Symantec Says It Can Do Security Better

[HardOCP News]

Symantec, after months of going back and forth with Microsoft over security, now says it plans to create technology that would take over decision making with the UAC security feature in Vista.

"UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know, security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in this case, that is the user,"

 

[MasterShredder]

Great.... Hopefully there aren't any virii that can take over the entire OS instead of just the AV software...

 

[rjblanke]

HAHA, we use SAV here on the campus I work for, and could not even count how many times I've seen SAV compromised. And its not always the user's fault. I understand that as a Security provider, you have to make the assumption that your users are idiots, but that doesn't mean you should say that publicly.

 

[pdq]

Symantic is the scurge to the anit-virus market as AOL is to dialup users. Nothing but junk, slowing down your system, computers still gettting infected and they wonder why Microsoft wont give the code. Anytime I get a computer in my shop with SAV, I talk my customers into anything but SAV. By the way, anytime you need special applications to UNINSTALL SAV from your computer should be a big red flag.

 

[pain.angel]

this finger is for you symnatec.

 

[Xilikon]

LOL, another way for them to add more junk in their package... Another reason for me to avoid them like plague and force users to switch (I'm soon teaching a special class about computer security and I will paint a bad picture about Symantec).

 

[OregonLAN]

In my book, Symantec is the enemy. I would rather install a malicious spyware application than install their POS “security” suite. I wonder how much Symantec pays Dell and other companies to include their software with the OS…

 

[Runner]

I have personally seen Symantec HOSE windows without any help from virii or any other form of malware application, on more than one occasion. Needless to say, Symantec AV suites are at the very bottom of my list of security applications, right down there with Mcafee, which I have seen the same sort of thing from. There are better and much cheaper or even free solutions out there.

For Symantec to come out and basically say their customers are idiots, that takes the cake though. Nice job Symantec.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Funny how only Symantec and McAfee were the 2 companies complaining they NEEDED root access for their Anti V to work in Vista, and yet companies like Kapersky were against it and said it can work fine, and securly with out rootkit access.

Sorry, but no, nothing 3rd party should have rootkit access to my O/S.

 

[drizzt81]

In my book, Symantec is the enemy. I would rather install a malicious spyware application than install their POS “security” suite. I wonder how much Symantec pays Dell and other companies to include their software with the OS…

Nobody forces you to purchase and install their product.

 

[MrGuvernment]

been using Symantec (not norton) AntiV for 6 years on work systems and never been infected, also us their Exchange Anti V and again, nothing has gotten through on that in 3 years it has been in use...

So why is it so bad?

 

[EXreaction]

been using Symantec (not norton) AntiV for 6 years on work systems and never been infected, also us their Exchange Anti V and again, nothing has gotten through on that in 3 years it has been in use...

So why is it so bad?

More like nothing you *know about* has gotten through. I would bet that if you run a good AV scanner one you would find a few things your old AV's didn't pick up.

Never tried the AntiV or anything like that, but if it is anywhere near as bad as Norton it would be terrible!


Anyways, Symantec is yet again shooting another hole in their AV that lets viruses and worms get through. Running a PC with Norton or the likes installed is going to be worse(more security holes) than running a PC with nothing on it.

Oh well, you wouldn't imagine how many people I have had to reinstall their OS's completely because Norton didn't do a damned thing. But if people want to pay for that crap, it is fine here, because they pay me when I have to fix it.

 

[Xipher]

Nobody forces you to purchase and install their product.

Some employers and schools just might. I know the university I am currently attending used to require that students installed SAV. While it was provided by the school, they still were pretty much forced into using it, or deal with out a connection to the net.

 

[Xipher]

Where did the edit button go?

 

[rjblanke]

Some employers and schools just might. I know the university I am currently attending used to require that students installed SAV. While it was provided by the school, they still were pretty much forced into using it, or deal with out a connection to the net.

Same at my school, but we wouldn't kick you off if you didn't have it. We just kind of ignore it. We say its required mainly for people that if you said its "highly recommended", they wouldn't use any AV. Things have improved here since we started requiring it. The Symantec Corporate Edition that we use isn't as bad as Norton (the most evil piece of software ever conceived), but its still crap compared to Nod32, Kaspersky, and even AVG.

 

[Lazybones]

I run one symantec product (well it is NOW a symantec product) on my LAN and that is backup exec.. If they are so good at getting it right why do i get a critical update notice from them sometimes twice a month telling me I need a patch?

 

[Cannydog]

I also run a Symantec product - Norton Ghost 9. Unlike others, I don't try to get people with SAV to switch. The reason is that once SAV is installed it cannot be uninstalled. I've known for quite a while now that this software installs a "rootkit". And I'd never use it on any system I own.

Now I'll admit that I do eventually plan on building a new Vista box. (Microsoft is sending me a complimentary copy of Vista Ultimate for my contributions to their beta program. ) But one of the first things I would do is to disable UAC. The very concept of Symantec using this feature to leverage their "software" is highly disturbing to me. There just isn't any way to "protect" a user from their own stupidity. Of course like others I'll have to fix the problems caused by this software. This is just another reason NOT to be a Dell IMHO.

 

[LoneWolf]

Symantic is the scurge to the anit-virus market as AOL is to dialup users. Nothing but junk, slowing down your system, computers still gettting infected and they wonder why Microsoft wont give the code. Anytime I get a computer in my shop with SAV, I talk my customers into anything but SAV. By the way, anytime you need special applications to UNINSTALL SAV from your computer should be a big red flag.

I agree with everything you say, except I'd make one point

Symantec Home stuff sucks. On the other hand, their Corporate AV product isn't bad. I've used versions 8, 9, and 10 on a large scale network, and while it has a few quirks (every competing product seems to as well) it works quite well, provided the original configuration is done by someone competent (who sets update intervals correctly from the central server, etc.). Symantec knows that if it screws up in the Enterprise, it doesn't just lose a customer; it loses a business with hundreds or thousands of client licenses. So, their corporate product is done far better.

It's a shame; if Symantec's home product was nearly as good as their corporate product, they'd have something decent. As it is, like McAfee, their home stuff is bloated, slow, resource-hogging garbage.

 

[Nasty_Savage]

Corporate isn't as much of a pig as their home stuff, but it misses a LOT. And i've seen viruses able to turn off the active protection too which makes me laugh, unless of course, I don't have a ghost image for that model. In which case I swear like a drunk pirate.

 

[MrGuvernment]

More like nothing you *know about* has gotten through. I would bet that if you run a good AV scanner one you would find a few things your old AV's didn't pick up.

That can said about any application then, you say it is good cause you didnt get a virus, but how do you know you didnt unless you run more then 1 anti-v at a time.

I know i didnt get any viruses, i keep a very close eye on my systems, i can tell if it is acting slower, or something is not working properly, i keep an eye on my start up tasks and service cause i dont like crap starting i never approved to.

 

[LoneWolf]

Corporate isn't as much of a pig as their home stuff, but it misses a LOT. And i've seen viruses able to turn off the active protection too which makes me laugh, unless of course, I don't have a ghost image for that model. In which case I swear like a drunk pirate.

Do you mean the auto-protect, or the Tamper Protection feature? (Symantec added on a new tamper protection feature as of version 10.x to make this more difficult, though you have to choose to enable it).

You probably know about it, but I've seen Tamper Protection shut down processes it thought was trying to kill SAV corporate or make modifications it didn't like.

 

[LoneWolf]

Shoot, wish I could go back and edit posts in comment threads, but since I can't, let me say I wish there was an easier way to evaluate among the other corporate products out there competeing with Symantec. I can't think of a way without setting up a 25-computer test lab with a mock management server, getting permission to use the product as a trial, and then trying to kill the test lab.

There's half a dozen other products I'd love to compare to SAV corporate on pricing and effectiveness, but we've done okay with Symantec Corporate, and in order to switch, I'd want something as good or better, that costs less per license (I doubt that part will be hard, though). Not many good, solid reviews, none that I've found are recent (newest I saw was around `04-05). I'm impressed with F-Secure's enterprise product on paper, but when you're making a decision of a product that goes on 1,000 computers and at least half a dozen AV management servers in different facilities, "on paper" doesn't cut it.

 

[gotzmadskillz]

I hate Symantec Products ever since 2004 versions came out.

It often has a buggy uninstaller, which is why Symantec was prompted to create and put the uninstaller on its website for almost all it's products (SymNRT Tool). I've seen the hidden drivers get stuck on a system and literally take out the internet/networking. It's Worm Blocker technology is absolutely the worst and often blocks simple print and file sharing between Windows PCs (although the XP Windows Firewall can do this on it's own as well...) I've been to many clients houses where they have called saying they can't access the internet and often we ask them if they installed or have Norton installed and the answer is often "Yes! How did you know?"

Symantec couldn't do security right if they tried anymore. They have lost their way and almost every one of our 6000 clients will no longer be using their products... thank goodness for Bitdefender and AVG Free... and of course good ol' Routers.

With each new release their product gets buggier, slower and more intrusive. It was unfortunate that McAfee has to try to keep up with Symantec with these poorly implemented "Firewalls" they keep adding into everything.

 

[MrGuvernment]

I dont like "Norton" products, Symantec ones (buisness) are no where near as bad as their consumer products.