Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Norton firewall slows internet access to a CRAWL - Symante..

Last response: in Networking
Share
June 2, 2004 8:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

At first I thought my internet provider was at fault. For about four days I
put up with PAINFULLY slow internet access because I thought it was just
busy. Then I spent days checking for non-existent viruses. Eventually I
realised the Norton firewall was guzzling 95%+ of CPU time as soon as I
started my browser. I logged on to this newsgroup and got the information I
needed.

I have Norton systemworks 2002 and although I kept up with all the viral
updates I saw no reason to pay for updates to the firewall (and still
don't).

The firewall was not a demo or a beta-testing program. I paid for a
fully-functional program that worked until two weeks ago. Now it seems that
Symantec have (intentionally or otherwise) crippled a program that I own
outright by downloading inappropriate "updates" along with my virus program.

I am a registered user of this product. Why did Symantec not inform me by
E-Mail that there was a problem and give instructions on a patch?

I am also the registered owner of a fully-functional 2002 Toyota Highlander.
Recently I received through the mail a notice telling me that the child
safety locks on this model had been found to be defective. They told me that
I could take my Highlander into any dealership and have it fixed free. Why
are the software companies not similarly liable? What would happen if Toyota
told me it no longer "supported" my 2002 model and that my garage would no
longer fix it?

I'm tired of all this nonsense from software companies. Maybe it's time to
make them accountable.

George
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 2:37:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Updates to any firewall product are extremely important.

You did not pay for a fully functional program...you paid for a license to
use it for one year. You chose not to renew the license at the end of that
term. End of story.

Bill Crocker


"George" <George@GreatWhiteNorth.ca> wrote in message
news:fWqvc.24492$Hn.847005@news20.bellglobal.com...
> At first I thought my internet provider was at fault. For about four days
I
> put up with PAINFULLY slow internet access because I thought it was just
> busy. Then I spent days checking for non-existent viruses. Eventually I
> realised the Norton firewall was guzzling 95%+ of CPU time as soon as I
> started my browser. I logged on to this newsgroup and got the information
I
> needed.
>
> I have Norton systemworks 2002 and although I kept up with all the viral
> updates I saw no reason to pay for updates to the firewall (and still
> don't).
>
> The firewall was not a demo or a beta-testing program. I paid for a
> fully-functional program that worked until two weeks ago. Now it seems
that
> Symantec have (intentionally or otherwise) crippled a program that I own
> outright by downloading inappropriate "updates" along with my virus
program.
>
> I am a registered user of this product. Why did Symantec not inform me by
> E-Mail that there was a problem and give instructions on a patch?
>
> I am also the registered owner of a fully-functional 2002 Toyota
Highlander.
> Recently I received through the mail a notice telling me that the child
> safety locks on this model had been found to be defective. They told me
that
> I could take my Highlander into any dealership and have it fixed free. Why
> are the software companies not similarly liable? What would happen if
Toyota
> told me it no longer "supported" my 2002 model and that my garage would no
> longer fix it?
>
> I'm tired of all this nonsense from software companies. Maybe it's time to
> make them accountable.
>
> George
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 10:48:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I had the same problem awhile back. What happed was the firewall rules
got corrupt somehow. IF you go to Norton's site and search for
ISRLRSTR.EXE and run it. That will solve your problem. I can email it
to you if you want. You might have already did this, I'm not sure.

Your comparisons between NSW and a car reminds me of a few things:

1) If M$ made cars. http://www.vbrad.com/Misc/hum_ms_cars.htm

2) There are major differences between NSW and your Toyota. The Toyota
costs $30 to $40 thousand or more, I don't know. The NSW probably cost
around $100. The car comes with a warranty and government mandated
safety items that must be functional.

You are able to file suit against Toyota if the vehicle is defective
in design, you can't against Norton. If you read the licensing
agreement that you agreed to by installing the product. It basically
states that the s/w might or might not work correctly, it might or
might not do as we are say it would and they might or might not fix
any problems that might be found.

3) Your Toyota comes with a warranty that lasts for a specific period
of time that they will fix it for you. Are you going to say that they
should continue to repair the car for free for as long as you own the
car. I think not. I know the current Norton s/w provides updates for 1
year and support for the same amount. They do not have to provide
support of life, unless that was in the licensing agreement.

As long as people design s/w there is always the possibility that
there will be defects.

Jeff

p.s. I did a check on your Toyota and found that Toyota has issued
between 24 & 31 service bulletins, depending on model, concerning your
vehicle. How many of them did the notified you of?

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:39:37 -0400, "George"
<George@GreatWhiteNorth.ca> wrote:

>At first I thought my internet provider was at fault. For about four days I
>put up with PAINFULLY slow internet access because I thought it was just
>busy. Then I spent days checking for non-existent viruses. Eventually I
>realised the Norton firewall was guzzling 95%+ of CPU time as soon as I
>started my browser. I logged on to this newsgroup and got the information I
>needed.
>
>I have Norton systemworks 2002 and although I kept up with all the viral
>updates I saw no reason to pay for updates to the firewall (and still
>don't).
>
>The firewall was not a demo or a beta-testing program. I paid for a
>fully-functional program that worked until two weeks ago. Now it seems that
>Symantec have (intentionally or otherwise) crippled a program that I own
>outright by downloading inappropriate "updates" along with my virus program.
>
>I am a registered user of this product. Why did Symantec not inform me by
>E-Mail that there was a problem and give instructions on a patch?
>
>I am also the registered owner of a fully-functional 2002 Toyota Highlander.
>Recently I received through the mail a notice telling me that the child
>safety locks on this model had been found to be defective. They told me that
>I could take my Highlander into any dealership and have it fixed free. Why
>are the software companies not similarly liable? What would happen if Toyota
>told me it no longer "supported" my 2002 model and that my garage would no
>longer fix it?
>
>I'm tired of all this nonsense from software companies. Maybe it's time to
>make them accountable.
>
>George
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 3, 2004 3:25:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

George,

Are you running NIS/NPF 2002 on Win NT/2K/XP or on Win 9x/ME?

If NT/2K/XP, check for the existence of symids.sys and symidsco.sys.

If 9x/ME, check for the existence of symids.vxd and symidsco.vxd.
June 4, 2004 1:42:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Thanks Joseph.

symidsco.sys is present but symids.sys is not. I checked sonof jays article
at
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10357746~mode=fl...
(scroll down to "we may have a winner")
READ THE CAVEATS!!!

As I understand it, the updates for the new "Symantec redirect" program
(2003 and 2004 versions of the firewall) have deleted the symids.sys file in
2002 versions, crippling the software. This might account for the sudden
announcement by Symantec that 2002 versions are no longer supported. (Now I
know how the Christians felt when they were thrown to the lions).

If you have a 2002 version of Norton Firewall and run Windows XP this is for
you. It worked for me and I am now back to my original internet speed.

Thanks sonof jay!

"Daddy, who was that masked man . . . . ."

George






"Joseph V. Morris" <jvmorris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:40bf440f$0$2916$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> George,
>
> Are you running NIS/NPF 2002 on Win NT/2K/XP or on Win 9x/ME?
>
> If NT/2K/XP, check for the existence of symids.sys and symidsco.sys.
>
> If 9x/ME, check for the existence of symids.vxd and symidsco.vxd.
>
>
Anonymous
June 4, 2004 4:23:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

George,

Well, actually, I've just done the same thing with Win98 SE and NIS 2002 FE!
One important difference: for Win 98 SE, the file is symids.vxd; for Win
NT/2K/XP, the file is symids.sys.

"George" <George@GreatWhiteNorth.ca> wrote in message
news:ksQvc.114253$tb4.4492758@news20.bellglobal.com...
.. . . .
> As I understand it, the updates for the new "Symantec redirect" program
> (2003 and 2004 versions of the firewall) have deleted the symids.sys file
in
> 2002 versions, crippling the software.

> This might account for the sudden
> announcement by Symantec that 2002 versions are no longer supported. (Now
I
> know how the Christians felt when they were thrown to the lions).

Actually, that announcement was pretty old; goes back to January 2004 as I
recall, but the updates are still there in the 13 May 2004 LiveUpdate. For
some odd reason, symids.sys/vxd gets installed and then erased on the next
re-boot (if you're so lucky that it takes that long!) Still can't figure
out why that happens.

Solution is to copy the OS-appropriate file into the windows\system
directory and everything goes back to normal. (Take my word for it; I'm
running it now.)
.. . . .
!