Slashdot Mirror
McAfee To Pay For PC Repairs After Patch Fiasco
Barence writes "McAfee has offered to pay for the PC repairs of consumers affected by last week's faulty antivirus update. The problematic patch falsely identified the SVCHOST.EXE Windows file as a virus, causing PCs running Windows XP SP3 to crash or enter endless reboot cycles. In a blog post addressed to 'Home or Home Office Consumers,' the company offered to reimburse PC repair expenses, though there was a notable caveat. 'If you have already incurred costs to repair your PC as a result of this issue, we're committed to reimbursing reasonable expenses,' the company said. 'Reasonable expenses' has yet to be formally defined."
Reimburse them ... or ... maybe what they should do is give the "victims" extended subscriptions instead ... that's probably exactly what they want ;-)
I don't see how this even begins to approach the amount they are in for.. they are going about it the wrong way. In signing up to pay home/ home office users, they are automatically assuming guilt for themselves (as if anyone wasn't sure that they were guilty in the first place?)
First off, they are starting with home / home office users. This population will incur the highest cost per computer to fix - i.e. instead of paying 1 IT guy 30/hr to fix a bunch of computers in one place, this is one-at-a-time visits to Geek Squad (ugh) or whatever which will run 50+ per computer..
This is just opening the door for future corporate lawsuits - i.e. "Clearly they have said that they were the cause of this issue and are willing to refund some of their users to the tune of X for just ONE computer. My company lost 1000 computers, I want 1000x dollars, plus lost productivity."
Currently they are extending subscriptions by two years. Enough to prevent any successful bid by IT personnel to get higherups to approve a switch. Now whether they will cover the actual cost of lost productivity, not just of IT staff but by the company as a whole.
What quality control system?
The epic fail was the initial bug. This response however is exactly what McAfee should be doing. Offering fairly spontaneously to reimburse people for their expenses incurred is good customer service and good damage control. It is also the ethical thing to do. When something is both the most ethical and most business-savvy course of action, that's a good thing. And that they are willing to do so when it essentially admits to the fact that they screwed up big time shows that they are willing to admit to their mistakes, something many people are not. When evaluating both corporations and people, look at how they respond to the serious failures and crises. McAfee has a good response.
All it takes is some engineer to mistype a single keystroke (a "*" in Google's case) and down the whole system comes.
A single engineer to mistype a single keystroke + A director of quality that proposed/allowed a quality control methodology that didn't include a single check between the engineers coding and the public receiving a new version.
Laying blame on those who don't have a large scale responsibility is, very often*, wrong.
*: Yes, a dev could've set a logic bomb when suspecting he'd be fired. And even then most of the blame was on the one who lost control on the future firing info.
And people wonder why I rarely use virus software. The damage caused by the AVS is often worse than the actual virii or spybots. Seeing a "Windows XP can't boot" message is pretty damn annoying. I ended-up having to install KDE Ubuntu Linux instead, and never did recover my lost files (just videos fortunately).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I was thinking this would be a boon for me. I do in home and business support in my off hours, good spending money. However, due to my issues with McAfee, none of my regular clients use McAfee AV products.
So, if I had recommended McAfee to my clients, I would be a rich person now. Damn, doing the right things doesn't make as much money!
What could possibly go wrong?
maybe you should put a Linux partition on all of the boxes with some remote access software?
Not actually trying to be a smart ass but if you could do that then it might have been possible to fix the issue remotely.
I am not sure since my office has a small network and we didn't have the problem. I would think that it should be possible to replace the missing file and disable the anti virus or maybe replace the definitions file remotely. Most modern Linux distros can mount NTFS partitions.
Of course right now the idea of light clients and Windows terminal services probably doesn't sound so bad!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Using the made-up "virii" as a plural for viruses makes you look like a retard.
"Ladies and gentlemen, coming to to you all the way from Seattle, Washington, the one, the only - Patch Fiasco!"
or perhaps...
(Twelve bad guys lie dead or mortally wounded on the street, surrounded by astonished and bewildered townsfolk. One speaks up.)
- Who are you?
(the man lights a cigarette, drags it in and exhales, then adjust the brim of his hat.)
- My name... is Patch Fiasco. (turns around and starts walking away. music: mournful slide guitar)
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
At this point, an offer to pay "reasonable" expenses is about as generous as Ford apologizing for selling a car airbag that deploys as soon as you sit in the seat. Plus, it's covered in broken glass and rusty nails. Also, lemon juice.
It's nice that they're taking responsibility and all, but a bodyguard who beats up his own client isn't really the sort of person that you give second chances to.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Virusesii, obviously.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
I have sigs turned off.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
or, it's just a case of statistics being a bitch. given the number of updates that have to be pushed through the system, it's only a matter of time before the process lets a faulty one through. that it was so egregious is, well, unfortunate.
I would think enforcing strict policies like that on a university campus would be like herding cats. Yes for the Administration system it should be a piece of cake but what about systems in research labs?
Sometimes it's best to let the cats herd themselves.
I used to support a school full computers a few years ago. While a much smaller environment than a Uni, the faculty still talk to each other. One of the first things I did was set up imaging and easy network storage for the faculty. At first it was like herding cats - impossible to get them to take the time to make sure their important stuff was on the network storage. It took only two HD failures to change everyone's behavior. The first one, the teacher *wasn't* storing stuff on the network, and of course her tales of woe spread far and wide. I just made sure everyone knew why everything was lost.
The second, the teacher *was* storing everything on her network drive, and when her HD failed, she was up and running by her next break, with everything intact, and she spread her tales of joy far and wide. I just had to put in a little extra effort so that everyone knew why it was so easy. Mysteriously, everyone was suddenly making sure all of their important stuff ended up on their network drive.
If you own one Prius and then actually want to buy a second, you have more severe problems than what to call the two cars.