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?"
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.
I think you're a bit behind the times mate.
Its been a joke for quite a while now.
A sermon-writing application? Word doesn't have a Insert->Scripture option?
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.
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...
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
....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.
"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.
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.
Not to mention that a few monestaries produce some amazing beers.
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.
.ini file - to overrule it (OS "home" edition).
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
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
They take donations through the PlatePal (tm) church offering cash collection service.
Where were you when the voynix came?
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!
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.
Come on, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about it.
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.