Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Symantec Support Gone Rogue?

Posted by Soulskill on from the less-than-helpful dept.

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."

10 of 268 comments (clear)

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

    They just went rouge?

    1. 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"

  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.

  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.

  6. 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.

  7. Re:lol by Shikaku · · Score: 5, Funny

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