Microsoft Anti-Spyware Removes Norton Anti-Virus 496
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."
What problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:2, Interesting)
Re:What problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
I just switched [apple.com].
Re:What problem? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What problem? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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 problem? (Score:3, Informative)
NOD32 (Score:3, Informative)
It also proactively stopped all the common WMF exploits.
Re:What problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
When Microsoft Anti-Spyware users remove the flagged Norton file as prompted, Symantec's product gets corrupted and no longer protects the user's machine.
And besides, what kind of antivirus system lets some random program delete it's files, causing it to stop protecting the user's machine?
What do you really expect it to do? (Score:2)
Wh
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:2, Interesting)
So while AVG alone might run quicker than NAV, it doesn't offer the firewall capabilities. Soon enough you've installed ZoneAlarm or Kerio or some other firewall. And you may very well find your system performing worse than using onl
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:2)
According to some antivirus studies - and I'm not proclaiming them necessarily correct or anything (there are lots of flamewars on Usenet about this) - NAV is marginally better at detecting viruses than AVG or most of the other free products. In other words, where AVG or Avast might detect 97-98% of viruses, Norton and McAfee are likely to hit even higher percentages.
For home users who don't get tons of viruses, this is not really a problem. I've used the free versions of
Re:What do you really expect it to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:2)
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.
Re:Protection racket? (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare Microsoft Windows XP with OpenBSD, which is equally complicated.
This is offtopic, but I wouldn't resist. I very much doubt that OpenBSD and Windows XP are equally complicated. Far from it. As far as I know, OpenBSD is a consistent and beautifully engineered piece of software. Windows XP on the other hand is full of hundreds of different subsystems, compatibility patches, work arounds, etc. WOW16, DirectX, DCOM, MTS, MSMQ, .NET - need I say more ?
BTW, I am not saying that most Windows XP compon
Norton isn't as bad as McAfee... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Norton isn't as bad as McAfee... (Score:2)
Never had a problem at home with Avast shutting down when XP shuts down.
This isn't related to the resource consumption issue, but it does indicate that some of these supposedly more powerful products are TOO tightly integrated into the OS or that the companies making them can't keep up with constant Windows automatic updates or the more complicated security policy settings one sees in corporate environments.
One hopes that the W
Flaimbait? (Score:2)
It causes your e-mail and network to break sometimes, it's the most damaging piece of commercial software besides windows itself I've ever seen.
Honestly mcafee is right up there with it, I've never had any of the top 3 free virus scanners break any system but then they don't try to be 6 packages in one and aren't overly aggressive in scanning - hog
Re:Please stop trolling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is.. (Score:5, Funny)
But... but... (Score:3, Funny)
Norton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not So Useless After All! (Score:5, Funny)
Discussion Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Discussion Link (Score:2)
But what if (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re:But what if (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as not needing an anti-spyware program, Norton's sucks for one reason. Another reason is MSFT's product stops a lot of things on the fly. Most anti-spyware programs only work marginally but the extra realtime layer with the MSFT product helps.
So many lols, I don't know where to begin or end! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:ask yourself WHY WE EVEN NEED anti-* software!! (Score:2)
If my mom were running Linux for instance, it probably wouldn't be too hard to name a script somerandompogogame.sh (of course using a real POGO game name) containing this:
#!/bin/bash
rm -rf /
Tell her to run it as root (even be nice enough to provide instructions) and she may just do it.
How? (Score:2, Funny)
Other way round? (Score:4, Funny)
LOL (Score:2, Funny)
Norton AV 200$ continues to be total crap, may every rep from Symantec who bitchs about this have to spend a month only working on systems that have been hosed by their very own horrible AV package.
Bye Microsoft. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Bye Microsoft. (Score:2)
Re:Bye Microsoft. (Score:2)
Re:Bye Microsoft. (Score:2)
Linux ps2 2.2.26-xr1 #3 Sat Jan 15 11:46:26 MST 2005 mips unknown
: corsec@ps2 Sat Feb 11 17:27:41 ~]
Wow, you are running the 2.4 series of kernel already?
(Yes this is supposed to be a joke, but that computer is really running 2.2.26)
Re:Bye Microsoft. (Score:2)
Considering what I use [debian.org] for production environments, I'd say my linux systems are pretty static. Windows, on the other hand, keeps getting patched and receiving minor changes (that sometimes screw thing up).
Linux OS can be pretty stable, unstable or anything in between. It's a matter of picking the right tool.
Re:Bye Microsoft. (Score:2)
Looks like it might be time to... (Score:5, Funny)
Not related to "beta products in production" (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, in a big organization, any update going to all P
Not a Beta Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Not a Beta Issue (Score:2)
Im also glad i admin linux. If something like this breaks out i will still be sitting with my coffee watching top while the other admins runs around like crazy monkeys.
Virus crafting (Score:2)
The core argument is that a virus scanner that uses signature matching can match on any part of the virus. It is therefore insufficient to have only part of the virus matching code from some false positive source - all subsequences of the virus must make a false positive in some other known good softw
This carries sloppiness to a new level. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree completely, and for a different reason, also. Microsoft bought their anti-spyware software because it was successful commercial software. There was a lot of publicity that ignored the "beta" designation, including articles in the mainstream media.
This is a case of Microsoft having it both ways: Getting credit for clearing spyware, and avoiding responsibility.
Anyhow, as the parent poster said, this is NOT a failure in the anti-spywa
Norton should strike back (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Norton should strike back (Score:3, Funny)
Have you actually verified this is true? Anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Have you actually verified this is true? Anyone (Score:2)
Just because you didn't get hit doesn't mean no one was firing. :)
Retribution? (Score:2)
Can't say I blame them (Score:2)
Group deleted (Score:2)
What next...? (Score:2)
Those doctored images of it flagging Firefox from when it first came out might just turn out to be true...
Typo Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
This should be a cautionary tale about deploying Microsoft products in production environments.
Doesn't affect NAV 8? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Faster way to clean up Norton (Score:2)
The real question is (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
That ain't nothing... (Score:2)
This is obviously totally deliberate by Microsoft (Score:2)
This comes RIGHT AFTER MICROSOFT ANNOUNCES THEIR NEW SECURITY PACKAGE DUE THIS SUMMER?
Jesus Baron Von Christ! If this isn't obviously anticompetitive behavior on the part of Gates, I don't know what is!
Now everybody will tell me, "Ho
Slow computers help Microsoft sell more copies. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
AVG (Score:2, Insightful)
20 years of cautionary tales (Score:2)
It's the OS stupid.
This should be a cautionary tale about deploying any M$ products in production environments.
In Capitalist West Anti-Spyware software delete competing product.
In Communist Russia Anti-Spyware software delete your family.
Microsoft vs. Norton? (Score:2)
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)
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:Damn Norton (Score:3, Informative)
Anywho, a re-install is probably the best, then install all of your standard programs and get all of the latest updates and service packs. Finally use something like Norton Ghost to create a pristine backup of the OS to restore when then inevitable 6 months marker roles around
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.
*NIX is missing business apps? Think again. (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of Open Office? It's not quite up to Windows Office standards but it is rapidly getting there so it isn't as if Solaris is totally missing office apps. I will admit Solaris doesn't measure up to Windows as a workstation in terms of software diversity but it isn't exactly completely missing any options at all either. You might also want to keep in mind that Mac OS.X is a BSD derivetive, and i
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
Recall?!?!?
Seriously;
Quickbook, Autocad, Lotus Notes, need any more examples for your serious users of business applications?
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excel.
Project.
Visual Studio.
Photoshop.
Acrobat.
Final Cut Pro.
[big expensive accounting package].
[all sorts of in-house custom software].
I could go on and on. The truth is that while you might be able to move to *nix, *BSD, whatever on your desktop without much pain it is near impossible for most businesses who depend on a very long list of programs that run *only* on Windows or even OSX.
The whole "any business could/should migrate away fr
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
Recall?!?!?
Seriously;
Quickbook, Autocad, Lotus Notes, need any more examples for your serious users of business applications?
You realize that IBM puts out Lotus Notes, correct? The server portion runs on a number of non-Windows platforms, including Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, and a number of IBM systems. The client is also available for Mac OS X.
Then there's software like CATIA, which is marketed by IBM.
And whil
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
How about you go define "serious users" before you talk about them.
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:2)
Google Earth -- Nope
Google Video Player -- Nope
Google Desktop -- While, actually, they have an enterprise version of this, which isn't in beta. The stable home version isn't either. I doubt many businesses use it anyways.
Picasa -- I doubt very many businesses rely on this one.
Catch my drift?
Future Virues (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, in theory the system level is more secure, but if something blows away user data, its still just as effective.
And dont kid yourself, unix has holes too.. Just no one digs deep enough.
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, any administrator worth his or her weight in salt knows to use systems that are designed to be secure. Systems like Solaris and OpenBSD fit such a criteria. Much effort has been put into making them solid, reliable
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:3, Insightful)
An administrator worth his or her weight in salt knows to use systems that can actually run the software the business needs, and secure those configurations as best as possible. Not being able to run essential business software for even a day can be a massive burden.
Re:Is it really worth the hassle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, I will, moron.
First of all, I've seen a Windows XP system go down the tubes within 24 hours of unpacking the Dell box, simply by uninstalling McAfee. After that, it was unable to communicate to a Linksys router - three tech "geniuses" - me, SBC and Geek Squad - couldn't solve the problem. Why? Because there was nothing to look at - everything was buried in the fucking Registry. Reloading the system fixed the problem. Windows score: 0.
"Smart about what you install?" Oh
Re:A bit odd this one (Score:2)
Re:Maybe we should look into what Norton AV does (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Maybe we should look into what Norton AV does (Score:2)
Shadows of DR_DOS and windows (Score:2)
I imagine the judge supervising the DoJ settlement with Microsoft will be getting some quite interesting letters and asking some very hard questions this coming week.