Slashdot Mirror


Symantec Labels Vicars' Software as Spyware

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?"

38 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 User+956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what's the solution?

      Kaspersky AntiVirus. It's a small enough company that the malware writers don't test against it.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    3. 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
    4. Re:well... yes? by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Norton has become the AOL of antivirus. Living off a brand. Too bad Symantec destroyed what was once a great product.

    5. Re:well... yes? by Ruie · · Score: 4, Funny
      that being said, this is simply a mistake. it happens. mcafee had one that detected excel.exe as a virus.
      Yes, mcafee should have labeled it a trojan instead..
    6. Re:well... yes? by TClevenger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Symantec is where programs go to die. They buy up software and let it stagnate (for instance, under Symantec, several version of ACT! had the same easily fixable bug, even though it was in their knowledge base several times), getting as much money out of the software with as little work as possible. (When's the last time you saw a great new feature in any Symantec product? Our current corporate "Symantec Antivirus" is exactly the same as the old versions of Norton Antivirus, but with a new tray icon. Oooooooh.)

    7. Re:well... yes? by DavidD_CA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's assuming you're lucky enough to uninstall it.

      A client of mine had Norton 2003 on one of her machines and I attepted to get that sucker off so I could install Norton 2005. Hell no. Followed the crazy instructions on their website to the letter.

      To this day, whenever they reboot the machine Norton 2003 asks them to register (which it then errors out on). Then Norton 2005 takes over.

      (I would format the machine and reinstall, but there's a number of issues there that I won't get into, and the computer is only used a few hours a week.)

      --
      -David
    8. 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
    9. Re:well... yes? by rizzo420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      true... i've seen too many cases where the uninstall doesn't work and you have to use their manual removal tool, which used to be a great standalone exe, but now it's a crappy activex webpage that takes even longer.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    10. Re:well... yes? by Rix · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet you're more hands on with the students...

    11. Re:well... yes? by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it about say... AVG that you don't like?

      I like the small memory footprint, the timely updates, and the ease of interface. (hit it and forget it)

      Is there a reason they are not to be trusted? (seriously... not being a smartass)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
  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. Really? by codeshack · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Really? by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope. Emacs on the other hand...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:Really? by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      I heard they tried to add that feature once but blood started pouring out of the PC speakers and all the text kept getting rewritten in demonic sanskrit. Apparently some incompatibility between the word of God and a Pure Evil OS. Works just fine in OpenOffice though! ;)

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    3. Re:Really? by andphi · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think they might have tried it once. Then they integrated Clippy.
      Word->Insert->Scripture->John->Chapter 3->Verse 16
      Clippy:
      "I'm sorry, I can't find that file. Would you like to:"
      Cite the Koran
      Cite the Book of Mormon
      Cite the Rig Veda
      Cite the Watchtower Bible
      Cite the Book of Common Prayer

      No matter what the user does next:
      You have chosen The Road Ahead by Bill Gates

    4. Re:Really? by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No no no, let the silly Emac-fundamentalists preach the damnation and hell fire while thumping their lisp manuals.

      VI users don't preach, they just get the job done.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  4. once an essential application? by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An anecdotal Norton lifetime experience:

    At one time I considered Norton an essential application/utility because I couldn't explain sufficiently to new computer owners why Norton (and McAffee, etc.) were unnecessary, evil, and just wrong for them. So, I'd always get their credit card number, hold my nose, and ante up their money for their peace of mind.

    But after years of being called back and finding computer disarray on these "happy" users caused directly or indirectly by the intrusive "anti-virus" software suites such as Norton, I've switched tactics and now the very first thing I do when working on others' computer (with their permission of course) is uninstall any of the mainstream virus protection programs, download AVG free version and am done with it.

    I've found since taking this approach virtually no call backs where any problems were created by AVG, with much happier friends and family who have at the same time saved themselves a couple of bucks.

    Once an essential application Norton? Only in as much as Norton had been able to (and continues to) convince the world they are essential, not a hard task in the FUD universe that is Windows.

    1. Re:once an essential application? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once an essential application Norton? Only in as much as Norton had been able to (and continues to) convince the world they are essential, not a hard task in the FUD universe that is Windows.

      Man, is this the truth. My dad runs Norton and I told him once that I thought that Norton caused more problems than it solves, but he trusts (sigh) Norton. Long story short, just last night as a personal favor I went over to help a retired guy I know who was having trouble with his PC. He also runs Norton and it sucks! He has some crazy Norton program running to warn him about "unsafe" web pages. I was trying to help him with access problems to an online account he had and all this program did was pop up a box on every single account page saying that "This page is unrated." and making him check off one of three boxes (basically - continue, don't go there, go there this time only) AND then enter a password. This is a retired guy who is 73 years old. I can't imagine living like this where you have to click on a box and give a password just to surf the web, but that's how he lives. He doesn't even question the logic of this. I really don't know if he is maybe protecting the PC for his 5 year old granddaughter (why not just not let the kid use it?) or if he thinks it will save him from accidentally going to a "bad" site (he is very religious, by the way).

      I feel pretty strongly that friends don't let friends use Norton. I work in IT and I don't know anybody in my field who uses Norton at home. I agree that AVG is better than Norton AV. The only Norton product I like is Ghost.

    2. 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
  5. Antivirus by DownWithTheMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think on a corporate level, anti-virus is a *must*, you're dealing with 100s of millions of dollars in transactions and any downtime is money lost... For the tech-savvy home user though, I really don't think anti-virus is essential. I run an iMac with OSX 10.4.7, and an IBM (Lenovo) Thinkpad with Windows XP SP2 and all the latest updates and hot-fixes. I refuse to put anti-virus on it because I think it sucks up too many of my resources. Since switching from IE to Firefox (back in the 0.4 Fire phoenix days) I have no had 1 single issue of spyware, malware, or virus problems on my machine. I keep everything up-to-date and I know who, what, when, and where I'm downloading all my files from the internet. I'll be honest, I pirate plenty and still haven't had any problems... The more I see these anti-virus solutions, it seems that they are designed to keep dumb people from from doing dumb things...

  6. Dawkins aproach... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, accoring to Dawkins, sermon generators would be explicit tools for the carrying of a viral message.

    I think the program may be working properly as designed.

    Ryan Fenton

  7. 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.
  8. To be fair.... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....we can replace the Norton name with any other vendor's name and still have the same discussion. The only reason that we're beating up on Norton is that they've shot themselves in the foot like this before.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  9. Best line of the article by Stonent1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Usually it takes a lot to get a clergyman upset, but we have had a fair few on the phone. There's been no talk of smiting yet, but we'll wait and see," Green added.

    I love the Brits.

  10. Re:sounds like it's doing a pretty good job to me. by bunions · · Score: 5, Funny

    Norton ClergyBlocker 2006 Pro Edition.

    I'd buy two copies.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  11. What this world needs... by Viperion · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is an Anti-Norton virus.

    After one of my users uttered that spoonerism the other day, I am more and more convinced it needs to happen.

  12. 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.

  13. turning into? hardly.. by wfberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Signature-based virus scanners have ALWAYS been a joke. Basically, it's a technology that was barely good enough when the first one was written, and all that time we've been using it until something better comes along.

    The real solution to virusses lies not in signature-based scanners, but in policing applications. The discontinued Thunderbyte AV (of DOS days) had the right idea. It scanned files for instructions that shouldn't be in normal programs, like an API call to format your hard disk. It had a list of exceptions (format.com etc.), but otherwise, it would complain loudly.

    Nowadays, we can do much better. We have usernames, credentials, priviliges etc. Why don't programs run as separate users with separate priviliges? There is NO reason why Word (or openoffice for that matter) should be able to access every part of the registry or harddisk that the user running it can. Firefox should basically be restricted to making TCP connections and writing it's configuration, cache, and a download directory. The security model now allows it to write to c:\windows\system32 if you're logged in as administrator, even though it clearly has no business doing so.

    Newly downloaded applications should be granted permission only to write to registry keys they themselves created, and files likewise. And if an app overstretches its default permissions, the OS should complain loudly and ask permission (OS "professional" edition), lookup a policy file (OS "corporate/enterprise" edition) or simply disallow it and require some sort of wizzardry - e.g. editing an .ini file - to overrule it (OS "home" edition).

    This doesn't require rocket science to implement, though it will break some stuff and force users to copy files from My Documents\Microsoft Office to My Documents\Firefox if they want to upload a document. Small price to pay, I say.

    Of course Norton and McAfee suffer not just from being unreliable in detecting virusses, they also fuck up your OS so it won't work properly anymore, and are a bitch to uninstall. But the solution to that is simple; switch to another product. The fact that the other product would, again, be a signature based scanner is the lamentable part.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:turning into? hardly.. by honkycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While this is a more secure approach, I see two problems. First, although the inconvenience is objectively a small price to pay for the additional security, few people see security issues objectively. The thinking is "well it hasn't been hacked yet so it must be secure." As a result, a change that adds inconvenience with no benefit other than increased security will not be welcomed. I don't think this is insurmountable, though.

      The other problem is that a scheme like this requires that someone determine what privileges a particular application needs. You cannot trust the application to do this, obviously. I don't see a good way for the OS to know what privileges are needed. Really, I think this requires a technically sophisticated administrator for the machine. That may work well for businesses or high-security environments, but it's not going to fly at home, where most machines are administered by someone who knows enough to insert a CD and run install but not much else -- and that's the optimistic characterization.

    2. Re:turning into? hardly.. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know saying something good about Trusted Computing around here is largely akin to taping meat to myself and dancing with lions, so here is an AC post.

      Only when you are clearly lying; in this particular case, you are trying to make it seem like Digital Restrictions Management is increasing security for the user of the computer, as opposed to some remote authority, which is a lie.

      One of the goals that Trusted Computing is working towards is 'Sealed Storage': only the program that generates the data can access the data it has encrypted.

      This is only usefull if the goal is to lock the user of the computer out of the data - that is, to prevent the user of the computer from doing anything with the data that the program make doesn't want them to, such as, say, opening a Word file in OpenOffice.

      For increasing security for the user, kernel-enforced access controls are far preferable - they are both sufficient and allow the user to transfer data from application to application. For an example of such controls, see the access control system of Unix-like operating systems, such as GNU/Linux; these controls need to be revised somewhat to allow finer-grained control, but this doesn't require DRM.

      I hope your corporate masters gave you a good price for your soul, astroturfer, but I doubt it very much.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  14. PlatePal by krell · · Score: 5, Funny

    They take donations through the PlatePal (tm) church offering cash collection service.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  15. 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.

  16. crackmenot by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had my own run-in with a Norton false positive. For some reason, my newly acquired copy of NAV took exception to a file on my desktop called "Norton Antivirus 2003 keygen.exe". IIRC it labelled it as "malware\keygen". I checked the file with several web AV tools and it was clean. What could the problem have been?

    P.s., Avast FTW!

  17. fire me! fire meeeeeeee!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I work for Symantec. I'm typing this on a Symantec computer. From a Symantec network. In the office. Surrounded by thought-deprived Symantedroids with little yellow swirlies tatooed on their foreheads.

    So listen very closely:

    Norton is shit. Shitty software shittily implemented on a shitty operating system. It used to be kind of kewl, but now it's a shit interface, with shit performance, and shit virus definitions that cost a shitload of money to update. Implemented on a shitbag platform because its missing some basic shit in the process controls. So we piled more shit on top of the shit that was already there, so now the shit attack surface still smells like shit, only it's bigger. The underlying pile of shit keeps getting bigger because Microsoft is apparently drilling and pumping to recycle old shit, so we have to keep making our pile of shit bigger to cover it, only some of the old shit keeps poking through. And our shit is updated only when the shit hits the fan. No one even knows their way around the pile of shit anymore because it's become an immense mountain of shit with rolling hills of shit versions, rivers of shit updates, shit swamps of shitty support and peaks of horseshit management tools that allow people to pretend that they understand all this shit.

    Buy a Mac. Patch the OS. And don't install shitty antivirus software.

  18. Re:fire me! fire meeeeeeee!!!!!!!! by nocaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about it.

  19. More info on this virus by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 4, Funny

    Virus name: God
    Also known as: Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, YHWH
    Spyware: Yes, omnicient.
    Damage potential: Armageddon
    Prevalence: Ubiquitous
    Stealth: Yes (even it's existence is debated)
    Threat level: Critical
    Notes: This omnipotent entity creates a world by force of will, and then waits until the end times to trigger the armageddon payload.