OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.

I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
(which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
6 months old and ran fine up until recently.

Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user contact
Symantec Customer Support.

Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem for
24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the problem
by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation would be lost
the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and installed new
Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.


Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as requested,
I found this did not work - as the problem recurred exactly as it had with
the use of Ghost as detailed above.

Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.

At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th time)
that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
(which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database counts
be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh reinstall
of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to that point
had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.


Now *here* is where it gets interesting:

After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
Symantec Updates.

It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
installation procedures. Because the Activation database
count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
successful and the update installed correctly.

From the above, I suspect that something in the September
Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
reporting.

This data shows up *differently* between the Product
Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
and the information returned to Symantec after the first
time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
*new installation* even though the product installation is
an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
a result, a *second* activation process is required.


The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
for that product key will exceed the number that
Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
*second* activation will be refused and the user is
stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
so their update can proceed to completion correctly.


So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
Symantec problem is actually a changed response
for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.

Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
and you will have to contact that software
manufacturer's technical support and have them
manually clean up the mess before your previously
working installations of non-microsoft products will
work properly again.


Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.

Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.


Best I can do for now. <tm>


Bill

I cannot help thinking that the answer to the problem was in updates all the
time.
Download to disk/desktop/file to whatever preference - with or without any
antivirus running and certainly not Norton.
Disconnect from the net - disable all security progs and anything not
required to run - then install updates.
And dont cough - with the apparent instability of MS updates at the moment,
anything could cause a failure at any point in the process.
Rgds
Antioch
PS Thanks for the info - almost forgot.


"Bill Drake" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
>
> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.
>
> Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
> spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
> Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user contact
> Symantec Customer Support.
>
> Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
> then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
> and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem for
> 24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the problem
> by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation would be lost
> the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and installed new
> Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.
>
>
> Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
> reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
> Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as requested,
> I found this did not work - as the problem recurred exactly as it had with
> the use of Ghost as detailed above.
>
> Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
> related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
> told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
> solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
> and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.
>
> At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th time)
> that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
> and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
> Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
> Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
> (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
> multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database counts
> be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh reinstall
> of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to that point
> had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.
>
>
> Now *here* is where it gets interesting:
>
> After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
> Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
> unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
> September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
> activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
> Symantec Updates.
>
> It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
> immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
> installation procedures. Because the Activation database
> count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
> successful and the update installed correctly.
>
> From the above, I suspect that something in the September
> Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
> Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
> reporting.
>
> This data shows up *differently* between the Product
> Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
> and the information returned to Symantec after the first
> time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
> the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
> *new installation* even though the product installation is
> an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
> a result, a *second* activation process is required.
>
>
> The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
> reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
> a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
> Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
> then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
> for that product key will exceed the number that
> Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
> user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
> *second* activation will be refused and the user is
> stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
> get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
> so their update can proceed to completion correctly.
>
>
> So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
> Symantec problem is actually a changed response
> for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
> as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.
>
> Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
> security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
> Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
> software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
> and you will have to contact that software
> manufacturer's technical support and have them
> manually clean up the mess before your previously
> working installations of non-microsoft products will
> work properly again.
>
>
> Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
> industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.
>
> Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
> sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.
>
>
> Best I can do for now. <tm>
>
>
> Bill
>
>

Bill,

Let me state this as clearly as possible. Although you've done a fine
job deducing what the issue stems from, suggest you visit the Windows
Update newsgroup and see how many Users have issues accessing Windows
Updates and installing Critical updates due to the presence of Symantec
software "products".
NAV, NIS, and NSW are NOT fit to use with Windows OS'. Period.
Check this study out :
http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...s_windows_down

Especially this comparative: Results and Conclusions
http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...windows_down/5

The above is for performance issues. The following is on how well AV's
perform :
Comparative tests of antivirus programs
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/...p?id=82&mnu=82

I've participated in the WU NG for over 5 years. There is NO other AV or
security suite that causes more issues with OS' than the ones from Symantec.

So, the ball is not in Microsoft's court, rather, it's up to Symantec to
be able to produce software that functions with Windows.
And, they do NOT.

None of my systems have ever had Norton anything installed on them.
If my clients' systems had any Symantec "software" installed, I've
uninstalled them, and replaced "it" with either free or paid for AV's.

None of them have had any performance, updating, nor malware issues due
to the installed AV.

So, if the fault lies with MS, then why do the above systems not
experience Activation, performance, updating, or malware issues ?

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============

p.s. I have beta tested for Symantec, therefore I can not discuss
anything concerning their bringing a product to market. Suffice it to
say, their method is *not* working. They depend on OEM's to foist said
"software" onto unsuspecting Users' systems.


Bill Drake wrote:

> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
>
> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.
>
> Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
> spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
> Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user contact
> Symantec Customer Support.
>
> Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
> then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
> and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem for
> 24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the problem
> by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation would be lost
> the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and installed new
> Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.
>
>
> Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
> reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
> Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as requested,
> I found this did not work - as the problem recurred exactly as it had with
> the use of Ghost as detailed above.
>
> Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
> related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
> told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
> solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
> and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.
>
> At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th time)
> that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
> and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
> Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
> Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
> (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
> multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database counts
> be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh reinstall
> of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to that point
> had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.
>
>
> Now *here* is where it gets interesting:
>
> After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
> Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
> unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
> September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
> activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
> Symantec Updates.
>
> It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
> immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
> installation procedures. Because the Activation database
> count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
> successful and the update installed correctly.
>
> From the above, I suspect that something in the September
> Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
> Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
> reporting.
>
> This data shows up *differently* between the Product
> Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
> and the information returned to Symantec after the first
> time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
> the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
> *new installation* even though the product installation is
> an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
> a result, a *second* activation process is required.
>
>
> The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
> reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
> a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
> Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
> then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
> for that product key will exceed the number that
> Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
> user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
> *second* activation will be refused and the user is
> stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
> get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
> so their update can proceed to completion correctly.
>
>
> So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
> Symantec problem is actually a changed response
> for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
> as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.
>
> Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
> security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
> Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
> software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
> and you will have to contact that software
> manufacturer's technical support and have them
> manually clean up the mess before your previously
> working installations of non-microsoft products will
> work properly again.
>
>
> Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
> industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.
>
> Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
> sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.
>
>
> Best I can do for now. <tm>
>
>
> Bill
>
>

Mow, I am not going to argue with you about the suitability
of Symantec products or not. The issue is moot. There are
*tons* of people out there running Symantec product - whether
you like it or not. This post is relevant to THEM.

It is Microsoft's responsibility to regression-test their patches
such that the patches do NOT produce errors in already
existing products. This is not debatable.

As you have mentioned, I presented evidence of an interaction
caused solely by the presence of one or more of the updates
released in the September set of Microsoft Updates - which
INDUCES the problem discussed in my report. This is obviously
a regression issue and needs to be addressed as such.


Furthermore, I understand you have an opinion about Symantec
Products. I have seen your posting history on the subject and
it is not pretty. It comes across as if you have an axe to grind.

Please note that I have an opinion about irrational, bigoted and
brainless hatred of *any* product - whether from Microsoft,
Apple, Symantec or whoever. I am not interested in discussions
of those types.

What I DO want is results, a consistent dedication to workability,
and a reliable program suite that works as designed. I don't care
who produces that. However, I do object most strongly when a
third-party product that is working as designed magically STOPS
working as designed due to OS manufacturer monkeydiddling.

And I have said so.


EOT


Bill




MowGreen [MVP] wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Let me state this as clearly as possible. Although you've done a fine
> job deducing what the issue stems from, suggest you visit the Windows
> Update newsgroup and see how many Users have issues accessing Windows
> Updates and installing Critical updates due to the presence of
> Symantec software "products".
> NAV, NIS, and NSW are NOT fit to use with Windows OS'. Period.
> Check this study out :
> http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...s_windows_down
>
> Especially this comparative: Results and Conclusions
> http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...windows_down/5
>
> The above is for performance issues. The following is on how well AV's
> perform :
> Comparative tests of antivirus programs
> http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/...p?id=82&mnu=82
>
> I've participated in the WU NG for over 5 years. There is NO other AV
> or security suite that causes more issues with OS' than the ones from
> Symantec.
> So, the ball is not in Microsoft's court, rather, it's up to Symantec
> to be able to produce software that functions with Windows.
> And, they do NOT.
>
> None of my systems have ever had Norton anything installed on them.
> If my clients' systems had any Symantec "software" installed, I've
> uninstalled them, and replaced "it" with either free or paid for AV's.
>
> None of them have had any performance, updating, nor malware issues
> due to the installed AV.
>
> So, if the fault lies with MS, then why do the above systems not
> experience Activation, performance, updating, or malware issues ?
>
> MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
> ===============
> *-343-* FDNY
> Never Forgotten
> ===============
>
> p.s. I have beta tested for Symantec, therefore I can not discuss
> anything concerning their bringing a product to market. Suffice it to
> say, their method is *not* working. They depend on OEM's to foist said
> "software" onto unsuspecting Users' systems.
>
>
> Bill Drake wrote:
>
>> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
>> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
>>
>> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
>> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
>> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
>> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.
>>
>> Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
>> spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
>> Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user
>> contact Symantec Customer Support.
>>
>> Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
>> then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
>> and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem
>> for 24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the
>> problem by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation
>> would be lost the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and
>> installed new Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.
>>
>>
>> Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
>> reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
>> Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as
>> requested, I found this did not work - as the problem recurred
>> exactly as it had with the use of Ghost as detailed above.
>>
>> Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
>> related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
>> told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
>> solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
>> and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.
>>
>> At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th
>> time) that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
>> and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
>> Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
>> Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
>> (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
>> multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database
>> counts be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh
>> reinstall of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to
>> that point had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.
>>
>>
>> Now *here* is where it gets interesting:
>>
>> After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
>> Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
>> unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
>> September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
>> activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
>> Symantec Updates.
>>
>> It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
>> immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
>> installation procedures. Because the Activation database
>> count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
>> successful and the update installed correctly.
>>
>> From the above, I suspect that something in the September
>> Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
>> Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
>> reporting.
>>
>> This data shows up *differently* between the Product
>> Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
>> and the information returned to Symantec after the first
>> time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
>> the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
>> *new installation* even though the product installation is
>> an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
>> a result, a *second* activation process is required.
>>
>>
>> The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
>> reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
>> a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
>> Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
>> then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
>> for that product key will exceed the number that
>> Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
>> user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
>> *second* activation will be refused and the user is
>> stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
>> get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
>> so their update can proceed to completion correctly.
>>
>>
>> So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
>> Symantec problem is actually a changed response
>> for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
>> as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.
>>
>> Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
>> security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
>> Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
>> software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
>> and you will have to contact that software
>> manufacturer's technical support and have them
>> manually clean up the mess before your previously
>> working installations of non-microsoft products will
>> work properly again.
>>
>>
>> Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
>> industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.
>>
>> Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
>> sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.
>>
>>
>> Best I can do for now. <tm>
>>
>>
>> Bill

> EOT

Fair enough. One point, though. It may come across as a biased flame
against Symantec because of all the difficulties I've witnessed Users
having to go through due to it's lack of functionality with Windows.
So be it.

If the issue lies with Windows, then why do other AV's rarely have
issues with Windows ?

EOT

MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
===============
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
===============



Bill Drake wrote:
> Mow, I am not going to argue with you about the suitability
> of Symantec products or not. The issue is moot. There are
> *tons* of people out there running Symantec product - whether
> you like it or not. This post is relevant to THEM.
>
> It is Microsoft's responsibility to regression-test their patches
> such that the patches do NOT produce errors in already
> existing products. This is not debatable.
>
> As you have mentioned, I presented evidence of an interaction
> caused solely by the presence of one or more of the updates
> released in the September set of Microsoft Updates - which
> INDUCES the problem discussed in my report. This is obviously
> a regression issue and needs to be addressed as such.
>
>
> Furthermore, I understand you have an opinion about Symantec
> Products. I have seen your posting history on the subject and
> it is not pretty. It comes across as if you have an axe to grind.
>
> Please note that I have an opinion about irrational, bigoted and
> brainless hatred of *any* product - whether from Microsoft,
> Apple, Symantec or whoever. I am not interested in discussions
> of those types.
>
> What I DO want is results, a consistent dedication to workability,
> and a reliable program suite that works as designed. I don't care
> who produces that. However, I do object most strongly when a
> third-party product that is working as designed magically STOPS
> working as designed due to OS manufacturer monkeydiddling.
>
> And I have said so.
>
>
> EOT
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> MowGreen [MVP] wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Let me state this as clearly as possible. Although you've done a fine
>> job deducing what the issue stems from, suggest you visit the Windows
>> Update newsgroup and see how many Users have issues accessing Windows
>> Updates and installing Critical updates due to the presence of
>> Symantec software "products".
>> NAV, NIS, and NSW are NOT fit to use with Windows OS'. Period.
>> Check this study out :
>> http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...s_windows_down
>>
>> Especially this comparative: Results and Conclusions
>> http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...windows_down/5
>>
>> The above is for performance issues. The following is on how well AV's
>> perform :
>> Comparative tests of antivirus programs
>> http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/...p?id=82&mnu=82
>>
>> I've participated in the WU NG for over 5 years. There is NO other AV
>> or security suite that causes more issues with OS' than the ones from
>> Symantec.
>> So, the ball is not in Microsoft's court, rather, it's up to Symantec
>> to be able to produce software that functions with Windows.
>> And, they do NOT.
>>
>> None of my systems have ever had Norton anything installed on them.
>> If my clients' systems had any Symantec "software" installed, I've
>> uninstalled them, and replaced "it" with either free or paid for AV's.
>>
>> None of them have had any performance, updating, nor malware issues
>> due to the installed AV.
>>
>> So, if the fault lies with MS, then why do the above systems not
>> experience Activation, performance, updating, or malware issues ?
>>
>> MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
>> ===============
>> *-343-* FDNY
>> Never Forgotten
>> ===============
>>
>> p.s. I have beta tested for Symantec, therefore I can not discuss
>> anything concerning their bringing a product to market. Suffice it to
>> say, their method is *not* working. They depend on OEM's to foist said
>> "software" onto unsuspecting Users' systems.
>>
>>
>> Bill Drake wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
>>> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
>>>
>>> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
>>> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
>>> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
>>> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.
>>>
>>> Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
>>> spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
>>> Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user
>>> contact Symantec Customer Support.
>>>
>>> Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
>>> then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
>>> and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem
>>> for 24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the
>>> problem by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation
>>> would be lost the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and
>>> installed new Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.
>>>
>>>
>>> Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
>>> reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
>>> Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as
>>> requested, I found this did not work - as the problem recurred
>>> exactly as it had with the use of Ghost as detailed above.
>>>
>>> Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
>>> related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
>>> told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
>>> solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
>>> and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.
>>>
>>> At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th
>>> time) that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
>>> and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
>>> Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
>>> Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
>>> (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
>>> multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database
>>> counts be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh
>>> reinstall of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to
>>> that point had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now *here* is where it gets interesting:
>>>
>>> After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
>>> Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
>>> unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
>>> September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
>>> activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
>>> Symantec Updates.
>>>
>>> It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
>>> immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
>>> installation procedures. Because the Activation database
>>> count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
>>> successful and the update installed correctly.
>>>
>>> From the above, I suspect that something in the September
>>> Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
>>> Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
>>> reporting.
>>>
>>> This data shows up *differently* between the Product
>>> Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
>>> and the information returned to Symantec after the first
>>> time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
>>> the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
>>> *new installation* even though the product installation is
>>> an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
>>> a result, a *second* activation process is required.
>>>
>>>
>>> The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
>>> reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
>>> a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
>>> Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
>>> then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
>>> for that product key will exceed the number that
>>> Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
>>> user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
>>> *second* activation will be refused and the user is
>>> stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
>>> get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
>>> so their update can proceed to completion correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
>>> Symantec problem is actually a changed response
>>> for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
>>> as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.
>>>
>>> Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
>>> security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
>>> Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
>>> software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
>>> and you will have to contact that software
>>> manufacturer's technical support and have them
>>> manually clean up the mess before your previously
>>> working installations of non-microsoft products will
>>> work properly again.
>>>
>>>
>>> Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
>>> industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.
>>>
>>> Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
>>> sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best I can do for now. <tm>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>
>
>

My two pence worth;
I gave up on NIS 2005 about a year ago, having used Norton products for some
years without any real problems.
On two PC's NIS would constantly deactivate, this didn't coincide with any
MS update and was completely random. - I had a volume licence for NIS, but
didnt install it on the other PC's
Norton support, over some period, could'nt help other than suggesting
uninstall/completely remove/clean reinstall - I got fed up running this
procedure - and I wasnt about to format / clean install as they suggested

"Bill Drake" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OJdu%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mow, I am not going to argue with you about the suitability
> of Symantec products or not. The issue is moot. There are
> *tons* of people out there running Symantec product - whether
> you like it or not. This post is relevant to THEM.
>
> It is Microsoft's responsibility to regression-test their patches
> such that the patches do NOT produce errors in already
> existing products. This is not debatable.
>
> As you have mentioned, I presented evidence of an interaction
> caused solely by the presence of one or more of the updates
> released in the September set of Microsoft Updates - which
> INDUCES the problem discussed in my report. This is obviously
> a regression issue and needs to be addressed as such.
>
>
> Furthermore, I understand you have an opinion about Symantec
> Products. I have seen your posting history on the subject and
> it is not pretty. It comes across as if you have an axe to grind.
>
> Please note that I have an opinion about irrational, bigoted and
> brainless hatred of *any* product - whether from Microsoft,
> Apple, Symantec or whoever. I am not interested in discussions
> of those types.
>
> What I DO want is results, a consistent dedication to workability,
> and a reliable program suite that works as designed. I don't care
> who produces that. However, I do object most strongly when a
> third-party product that is working as designed magically STOPS
> working as designed due to OS manufacturer monkeydiddling.
>
> And I have said so.
>
>
> EOT
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> MowGreen [MVP] wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> > Let me state this as clearly as possible. Although you've done a fine
> > job deducing what the issue stems from, suggest you visit the Windows
> > Update newsgroup and see how many Users have issues accessing Windows
> > Updates and installing Critical updates due to the presence of
> > Symantec software "products".
> > NAV, NIS, and NSW are NOT fit to use with Windows OS'. Period.
> > Check this study out :
> > http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...s_windows_down
> >
> > Especially this comparative: Results and Conclusions
> > http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/oth...windows_down/5
> >
> > The above is for performance issues. The following is on how well AV's
> > perform :
> > Comparative tests of antivirus programs
> > http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/...p?id=82&mnu=82
> >
> > I've participated in the WU NG for over 5 years. There is NO other AV
> > or security suite that causes more issues with OS' than the ones from
> > Symantec.
> > So, the ball is not in Microsoft's court, rather, it's up to Symantec
> > to be able to produce software that functions with Windows.
> > And, they do NOT.
> >
> > None of my systems have ever had Norton anything installed on them.
> > If my clients' systems had any Symantec "software" installed, I've
> > uninstalled them, and replaced "it" with either free or paid for AV's.
> >
> > None of them have had any performance, updating, nor malware issues
> > due to the installed AV.
> >
> > So, if the fault lies with MS, then why do the above systems not
> > experience Activation, performance, updating, or malware issues ?
> >
> > MowGreen [MVP 2003-2006]
> > ===============
> > *-343-* FDNY
> > Never Forgotten
> > ===============
> >
> > p.s. I have beta tested for Symantec, therefore I can not discuss
> > anything concerning their bringing a product to market. Suffice it to
> > say, their method is *not* working. They depend on OEM's to foist said
> > "software" onto unsuspecting Users' systems.
> >
> >
> > Bill Drake wrote:
> >
> >> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
> >> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
> >>
> >> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
> >> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
> >> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
> >> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.
> >>
> >> Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
> >> spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
> >> Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user
> >> contact Symantec Customer Support.
> >>
> >> Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
> >> then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
> >> and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem
> >> for 24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the
> >> problem by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation
> >> would be lost the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and
> >> installed new Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.
> >>
> >>
> >> Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
> >> reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
> >> Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as
> >> requested, I found this did not work - as the problem recurred
> >> exactly as it had with the use of Ghost as detailed above.
> >>
> >> Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
> >> related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
> >> told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
> >> solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
> >> and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.
> >>
> >> At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th
> >> time) that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
> >> and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
> >> Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
> >> Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
> >> (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
> >> multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database
> >> counts be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh
> >> reinstall of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to
> >> that point had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now *here* is where it gets interesting:
> >>
> >> After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
> >> Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
> >> unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
> >> September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
> >> activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
> >> Symantec Updates.
> >>
> >> It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
> >> immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
> >> installation procedures. Because the Activation database
> >> count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
> >> successful and the update installed correctly.
> >>
> >> From the above, I suspect that something in the September
> >> Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
> >> Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
> >> reporting.
> >>
> >> This data shows up *differently* between the Product
> >> Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
> >> and the information returned to Symantec after the first
> >> time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
> >> the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
> >> *new installation* even though the product installation is
> >> an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
> >> a result, a *second* activation process is required.
> >>
> >>
> >> The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
> >> reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
> >> a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
> >> Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
> >> then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
> >> for that product key will exceed the number that
> >> Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
> >> user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
> >> *second* activation will be refused and the user is
> >> stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
> >> get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
> >> so their update can proceed to completion correctly.
> >>
> >>
> >> So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
> >> Symantec problem is actually a changed response
> >> for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
> >> as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.
> >>
> >> Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
> >> security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
> >> Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
> >> software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
> >> and you will have to contact that software
> >> manufacturer's technical support and have them
> >> manually clean up the mess before your previously
> >> working installations of non-microsoft products will
> >> work properly again.
> >>
> >>
> >> Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
> >> industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.
> >>
> >> Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
> >> sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best I can do for now. <tm>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bill
>
>
>

In article <OJdu#(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bill Drake <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It is Microsoft's responsibility to regression-test their patches
> such that the patches do NOT produce errors in already existing
> products.

Surely that's only true for their products? Why should MS be expected
to ensure their patches don't affect other people's products?

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll, Edinburgh, Scotland - my opinions are my own.

"Bill Drake" wrote

> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
>
> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.

Bill, this is a problem with a machine running windows 2000. Why are you
posting this to an XP newsgroup? As a side note we see more problems in XP
from systems running Symantec / Norton products. Users are better off
without it.

--
Rock [ MVP User/Shell]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:22:06 -0700, "Bill Drake"

>What I DO want is results, a consistent dedication to workability,
>and a reliable program suite that works as designed. I don't care
>who produces that. However, I do object most strongly when a
>third-party product that is working as designed magically STOPS
>working as designed due to OS manufacturer monkeydiddling.

In the past, I was fairly agnostic about Norton AV; I just considered
it a waste of money if you were eligible to use a free av that the
retail sales driod wouldn't have told you about, and I thought it was
too big, bloated and invasive for taste.

But I now have a stronger dislike for the product, and for exactly the
same reason I have a dislike for malware - and which would be the
reason for buying an av in the first place.

Namely, I don't like software that pursues an agenda hostile to my
interests, and that attempts to hide this fact.

See: http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2006/08/...norton-av.html

This problem arises because Norton is deliberately playing
silly-buggers behind your back, fussing about whether it's properly
licensed or not. Norton's deep integration can be brittle at the best
of times, but when this subsystem breaks, it amounts to a DoS attack.

It's particularly a problem in the context of an AV, because often you
will have to go hand-to-hand with undetected malware using manual
tools such as HiJackThis, or manually clearing out hi-risk locations
such as Temp, TIF, etc. But because Norton is itself running some
sort of covert system, every time you find unfamiliar files hiding
about, you have to ask; is this part of the malware, or part of
Norton's hidden DoS payload? If I clear these files, am I cleaning
the system, or disabling one of its defenses?

Normally, if your paid-for product doesn't work, you can trust their
tech support to be on your side in trying to help you get it to work
again. But can you trust Norton's tech support for straight answers,
when it comes to code they've added to the product that is there to
act against you, and to be kept hidden from you?

Is this the sort of vendor you want to pay and support?



>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

"Bill Drake" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> OK, I have been battling this one for several weeks now - I've
> finally gotten to the bottom of the problem.
>
> I have a Client running Windows 2000-SP4. He runs both Norton
> Internet Security 2005 and Norton SystemWorks 2005 Premier
> (which has Ghost 2005 bundled with it). This installation is about
> 6 months old and ran fine up until recently.
>
> Starting just after September's Patch Tuesday - his machine would
> spontaneously lose its Activation for Norton Internet Security 2005.
> Attempting to Re-Activate would fail - requesting that the user contact
> Symantec Customer Support.
>
> Restoring the Client's Ghost Image from the day before Patch Tuesday,
> then completely updating Norton Internet Security and SystemWorks
> and then reinstalling the Microsoft Patches would solve the problem for
> 24 hours. However - regardless of the successful repair of the problem
> by the use of Ghost - Norton Internet Security Activation would be lost
> the next time Symantec Live Update brought down and installed new
> Virus Definitions on the Client's machine.
>
>
> Symantec Customer Support recommended a complete uninstall and
> reinstall of both Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks
> Premier as a possible solution to the problem. After doing as requested,
> I found this did not work - as the problem recurred exactly as it had with
> the use of Ghost as detailed above.
>
> Symantec Customer Support then tried to tell me this problem was
> related to the installation of Roxio EZ-CD Creator software. They
> told me this problem occurred with all versions and that the only
> solution was to remove EZ-CD Creator, install the Norton Software
> and then reinstall EZ-CD Creator.
>
> At this point I ran out of patience. I re-explained (for the 8th time)
> that this installation HAD RUN SUCCESSFULLY FOR 6 MONTHS
> and had spontaneously deactivated. I insisted that they check the
> Activation database count for this Client's Product Keys for both
> Norton Internet Security and Norton SystemWorks. The products
> (which had only been installed on this Client's System) showed
> multiple installations. I insisted that the Activation database counts
> be reset. Product Support accepted my request and the fresh reinstall
> of the product - done at Symantec's request - which up to that point
> had stubbornly refused to Activate - magically activated.
>
>
> Now *here* is where it gets interesting:
>
> After successfully Activating the product, the usual round of Live
> Updates is required to bring the product up-to-date. However,
> unlike installations done previous to the install of Microsoft's
> September updates - this *new* install promptly failed its
> activation immediately after the install of the *next* set of
> Symantec Updates.
>
> It was necessary to re-activate the product a *second* time,
> immediately after the second round of Symantec Live Update
> installation procedures. Because the Activation database
> count had been reset - this time the *second* activation was
> successful and the update installed correctly.
>
> From the above, I suspect that something in the September
> Microsoft Updates interacts with the information Symantec's
> Live-Update uses for Symantec's own Product Activation Key
> reporting.
>
> This data shows up *differently* between the Product
> Activation that occurs when using the original CD-ROM
> and the information returned to Symantec after the first
> time Live-Update is used. Because of the interaction,
> the Symantec Server interprets the changed info as a
> *new installation* even though the product installation is
> an existing installation that has not changed at all. As
> a result, a *second* activation process is required.
>
>
> The crucial factor here is that if the user has had to
> reinstall the product for any *other* reason (such as
> a virus infection or any one of the other reasons that
> Symantec requests the user reinstall the product)
> then the install-count kept on the Symantec Server
> for that product key will exceed the number that
> Symantec considers abuse of the product - and the
> user will be branded a pirate. As a result, that
> *second* activation will be refused and the user is
> stuck in activation hell until they call Symantec and
> get the install-count reset on the Symantec Server
> so their update can proceed to completion correctly.
>
>
> So - from what I can make out - what *looks* like a
> Symantec problem is actually a changed response
> for Symantec's Product Activation routines that occurs
> as a consequence of a MICROSOFT update.
>
> Therefore, please be aware that as a result of the
> security updates released by Microsoft on Patch
> Tuesdays - your Product Activation on other
> software may be SPONTANEOUSLY REVOKED
> and you will have to contact that software
> manufacturer's technical support and have them
> manually clean up the mess before your previously
> working installations of non-microsoft products will
> work properly again.
>
>
> Needless to say, I am underwhelmed by the shoddy
> industry-cross-cooperation the above debacle implies.
>
> Once again, Microsoft's quality-control is shown to be
> sorely lacking or non-existent. This is unacceptable.
>
>
> Best I can do for now. <tm>
>
>
> Bill
>
>



I'd suggest posting in one of the many Win2k newsgroups. They are more
likely to have a solution for a Win2k problem than all the XP newsgroups you
cross-posted to.

--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!

Google is your Friend!
http://www.google.com