Symantec Sued For Running Fake "Scareware" Scans 391
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "James Gross, a resident of Washington State, filed what he intends to be a class action lawsuit against Symantec in a Northern District California court Tuesday, claiming that Symantec defrauds consumers by running fake scans on their machines, with results designed to bully users into upgrading to a paid version of the company's software. 'The scareware does not conduct any actual diagnostic testing on the computer,' the complaint reads. 'Instead, Symantec intentionally designed its scareware to invariably report, in an extremely ominous manner, that harmful errors, privacy risks, and other computer problems exist on the user's PC, regardless of the real condition of the consumer's computer.' Symantec denies those claims, but it has a history of using fear mongering tactics to bump up its sales. A notice it showed in 2010 to users whose subscriptions were ending in 2010 warned that 'cyber-criminals are about to clean out your bank account...Protect yourself now, or beg for mercy.'"
Antivirus? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Antivirus? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I can tell you the same story about any AV product out there, from personal experience.
Go to virustotal.com and upload any "known" virus you encounter and see how many big-name AV vendors don't recognise it at all.
Then make yourself a utility that crashes your system or takes over your startup entries, or does exactly what any virus will do and see how it fares against the same tests. I'd be very surprised if *any* of them picked it up, even with "heuristics" turned on.
Re:Who still pays for antivirus? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm by no means anti-MS (Windows 7 is the only OS on both of my home PCs these days), but I'd take issue with the blanket statement that "Windows is also secure now a days".
I went through endless fun thanks to the parents just before Christmas. They fell for one of those fake-DHL-shipping-notice spam e-mails (as they were actually expecting a Christmas-related DHL delivery) and, with a single click, landed their (3 month old, Norton-"protected", UAC-enabled) PC with one of the most vicious and persistent pieces of malware I've ever seen. One of those fake-AV-software ransomware jobbies. It disabled Norton, blocked Windows from accessing DVD and USB drives, did a dns redirect so that browsers could only access the ransomware page and all kinds of crap. I've sorted these before by doing a system restore from a backup point in safe-mode, but even though the restore allegedly worked in this case, the malware persisted through it quite happily. Ended up doing a full format and reinstall of Windows.
Now, there are a lot of failures in this story; my parents for clicking the link, Norton for being completely (and predictably) useless and so on. But I still have problems with describing an OS where a single click can land you in that kind of mess as "secure".
Personally, I use AVG, on the grounds that it provides some basic protection and makes my system chug less than most of its rivals. But it's by no means infallible, throws up a depressing number of false positives and the only way to avoid infection does appear to be abject paranoia (which is now my default policy).
Re:Who still pays for antivirus? (Score:4, Interesting)
... would make a potato a good AV solution.
Yes, my pet potato is my best friend and protector. I call him Balthazar...
Re:Who still pays for antivirus? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Antivirus? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then make yourself a utility that crashes your system or takes over your startup entries, or does exactly what any virus will do and see how it fares against the same tests. I'd be very surprised if *any* of them picked it up, even with "heuristics" turned on.
Contrariwise, I'm a big fan of scripting away work for efficiency gains - and I've noticed some heuristic scanners have a tendency to block a lot of functionality in many scripts. You're buggered either way.
Their product sucks, but their blog... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who still pays for antivirus? (Score:4, Interesting)
And how many billable hours is that rebuild, when the customer has actual applications installed that Ninite won't load up (say, a full Autodesk Suite, 10 years of Quickbooks versions side-by-side, originally purchased through downloading, or some horrible niche vertical business management app)?
When a new perfectly serviceable desktop runs $400, you end up incentivizing people to throw infected PCs in the trash or simply not repair infected machines. That's crazy.
Re:Who still pays for antivirus? (Score:2, Interesting)
Posting anon due to modding above.
ESET has, for years, offered a guide to prevent such issues with games. I agree with those who say ESET is "the best" in that it's not only effective but really doesn't bog a system down. I still think the value proposition of MSE is great. Most folks just don't need the customization options ESET offers.
Here's the ESET gaming config PDF. [eset.com]