Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Symantec Labels Vicars' Software as Spyware

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the should-fight-back-with-the-vicars'-machine-gun dept.

ukhackster writes "The curse of Norton Antivirus has struck again. This time, Britain's vicars have been hit. Norton mistook a legitimate file for a piece of spyware, and those who followed the instructions found that their sermon-writing application no longer worked. Norton was once an essential application. Is it turning into a joke?"

14 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. well... yes? by User+956 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Given that they're also reporting that 80% of viruses defeat Norton and the other big AV programs, I'd say yes, it is a joke.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:well... yes? by rizzo420 · · Score: 5, Informative

      norton is a bigger joke than the others though. i do tech support for students for a living (ok, more than just students, but i am more hands on with them). i have found in my experience that norton misses a lot of viruses mcafee picks up and mcafee tends to do the better job of the 2. mcafee also seems a bit lighter on resources and doesn't stick its nose everywhere. i can't tell you how many mucked up network stacks i've seen because of norton's personal firewall program. once it's uninstalled the networking magically works. go figure. even disabling it does nothing.

      so yes, norton is a joke and i would not recommend anyone purchase anything from symantec until they get their act together.

      that being said, this is simply a mistake. it happens. mcafee had one that detected excel.exe as a virus.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    2. Re:well... yes? by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's actually not what the article says. It says that 80% of 'malware' slips by Norton Anti-Virus. That is viruses, trojans, spyware, adware, etc. Last I checked, Norton Anti-Virus didn't check for adware or spyware, just viruses and trojans.

      Notice in the article they only talk about anti-spyware in that people should have it and don't. They don't say they tested it.

      Norton and McAfee's AV have been jokes for years. But malware isn't why.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:well... yes? by swv3752 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The latest version does have a spyware checker. It is useless, but it is there.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  2. turning into? by Phil246 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you're a bit behind the times mate.
    Its been a joke for quite a while now.

  3. Re:sounds like it's doing a pretty good job to by giorgiofr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Friars tend to live a secluded life and have close to no relationship with the world out of their monastery. May I ask why you dislike them? Their home-made honey and liquor are usually delicious :)

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
  4. Re:sounds like it's doing a pretty good job to by wing03 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not to mention that a few monestaries produce some amazing beers.

  5. Re:Really? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

    A sermon-writing application? Word doesn't have a Insert->Scripture option?

    Actually, on OS X you can add a Word->Services->Insert Scripture option by adding a service, and it should work in most of your other applications as well.

  6. Trust me, I am an IT professional... by andrewzx1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What most amateur IT people don't understand is that there is a world of difference between Norton Antivirus, and Symantec Antivirus. As an IT professional who has helped neutralize viruses off of many computers, and who administers a Windows domain (don't hate me), I can say that Symantec Corporate Antivirus works great, is centrally managed, and does what it is supposed to and no more. I've used to for 5 years now and it has successfully prevented numerous virus outbreaks that would have greatly disrupted the Windows workstations I am paid to administer. If this were a Linux/Mac desktop environment, there would be no need to run an antovirus. But there is critical software that is available only for Windows. And this is what I am paid to keep running.

  7. Re:Really? by JakusMinimus · · Score: 1, Informative
    Emacs is scripture- it is the way and the light.

    Bite thine tongue! For everyone knows that VI (specifically VIM) illuminates one's true path to salvation!
    --

    You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
  8. It's not for the freakin' sermons! by Revbert · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read the article, folks. The software has the liturgy and the readings. (I'd assume it has all the Propers, meaning those parts of the worship service that change based on the day on the liturgical calendar.) That means it has nothing to do with sermon preparation, but instead with preparation of the liturgy (what most lay folks call "the service"). See http://www.vislit.com/articles/intro.html for more info. Poor techie writer didn't understand his subject matter. (A liturgy, for instance, is not "delivered," while a sermon is.) Also, all the (predictable) jokes re: "sermon = virus" reflect the same misunderstanding. (Of course, the Visual Liturgy folks seem to be pitching their software towards folks who don't exactly have a strong grasp of technology, too.)

  9. Re:once an essential application? by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only Norton product I like is Ghost.

    Give ntfsclone a try. Here's a good tutorial on using it.

    It's easily scriptable, and is great in conjuction with ms-sys. If you spend a few minutes customizing something like RIP you can have the restore completely automated.

    As a plus, everything's GPL'd. No licesence fees.

    IMHO, Unattended + WPKG is still the best option, though...

    --
    "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  10. 80% miss rate anyway by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure the false positives could do anything but further amplify that anti-virus is more of a false sense of security than real threat protection.

    80% miss rate

    Of course if you're still surfing with Windows you're at risk anyway.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:80% miss rate anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      I've seen this quote mentioned many, many times, usually out of context. Mr. Ingram works for AusCERT and he stated that at the time AusCERT sees the malware, it is not detected 80% of the time.


      AusCERT is obviously going to be involved in the detection of new malware at the earliest stages -- this shouldn't surprise anyone then that most signature-based antivirus applications do not catch brand new malware. It's only after the malware is discovered and analyzed that signatures can be written.

      And for those of you who think that signature-based antivirus is stupid, just remember that security is to be implemented at all layers and the advantages of a signature-based solution are that it has the lowest false positive rate. The disadvantage is that it is a reactive solution that catches most malware only after signatures are written.

      Behavior-based malware scanners are a wonderful idea that no one, not even the open source crowd, has been able to perfect with a low-enough false positive rate to be acceptable by the masses. Want to confuse a non-technical user? Throw a behavioral based false positive at that person for one out of every 100 clicks.