Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Anti-Spyware Removes Norton Anti-Virus
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Feb 11, 2006 06:32 PM
from the that's-a-big-oops dept.
from the that's-a-big-oops dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to a story over at Washingtonpost.com, the latest definitions file for Microsoft's Anti-Spyware beta flags Symantec's Norton Antivirus products as a password-stealing trojan and prompts users to delete portions of the program. Users who follow the instructions hose their installation of Norton, requiring delicate Windows registry edits and a complete removal/reinstall of Norton. Microsoft's support forum is quickly filling up with complaints about this problem, many from businesses that have been pretty hard hit. This should be a cautionary tale about deploying beta products in production environments."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Anti-Spyware Removes Norton Anti-Virus
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 496 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
What problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://blog.darwincentral.org/)
Re:What problem? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. I am a computer services provider for mostly home users and I often find NAV and internet tools to be single greatest contributor to draining system resources. I usually recommend disabling NAV, using safe internet practices, and scanning weekly or if there appears to be a problem.
Re:What problem? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.digital-traffic.net/)
We're still selling it at the shop that I work at. I'm not sure why... We recommend AVG Free for most people, but for business users we sell NAV.
Re:What problem? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.johngaughan.net/)
We recommend AVG Free for most people, but for business users we sell NAV.
AVG is an excellent product. I have been using it for a couple of weeks now with zero problems, minimal performance/CPU/RAM impact, etc. I am so impressed with it that I am actually going to pay for it, despite the free version working "good enough" for me.
At work, NAV sucks my computer dry. Sure, it works well enough, but the cure is worse than the disease. Too bad my employer is in bed with MS and Norton, no room for AVG...
Re:What do you really expect it to do? (Score:5, Informative)
The first step I take when I'm working on somebody's computer is to remove Norton and install these replacements. Most people are shocked that their computer runs as fast as it does, especially considering that many of these people have always had Norton installed because it came with their computer.
Just because these products must use continuous system resources doesn't mean they need all of them. That would kind of defeat the purpose of having a computer.
Re:What do you really expect it to do? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I meant that running all of those products in memory simultaneously is better for performance than running Norton in memory.
Second, you're trying to give a quantitative value to something that is qualitative. What metric do you use to measure the vulnerability of a particular PC? Sure, you can throw a certain amount of malicious software at it, but that's not a realistic test.
The measure is simple - which computer protected with its respective packages and attached directly to the network will be infected by a worm or hacked by a malicious user first? If you re-read my comment, you'll find that I said that both computers will be "just as protected." If both computers will be equally difficult to penetrate, why waste the extra memory and CPU on Norton?
Re:What do you really expect it to do? (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking as a person that has just installed AVG7 Network Edition on multiple computers in a school (yes, they paid for their licenses, before you ask), I'd have to correct you here. AVG 7, indeed, has a firewall built in.
AVG has several other features built in (email scanning, etc). FAR less resource hogging than ANYTHING I could put on from Symantec.
Why are you defending NAV/NIS so much? They are utter pieces of shit and deserve a slow and painful death.
Re:What do you really expect it to do? (Score:5, Funny)
But the purpose of having a computer is to run anti virus software, spy ware detectors, and firewalls. Between running those tools and updating the system there is not much time or resources for anything else.
Do you work for Norton by any chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
AVG does the job better, faster, and with far less resource consumption. Every time I have been called on to disinfect a machine which was running NAV, I recommned the owners switch to AVG. Without exception, they comment on how much more responsive their system is. I have little trouble convincing them to support Grisoft by getting the not-for-free version.
The machine I am on right now is running (probably unnecessarily) a full AVG install. It checks my email, it checks my downloads, it checks all of the crud running on the system, and it does this while burning some fraction of 1% of the CPU and a tiny bit of memory.
If you are currently running NAV, disable it (if you can) and try running AVG for a couple of days. I think you'll notice the difference.
Thing is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Norton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does most of the buiness apps in the office today run on Solaris or BSD? ESPECIALLY BSD? Hell no.
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:5, Funny)
Not So Useless After All! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.rodina.ca/)
Discussion Link (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday June 18 2004, @11:45AM)
But what if (Score:4, Informative)
(http://iheartjesdotus.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 05 2005, @05:40PM)
Norton/Symantec hasn't always been nice (are they now?) - remember when Norton Utilities couldn't be removed on DOS installations? The only option was to totally format the drive and start over. I know people who won't even try Norton/Symantec products after all of those years because of these types of problems.
This should be a cautionary tale about deploying beta products in production environments.
Why even use Anti-Spyware when Norton Anti-Virus (corporate edition at least) can detect and remove spyware in real time?
Re:But what if (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/-- | Last Journal: Thursday September 18 2003, @11:15AM)
So many lols, I don't know where to begin or end! (Score:5, Interesting)
(https://sourceforge.net/projects/ruoppolo/ | Last Journal: Monday December 12 2005, @02:51AM)
Second, what kind of moron installs that software, sees it tell you that your Norton software has to go, and then follow through with it when you are in a business environment? I just find that to be amazing.
Third, this strikes at one of the main reasons I have thought Microsoft's move into the anti-malware industry was a bad one. Considering how protective they are of their IP and their EULAs, it suprises the hell out of me they would violate other company's EULAs (adware companies) among other things.
Fourth and finally, there are going to be some lawsuits which really means more money for findlaw.com.
Other way round? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://aruljohn.com/)
Bye Microsoft. (Score:3, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/-- | Last Journal: Thursday September 18 2003, @11:15AM)
Then how are we supposed to use Microsoft products? I thougt all Microsofts products was more or less beta.
Re:Bye Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're thinking of Google, who release great products but keep them in beta for years.
This is easily confused with Microsoft, who release mediocre products instead of keeping them in beta for years.
Looks like it might be time to... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.cursor.org/)
Not a Beta Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
This also brings up some interesting possibilities. Is it possible to craft a virus to deliberately have similar signatures to a commercial product? An anti-virus company that doesn't have quite all commercial applications on hand to test against could be caught by that. Maybe not, but I'm sure someone will try now.
I'm glad I run Linux, and when things like this happen, I wish everyone did.
Bruce
Norton should strike back (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.hardcoded.net/)
Have you actually verified this is true? Anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Faster way to clean up Norton (Score:5, Informative)
The tool removes every trace of Norton from your system. It does a better job than the normal uninstaller.
The real question is (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.fylo.net/)
Does MS Anti-Spyware still not detect Gator^H^H^H^H^HClaria crap as malware?
Why are businesses running beta software? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 01 2004, @09:33AM)
Slow computers help Microsoft sell more copies. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.futurepower.net/)
That's not what happens in the case of Microsoft's virtual monopoly. Many people, when they find their computer has become slow, buy a new computer [nytimes.com]. Then Microsoft sells another copy of Windows, which, of course, still has huge security risks.
The incredible CPU-sucking of Norton software also helps Microsoft sell more copies of Windows, also.
Somehow Microsoft has arranged that owners of Microsoft Windows XP must pay again when they get a new computer.
It's miserable to have billionaires who care only about money riding on your back. That's why open source is necessary.
But it's not really a beta... (Score:5, Informative)
"Beta" is their term.
75% of my private client calls involve removing malware, and the MS product
is a champ at this task.
MS antispyware gives you a summary screen that breaks down each item it found,
assigns it a perceived threat rating, and gives you the choice to "Remove, Ignore, Quarantine."
So, anyone watching with any degree of care should notice that Norton was one of the choices
and simply select the "ignore" option.
Personally, I haven't seen this happen myself.
I agree with many other posters that Norton isn't that great of a product.
I've noticed their firewall suddenly,without provocation, start blocking
all websites.
I've also noticed their antivirus turn itself off for no reason, never
to be turned on again. Reinstalling is often interesting, since even the
least little trace of the product prevents an install/reinstall, but it
almost never uninstalls cleanly.
Damn Norton (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday December 18 2006, @11:19PM)
Yup the firewall prevents internet access, and other oddities. Of course with an expired subscription the user still thinks they're still proof against malware and that they're firewalled.
Parents machine; Norton removal hoses networking completely, and I need to reinstall the network adaptor to get networking to work!
Customers machine; Random 'internet access' and 'cd writing' problems
Customers machine; Doesn't uninstall properly, interferes with Vodafone and Orange Data card installation, use a combination of regedits, the symantec removal tool and add/remove programs to get the machine into a state I can reinstall the corp edition
First thing I do is download firefox, avg free, m$ anti spyware and adaware
The only thing I cant seem to get rid of is a certain young ladies "VX2 / Nail / Aurora" spyware nonsense, any help on that front is appriciated, as the only thing I can think of doing is a reinstall!
Re:Maybe we should look into what Norton AV does (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday January 03 2003, @03:39PM)
i work for an isp, and the checklist the tech monkeys use now has "do you have any norton products installed?" at the top of it. it's the single biggest cause of connection and email troubles we get. it randomly blocks outgoing and incoming connection to the email server. also does the same for web, but it's much rarer.