A Bad Week for Symantec 239
Evan Hughes writes "NeoSmart Technologies has published a scathing editorial regarding 3 high-profile mistakes by Symantec Corp. — all in less than a week. In what seems to be a string of stupid mistakes culminating in the infection of CNN-parent Turner Broadcasting Systems by Rinbot— a virus dedicated to the eradication of Symantec from the known world."
maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they're not mistakes... maybe it's just a form of viral marketing.
With all due respect... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm so glad I moved out of software maintenance and into hardware maintentance. Now I just wipe harddrives clean as a whistle and make sure the hardware works. Such a load off!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:With all due respect... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:With all due respect... (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of a phrase we used at a company I once worked at, to describe 'free' equipment we were given, and co-erced into using.
"It didn't cost us anything. Well, not at first."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:With all due respect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for playing!
No great loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Give this man a kewpie doll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewpie_doll_(toy) [wikipedia.org] or mod up, or something.
Re:No great loss (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You right, They suck now. But they used to be half way decent at one time. I don't know what happened.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No great loss (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, somewhere in 1990, Peter Norton sold things to Symantec. They (Symantec) continued to associate themselves with Peter Norton up until 2001 or so. About that time is the consensus that things went downhill. I'm not certain how much involvement Norton had with Symantec up until that point, but I'm willing to speculate that when the two parted companies, that's when Symantec began their transformation into selling the crap they do now.
Gosh, I miss the good ol' days of Norton Utilities and the like...in DOS nonetheless. Now there was a powerful piece of software that was truly easy to use. The UI actually showed you some shred of respect that you knew what you were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or PCA ( again, another acquisition ).
Or Altiris.. err wait, that product sucks anyway
Do they develop anything on their own or just eat other companies now?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So this is kinda obvious, but.... (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm hmm hmm people are dumb.
Re:So this is kinda obvious, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't like Symantec products because they make the life of a sysadmin *more difficult*.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not all that obvious, really (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you run a windows update and messed something up? Yea me too. That's why I always wait a while before updating windows. I know it's risky but I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Is this guy serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, doesn't Free AVG only update once a week as well?
Re: (Score:2)
What kind ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this guy serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this guy serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for... well, it doesn't matter. In our facility absolutely NO patches or virus definition updates are applied without first being approved by another group whose sole job it is to make sure these pathces don't affect something critical to our operations. Furthermore, we only download our defs from approved (IE our own) sources so as to ensure that we are ONLY downloading what's already been tested.
In short, we are all professionals and we should be capable of ensuring that our defs are up to date. We don't need (nor will we allow them to in our case) Symantec to hold our fuckin' hands throughout this process. When I install a corporate virus scanner, I fully expect to have to configure the machine policies in order to match our IT policies. If somebody's only updating their definitions once a week, then that's not Symantec's fault. That's the fault of whatever sysadmin was too stupid to properly configure his software.
That said, I still think Symantec's a piece of shit and I wish we were allowed to use other solutions in its place, but that's not for me to decide. Their management software is no where near as feature rich as EPO, and I seem to have to spend more time dealing with Symantec issues than I do with EPO issues. (Because, yes, we do monitor our machines each day to ensure that they are updating properly. CNN we are not.) Please don't think for a minute that I like defending Symantec. I just believe in placing the blame properly where it belongs, and in this case it's the idiot sysadmins who weren't doing their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone including you is blaming sysadmins. Don't forget there's a PHB somewhere within CNN who is definitely ultimately responsible and might be the cause.
Good point. It's hard for me to imagine that there would be somebody out there with such an idiotic policy... Then I remembered a client of mine back in '03. The office was such that it had a nominal IT position to handle minor stuff, but then would bring my group in for the more advanced IT tasks. Anyway, after repairing a couple of computers I informed the "IT" guy that I really needed to patch his servers ASAP as there was a new virus running rampant and infecting 2K/XP machines and I knew that their
Yes, he is serious. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Argh. Misplaced my marbles... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Symantec - semantics (Score:5, Funny)
That's not a virus. That's a feature.
Why is this is only news now? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Estimates are 100-150 million machines are currently part of botnets
2. Loss estimates exceed 200 billion annually on a global basis
3. Over 80% of all spam comes from botnets
Yes, I can cite. Or you can Google. They are all easy to find.
This is a HUGE problem that is, in many ways, like spam was in 1996 or 1997. The technical community acknowledges it, the average consumer has no clue, and, left unaddressed the problem and associated looses will get much, much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every piece of spam or malicious software that makes it into my company finds its way to my inbox attached to the question "Why did I get this?", so I really don't want to know how worse it can get.
Sounds as Though Turner Made One Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Updates (Score:5, Insightful)
People often don't update their software for years at a time. Hey, it costs. Which is why NAV is designed to update itself automatically. You just have to configure it correctly.
I'm no fan of Symantec. It's perfectly true that they're badly run. Hey, they used to be a lot more than a "security software" company, but all their other business (natural language databases, compilers, IDEs, desktop software, backup software) just died on them. But to blame them for the ineptitude of the CNN's IT department is idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
in the movie the Prophecy referred to as "Talking Monkeys".
I work in the IT support sector and receive calls everyday from
some ppl that are brilliant and some ppl that should send their
server back now.
That's right, I said "server"
I am baffled by how many ppl call in for support on a "server"
that are clueless, and don't know how to download their
drivers from a "well known" support site.
Ppl that ask why their server crashed when they have NEV
A what now? (Score:2)
Just in time for us to migrate to Symantec (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just in time for us to migrate to Symantec (Score:4, Informative)
We've got an AV server and all of our clients are managed. We set the server up to check Symantec every two hours for updates and those updates are pushed down to the clients almost immediately.
Need to install all of your clients to the latest version (say from 9 -> 10)? Click Tools | Install Client Remotely and push it down from a central location.
We check our clients and any computer that is more than a week out of date is turned on and updated.
The only reason I can think of that so many people are complaining is because they've only used the consumer version. When we get student laptops we immediately remove it and install the corporate version that is free for them. I've never had a problem uninstalling the trialware version of the AV that ships with so many laptops.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In additon they take up alot less resources then the home versions, and are usally easy to uninstall. Even without the management software you can use them, and they will download info from the web sites of the appropriate company.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When I got through, I had two new XP installs on the same computer, different partitions. I left AOL off of one, and it seems to run very well, using a free virus scanner there. So far so good, but I really do not know if those installs will stay put. Windows updates as needed, and so does the scanner. Just lucky I guess.
I don't use that machine, others do, and if they ha
Astroturfing (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to wonder how much of it is simply astroturfing by disgruntled former employees? When there's a negative op/ed piece on a "software development and security research" website where none of the SQL even works, I just have to wonder if some no-talent assclown is pissed off because he lost his helpdesk or HR job.
Re:Astroturfing (Score:4, Interesting)
But at the same time, I have to ask how incompetent a company that writes security software can be, when their own code is written so as to allow this type of exploit.
Furthermore, I've had quite a bit of experience with Symantec over the past few years. I've been using Veritas products for a decade and change (Netbackup and Volume Manager primarily), and know them very well. Once in a while, I'll come up against a bug and phone Veritas for support/workarounds/whatever. For years they weren't top notch, but they were decent and consistent.
Since Symantec took over, support has fallen through the bottom of the toilet. Their help desk is driven by 'time-to-close,' and actual technical experts are no longer brought in for difficult cases. Bug reports are not even accepted anymore! (Well they'll _take_ the bug report, but won't give you a bug ID to track it with.)
Furthermore, they've started to crank up the version release numbers so that they can promise support for two versions, but only support products for two years from initial release. TWO YEARS FROM RELEASE!!! That's completely unacceptable even in the home PC marketplace, let alone in an enterprise environment, where a product rollout may take over a year.
So yesterday I went to install the newly-free version of Storage Foundation, because I needed to migrate some data from an old system (flawlessly running vxvm 3.5) to a new one, where we'd then move it to ZFS and be done with Veritas for good. The installer put 40 packages on my newly built Solaris 10 system (11/06 release), but failed to actually install the volume manager! After screwing around with it for a while, I gave up and went to uninstall it. The uninstaller hung in kernel space, and for twelve hours did nothing but couldn't be killed.
I don't care about any axes that people have to grind. Symantec is an incompetent company, and DESERVES all of those people holding grudges against them. I'll be glad to see them die horribly.
Re:Astroturfing (Score:4, Funny)
Personally I'm surprised that he hasn't broadcast it on the news as a terrorist attack and recruited the Boston police and bomb squad to deal with this threat...
Re:Astroturfing (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, I may have misstated Symantec's support policy, but that is verbatim what I was told by a support engineer. (I even have the email to prove it.) Maybe some internal training is in order?
"...you've downplayed the fact that two years is a long time in the world of security software."
Did I mention the "Veritas products" part of the equation? Two years is barely time to get one's feet wet with most (former) Veritas products. There's also support from other vendors to consider: Sun didn't actually provide support for Volume Manager 4.0 until after 4.1 was released. Already we're into the two year window, and we haven't even started a cluster OS upgrade!
And that's just volume manager. A full-blown enterprise Netbackup installation is a MAJOR event. Here's one scenario I dealt with recently:
NBU 5.0 gets released. After six months of waiting for it to become stable enough to actually use, the company started the implementation. This involved $980k of new hardware (and they already had the tape library and infrastructure in place). The planning, architecture, implementation, cutover, and validation took a total of roughly eight months. That's 14 months after initial release, and we've just gone live with the product. At that point, after over a million dollars of gear and time and effort, I am NOT planning on a major version upgrade in ten months or twenty or thirty. I want a MINIMUM of three years of full support after that point, and five is much more reasonable. We shouldn't be forced to upgrade our software until we've outgrown our infrastructure, which is about a 3.5-4.0 year turnaround for most big companies.
Furthermore, service packs or not, the very WEEK that NBU6.0 was released, we were told we couldn't get any more NBU 5.x client licenses. That's it, no more, thanks for coming out. Suddenly, regardless of bug support, we're left without any legal means of growing without upgrading to 6.0.
That is, in a word, crap.
This isn't a $100 anti-virus package for a PC that's going to be chucked in two years, this is software that runs enterprise installations. We don't spend $5k per client machine for a product that's obsolete almost as soon as we install it.
Now you can say that Symantec doesn't operate like this, that my details are all incorrect. That may be, but that is what we were told by our local sales guys, our regional managers, and the other end of Symantec's international support group.
So on the one hand, we have the model you describe, which is crap. On the other hand, you have the reality that I've described which is rancid festering crap. Add to this the fact that VxVM5.0 Basic (the freebie package) simply doesn't work, and you've got a company that is either too incompetent to survive, or trying very hard to destroy the Veritas products/division they bought a few years ago.
As for you liking your job, that's great. I really am genuinely happy every time I hear about someone enjoying their work, because we spend a lot of time at it. (random aside: Until recently I hated my job although I love my work, so I quit--now I'm working for a better company for less pay, and loving it.) Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that your company doesn't even have the vaguest understanding of what enterprise computing is really about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Work for Symantec, do you?
I'm not a symantec employee. Their programs have the following annoying features:
1) Bloat
2) they don't necessarily protect your PC as advertised
3) the popups are designed to make you feel the program is doing its job however the program is only mediocre at doing its job - the "firewall" is a JOKE
4) it's IMPOSSIBLE for the average user to uninstall that
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, aside from the duplicate items you used to pad the list--Is that what you meant by "bloat?" Your list comes down to "It's bloatware, it doesn't do its job, and I have an issue with the support."
In all seriousness, these are all valid complaints. I suppose you used the appropriate feedback channels to communicate this?
First thing I Uninstall is Symantec (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No sweat off my nose.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I substitute Free-av.com for Norton- better infection detection, less memory overhead, free (with the option of buying a license- I usually guilt them into doing it), and nightly upgrades.
Can you say AVAST? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I don't work for them, or own stock. They've even updated it for Vista. The cost? Register for a free serial number every 14 months.
Comodo firewall http://www.comodo.com/ [comodo.com] is nice free step up for those who think they need something more than Windows firewall.
In the year 2007, there is really no need for a consumer to pay for a product from Symantec/Norton, McAfee, or any other security software vendor that has been fleecing us for the last several years.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Eradication? (Score:2)
We can only hope.
Re:AVG (Score:5, Funny)
Since we're talking about Windows machines, I can tell you for certain which comes first.
Re:AVG (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I'll get you the data.
Main server has rebooted twice in the last four months for security patches, total ~19 minutes downtime.
Re:AVG (Score:4, Informative)
Uptime King (Score:2)
Our Network Admin decided to reset it, and it offered this up:
Kodiak_Rtr uptime is 6 years, 9 weeks, 3 days, 10 hours, 43 minutes
Go Cisco!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, actually it's really annoying, because AVG is always trying to scan the hard drive when I go to play a game.
Re: (Score:2)
Not it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is a completely ridiculous statement. Maybe you just haven't checked C:\$VAULT$.AVG, a normally hidden directory. Mine currently has 121 xxxxxxxx.FILs, going back to Feb 4, 2007. AVG is alive and well, TYVM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or is this just what happens when you have kids?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much will it take? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And while this isn't going to stop infections, It is going to slow them down to a point they would never rival windows current state unless something changes. Also, one could argue that it would leave a trail to a degree making it possible to catch some of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Vista has the same sort of protection built in as well. However, the protection is triggered so many times by non-malicious programs that users quickly become used to clicking "Yes" to every dialog prompt that pops up. This behavior c
Re:How much will it take? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL! As if Solaris were immune to bugs.
You might want to check out the Solaris telnet problem [zdnet.com]. Yeah, it's been fixed. But if you wait eight months to install the update that fix ain't gonna do you any good.
No software of any consequence is bug free.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. (Score:2)
And now with virtualization made easy (unlike with WIndows, where all kind of asinine licensing restrictions discourage virutalization) one is able to isolate even more logical instance of machines. This enhances security and reliability.
Re:How much will it take? (Score:4, Funny)
when the OS let's Steve ballmer and Microsoft know when you are in the shouse so a guy can show up dressed as clippy and forcibly anal rape you.
Yes, it will have to get that bad before the sheeple out there actually switch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you seem so smart, how exactly has this been disproven so many times?
Linux is very popular in datacentres. (Score:2)
Most (all?) companies offering web hosting or collocations support Linux. Actually being able to 0wn a Linux server gives you much better malware posibilities since a system can have hundreds or thousends of users.
But black hats don't attack Linux not out of popularity, but simply because Linux has a better design when it comes to security (UNIX, and Linux, which takes its inspiration from it, were designed in the understanding that you may have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So your point is? (Score:2)
And if you install any of the rule based security applications in Linux, the constraints are even stronger, this without sacrificing the versatility or the user's experience.
Linux is not attacked for lack of popularity, it is not attacked because it is more of a bitch to do an attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of stupid windows bashing even makes pure OS X owner like me to type this message. Think about it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again...I did once! It was when I was running Windows 2000. Someone rooted my Hotline Server and deleted all my files
JB
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm.... sure it was. I remember countless cases of machines shipped with win2k and xp which got infected circa 2001/2002 on dialup connections.... while attempting to install SP4 (2k) or sp2(xp). If you didn't already have the approperate service pack, one pretty much had to download it, copy to disc, re-install windows, install the service pack, then connect to the internet, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must produce the most elegant and error-free code imaginable. Can I study at your feet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps. McAfee had a problem once where they were identifying Excel as a virus [com.com], but I've never heard of Symantec having such a problem. More likely, the CNN IT staff is either incompetent or just plain stupid.
Also, if they had been burned by Symantec, they should have gone with another vendor's product. A company like CNN not having up to date AV software is inexcusable.
Re: (Score:2)
But really, why is this one media screw up an issue, when the
Re: (Score:2)
ie you decided to have an orange, but in reality you grabbed the orange and justified it later by recalling that you desired it prior to deciding...
why do you think eye witness testimony is the absolute worst evidence to have in a trial