Slashdot Mirror


Symantec Support Gone Rogue?

DigitalDame2 writes "PCMag Security Analyst Neil Rubenking has always praised Symantec's tech support. Lately, though, a number of readers have reported problems with chat support, so he investigated. Rubenking was trying to install Norton 360 version 3.0 on a malware-infested system when the computer crashed with a blue screen error. He connected with Symantec tech support and was told that they could fix the problem, but for a fee of $100! (Here is the transcript and screen-captures of the chat.) Even more, Symantec support suggested that he use a malware-removal tool that wasn't even made by Symantec."

23 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Uhm...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just went rouge?

    1. Re:Uhm...? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      They just went rouge?

      Yes indeed they did, and apparently they're into mascara, lipstick and eyeliner as well, with just a hint of blush. Of course, you need a good foundation.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Uhm...? by DesertBlade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or Linux

      --
      Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
    3. Re:Uhm...? by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This article is complete BS.

      Customers are ill-informed if they think that AFTER getting infected is the time to buy security software, and Its not the fault of the guy you're on the phone with that purchasing 360 does not include hours of over the phone support.

      It is perfectly fucking normal to not be able to install software when your computer is infected with malware.

      The writer of the article is a fucking douche, has unrealistic expectations for technical support for a retail product, and apparently (based on his purchase) does not understand that Symantec's business model is formed around IT execs having someone else to blame when (not if) their corporate network gets virus'd up.

      The writer of this article, and the retard consumers he thinks he's protecting, made a fucking mistake. The mistake was this: they walked into Best Buy with their 'broken' computer. Geek Squad wants $170 to fix their computer. Norton costs $39.99. A few minutes of lowIQ number crunching later, they arrive at a decision, which is the fucking wrong one. Then they get mad at Symantec for not wanting to talk to you all day.

      Much like Microsoft, I hate Symantec the same as you, but you hate them for the wrong reasons.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  2. It could be worse by Urd.Yggdrasil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least they had him use a decent anti-malware program. I generally find symantec products to be more of a virus than most viruses, that crap is hard to get rid of once it's installed and doesn't detect much of anything.

    1. Re:It could be worse by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not surprised. Norton makes an anti-virus/anti-worm/anti-spyware product. Not a general anti-malware/anti-adware product.

      Their tool does one thing (sort of) well, scans for viruses, and pretends to do a few other things well.

      Unfortunately nowadays, there's software that's more insidious than viruses, and it's beyond Norton's skill to detect.

      Also, I doubt intrusion by malware not relevant to the AV is covered by software support agreements; troubleshooting an infected PC is up to the user, or the PC repair shop they'll hire to fix it.

      AV support is for when your PC is working correctly and you are having problems running your AV, having trouble scanning a file, or not detecting a virus in an infected file.

      If you actually got already got your system infected, before even trying to install the AV, that's 100% your issue.

      Of course, the AV software won't install, the various malware programs prevent it from happening, and it's your problem to solve.

      Not the A/V maker's. The only solution they can really offer you without a liability risk is to format, or hand the PC over to a qualified service person.

  3. Maybe it wasn't Symantec Support??? by Xoron101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the malware infected machine had a hacked hosts file and he was connecting to some site in Russia? Or some other way of redirecting the supposed chat session with "Symantec Support"

    1. Re:Maybe it wasn't Symantec Support??? by Kalriath · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do the violet and mauve AV products use to scare people though?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  4. Symantec has never been useful after-the-fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a real-time scanner, it is pretty good, and the corporate editions are pretty light weight, but has symantec ever been useful as a repair tool?

    The support tech sounds like he did right, despite the non-corporate policy of eating symantec's own dog food.

    Anyone cleaning an already infected machine would start with malwarebytes or combofix before wasting their time with symantec's stuff.

    Sounds like the tech who was helping him knew this.

    1. Re:Symantec has never been useful after-the-fact by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      His complaint was not the use of a non-Symantec tool, but the claim (in chat) that the non-Symantec tool was in fact a Symantec product.

      Taking credit for other peoples' work is Not Cool.

  5. Professional services cost money by Alereon · · Score: 5, Informative

    The computer was simply too infected to allow the Symantec software to install. This is not an abnormal occurrence. Symantec offered to have an engineer remotely access the system and clean it, which naturally costs money, since you're paying for a person's time to fix your computer, in addition to the license for the software. Symantec can't guarantee that your Windows installation isn't too badly damaged to allow their software to install, and they just offered an alternative to telling him to take the computer to be serviced. This is a non-story.

    1. Re:Professional services cost money by cduffy · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you RTFA, what he needed to run at the point when he was being upsold on a services package (and told that no other option was available) was a freely-available utility to remove previously-installed Symantec tools.

      Moreover, Symantec's management acknowledged that they were in the wrong, and indicated they would be addressing this -- hardly indicative of the no-fault scenario you proclaim.

    2. Re:Professional services cost money by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      The computer was simply too infected to allow the Symantec software to install. This is not an abnormal occurrence. Symantec offered to have an engineer remotely access the system and clean it, which naturally costs money, since you're paying for a person's time to fix your computer, in addition to the license for the software.

      That's a load of crap. They advertise that it will fix your computer, not that it might fix it as long as your computer's not really all that broken. Do you also have weird parsings of "all you can eat" and "flat rate"?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. Windows too infected to install antivirus.... by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are scads of free options.

    Try a linux alternative

    Like this.
    Or this.

    Hell even an online scan may work well enough, http://housecall.trendmicro.com/

  7. this still happens? by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People still get malware, and still use Symantec products?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  8. What we have here is a Failure to Communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a major difference between offering defect support for software and offering services surrounding the software. Let's review the order of events here:

    1) Customer is unable to install product on test environment. Receives BSOD.
    2) Customer contacts Symantec requesting defect support. Per customer the product is not functioning as described on a test system.
    3) Symantec's front-line support team misinterprets the customer's request for defect support. Instead, they believe the customer wants the system cleaned, regardless of whether a Symantec product is used or not. As a result, Symantec services are offered for an additional fee of $100.
    4) End-result is one unhappy customer, and a heavily biased article criticizing Symantec support.

    What should have happened is anybody's interpretation. But, during #3, at a minimum, the issue should have been escalated to the next level where an actual support engineer discusses a bit further with the customer to try to understand if they a defect with the product, something unique to customer environment, etc.

    Conclusion: Front-line reps at Symantec need more training. Customer needs to work on communication skills to be clear when contacting defect support. Failure to communicate.

  9. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware might be better by exhilaration · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had to help someone clean up a popup problem and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (which is free) eliminated not only the adware but also identified and removed a trojan that an up-to-date Symantec Anti-Virus didn't even find. I was really surprised.

  10. Re:Malwarebytes is NOT free! by Urd.Yggdrasil · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually Malwarebytes is free, the paid version just gives you "realtime protection, scheduled scanning, and scheduled updating".

  11. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you know why they call it Norton 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away.

  12. Dear Sir or Madam by meist3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    My Name is M'tumbo Botswana, I am the spyware removal expert of Nigeria. Please to transfer sum of 100,000 US dOllar to bank account written below. We value your customership very very much. Thank you

  13. cost center versus profit center by Aryeh+Goretsky · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hello,

    I have worked in the antivirus industry for about nine years (with about another nine years doing networking things), starting with the technical support department at McAfee Associates (now McAfee). Even in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were times when we had to run other companies tools to assist in detection or removal of computer viruses, or to obtain a sample. Peter Norton Computing's Norton Utilities Disk Editor and Sybex' Teledisk come to mind, as do various Microsoft MS-DOS utilities (DEBUG, FDISK with its then-undocumented /MBR switch, SYS and so forth).

    A few years ago, I re-entered the anti-virus (or anti-malware, as classic replicating infectors account for a few percentage points of what is seen these days) industry and it was and is not uncommon for our technical support people to help people remove rootkits, various Trojan downloaders and other pieces of malware that are either not detected or detected and not properly removed by our own software. One thing we make sure of is to get copies of any objects like files and registry entries so that our virus lab can add detection (or removal) in a new virus signature database update.

    Sometimes, customers do get upset when they are sent download links to a third-party tool to assist with removal because they assume that one tool will protect them against all threats, however, with the shear number of unique pieces of malware being released every day by organized criminal businesses no one tool is going to prevent, detect or remove every piece of malware, every time, even with the best heuristics and generic detection technology. This is something which all anti-virus companies have to deal with, not just Symantec. On the plus side, we just started deploying our own supplmentary tools to detect and remove threats that the mainline products do not, and that will help wean our dependence on third-party programs.

    That is pretty much how things stand with recommendations for the use of third party software by anti-virus vendors, now.

    As far as selling support goes, well, fifteen years ago it was not unusual to sell support contracts or service level agreements to enterprise customers offering them priority round-the-clock access to technical support. Free, unlimited support via telephone, fax, electronic means (email, BBS, CompuServe, et cetera) was provided, but it was on a first-in-line basis. That started to change in the mid-1990s when the anti-virus companies started to generate substantial revenue and get taken over by professional business people instead of engineers, but when a company becomes publicly-traded, it switches from being technology-focused to being focused on maximizing stakeholder value every quarter, and that means looking at things which cost money like having to pay salaries for support engineers and turn them into things which generate revenue. At that point, I was leaving the company, and really did not care what they did with my department. I have been told by a couple of people who stayed on after me said that Bill Larsen used to give motivational speeches like, "I would fire you if I could." and "I don't understand why we have to provide support to customers, after all, we've got their money." to the support staff, but even if they are not actual quotations, they certainly are reflective of the culture at that time. At a publicly-traded company, loyalty to the shareholders usually takes precedence over loyalty to the customers. Some companies figure out that customer loyalty actually translates into more value for shareholders in the form of increased revenue from license renewals, customers who purchase new products or services from the company, et cetera, but it seems there are plenty who are unable to make this evolutionary leap in understanding how their business works.

    These days, my current employer does provide free, unlimited technical support via phone and electonic means and

    --
    Dexter is a good dog.
  14. Re:lol by Shikaku · · Score: 5, Funny

    Michael Jackson can turn 360 degrees and walk away. Called the Moonwalk.

  15. It's a rogue industry ... by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have an example which is in fact a common experience for me and others. I often get asked for advice on what is the best anti-virus security protection for a PC. e.g. a friend or family member with computer problems.

    I give my usual spiel that the best protection is not to pay money for anything, it's hard to say it's worth it (Slowing down your system, possibly causing more crashes and program compatibility issues, and then only catching perhaps 90% of threats). Open-source or freeware tools will do just fine to actually scan and heal threats. Largely it's the users actions that are the initial problem. I then offer my time, for free, to teach some safe practices.

    You can't just punch in your credit card number and expect adequate protection.

    Mark my words, there are lots of botnet'd windows boxes that have full-paid anti-virus software on them running just fine. My parents had one of them. (problem was identified in the logs of their linux firewall). The solution was to wipe it, given them firefox with some add-ons and clam-av. Zero issues since.

    If your machine is properly patched your very unlikely to be taken over by a worm attack. Following that, with the right software, your unlikely to be hijacked in your browser and then infected. With the right ISP you won't have spam and e-mail threats. It's down to how the user operates, and discouraging them from skipping virus scanning that keygen.exe when downloading warez. Largely it's browsing that's the problem. Firefox plus some add-ons, and a little bit of user coaching.

    I really wonder in who's interests it is to keep users dumbed down on security matters. Which in todays world has become as important as locks and alarms on houses cars and businesses. It's protection of critical infrastructure.

    Why pay a exorbitant monthly subscription for a security guard to stand outside your house, because your house is equipped with vulnerable locks and the occupants are poorly trained at keeping the doors closed when they go out?

    In hindsight I should have modded as redundant the mandatory:

    Install Linux

    which is inexplicably modded +5 something.

    If 90% of the world ran one Linux distribution we would still have a thriving ecosystem viruses, trojans (albeit on a lesser scale). Good design, transparency and rapid patching in OSS only goes so far, it's not magic immunity. There is also a fairly constant amount of problems between the keyboard and chair - now that will not go away. Windows is the most common, therefore the most attacked... is the statement that raises hackles for some. However it is the truth. In much the same way having millions of genetically identical crops/livestock in unnatural concentrations provides for massive outbreaks of everything from blight to foot and mouth disease. Likewise millions of humans living in close proximity results in plagues - the human immune system was not built for this. And so our information technology infrastructure suffers the same fundamental laws of nature, you have one monoculture of identical entities you invite pandemic infection.

    So how do we live in 20-30 million person cities, and don't all get wiped out in two weeks by ebola? We have sanitation: we all get taught how to cover our mouths when we cough, cook food properly and wash our hands after visiting the lavatory etc etc and we have some sanitary measures to back it up, ie chemicals that can clense pathogens.

    User education is the key. The first thing we can teach is to stay the hell away from clearly rogue companies. We can also stop beating redundant very tired drums.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.