Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security IT

Symantec's Genesis to Usher in a New Age of Trust? 275

Posted by CowboyNeal from the grand-designs dept.
eldavojohn writes "Symantec has announced that they will be creating a massive security package called Genesis. Semantec has set their goal to 'Security 2.0' which is proposed to be 'a new age of trust on the Internet.' From the article: 'Symantec plans a one-stop software service tying together anti-virus, anti-spam, firewall and a host of other PC optimization technologies...' This is certainly something the common computer user could buy instead of having to fork over cash for every component. I don't think I'll be purchasing it though."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Symantec's Genesis to Usher in a New Age of Trust? More

Symantec's Genesis to Usher in a New Age of Trust?

Comments Filter:

  • Genesis? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dorkygeek ( 898295 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:48AM (#14632886) Journal

    Let's hope it was designed intelligently then...

    But seriously, I'd rather have the security problems fixed at the source, instead of having to add layers and layers of so called "security software".

    • Re:Genesis? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:10AM (#14632968) Journal
      I'm wondering if all these layers will slow my computer down even more then thier existing software does. It is pretty bad when i upgrade from a athlon XP 2200 to an 3200 processor and after installing nortan AV 2005 it apears to run slower then the XP2200 did.

      I havn't been fond of thier products since thier 2003 versions. I asked thier tech support several times (after having to reinstal one of thier products and reactivating it because of an upgrade or it just stoped working) why all the systems I install thier AV or internet securities sweet on run so slow and they told me it was because "it is a complicated program","thats how you know it is working" and get this "microsoft slows it down because microsoft is coming out with an antivirus soon".

      • Re:Genesis? (Score:3, Informative)

        by silverburn ( 860654 )
        Hear, Hear.

        Try installing the 2006 Internet Security edition; on a Athlon 3200+ it's so slow on startup I just standby the PC now instead of turning it off, for fear of dropping dead of old age before my PC's restarted.

        And it now takes THREE TIMES LONGER to get fully operational. And opening a word document takes an eternity. And it breaks more often than the 2005 edition (twice since it was launched!).

        What an utterly shite piece of flaky bloatware it's become.

        • Re:Genesis? (Score:3, Informative)

          by sumdumass ( 711423 )

          And it breaks more often than the 2005 edition (twice since it was launched!).

          and isn't it interesting that with the product activation you now have to call in and have them re-authorize the activation. They insist you give them an email address, god forbid it hasn't changed since the last time you called or you will have another 20 questions on are you sure your not stealing our crapware, then you have to put up with all the spam they say they have no conection with.

          Somethign has gone completley down hi

      • Re:Genesis? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Jedi_Knyghte ( 763576 )
        I asked thier tech support several times (after having to reinstal one of thier products and reactivating it because of an upgrade or it just stoped working)

        Yup. I quit using Norton after it randomly deactivated itself repeatedly and then told my activation count was used up and I'd have to talk to tech support--and this was after I installed the patch that was supposed to fix it. AVG free all the way now, and cross off one hitherto faithful and satisfied customer.

    • Re:Genesis? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ForumTroll ( 900233 )
      "But seriously, I'd rather have the security problems fixed at the source, instead of having to add layers and layers of so called "security software"."

      The only solution here is to use a different operating system. Preferably one that was developed by people that have some idea of what they're doing (ie. MacOS X, GNU/Linux, Solaris etc.). With Windows all you're ever going to get is a nice Fisher Price interface with layer upon layer of extra crap piled on top trying to make up for the ridiculously poo

      • Re:Genesis? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Al Dimond ( 792444 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:42AM (#14633079) Journal
        There have been plenty of buffer overrun vulnerabilities allowing potential arbitrary code execution on all major operating systems. There have been plenty of priviledge escalation vulnerabilities on all major operating systems. All you need to get from there to a real exploit is either (a) a vulnerable server listening on some port or (b) some user to click on the wrong link or open the wrong attachment.

        90s Outlook had lots of problems. 90s IE had lots of problems. There's a big problem with user accounts on Windows and how difficult it is to run as non-admin. And Windows doesn't have effective tools like sudo to grant occasional privledges beyond the usual. These tools can be built onto Windows. Third-party developers can be pressured to release software that works with the security model. Exploits can be patched, and quality control can be improved. And there are a lot of people working for Microsoft on these very things.

        Microsoft may never fully win the battle against hackers. But then again, I don't know if anyone ever can. Even OpenBSD has had security holes in its default install a few times, and it's fighting a much less malicious group of hackers than Windows is. I love using GNU/Linux; it's cool that Unix has had sudo since 1980 and a tradition of sane security practices. That doesn't mean we should get arrogant about security.

        • Re:Genesis? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ForumTroll ( 900233 )
          I'm well aware that other operating systems also have security flaws and I concede that there is no operating system that is completely safe. However, the architecture and coding practices of the other operating systems I mentioned make it much easier to avoid flaws altogether and also make it much easier to locate the flaws and correct them. Being required to run Windows as administrator for many applications to work is just one simple example of extreme neglect for security. And yes this is partially t
          • However, the architecture and coding practices of the other operating systems I mentioned make it much easier to avoid flaws altogether and also make it much easier to locate the flaws and correct them.

            What "architectural and coding practices" are you thinking of ?

            Being required to run Windows as administrator for many applications to work is just one simple example of extreme neglect for security. And yes this is partially the fault of Windows developers, however it's also largely Microsoft's fault for

            • Microsoft have been telling developers to write LUA-friendly apps for 6+ years now. They share zero blame for any remotely current application needlessly requiring Administrator level privileges to run.

              Not really. They should have been pushing much harder on this, doing things like refusing the use of trademarks to apps that are security-stupid when run on recent-enough Windows versions. It's not like it's all that hard to get right (e.g. no writing of shared filesystem space or shared registry keys) so b

              • Re:Genesis? (Score:3, Informative)

                by drsmithy ( 35869 )
                They should have been pushing much harder on this, doing things like refusing the use of trademarks to apps that are security-stupid when run on recent-enough Windows versions.

                It's a requirement of the "Made for Windows" logo.

      • With Windows all you're ever going to get is a nice Fisher Price interface with layer upon layer of extra crap piled on top trying to make up for the ridiculously poor quality of the base system and its architecture.

        I deny this vehemently! The Fisher Price interface is an ugly pile of crap which rides to school on the short bus and whose mother dresses it funny.

    • Re:Genesis? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lifeisgreat ( 947143 )
      Indeed - from the sounds of things, all the API hooks and extra levels they've had to add for such security systems sound like a proto-operating system in itself.

      I think there's a real need for extending the Windows ACL system even further than it already is to encompass programs as well as users - that way the built-in security subsystem could be utilized instead of ever-more hacks. I want to be able to bring up a property sheet and say:

      - process x can't write to directory tree y, even if the running user

      • Are there any operating systems out there with per-user AND per-process ACLs?

        Couldn't that be achieved by running program P with setuid, having an own user named PU and an own group named PG for program P. Now as user U, you could set the UID of directory /home/U/foo/bar/files_of_P to PU (or add PU to the ACL for that directory).

        Now, no matter whether user U or V runs P, P only has access to the directories of a user which have UID PU. For users U and V to have full access to these directories, they cou

      • Systrace will satisfy your needs
        http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/provos/systrace/ [umich.edu]
    • It was designed intelligently, but it can't dance, and it can't talk.
    • Let's hope it was designed intelligently then...


      Trusting Symantec will certainly demand quite a leap of faith...

  • Now if they can get their cpu use down... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChaoticLimbs ( 597275 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:48AM (#14632887) Journal
    Symantec and Norton antivirus and security packages (on machines I have experience with) use an absurd amount of memory and processor resources. Any hope that this will change someday?
    • I can't think of one major software package that has reduced bloat over the years.

      I also hate the trend towards dumbing down the user interface. Some virus scan progs & firewalls practically hide all the settings from you.

      Very few major anti-virus companies these days will put out a consumer (not the corporate or institutional package) piece of software that is stripped down. Feature bloat is the name of the game.

      I'd rather have 3 or 4 small efficient programs than one big POS to replace them.

    • Re:Now if they can get their cpu use down... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) * on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:02AM (#14632948)

      Symantec and Norton antivirus and security packages (on machines I have experience with) use an absurd amount of memory and processor resources. Any hope that this will change someday?

      Why yes, you can solve this problem today! Simply get a dual-core system, and voila! One core for the all-in-one anti-virus, firewall, automated secure dohicky, bloated security suite; and the other core for the rest of your stuff! It will feel as if you aren't running it at all!

      • Some how i suspect symantec will find a way of making that slow to a crawl too.

        It is sad when i have to clean infections form a computer not because they didn't have an AV but because they fequently turned it off to make thier new ocmputer usable at certain things like playing games.
      • I see the parent modded "funny", but in reality this doesn't sound so implausible.

        Average user: so, what's this whole "dual-core" mumbo jumbo?
        You: well, think of each core like a separate computer. One core for the all-in-one anti-virus, firewall, automated secure dohicky, bloated security suite; and the other core for the rest of your stuff! It will feel as if you aren't running it at all!
        Average user: that's awesome, thanks!

        Not so funny now, eh?

      • You joke about it, but it could very well end up that way. It's been my belief that the key to a more secure system is in fact a second processor. I think it will be part of the PC's evolution as security becomes more automated and computers are designed to protect even the most careless users from unforeseen threats. The idea system would utilize a second processor and the security would be entirely transparent to the user. I know; I'm dreaming.
      • The KDE Guarddog firewall does not show up in "top" as a process that takes up memory, unless you boot up the configuration interface to make changes to the firewall rules. I have a preconfigured rc.firewall built in to my livecd linux, that is placed in /etc/init.d ahead of any restoration of personal config that knoppix allows. I have by default http, https, ftp, pop3, pop3s, and dns, so email and web surfing can be done immediately after the linux system boots to the desktop.

        I note that Mozilla Firefox h
    • They also have a rediculasly higher crash rate then without the software. McAfee and Norton are nothing but crash maniacs, at least from my personal experience.
      • From my personal experience you're lucky if they only crash. I can distinctly remember haveing to replace half of a Windows installation when NAV 2001 ate the sys tray, completely blocked access to the NIC and became unkillable.

        This all-in-one-super-mighty-oh-my-god-I-just-wet-myse l f software would be something to investigate if it didn't come from a company that has worked up a reputation of releasing software more dangerous to Windows installs than the malware it's supposed to protect against...
    • Symantec and Norton antivirus and security packages (on machines I have experience with) use an absurd amount of memory and processor resources.
      Symantec: Because a fast computer only allows the virus to spread faster.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Internet Security (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PaladinAlpha ( 645879 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:48AM (#14632888)
    Really, this doesn't seem all that revolutionary -- Symantec, like McAfee, like any other company serious in the business, ALREADY offers an integrated suite of tools (Internet Security) and no matter the advancement of interplay and integration I have a hard time believing that Genesis will come across to the average user as being so much more. Wait and see, I guess.
    • What would be revolutionary is eliminating the need for all that crap anyway. I can't imagine diapering my computer from the big bad Internet with anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewall, etc. Then again, I use a Mac...

    • Re:Internet Security (Score:2, Interesting)

      by donaldm ( 919619 )
      It never ceases to amaze me that people buy an Operating System (you really do one way or another) and then have to buy software to keep malware and other nasties out. At least with Unix/Linux OS's you can get security updates for the OS and in may cases, unless you have a subscription (good value for large corporations and even some small business) it can be free.

      To actually require virus protection is really a damming indictment of the Operating System and yet Business actually spend billions of dollars a
      • It never ceases to amaze me that people buy an Operating System (you really do one way or another) and then have to buy software to keep malware and other nasties out. At least with Unix/Linux OS's you can get security updates for the OS and in may cases, unless you have a subscription (good value for large corporations and even some small business) it can be free.

        No amount of OS security can protect against the deliberate execution of malicious code.

        To actually require virus protection is really a dammi

        • No amount of OS security can protect against the deliberate execution of malicious code.

          I disagree with you. GP post was right in that the operating system is inherently flawed and makes it easy for virus/malware software to be executed on it.

          I have said it a lot of times but will say it again, there are several flaws on Microsoft Windows operating system that the Antivirus Companies are exploiting to commercialize their software.

          1. Inadecuate user privileges policies: Microsoft Windows operating systems d
          • I disagree with you. GP post was right in that the operating system is inherently flawed and makes it easy for virus/malware software to be executed on it.

            So how can the OS protect against it ? Given no shipping OS I'm aware is capable of auomatically identifying malicious code, you'll have to give a theoretical explanation.

            The only thing Windows does that makes it "easy" for "virus/malware software to be executed" is, by default, allowing a couple of file extensions indicate that a file is a binary exe

    • ZoneAlarm Security Suite integrates a firewall, anti-spyware, anti-virus, pop-up blocker, spam-blocker, etc. But I think "Genesis" will include "optimization software" such as defraggers. I wonder if they'll use a program to reduce its own memory usage.

  • I prefer Exodus. (Score:5, Funny)

    by dcapel ( 913969 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:49AM (#14632891) Homepage
    I have already left slavery for the promised land. Lots of those strange penguins around though...
    • ... the white stuff lying around all over the place is not manna from heaven (do not try to sniff it) and the critters, in the water, the ones with the triangular fins, those are Microsoft salesmen, they bite!!!

  • On Symantec's new software (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Haiku 4 U ( 580059 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:49AM (#14632892)
    Genesis? Sounds good.
    Secure from malware at last!
    So, is it Linux?

  • with vista (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Evilhomer2300 ( 900004 )
    They may try and bring this in along with vista. The new age of windows OS is supposed to be better, faster, stronger, and more secure. With Microsofts deep pockets, do you think they may help syman. try and make things even more secure? Or maybe try to make it seem like it, give people a better hope of security. just an idea

  • Optimization Technologies? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rminsk ( 831757 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:49AM (#14632895)
    and a host of other PC optimization technologies...

    So when did anti-virus, anti-spam, and a firewall become optimization technologies? My computer seems to run slower with these things installed.

  • Let's learn from history (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:51AM (#14632901)
    Genesii (That's multiple Genesis to you and I) have a history of utter failure.

    Genesis (Sega): Defeated by SNES
    Genesis (STWoK): Stolen by Khan, and he damn dear destroyed the enterprise with it
    Genesis (Band): Ushered in the era of HORRID 80's music

    Please Symantec, can we call this something that has a history of goodness attached to it, like Campbells?

  • bloatware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jjeff1 ( 636051 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:51AM (#14632902)
    If it's similar at all to any of the Symantec home all in one AV type packages it will be an enormous mess. The last time I worked on this, a 256MB machine used 270 MB of memory with nothing but Windows XP home and the Norton package running. Worse, when I disabled things they didn't need, like the firewall or spam scanner, it didn't actually unload them from memory.

    I stopped using Symantec for AV a while ago. But home users will still buy this for the same reason they buy a dishwasher with 19 different settings when all they ever use is the pots and pans setting.
    • Seems big companies like to make big bloatware. HP for example. Their "HP Image Zone" software is over 260 Mb... compressed! And all it does is manage photos and run their scanners. It's a pig.

      So why do they do this? Whatever happened to lightweight and agile? Not sexy enough for the board room? Why not give the user the option to customize his install to fit his exact needs?

      • Re:patronize-ware (Score:2, Informative)

        by jgp ( 72888 )
        Want a firewall? www.jetico.com - "Jetico Personal Firewall" *freeware*.
        Don't be put off by the "personal" bit. It's actually rather close to iptabls et al in the Windows world--rulesets, various logging levels, lots of different protocols, etc. It *will* confuse you initially (UI in particular), but then again, I did say it was like iptables... Both are rather unpatronising.

        Want a cheap (not free, but try it--I paid for it), fast, small anti-virus? www.nod32.com. Works, no fluff or animated 3D logos,

  • Age of trust???? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scronline ( 829910 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:56AM (#14632921) Homepage
    Shouldn't we be able to trust them now? Oh wait, since it took them 2 weeks to get the definitions out for a keylogging virus...I guess the answer to that is no.

    Personally, after seeing Symantec corp take 2 weeks to release the definitions for a keylogger a customers network had...All symantec products I have out there are going to go away.

    My choices are getting narrowed down quickly. McAfee lost out a few years back with the Nimda virus and failing to return phone calls....at all, not just late by a few hours or even a few days, a week later I heard from them. By that time I had already moved on since more than half my customer base was infected the DAY of the outbreak, not a week later.

    But then, both of those 2 are really good at annoying the ever loving crap out of a user, which inturn causes the user to ignore all those little popups. I've even been guilty of it because I see them like 80 times a day. JUST DO YOUR JOB! You don't have to tell us what a wonderful job you are doing, just tell us when you need us to do something.
  • that megalomania is still alive and well in the corporate boardroom

    all they need are the sharks with frickin' laser beams and some wagnerian operas playing in the background and symantec's domination of teh intarweb is complete ...in their own mind

    grandiose schemes like this should signal to someone that they need some medication

    it's one thing to think big, it's another thing to think RIDICULOUSLY DRAMATICALLY HUGE! (cue gong)

  • Seems too late (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bhaskie ( 788394 )
    With anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, intrusion prevention, firewall, PC optimization and maintenance elements all bundled togetherm this is gonna be one hell of a system performance issue.
    "Both Genesis and the next versions of Norton's traditional security products will be designed to work on Vista, Microsoft's forthcoming operating system, due later this year, as well as Windows XP."

    Well, seems this does not do linux. Only Windows XP. But looks like Microsoft already has OneCare which does the sa

  • Oh great ..... (Score:3, Informative)

    by gomaze ( 105798 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:10AM (#14632969) Homepage
    I have seen more problems caused by Symantec's software then I could count. I feel that if you have to run Windows then any extra layers of protection that you would need can be provided by free applications online. For example: Ad-aware [lavasoftusa.com], Spy-Bot [safer-networking.org], AVG Anti-Virus [grisoft.com], ZoneAlarm [zonelabs.com], and the best firewall protection, SmoothWall [smoothwall.org].

  • What useless crap (Score:5, Informative)

    by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <tukaro@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:13AM (#14632983) Homepage Journal
    I have unyielding hate for Symantec. I've spent countless hours trying to get their products to properly allow connectivity for various programs for other people, and even more hours uninstalling it after it wouldn't listen to my yelling.

    Nothing Symantec has is good, or can't be replaced by a free alternative.

    Anti-Virus? AntiVir [free-av.com] (If you want to pay, they have a premium version, too)
    Firewall? SP2 comes with a moderate firewall that works well. There are a good deal of free firewall programs out there, not to mention that many routers now have some sort of firewall software on them.
    Ad-aware and MAS have taken care of any spyware problems I've had to deal with (except for some of the really evil ones.)

    Any and everything else can be taken care of by good judgement and learning some PC common sense. Don't arbitrarily accept downloads that IE pops up with. Don't open every attachment that claims to be a dancing Ronald McDonald. Don't listen to every e-mail propogated by the feces of the internet that various programs in your windows folder are viruses.

    There is absolutely no need to pay $100 for Symantec's horrible piece of crap. People would be better off without it.
    • ...hours uninstalling it after it wouldn't listen to my yelling.

      Voice recognition will be in the next version of the bloatware. Unfortunately, any obscenities or criticisms of the Status Quo will cause it to reboot in retaliation.

    • and even more hours uninstalling it after it wouldn't listen to my yelling

      Assuming you're not speaking figuratively, you lost me right there. There's no reason to ever yell at tech support even if they do something stupid, or if the company policy is screwing you. You make the person feel like shit, and they're LESS likely to want to help. In other words that's absolutely the stupidest most self defeating thing you can do.
  • I honestly hope I'm proven wrong, but I just don't see "a new age of Internet trust" happening.. ever. To even put a dent in the mal-ware industry, this new software will have to use up every last bit of resources the Vista-generation computers might have. Even then, there will always be a way around it! Any/every new feature this new software might introduce will also introduce, along with it, a new flaw; another vulnerability which will have to be patched. Thus, the circle will continue, only in another l
  • .....do a google for "System Mechanic Pro"
  • Symantec and McAfee are about as effective at problem solving as the Bush administration. These are two products that render a machine useless by loading hundreds of megs of unnecessary graphics and who-knows-what while simultaneously blocking network communication, and popping up every four seconds to tell you about the "attack" so narrowly averted thanks to it. Every so often it asks you for more money.

    I went red and started recommending Kaspersky, but my clients have trouble getting it installed thank

  • Some nerve! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:28AM (#14633037) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if this is going to have another spyware-ridden root kit in it too!

    If the guys at Symantec/Norton think I'm EVER going to install/recommend ANY of their products EVER again, they're still smoking the same stuff that they were smoking when they thought that root-kitting all their customers was a good idea in the first place.

    Hey Symantec - PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY!!!!

    2 cents,

    Queen B
  • Every big-name commercial security product I've ever installed on Windows had made my system SOO drastically slower, less stable and more prone to ridiculous UI interactions (security popups instead of advertisement popups, as an example... just as annoying!) that I honestly believe these "solutions" are worse than the software they are trying to block.

    Needless to say I haven't had any installed for years now, and I also haven't been hit by any viruses or spyware.

  • New Age of Trust? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by __aatgod8309 ( 598427 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:34AM (#14633056)
    The assumption appears to be that we trust Symantec...
  • If Symantec is trying to teach people to "trust" the Internet, they're doing people a disservice. The Internet is a way for people to communicate with other people; any communication includes the possibility of lies and fraud. Yes, the Internet introduces new technical types of ways for people to cheat and attack each other (phishing, OS vulnerabilities, viruses, trojan horses, etc.) but even if you solve all the technical issues, you still fundamentally have people communicating with each other. Strange
  • Unless this product gets a lot more concrete and directed, I don't know who is going to buy it.

    I can see use for an "automated services" system like this -- patching problems, looking for malware, updating software, providing a link to toll tech support for your computer, etc.

    Currently, you can cobble together something for your Windows-using relatives with AdAware, some sort of virus scanner, occasionally (maybe once a year) dropping by to update software and having them call you when things break. But th

  • Single Point of Failure (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kafka47 ( 801886 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @01:44AM (#14633085) Homepage
    I just shake my head when I see this stuff. If they are angling this as Security's answer to "Web 2.0", then perhaps they should start by examining what Web 2.0 is supposedly about. Stuff like web services and aggregation, arguably important pieces of this mythical beast, make *everyone* a content provider on the Internet. And Symantec is intending on having us run a service that gates that content?

    This is Symantec's big push... in the wrong direction.

    /K

  • I'd be more impressed if it wasn't a company that seems to be struggling. Forgive me, but I'm not a fan of their new software. It has a hard time of getting rid of the bad stuff. Surprisingly, the smaller programs, each componant, works a lot better. Examples: Zone Alarm for my firewall, Adaware/a HOST of others for anti-spyware. AVG/Zone alarm for anti-virus. Boot disc called "The Final Solution" packed full of anti-virus and rootkit software.

    Now, how much you wanna bet the cost is going to be roughly tha

  • Symantec's Genesis is owned in only seven days and then the world reboots.

  • Sign me up $$$ (Score:3, Funny)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @02:00AM (#14633122)
    I hope they make a Mac version for my new 20 inch Dual Core, so I can protect it from all those vir... uh... nevermind.

  • ...and sell Trend Micro Internet Security [trendmicro.com] instead?

    I've been using Trend Micro for the last couple of years. It's already got the full meal deal Symantec is promising, and it's actually updated in near-real-time (every three hours).

  • Funny... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xlsior ( 524145 )
    In my experience over the past couple of years, there are few PC 'optimizations' as effective as uninstalling Symantec antivirus, firewall, spamfilter and associated applications..

    It is absolutely *astounding* the percentage of techsupport calls coming in at an ISP helpdesk are the direct result of a malfunctioning Symantec application. Especially Norton Antivirus -- after a while, you almost start to suspect that Symantec released that program as a practical joke.

    McAfee is a distant second, while AVG a
    • In my experience over the past couple of years, there are few PC 'optimizations' as effective as uninstalling Symantec antivirus, firewall, spamfilter and associated applications..

      I almost agree with you. The standalone antivirus package has never given me a problem, but the bloated and unstable Norton Internet Security software has proven to me to be an issue. In my experience, uninstalling that thing usually does the trick in shoring up somebody's computer - even with re-installing just the antivirus

  • Or, and I'm just thinking out loud here, I could just use a Mac or Linux or a BSD and not give Symantec, who has recently been credibly accused of installing rootkits and ignoring spyware developers who give Symantec money, any of my money.

    Just a thought.
  • Why should I "trust" Symantec? Hell, I don't trust Google... why should I trust a company whose entire revenue stream is built out of "fixing" "broken" boxes?? D:

    Mod me redundant if you'd like but let's be serious here - money doesn't build trust. Never has. Never will.
  • Despite its enormous power, protomatter is highly unstable and its use has been made illegal by civilized worlds in the galaxy.
  • Release something usual (same as it was with a few upgrades), but make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread. Someone's been watching Steve Job's strategy with each new release of OS X.........
  • PCAnywhere - pile of shit
    Backup Exec - bloated pile of shit
    Norton Antivirus - annoying piece of shit

    So, let me get this straight, i'm supposed to trust Symantec to write secure software?

    smash.

  • I've been using a neural modelling programme called
    GENESIS [genesis-sim.org] for over ten years. Does Symantec intend to buy the rights to the name or what?
  • A number of applications which, when combined, don't provide full security is all of a sudden ushering in a new age of trust, because they're now sold in one cardboard box instead of multiple boxes???
  • It's called Linux (well, OK, and BSD in various guises). No, seriously, I'm not claiming it's always been 100% good, but if this product is going to claim that I sure hope they have a good insurance - Linux (and especially) BSD have always been ahead of the curve on threats, and where they didn't get it right the exposure didn't last very long.

    Having said that, I'm in two minds if I want to see Windows to become more secure. Most virus writes follow the Pareto (80/20) principle, why put in effort for Linu

  • Core Force (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alejo ( 69447 ) <alejos1@hotma i l . com> on Friday February 03, 2006 @07:11AM (#14633884)
    This looks like a reaction to Core Force [coresecurity.com], a free Windows tool taking security to the highest level. Only missing an antivirus. A bit annoying at first, as you have to decide what can get through or not but it's getting there with the community of users submitting profiles.

    Why wait?

  • Symantec plans a one-stop software service tying together anti-virus, anti-spam, firewall and a host of other PC optimization technologies...

    so basically it's just a fancy name for Systemworks

  • The only solution is to use best-of-breed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Friday February 03, 2006 @08:09AM (#14634045) Homepage
    Norton stuff seems to be king of the "We'll change your computer all around just for our software and it will run slower" manufacturers.

    Over the years, I've developed best-of-breed for myself. You probably have others you like:

    1) Firewall - Sygate. Doesn't try to do too much which is good because its small, fast, and it's easy to reconfigure to do pretty much anything. Oh, it's free, too. I can see why Symantec bought it and killed it.

    2) Anti-Virus - AVG is the only virus protection I've used that doesn't bog down the computer. And it's cheaper than Symantec too. I think the only reason it doesn't get rated higher by magazines is they like suites that throw in the kitchen sink. I like small utilities that work well.

    3) Anti-spyware - Webroot Spysweeper. It has worked consistently well for 2-3 years now.
  • I sure hope that this new genesis thing will have Blast Processing [wikipedia.org], because Symantec's apps are usually sluggish
  • Symantec used to be a very good quality program, but in the last couple years they really seem to have tanked. Symantec Antivirus and Norton Internet Security are probably second only to viruses as the reason PCs are brought into our shop for service. NIS just flips out sometimes if a virus attacks, and just plain shuts down everything. Who in their right mind would make an automatic rule that could block incoming email and web browser??? answer! Symantec! Thank you for saving me from my new mail and h

  • From AHD:


    trust n.
      9. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or industry.     --See Synonyms at monopoly.


    As long as you keep that definition in mind when about anything having to do with Microsoft or Windows, their meaning is quite clear.



Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close