FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20050214/tc_pcworld/119666&cid=1093&ncid=1730&sid=96089681

Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
advantage of released information in above article.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729

Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka Norton)
products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise users to
rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other means to
protect themselves in the on-line world.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Dan! Thank you, thank you, thank you! ! !

I was experiencing so many problems I was about to trash my machine and load
a disk-shaped hand grenade into the CD slot! Figured out it was Symantec's
stuff causing it all! Unloaded all their stuff and now everything runs great!

Thanks for the tip!

"Dan" wrote:

> Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20050214/tc_pcworld/119666&cid=1093&ncid=1730&sid=96089681
>
> Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
> advantage of released information in above article.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
>
> Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka Norton)
> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise users to
> rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other means to
> protect themselves in the on-line world.
>
>
>

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You are most welcome. Please feel free to share the stories with others and
warn them of the dangers of McAfee, Symantec, AOL and other programs that
disregard Windows by installing a bunch of unneeded junk to the computers as
well as trashing the registry. As I have tried to show here, it is not
always Microsoft who is responsible. Sometimes it is the fault of other
companies. Have a great night!

"mattlubic" <mattlubic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F974E69E-E646-4F9F-AEE4-E5F5906FB185@microsoft.com...
: Dan! Thank you, thank you, thank you! ! !
:
: I was experiencing so many problems I was about to trash my machine and
load
: a disk-shaped hand grenade into the CD slot! Figured out it was Symantec's
: stuff causing it all! Unloaded all their stuff and now everything runs
great!
:
: Thanks for the tip!
:
: "Dan" wrote:
:
: > Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:
: >
: > http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/
: >
: >
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20050214/tc_pcworld/119666&cid=1093&ncid=1730&sid=96089681
: >
: > Microsoft Window users need to apply latest patches due to hackers taking
: > advantage of released information in above article.
: >
: >
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
: >
: > Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
Norton)
: > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
users to
: > rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
means to
: > protect themselves in the on-line world.
: >
: >
: >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
Norton)
> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise users
to
> rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other means
to
> protect themselves in the on-line world.
>

Hi Dan,
Is it only XP users that are affected?
I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.

regards Jane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

" Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
Norton)
products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2"

Could you elaborate a little more on that?


______________________________
Daniel Royer, University of Geneva
daniel at royer dot ch


"jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
news:u7BdUG0EFHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>> Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec (aka
> Norton)
>> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
>> users
> to
>> rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
>> means
> to
>> protect themselves in the on-line world.
>>
>
> Hi Dan,
> Is it only XP users that are affected?
> I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.
>
> regards Jane
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No, Jane. This particular issue, regarding Norton and McAfee
installations "fooling" the Windows Security Center" doesn't affect
anyone not running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 installed. See my
reply to Daniel Royer, below.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
news:u7BdUG0EFHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> > Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
(aka
> Norton)
> > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I advise
users
> to
> > rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use other
means
> to
> > protect themselves in the on-line world.
> >
>
> Hi Dan,
> Is it only XP users that are affected?
> I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.
>
> regards Jane
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729

If the above link doesn't work for you, try this:
http://tinyurl.com/7ybuc

That is the "more" you're asking for. More than this, Dan doesn't know,
I'm sure. My take on the subject is a bit different. While acknowledging
that I am not a fan of either product, and I've not hesitated to say so
on innumerable occasions, what is described by the article isn't a real
security risk, per se.

The way I read the article is this:

One of the new features in Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the "Windows
Security Center". It keeps track of what, if any, antivirus and firewall
apps are installed, and whether they are up to date. If you are lacking
in a firewall or antivirus, or if they are simply not running, the WSC
advises you of the situation. However, as anyone who pays attention will
know, when you first install such applications, they are *never* up to
date and should be updated immediately. One result of this combination
of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows Security
Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting to
get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
very act of installing protection.

Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
Windows Security Center, doesn't it?) McAfee changes the dates of
certain files to "now" as they are copied into the system. This
convinces Windows Security Center that there is now up-to-date
protection installed and it keeps quiet. However, apparently, the
antivirus app now thinks it's up to date, also, and may not initiate an
update, leaving the user with a very out of date antivirus until
sufficient time has passed and it then updates. Or perhaps it still
initiates an update during the normal course of installation, but in
many cases this isn't feasible due to the system not being able to
connect to the internet. I don't know the particulars.

For myself, the most alarming thing about this whole affair is that the
Windows Security Center *can* be disabled by any means other than user
intervention. Makes it rather useless, don't you think? Plus, McAfee's
methods would tend to leave a user with a false sense of security
between the time of installation and the first actual update. Judging by
the usual amount of time that such apps consider reasonable between
updates (a horribly long time in my opinion), a person could be running
several days without real antivirus protection and not realize it.

Of course, this has always been the case--automatic updaters are famous
for failing in their duties, especially where the systems aren't
connected to an always-on internet connection, or are used sporadically
for relatively short periods of time, or simply being inadvertently
disabled. This is why Windows Security Center was developed. And this is
why I always admonish users to *check* that AV and Firewall is running
when they startup and periodically throughout the day, and that they run
the updater(s) manually, on an at *least* daily basis. These are habits
that should be as deeply ingrained as checking your rear-view mirrors
regularly while driving.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Daniel Royer" <daniel@royer.ch> wrote in message
news:4211c945$1@nntp.unige.ch...
>
> " Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
(aka
> Norton)
> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2"
>
> Could you elaborate a little more on that?
>
>
> ______________________________
> Daniel Royer, University of Geneva
> daniel at royer dot ch
>
>
> "jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
> news:u7BdUG0EFHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >
> >> Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
(aka
> > Norton)
> >> products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2. I
advise
> >> users
> > to
> >> rid their operating systems of these terrible products and use
other
> >> means
> > to
> >> protect themselves in the on-line world.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> > Is it only XP users that are affected?
> > I see you posted this in a 98 group so I have to ask.
> >
> > regards Jane
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/faq.html#9

Q: Why does the Windows Security Center say that the status of my Norton
security product is "unknown."

A: Your Norton security products contain tamper protection features that
prevent malicious code from determining their status. This tamper protection
also prevents the Windows Security Center from determining the status of your
Norton security products.

Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the Windows
Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec security
software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and is
available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products. The
update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you have
the Windows Security Center installed.



"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ttpcworld/20050210/tc_techtues_pcworld/119627&cid=1740&ncid=1729
>
> If the above link doesn't work for you, try this:
> http://tinyurl.com/7ybuc
>
> That is the "more" you're asking for. More than this, Dan doesn't know,
> I'm sure. My take on the subject is a bit different. While acknowledging
> that I am not a fan of either product, and I've not hesitated to say so
> on innumerable occasions, what is described by the article isn't a real
> security risk, per se.
>
> The way I read the article is this:
>
> One of the new features in Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the "Windows
> Security Center". It keeps track of what, if any, antivirus and firewall
> apps are installed, and whether they are up to date. If you are lacking
> in a firewall or antivirus, or if they are simply not running, the WSC
> advises you of the situation. However, as anyone who pays attention will
> know, when you first install such applications, they are *never* up to
> date and should be updated immediately. One result of this combination
> of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows Security
> Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
> Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
> experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting to
> get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
> very act of installing protection.
>
> Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
> during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
> Windows Security Center, doesn't it?) McAfee changes the dates of
> certain files to "now" as they are copied into the system. This
> convinces Windows Security Center that there is now up-to-date
> protection installed and it keeps quiet. However, apparently, the
> antivirus app now thinks it's up to date, also, and may not initiate an
> update, leaving the user with a very out of date antivirus until
> sufficient time has passed and it then updates. Or perhaps it still
> initiates an update during the normal course of installation, but in
> many cases this isn't feasible due to the system not being able to
> connect to the internet. I don't know the particulars.
>
> For myself, the most alarming thing about this whole affair is that the
> Windows Security Center *can* be disabled by any means other than user
> intervention. Makes it rather useless, don't you think? Plus, McAfee's
> methods would tend to leave a user with a false sense of security
> between the time of installation and the first actual update. Judging by
> the usual amount of time that such apps consider reasonable between
> updates (a horribly long time in my opinion), a person could be running
> several days without real antivirus protection and not realize it.
>
> Of course, this has always been the case--automatic updaters are famous
> for failing in their duties, especially where the systems aren't
> connected to an always-on internet connection, or are used sporadically
> for relatively short periods of time, or simply being inadvertently
> disabled. This is why Windows Security Center was developed. And this is
> why I always admonish users to *check* that AV and Firewall is running
> when they startup and periodically throughout the day, and that they run
> the updater(s) manually, on an at *least* daily basis. These are habits
> that should be as deeply ingrained as checking your rear-view mirrors
> regularly while driving.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Daniel Royer" <daniel@royer.ch> wrote in message
> news:4211c945$1@nntp.unige.ch...
> >
> > " Microsoft Window users need to be aware that McAfee and Symantec
> (aka
> > Norton)
> > products can disable advanced security features of XP SP2"
> >
> > Could you elaborate a little more on that?
> >
> >
> > ______________________________
> > Daniel Royer, University of Geneva
> > daniel at royer dot ch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>One result of this combination
>of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows Security
>Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
>Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
>experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting to
>get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
>very act of installing protection.

>Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
>during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
>Windows Security Center, doesn't it?)

Symantec's explanation, as I remember it, seems to be that it is a
security risk for its products to report their status to windows
Security Center. But you make a good point anyway.

Ken

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Paul" <Paul@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AE1679E-9D2C-41AA-A5A3-280CC6E972D4@microsoft.com...
> http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/faq.html#9
>
> Q: Why does the Windows Security Center say that the status of my
Norton
> security product is "unknown."
>
> A: Your Norton security products contain tamper protection features
that
> prevent malicious code from determining their status. This tamper
protection
> also prevents the Windows Security Center from determining the status
of your
> Norton security products.

I'm interested in knowing how the update status of antivirus or other
security apps could possibly be of use to malicious code. In any case,
as I read it, this is not the issue being discussed in the article

>
> Symantec has released an update which adds compatibility to the
Windows
> Security Center so that it may report the status of your Symantec
security
> software. This update is included in Norton 2005 Security Products and
is
> available by LiveUpdate for Norton 2002/2003/2004 Security Products.
The
> update will install on Windows XP, but will not take effect unless you
have
> the Windows Security Center installed.
>

Which doesn't in the least explain why it needs to disable Windows
Security Center in order to install (if, in fact, it does so. I only
have the article to go by.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather the
opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule. The
general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still at
a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its legs
and run the other way?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Ken Gardner" <kesgardner@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ee34119r76ru7j8hh3ggikjgbf54ggdrjh@4ax.com...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>
> >One result of this combination
> >of affairs is that while installing such apps, the new Windows
Security
> >Center may warn, repeatedly, that the programs are not up to date.
> >Symantec and McAfee consider this detrimental to the "user
> >experience"--and in a way, I can't blame them. It *is* disconcerting
to
> >get repeated warnings that you aren't protected while you are in the
> >very act of installing protection.
>
> >Norton solves this by deliberately disabling Windows Security Center
> >during installation (which makes one wonder about the architecture of
> >Windows Security Center, doesn't it?)
>
> Symantec's explanation, as I remember it, seems to be that it is a
> security risk for its products to report their status to windows
> Security Center. But you make a good point anyway.
>
> Ken

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather the
>opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
>update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule. The
>general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still at
>a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
>going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its legs
>and run the other way?

I'm not a Symantec basher, but if I was, I might respond to the effect
of "well, this system already has Symantec installed -- what can be
more malicious than that?"

Ken

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I have to admit that I *am* a Symantec basher, and while I agree with
the sentiments, but I can't say things like that too often--people might
take me less seriously, <g>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Ken Gardner" <kesgardner@charter.net> wrote in message
news:jem4119du32vs94s9dtlnpv86orvd7mh8g@4ax.com...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>
> >If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather
the
> >opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
> >update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule.
The
> >general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still
at
> >a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
> >going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its
legs
> >and run the other way?
>
> I'm not a Symantec basher, but if I was, I might respond to the effect
> of "well, this system already has Symantec installed -- what can be
> more malicious than that?"
>
> Ken

 

[HAGGIS]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23efuAP6EFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I have to admit that I *am* a Symantec basher, and while I agree with
> the sentiments, but I can't say things like that too often--people might
> take me less seriously, <g>.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Ken Gardner" <kesgardner@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:jem4119du32vs94s9dtlnpv86orvd7mh8g@4ax.com...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>
>> >If you look at the Q&A posted by Paul, you'll see that it's rather
> the
>> >opposite: They don't report their status to WSC until you apply the
>> >update that provides for the exception of WSC form the general rule.
> The
>> >general rule is to obscure its status from malicious code. I'm still
> at
>> >a loss to understand how that could be a problem. What, the code is
>> >going to see that Norton is up to date, tuck its tail between its
> legs
>> >and run the other way?
>>
>> I'm not a Symantec basher, but if I was, I might respond to the effect
>> of "well, this system already has Symantec installed -- what can be
>> more malicious than that?"
>>
>> Ken
>

I can easily say that I don't like any of the retail
products(symantec/norton) ....BUT I run SAV corp edition which updates
itself and pushes definitions to clients...all set to by my schedule. I've
disabled security center on XP because it was annoying and I think I can
handle my own security without Windows help :>.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.

1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that
was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.).

[...]
That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the added
anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with every
version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running processes.
Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.

I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest
accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
[...]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
*always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
saying about newer versions now.

Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.

The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
they come preinstalled.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
>
> 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
fatware that
> was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
utilization.).
>
> [...]
> That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
the added
> anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
every
> version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
> penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
processes.
> Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
>
> I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
greatest
> accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
WXP.
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
was using MSDOS 6.22.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
| *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
| has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
| Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
| the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
| that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
|
| Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
| became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
| automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
| with the OS.
|
| The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
| is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
| that they come preinstalled.
|
|
| "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
| news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
||
|| "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|| news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
||
|| This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
||
|| 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
|| fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
|| CPU utilization.).
||
|| [...]
|| That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
|| the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
|| included with every version since and including 2002 that has
|| plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
|| all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
|| have no idea.
||
|| I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
|| greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
|| properly with WXP. [...]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

There is no 'you guys' when it comes to my post.
I Certainly agree about McAfee
I Agree 99% for the most part about NAV/SAV too.

My secondary point was I've found when it comes to 'W9x' the standalone
Retail NAV2001 version (not NIS) in my experience was a great simple but
comprehensive all-round AV for W9x ... Afterall this is a W9x group.
I actually still use v2001 many times over on this W98SE box.
On my W2k & WXP boxes of course I use a different AV for sure.

I was interested in and so tested and used each and every single
'standalone' version of NAV/SAV since NAV v5.01 and tests were
done on each W98x, W2Kpro, and WXPro OS's as each AV & OS evolved
respectively within its era. When v2002 came on the scene and every version
since v2002 with all the new anti-theft modules (except NAV/SAV Corporate)
running real-time and that's where the Major problems started with it's
ability to Fatally compromise the OS itself and I feel sorry for those who
don't have partition image backups or the experience to recover.
I have nothing comforting to say about NAV/SAV anymore except maybe for
corporate versions which are devoid of the proprietary semantics.

Rick



"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
> I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
> *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
> PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
> Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
> about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
> saying about newer versions now.
>
> Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
> eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
> updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
>
> The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
> that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
> they come preinstalled.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>> This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
>>
>> 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware
>> that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
>> utilization.).
>>
>> [...]
>> That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the
>> added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
>> every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
>> penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
>> processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
>>
>> I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest
>> accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
>> [...]

 

[pop]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
> fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
> CPU utilization.).
===> Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.

>
> [...]
> That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
> the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
> included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
> millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
> extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
> idea.
===> Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
in, ...


>
> I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
> greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
> properly with WXP. [...]
===> Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
track of who might be getting in who's way.

Pop
--
-----
How long did the 100 Year War Last?

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because of
its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and it
is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
(now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack for my
98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry which is
in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the protection
of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC. Also,
with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is safe
as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some day
I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model number
PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but time
is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I give
all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live another
day! GodSpeed Everyone!)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: saying about newer versions now.
:
: Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
:
: The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: they come preinstalled.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
: news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: >
: > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: >
: > This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: fatware that
: > was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: utilization.).
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: the added
: > anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with
: every
: > version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users
: > penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: processes.
: > Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: greatest
: > accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with
: WXP.
: > [...]
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

BTW, does anyone know how much a retail full copy of MS-DOS 6.22 costs and
where I can buy it safely? I want to explore MS-DOS more in my search for a
true maintenance operating system to present to Microsoft on Chris Quirke,
MVP and Gary S. Terhune MVP's advice. Thanks in advance for all of your
help.

"BBUNNY" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:en%234X1dFFHA.2564@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: These blurbs about Norton/Symantic were appearing frequently as far
: back as W98 Platform Preview Edition. I gave up on Norton when I
: was using MSDOS 6.22.
:
: Gary S. Terhune wrote:
: | I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: | *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So
: | has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems.
: | Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying
: | the same things about those versions compared with past solutions
: | that you guys are saying about newer versions now.
: |
: | Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which
: | became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with
: | automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere
: | with the OS.
: |
: | The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions
: | is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such
: | that they come preinstalled.
: |
: |
: | "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
: | news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: ||
: || "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: || news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: ||
: || This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: ||
: || 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: || fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
: || CPU utilization.).
: ||
: || [...]
: || That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: || the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: || included with every version since and including 2002 that has
: || plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice
: || all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you
: || have no idea.
: ||
: || I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: || greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: || properly with WXP. [...]
:
:
:

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

That is a problem with Symantec. I tested that theory and was connected to a
business associate in less than a minute. When I went the individual
consumer route I got nowhere.
{Down with Symantec. Up with Microsoft! Up with Google! Up with Mozilla!
Up with Open-Source, Linux and Unix. LOL!!} [Just being silly] :~

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:u824l3eFFHA.1084@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: There is no 'you guys' when it comes to my post.
: I Certainly agree about McAfee
: I Agree 99% for the most part about NAV/SAV too.
:
: My secondary point was I've found when it comes to 'W9x' the standalone
: Retail NAV2001 version (not NIS) in my experience was a great simple but
: comprehensive all-round AV for W9x ... Afterall this is a W9x group.
: I actually still use v2001 many times over on this W98SE box.
: On my W2k & WXP boxes of course I use a different AV for sure.
:
: I was interested in and so tested and used each and every single
: 'standalone' version of NAV/SAV since NAV v5.01 and tests were
: done on each W98x, W2Kpro, and WXPro OS's as each AV & OS evolved
: respectively within its era. When v2002 came on the scene and every version
: since v2002 with all the new anti-theft modules (except NAV/SAV Corporate)
: running real-time and that's where the Major problems started with it's
: ability to Fatally compromise the OS itself and I feel sorry for those who
: don't have partition image backups or the experience to recover.
: I have nothing comforting to say about NAV/SAV anymore except maybe for
: corporate versions which are devoid of the proprietary semantics.
:
: Rick
:
:
:
: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
: news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
: > I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
: > *always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has
: > PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when
: > Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things
: > about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are
: > saying about newer versions now.
: >
: > Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became
: > eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic
: > updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS.
: >
: > The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is
: > that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that
: > they come preinstalled.
: >
: > --
: > Gary S. Terhune
: > MS MVP Shell/User
: > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
: >
: > "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
: > news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: >>
: >> "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >> news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: >>
: >> This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
: >>
: >> 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware
: >> that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU
: >> utilization.).
: >>
: >> [...]
: >> That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the
: >> added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included
with
: >> every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of
users
: >> penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running
: >> processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea.
: >>
: >> I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
greatest
: >> accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP.
: >> [...]
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Pop, did you ever try to remove Symantec products in order to try a
competitor's product like Computer Associates E-Trust EZARMOR? It is really
difficult and with Norton (Symantec) System Works 2005 you have several
hundred registry entries that you have to manually delete in order to fully
clean a registry. It is not automatic. Trust me because I have done it and
I like computers but it is not fun staring at the screen in order to remove
several hundred registry entries because a behemoth company like Symantec
that screws individual consumers does not care about the little guy (or girl)
and just wants to screw the consumer. Sure their corporate editions may be
great (???) I don't know about the corporate editions because I never used
them. I like to go on first-hand knowledge and not always what I learn from
texts, magazines, the internet, the government, etc. Have a great day and
please reconsider your position because I feel your knowledge is flawed but I
anxiously await your rebuttal. I Yield The Floor to You, Pop with a willing
and gracious heart. Godspeed!!

"Pop" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eNv2dEfFFHA.3384@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: Rick Chauvin wrote:
: > 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described
: > fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low
: > CPU utilization.).
: ===> Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005.
:
: >
: > [...]
: > That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all
: > the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been
: > included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued
: > millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the
: > extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no
: > idea.
: ===> Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to
: boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems
: develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage
: in, ...
:
:
: >
: > I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their
: > greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work
: > properly with WXP. [...]
: ===> Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a
: heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep
: track of who might be getting in who's way.
:
: Pop
: --
: -----
: How long did the 100 Year War Last?
:
:

 

[ad]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Dan wrote:
> AVG all the way! :>
>
Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I previously stated how I did not like how Avast scans all the time. It
takes up too many system resources in my opinion. However, you do have a
good point and I will give you that. Personally, I think CA E-Trust
Antivirus is best although you do have to pay for it. As it is said "you
(usually) get what you pay for" I added the (usually) because I know it is
not always the case. :>

"Ad" <graaphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:111ofioj92vcd39@corp.supernews.com...
: Dan wrote:
: > AVG all the way! :>
: >
: Avast is better, because it supports all email clients, AVG only
: supports Outlook Express unless it have changed in the last 12 months.
:
:
: ---
: avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
: Virus Database (VPS): 0508-1, 22/02/2005
: Tested on: 23/02/2005 08:27:09
: avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
: http://www.avast.com
:
:
: