behavior for McAfee is to move the files into a quarantine directory, not to delete them. The user would have to change the settings for that to happen. Admittedly, it's still messed up for the program to delete essential files, but I think it's good policy to quarantine first in case something like this happens.

      That being said... On Saturday I went to do some work in Flash MX and got a message that it was missing a DLL file and I had to reinstall. No big deal, I must have botched something, so I reinstalled. While I was doing that, I went to get my bills together in Excel and got the message that Excel was no longer installed. My first reaction was that I had some kind of virus or trojan, so I ran a full system virus scan. It took me three hours of panic to realize that something like 40 .exe files and another 80 .dll files had been quarantined. VirusScan provides no way to restore quarantined files, so you have to pick through the scan log to find out where they originally lived and put them back yourself. I was wondering if this would come out in the news or if I just had a screwed up system. Thank god it's getting some press and McAfee had to fix it, I've been fighting my virus checker all weekend and it was getting pretty tiresome.

    7. Re:The Risk by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess sys admins got lazy on testing virus scanner updates before rollouts.

      That's very funny. When a ubervirus thrashes a couple of corporate networks to the tune of a billion dollars apiece, we hear "Stupid admins - the patch was available - they weren't keeping up". Now it's "They should have tested before rolling them out." (paraphrased)

      It appears, therefore, that using a system that is subject to viruses and security vulnerabilities on the scale of Windows is inherently untenable. We can't even define logically consistent expectations for the administrators of such systems. Can we stop using them now?

    8. Re:The Risk by digital+photo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More often than not, the choice to put AV software on systems wasn't a sysadmin choice, but a management/business choice. IE, cost reasons, CYA reasons, lower priority than say getting that next X million dollar project up and running, or some other reason which pre-empts AV stuff.

      I don't use AV software on my systems at home, but that's a personal choice. Not due to laziness, but because other measures have been taken: strong firewalling, restricted software on desktops, strong desktop settings, regular backups, and sufficiently educating anyone who uses the computer of the dangers they can face, what online actions are risky, and to abide by the basic rules so as to avoid putting your data/computer at risk.

      For half a decade, I've gone without AV software and have had all of my systems virii/adware/malware free. This isn't due to laziness, but diligence and preparation. This isn't due to OS fanatacism, but making a decision about what compromises to make between security and usability. I use WinXPpro, Linux, and MacOSX systems at home.

      When people passively rely on external assistance, like AV software, something like this would eventually happen. People make mistakes. Companies make mistakes. And when you have a large install base, those mistakes can easily become big monstrous mistakes.

      Right now, ALOT of sysadmins are probably sweating bullets getting systems back online. This isn't because they were lazy. This was because someone at another company screwed up and it impacted their infrastructure, which in turn impacts their business.

      Make no mistake, people will get sued and lawyers will get involved. Think it was just the businesses and end users of the AV software that got screwed? What about the customers of the businesses? What about the home users who run their business off of their home computers? Yeah, there'll be some noise about this down the road, make no mistake.

      *listens over the cube walls* I don't hear any cursing or screaming, so it hasn't happened here or the OS admins have done their homework over the weekend. In either case, this will be interesting to follow in the months to come.

  3. Good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good thing Mcafee doesn't have liability, via contract, for this mess....

  4. Does this mean... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That Microsoft Anti-Virus will be deleting McAfee from the system? And, to be on the safe side, also Norton?

    1. Re:Does this mean... by rbochan · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...And, to be on the safe side, also Norton?

      You'd hope that the sysadmin would be competent enough to do that.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  5. Surprisingly, it didn't quarantine itself by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only McAfee had quarantined itself before this disaster, it would have worked perfectly!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Surprisingly, it didn't quarantine itself by btellier · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, in their press release they have some of the filenames affected by the errant signature. Among them is:

      - FrameworkService.exe

      Which, if you take a look at your Task Manager, you will notice is:

        Directory of C:\Program Files\McAfee\Common Framework

      09/27/2005 03:06 AM 102,463 FrameworkService.exe

  6. Nortons AV did this to me once... by craznar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Scanned my Inbox file, and deleted it because there was a virus in it from before I installed Nortons AV.

    However - like most AV software, you can put it straight back.

    No biggy ..... however I turn off automatic scanning these days... just manually scan every so often.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  7. Re:who-can-you-trust? by dc29A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of the major reasons I use open source software. Its hard to trust corporations who only tell you lies to preserve their public image.

    Do you really think Open Source AV can't fsck up your PC if there are bugs in it? And let's be honest, how many people actually look at the source of programs (updates) they install? I am a programmer, and I never looked the code of an Open Source program I installed for the sake of "Let's make sure this update won't fsck up my PC". I look at the code because I am curious to see how they do certain things, or I want to change some annoying aspect of it.

  8. Re:who-can-you-trust? by MankyD · · Score: 2, Informative

    What on earth did they lie about? They screwed up and they're trying to tell you how to fix it. This is not a commercial vs. oss debate - sheesh!

    --
    -dave
    http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
  9. There's gotta be a way to blame this on Bush... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's gotta be a way to blame this on Bush. Somehow he was responsible.

  10. Re:who-can-you-trust? by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quiet you, we'll have no reasonable thoughts in THIS house!

    Closed source is teh $at4n... go linux, w00t!

  11. Re:Don't use anti-virus! by PFI_Optix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't had a virus on my XP system in four years, including during my dial-up days.

    If you keep your system updated, use a firewall, and just generally understand how the typical virus/worm/trojan works, you're 99.9% protected. However, there's always the possibility that someone will get clever enough to get through that, so I use AVG just to be on the safe side.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  12. Ouch.... by Araxen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    McAfee doesn't have the greatest rep as it is but this might be the last straw for them.

  13. Not surprised by QuantumPion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a major problem with anti-virus software. Because of their blacklist model, they have to release definitions and updates very frequently. They have to release these updates as quickly as possible as well, or else their subscribers will be infected with these viruses before they get the updates. In addition, their software is very bloated and complicated, needing to be able to defend against a huge variety of attacks, both immidiate and obsolete. This results in a very error-likely situation. What the network security companies need to work on is an innovative way to effectively protect corporate and home networks without having to use dangerous bloatware.

    1. Re:Not surprised by MartijnL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, Cisco's CSA (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps 5057/index.html) does the exact opposite: you tell it what is allowed to run and it blocks everything else. It also runs a signature analysis so when something that you hadn't configured yet tries to perform an attack it alerts the user. It can become quite a task however to properly configure and you still need user awareness to keep them from clicking "YES" everytime like they do with every other popup they face (the other option is that you manage everything but then you will get flooded with support calls).

    2. Re:Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they designed a product that actually worked they wouldn't be able to hammer their customers for a yearly subscription to update it.

  14. Re:Don't use anti-virus! by MankyD · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually... they do "magically propagate" when flaws are found in things like Windows SAMBA sharing or Apache's web server (or any server program that you run for that matter.)

    --
    -dave
    http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
  15. For what it's worth by shoptroll · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My computer started rebooting randomly a week or so ago, and is something I've been trying to combat for a while. It would do it when idling or when I was in the middle of websurfing.

    I find it interesting that once I disable Mcafee's on-access scanner the system stabilized itself and has been running without a problem for about a week now (I had seen it reboot about 3 times in one day).

    Seeing this article makes me more suspicious of the scanner now.

    --
    Insert Sig Here
    1. Re:For what it's worth by High+Hat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Have you tried running memtest86?

      This honestly sounds like a corrupt memory problem.

      Other possibility is that you've hard-set the windows swapfile limit...

    2. Re:For what it's worth by dkone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get AVG, it is free, small and stable. Norton and McAfee are both bloatware

  16. At last ! by alexhs · · Score: 2, Funny

    At last a good AV software removing those virii-ridden bloatware from your computer :)

    Why are people complaining ?

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  17. Re:Well... by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13, @09:07AM (#14906906)
    All I can say is 'wait 'til monday.'


    Heh, now that's funny.

  18. Deletes text files too by psm321 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I had a TEXT file deleted by McAfee just a few days ago. The "virus" that it identified was a different one from the one in this article too. Unfortunately, in the version of VirusScan I have (came with Dell computer) there's practically no configurable options, so I have no way to set it to quarantine instead of delete.

  19. Saw it coming (sort of) by martyb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just last week, in response to: The Trouble With Software Upgrades I posted a question asking what do you do to protect yourself from automatic updates that go bad... but I got no responses. In light of the current situation, I'd really appreciate hearing some responses, here.

    1. Re:Saw it coming (sort of) by simong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think there really is a way apart from having verifiable restorable backups of every system prior to patching. I was having a conversation along these lines this morning and the agreed solution was to have an identical test platform and install on that first, allow it to run long enough for any problems to arise and only then implement on a production system. That's the ultra-conservative approach but many years in financial services have shown that that's the only way of being certain.

  20. McAfee's response by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ummm...Whoops?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  21. Good catch by blueZ3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dunno about the rest of that stuff, but the Adobe update manager is a virus in my opinion.

    It seems to have "infected" all of Adobe's recent product install CDs. Once it "infects" your computer it displays a popup whenever you open an Adobe app. As far as I can tell, there's no way to shut this off in the latest versions. So I've paid $x00 dollars for Acrobat, and it comes with a virus.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:Good catch by SillyKing · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have removed Adobe Acrobat reader from my systems. In it's place, I use Foxit Reader (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php) for reading PDF files. It's a lot faster to load, and I have yet to come across a PDF it can't read.

      For creating PDF files, I use PDFCreator (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator). It works like Adobe Distiller used to, you create your PDF files by printing to PDFCreator.

    2. Re:Good catch by Wiz · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can use this piece of Adobe software:

      http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp? ftpID=2709

      To create custom MSTs for Acrobat, which you can use to disable all of the annoying crap. Well, apart from the Yahoo search! I suggest also http://www.appdeploy.com/ can be useful for finding ways to disable stuff in installers.

  22. We lucked out by PinternetGroper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our main system here downloads the DAT updates at 2 AM every day. As of Friday morning, it had downloaded the 4714 files, then downloaded the 4716's on Saturday morning, completely missing the 4715's. It appears we missed a bullet. Good luck to all the sysadmin's out there working on cleaning this up!

  23. Same as with safety belts by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every once in a blue moon, some poor person dies because he or she didn't get out of the burning car because of the belt. Then someone will stand up and say "See? I don't use them and if they didn't, they'd live as well. I drive carefully, I don't get into accidents, so I don't need them!"

    The problem is, you never know. It's not only foolishness that gets a trojan onto your system. They come with presumably legit software, even from reputable companies. An infected driver CD is all it takes. Shareware CDs or other CDs slapped on magazines, do you think they have a lot of time to make just perfectly sure the programs are clean? A lot of shareware comes bundled with adware, do you read all those EULAs? And do you think they tell the full truth? Can you read through the legalese?

    I won't get into system bugs and other exploits.

    So yes, you don't really need safety belts. But it sure feels a bit more secure with them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Where should users turn? by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the virus scanners act like viruses, what should users do? This isn't the first time a virus scanner has screwed up, and it probably won't be the last time, either.

    Furthermore, a lot of virus scanners have an option to "auto-update". Imagine if an entire company had this option turned on.

    Virus scanners have always been a bad solution to the problem of viruses. They don't fix the problem at its root. Instead of ensuring their operating system has no known security holes, users now rely on virus scanners to just catch everything that comes through. Any determined attacker could still just craft a custom virus to attack any host they desire. Since the virus scanner companies wouldn't have come across that particular virus, it wouldn't get picked up.

    Would you fix the holes in a boat with sticky tape instead of checking that the boat doesn't have holes before you put it in the water?

  25. I haven't had any problems by myth24601 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I use McAfee and My system is working fi

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.
  26. Re:Don't use anti-virus! by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's wonderful news sir. You've just won yourself an invitation to come to my place of work and train 200 40+ year olds to do the same.
    Wow, that'll save us tons of cash!

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  27. Ye don't always get what ye pays for by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People percieve paid software to be superior to free alternatives because A: nothing could go wrong with paid software and B: if something did go wrong, obviously the company would indemnify / rectify / fix the problem.

    Likewise, the perception is that the more expensive the software (and the bigger the box it comes in) the more protection you are afforded. And that the company won't suddenly decide to change direction / stop supporting the software / etc.

    Yet time and time again this is shown not to be true. McAfee uninstalls arbitrary files on your computer (how'd that get through testing?) and just tells users to re-install from backup... exactly the kind of calamity the software is supposed to prevent. Part of WinNT5 was found to violate someone's patent, and anyone using that particular (admittedly rare) function had to pony up to the original patent holder or write a workaround.

    As far as I can tell, the "little guys" software tends to be better in general than the big boys. Why? Because they're still trying. Before Norton was Symantec, they struggled to create an amazing toolkit of software tweaks that really did some great things. Now that their position is secure, they've hardly updated the suite to even work with XP, let alone taken advantage of the fixes and hacks that smaller houses have found. McAfee, once a nimble little company making a great little product, has been bloating for years. The more developers you add to a project, the less anyone knows about what the system is doing.

    A free alternative that has been around for a long time:
    AVG Antivirus
    There are others. Please post 'em below.

  28. The real irony here.... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real irony is that all the people who are too lazy/stupid/uneducated to update their anti-virus subscription were protected against this.....

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    1. Re:The real irony here.... by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Granted, I'm lazy, but I'm not dumb or uneducated, but I have no concept of an "anti-virus subscription".

      Couldn't you have just looked at the pricing page for any of the major antivirus vendors, or any of the 163,000 hits on Google for "antivirus subscription" or 6.04 million for "anti-virus subscription" (the top hits of which are about the same) for this answer, instead of flaming the guy?

      I mean, yes, you're lazy, but damn, man, it's just Google.

    2. Re:The real irony here.... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's very few options in a corporate or university environment who want to manage their virus scanners. Most of the "free" scanners dictate that you need to pay if you're in such an environment anyway.

    3. Re:The real irony here.... by ummit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Are you a teenager?

      Looks to me like he's a smug user of computing platforms that are actually, inherently, mostly secure.

      ...those paying for an anti-virus subscription being somehow incompetent.

      It seems there are yet a few little boys who dare to say "The Emperor has no clothes" when confronted with the, yes, staggering incompetence with respect to security which is rampant within the mainstream PC world.

      1. adopt a platform with no inherent security
      2. become utterly dependent on it such that you can neither abandon it nor correct its inherent flaws
      3. spend extra time and money on extra, after-the-fact "security" applications which, at best, give you a slight headstart in what's still a footrace between the white hats and the black hats (a race in which the black hats still seem to be holding their own)
      4. put up with lost files and more lost time when the "security" software runs amok
      5. to make yourself feel better while you're waiting for your backup tapes to read, belittle someone who has the audicity to wash his hands of your chosen platform's sorry problems.
  29. McAfee Haiku? by ursabear · · Score: 2, Funny

    The files they are gone. It seems McAfee ate them. The backup saved us. or The files they are gone. It seems McAfee ate them. Go home from work now.

  30. Re:Don't use anti-virus! by JazzCrazed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to mention that you won't know whether or not your computer has a virus if you don't scan it with some sort of antivirus software.

  31. Ethereal too? by OrangeDoor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just noticed the screenshot on the McAfee page for W95/CTX. It shows some dlls from the Ethereal program as being infected. Of course those files are in their complete list of affected files, which comes in a convenient easily accesible PDF file as all the most important documents on the web should. It's 7 pages long, but an amusing list to skim through.

    Who uses Ethereal and McAfee? Just found that funny/ironic on some levels.

    --
    "Too lazy to fail." - Heinlein
  32. Software Wars by Godji · · Score: 2, Funny

    [deep bass voice]It's a world where companies wage a security suite war on other companies. The battlefield is your own desktop. Imagine Mysantec's antivirus attempting to delete Facamee's antivirus, before being both obliterated by Sicromoft's security solution still in beta. Wouldn't it be fun to watch as your CPU cycles get all pulled into the fight, with rampant defense software running around your RAM and filesystem, killing each other out, filling your desktop space, and celebrating victory with funny alerts, baloons, dialogs, pop-ups, windows, and what not, all reaching for you attention? Ah, talk about an exciting desktop! (And really, what could be more boring that a computer that just works and leaves you with nothing to do except to work with it?)
    [special effects]
    In the ensuing destruction and chaos, nothing remains alive but two things: the memory of your once existing data, and an unidentified hideous sneaky polar bird determined to show you of an alternate dimension of reliability and freedom...
    [epic music]
    Coming soon, on your desktop: RealityArts presents: THE SOFTWARE WARS, EPISODE 442.75
    [/deep bass voice]

  33. CTX undo file by n3m0-kn0z3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just got off McAfee tech support line. They have an undo script to unquarantine incorrectly identified files. Since the file is not publically available from their site, I have uploaded it here: ctxundo.zip

    1. Re:CTX undo file by stry_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who in their right mind is going to download and run a script off of an unknown website? I'm sure you're trying to help, but no one should do this. Otherwise they'll need more than just McAfee to fix their computer.

  34. McAfee Plague by ShadowNetworks · · Score: 2, Informative

    This incident only goes to show that any file manipulation program (even the essentials like anti-virus and spy-ware/ad-ware removers) can have a profound effect on one's personal files. ALWAYS BACKUP. Even if you trust your media, you'll probably get attacked from within (hackers and now your own software).

    Anyone remember Microsoft Anti-Spyware removing Norton? Anyone remember IRC commands such as "startkeylogger" booting systems from the internet running Symantec?

    No one's perfect, even the software programmers. And as he laid down in a vicous wrath... the software they trusted most deleted their most precious files. Welcome to Monday everyone.

    --
    Give me a productive error over a boring, mundane and unproductive fact any day. ~Anon
  35. Advice for corporate users by futuresheep · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is exactly why I force all my clients to update their DAT's from MY server, not McAfee's, and I push the updates out, the clients never pull them. Along with that, I always wait three to four days before pushing the updates out. Even if you don't use the full McAfee Epolicy Orchestrator, you can still configure the clients to point to an ftp server on your network for updates. Just like with MS patches, it's simply prudent to wait a few days just in case there's any issues like this that may arise.

    I'm not excusing McAfee here, but there are ways that we, as admins can minimize the risk to our users and our network.

    1. Re:Advice for corporate users by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Along with that, I always wait three to four days before pushing the updates out.

      Doesn't it cost a lot to educate your users to not download viruses that are less than four days old?

      Why don't you just educate them to not download viruses at all? Then you could do without the Anti-virus. You pretty much are anyway.

    2. Re:Advice for corporate users by futuresheep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) You can educate users as much as you want about how to avoid viruses, they'll still get them if they really try. They're users after all.
      2) The number of viruses that actually are that serious a threat are next to zero. Have you ever bothered to look at the release files to see what the daily updates actually cover? If you did, did you bother checking what they were and the criticallity of the viruses listed? Do you know how many viruses are listed in the readme for the latest McAfee DAT?
      3) Anyone that relies soley on a single AV solution is a fool anyway. Virus protection should be layered on any network and is on mine. AV software on the desktop should be the last stop. We use postfix+spamassassin+amavisd to scan mail before it hits our mail server. Our firewall scans anything incoming before it gets to the desktop. Our desktop software is only there as a last bastion and does it's job well, because there's not much that gets there. None of the systems are perfect on their own, as a team, they work very well.

      So do I feel safe? Yes, I haven't had a virus issue inside my network for years. I see shitloads of them getting cleaned when I look at my logfiles though. Does it bother me that I wait a three or four days to deploy DAT files? Not at all, because it's not the only way I protect my users.

  36. GoBack and Ghost by samalone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, recently I installed two Symantec products that _claim_ to be able to restore the system to a previous state. I haven't had the opportunity to really test either one of them yet, but I do feel a bit safer.

    The first product is Norton GoBack, which reserves a certain percentage of hard disk space to maintain an undo history for your hard drive. Theoretically, if you have a bad software install or update, you can simply revert your hard disk to its state before the update. There might be issues with user documents created in that time getting reverted as well, but as long as you were careful you should be able to copy those files to another disk, revert the disk with the problem, and copy the files back. (There may also be built-in support for excluding certain files from being reverted -- I haven't checked.) You'd also need to notice the problem before GoBack's undo buffer got full and started forgetting things.

    The second product is Symantec Ghost, which is a backup and disk cloning utility. You can set up Ghost to perform an incremental backup before any software installation. I have mine set up to backup the system disk to another drive before each install. At my company we use EMC Retrospect for network backups, but Retrospect is not really good for restoring a system disk to a bootable state. From what I've heard, Ghost should be able to do this smoothly.

  37. They are doing a great job! by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually it sounds like they are doing a great job. They finally targetted the biggest virus of them all, Windows. Maybe this is the start of something really good. Finally the Windows virus is being actively targetted.

  38. Easier solution by beantherio · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just update your virusses and you will be safe. Errr...

  39. Re:Don't use anti-virus! by PFI_Optix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently, it is.

    I've used it at home for a little over four years and worked with it for three years as an administrator. I have NEVER had a virus on any XP system I was responsible for.

    In fact, the only virus I've ever had a problem with was an infected Windows 2000 domain controller that was SUPPOSED to be managed by corporate IT. They hadn't updated it in well over a year and wouldn't let me touch it until it started crashing (and those geniuses had it as the exchange server as well...again, I couldn't change that).

    In both cases, I didn't go to extreme measures to secure the systems. I used automatic updates, both a standalone firewall and Windows Firewall, and antivirus (AVG Free at home, Symantec Corporate at work). That, and I educated my users on what NOT to open from their e-mail.

    A good way to teach your users not to open strange attachments is to give them a dummy one that will just let you know who opened the file. I arranged with management to do this one day...send out a trojan-like e-mail with a script that would write a file with the username in it to one of the network shares and see who opened it.

    The next day I unplugged one of the network switches for fifteen minutes at the beginning of the day, told them it was because some people had opened "virus e-mails" (management knew the truth) and then plugged it back in. I talked to the people who had opened the "virus" e-mails and gave them an in-depth training session on why it's a bad thing to open every attachment you get on e-mail. From then on, they wouldn't touch anything that was even remotely suspicious.

    Three years, nearly 100 users, and ZERO penetration on my systems. It's not rocket science.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  40. A tool for media giants by JasonEngel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comcast gives away McAfee AV for free to customers, so I tried it out. The only time it ever caught anything at all was a false-positive. Complete file system scans never ever turned up anything. However, if I opened a folder with a file in it called SetupDVDDecrypter_3.5.4.0.exe in it, McAfee would call it a virus and delete it. Didn't matter which version of the installer actually, it would delete it. Didn't matter if the AV program was configured to only quarantine suspect files, it would delete it. Didn't matter if I made an empty text file then renamed it to SetupDVDDecrypter_3.5.4.0.exe, McAfee AV would delete it. If I renamed the installer to something else, McAfee AV did nothing.

    Pretty obvious to me that it was just waiting to find files that media companies didn't like people to have on their own private property so I'm guessing that they must have gotten McAfee to agree to do their dirty work for them and call stuff they don't like a virus and automatically delete the file regardless of settings.

    But that's just my conspiracy theory.

    1. Re:A tool for media giants by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks like there may be a reason for this behavior. That package hasn't been available from its creators for nearly a year, and it seems (as indicated by this site) that there may be versions of the installer floating around that have had trojans attached to them...

  41. Anti-virus as virus? Yeah, I knew that already. by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On an old WinME laptop, the only virus I ever had on it was Norton AntiVirus.

    I worked on a consulting job two years ago, and they told me I could use my own PC. No problem - except that, when I got there, they wanted to check it for virii. In an XP world, I was running Windows ME. So they loaded up Norton on my machine, and ran it for about 3 hours.

    Result? Nothing. No junk of any kind. Completely clean.

    Why? It helped that I had the free version of Zone Alarm, and the firewall on my DSL router definitely helped, but I think the biggest reason I had no problems was

    - Mozilla instead of IE
    - Eudora instead of Outlook.

    Completely clean, that is, except for the antivirus. That monster kept interrupting my work. It took a great deal of effort to get the beast out of my system.

  42. New school excuse by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

    My antivirus ate my homework :(

  43. Re:Don't use anti-virus! by st1d · · Score: 3, Funny

    What, were you out of batteries for your cattle prod? :)

    --
    Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  44. Comical recovery instructions from McAfee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even better are McAfee's instructions for how to recover from the damage their product has done. The first option is to restore the files from quarantine, assuming your version of McAfee actually lets you do this (not all, including the corporate version, have this option). The second is to use Windows System Restore.

    This probably would have worked great on my machine if it weren't for the fact that half of the files McAfee quarantined were *System Restore files*.

    Apparently McAfee hasn't heard of a novel concept called "testing". (I like how they've posted a list on their website of the false positive files, now 7 pages long and still woefully incomplete; they ought to just admit it's going to take a random assortment of exes and dlls on any machine.)

    Combine this with the fact that the default settings on a McAfee install are to quarantine without prompting, and IMHO McAfee is the most dangerous virus I've ever had on my machine.

  45. Beware of Fridays by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Always beware of any software updates released on a Friday. If there's a problem, much of the damage will be done before anyone returns on Monday.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  46. Re:who-can-you-trust? by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you really think Open Source AV can't fsck up your PC if there are bugs in it?

    Do you really think it's better to have your system trashed and pay for the privilege?

  47. I can imagine the meeting now... by Obi-w00t · · Score: 4, Funny

    [Team Leader]: So Steve is new here so, Bob, why don't you show him a simple virus definition for one of these low-priority viruses?
    [Bob]: Sure. This virus is low-threat but can masquarade as numerous file names so why don't you just look for a common pattern and write a REGEXP function?
    [Steve]: Sure.
    [Bob]: You know how to write regular expressions, right?
    [Steve]: Yeah, sure, the one's with the asterisks.
    [Bob]: Erm, yeah. I'll leave you to it. Just send it to the database so it can get filed in the next update.
    [Steve]: OK, see you later.
    *Looks around nervously. Briefly glances at long list of file names then timidly enters:*

    *.EXE

  48. Re:who-can-you-trust? by freeweed · · Score: 3, Informative

    let's be honest, how many people actually look at the source of programs (updates) they install? I am a programmer, and I never looked the code of an Open Source program I installed

    The point of open source is not that you PERSONALLY can look at the source to find problems (although you can if you like).

    The point is that thousands of other people can. And usually, no one's stopping them from reporting a problem if they do find one.

    Admittedly, this leaves gaps (what if no one else looks?), but it works pretty damn well, for the most part.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  49. Solution:PXE boot Linux Thin/Thick Client Desktop. by NZheretic · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Linux on the Desktop at work and worth it:
    Although they have chosen to deploy Linux using the traditional thick desktop/workstation model, they use a spare server that operates as an X11 application server. This is used on a regular basis by the helpdesk, IT support and a few Windows users that access both windows and remote X Linux. The rescue partition, that can be also network booted via PXE, is based on the Linux Terminal Server Project ( http://www.ltsp.org/ ). During an install or if a security violation is detected, the user of the desktop is booted into Linux thin client, and can access all their files though the Application server. Forensic examination, repairs and installs can take place in the background while the person uses the thin client.
    The open eleven steps to telecommuting
    4) Install a DHCP demon on the local server to allocate local IP addresses, DNS and gateway settings. If the desktops are network boot capable then install TFTP to remotely boot and use Knoppix via PXE and the network. If the desktop OS is constantly crashing, or is infected by malware, the user can select PXE/network boot via the BIOS, and boot into Knoppix. The user can then be instructed over the phone to enable the ssh server to allow remote scan,repair and reimaging of the desktop partitions. The user can use the Knoppix desktop to continue working with full access to files while the the remote administrator fixes/reimages the drive in the background.( Consider hiring someone who knows how to customise Knoppix or another live Linux system for your setup )