ATTN: Users of NAV, NSW and NIS 2004

[PA Bear]

Symantec UPX Parsing Engine Heap Overflow
http://secunia.com/advisories/14179
http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html

 

[kurttrail]

Symantec UPX Parsing Engine Heap Overflow
http://secunia.com/advisories/14179
http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html

Symancrap!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[PA Bear]

Symancrap!

It gets worse!

As of : February 10th 2005 19:38 UTC
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2005-02-09

* Updated: Serious Symantec Vulnerability, 1-day exploits, and the
missing 13th patch

Serious Symantec Vulnerability

Update: It appears that Symantec has not actually released the patches
as is mentioned on their web site. We have not found any patches for the
Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition 8 and 9. We are investigating this
futher.
http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html *

 

[Dan]

LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general public must
be willing to use software that does not include AOL, Symantec, McAfee, etc.

: kurttrail wrote:
: > PA Bear wrote:
: > > Symantec UPX Parsing Engine Heap Overflow
: > > http://secunia.com/advisories/14179
: > > http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html
: >
: > Symancrap!
:
: It gets worse!
:
: As of : February 10th 2005 19:38 UTC
: http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2005-02-09
:
: * Updated: Serious Symantec Vulnerability, 1-day exploits, and the
: missing 13th patch
:
: Serious Symantec Vulnerability
:
: Update: It appears that Symantec has not actually released the patches
: as is mentioned on their web site. We have not found any patches for the
: Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition 8 and 9. We are investigating this
: futher.
: http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/security/Content/2005.02.08.html *
:
: --
: ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
: MS MVP-Windows (Shell, IE/OE) & Security

 

[Leythos]

LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general public must
be willing to use software that does not include AOL, Symantec, McAfee, etc.

I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for personal
as well as corporate systems since it became available (just the AV
products) and have never had a compromised system in all this time. As for
AOL and McAfee - I agree.

 

[kurttrail]

I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for
personal as well as corporate systems since it became available (just
the AV products) and have never had a compromised system in all this
time. As for AOL and McAfee - I agree.

LOL! A Symancrap lover too!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

LOL! A Symancrap lover too!

Since you don't have any technical skills and rely on FUD, how about
telling us what AV product works best in your vast experience? That might
be your first actual beneficial contribution to the group.

 

[kurttrail]

Since you don't have any technical skills and rely on FUD, how about
telling us what AV product works best in your vast experience? That
might be your first actual beneficial contribution to the group.

None. They all have problems.

But Symancrap is one of the worst for hogging system resources
unnecessarily. Plus having to connect to verisign for every little
thing. Right click on a file, and there goes Symancrap checking out a
certificate over at verisign.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

None. They all have problems.

Not true, we have more than 800 systems running Symantec Corporate Edition
9 without any signs of a problem.

But Symancrap is one of the worst for hogging system resources
unnecessarily. Plus having to connect to verisign for every little
thing. Right click on a file, and there goes Symancrap checking out a
certificate over at verisign.

NIS and Suites do, and with the exception of 1 or two updates that were
fixed later, NAV 2003, 2004, and 2005 run quite well on machines that ran
well before the install. The Symantec Corp 9 edition has a very small
foot-print and also runs quite well.

As for checking a cert at Verisign, not seen anything like that on our
systems.

 

[kurttrail]

Not true, we have more than 800 systems running Symantec Corporate
Edition 9 without any signs of a problem.

Didn't have a problem in January of 2004?

NIS and Suites do, and with the exception of 1 or two updates that
were fixed later, NAV 2003, 2004, and 2005 run quite well on machines
that ran well before the install. The Symantec Corp 9 edition has a
very small foot-print and also runs quite well.

As for checking a cert at Verisign, not seen anything like that on our
systems.

LOL! That does say it all!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Dan]

Well, you are adding a great deal of registry entries with Norton (Symantec)
products.

: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:32:09 -0700, Dan wrote:
:
: > LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general public
must
: > be willing to use software that does not include AOL, Symantec, McAfee,
etc.
:
: I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for personal
: as well as corporate systems since it became available (just the AV
: products) and have never had a compromised system in all this time. As for
: AOL and McAfee - I agree.
:
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: remove 999 in order to email me
:

 

[Dan]

CA EZARMOR is great. I use the full version with antivirus and firewall
abilities as well as the windows firewall with a powerful LinkSys router as
well as other precautions. Computer Associates has a special deal on their
product if you buy it through their website.

: On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:53:30 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
: > Leythos wrote:
: >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:32:09 -0700, Dan wrote:
: >>
: >>> LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general
: >>> public must be willing to use software that does not include AOL,
: >>> Symantec, McAfee, etc.
: >>
: >> I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for
: >> personal as well as corporate systems since it became available (just
: >> the AV products) and have never had a compromised system in all this
: >> time. As for AOL and McAfee - I agree.
: >
: > LOL! A Symancrap lover too!
:
: Since you don't have any technical skills and rely on FUD, how about
: telling us what AV product works best in your vast experience? That might
: be your first actual beneficial contribution to the group.
:
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: remove 999 in order to email me
:

 

[Dan]

Kurt, I completely agree with you on Symantec (Norton) being a system and
resource hog. Leythos you sound like a great person but you need to chill,
lighten up and have some fun in your life.

: Leythos wrote:
: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:53:30 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
: >> Leythos wrote:
: >>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:32:09 -0700, Dan wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general
: >>>> public must be willing to use software that does not include AOL,
: >>>> Symantec, McAfee, etc.
: >>>
: >>> I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for
: >>> personal as well as corporate systems since it became available
: >>> (just the AV products) and have never had a compromised system in
: >>> all this time. As for AOL and McAfee - I agree.
: >>
: >> LOL! A Symancrap lover too!
: >
: > Since you don't have any technical skills and rely on FUD, how about
: > telling us what AV product works best in your vast experience? That
: > might be your first actual beneficial contribution to the group.
:
: None. They all have problems.
:
: But Symancrap is one of the worst for hogging system resources
: unnecessarily. Plus having to connect to verisign for every little
: thing. Right click on a file, and there goes Symancrap checking out a
: certificate over at verisign.
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[Dan]

The Corporate editions may be okay but the home user editions of Symantec
(Norton) products suck.

: On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:39:39 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
:
: > Leythos wrote:
: >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:53:30 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
: >>> Leythos wrote:
: >>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:32:09 -0700, Dan wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>> LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general
: >>>>> public must be willing to use software that does not include AOL,
: >>>>> Symantec, McAfee, etc.
: >>>>
: >>>> I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for
: >>>> personal as well as corporate systems since it became available
: >>>> (just the AV products) and have never had a compromised system in
: >>>> all this time. As for AOL and McAfee - I agree.
: >>>
: >>> LOL! A Symancrap lover too!
: >>
: >> Since you don't have any technical skills and rely on FUD, how about
: >> telling us what AV product works best in your vast experience? That
: >> might be your first actual beneficial contribution to the group.
: >
: > None. They all have problems.
:
: Not true, we have more than 800 systems running Symantec Corporate Edition
: 9 without any signs of a problem.
:
: > But Symancrap is one of the worst for hogging system resources
: > unnecessarily. Plus having to connect to verisign for every little
: > thing. Right click on a file, and there goes Symancrap checking out a
: > certificate over at verisign.
:
: NIS and Suites do, and with the exception of 1 or two updates that were
: fixed later, NAV 2003, 2004, and 2005 run quite well on machines that ran
: well before the install. The Symantec Corp 9 edition has a very small
: foot-print and also runs quite well.
:
: As for checking a cert at Verisign, not seen anything like that on our
: systems.
:
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: remove 999 in order to email me
:

 

[Dan]

Very true, Kurt. Thanks for your opinion and being in this group. I for one
appreciate your input even if it annoys a huge bunch of people; I must admit
that this amuses me. :>

: Leythos wrote:
: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:39:39 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
: >
: >> Leythos wrote:
: >>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:53:30 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
: >>>> Leythos wrote:
: >>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:32:09 -0700, Dan wrote:
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> LOL, I knew it Symantec is digging their own hole. The general
: >>>>>> public must be willing to use software that does not include AOL,
: >>>>>> Symantec, McAfee, etc.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> I got news for you - I've been using Norton and then Symantec for
: >>>>> personal as well as corporate systems since it became available
: >>>>> (just the AV products) and have never had a compromised system in
: >>>>> all this time. As for AOL and McAfee - I agree.
: >>>>
: >>>> LOL! A Symancrap lover too!
: >>>
: >>> Since you don't have any technical skills and rely on FUD, how about
: >>> telling us what AV product works best in your vast experience? That
: >>> might be your first actual beneficial contribution to the group.
: >>
: >> None. They all have problems.
: >
: > Not true, we have more than 800 systems running Symantec Corporate
: > Edition 9 without any signs of a problem.
:
: Didn't have a problem in January of 2004?
:
: >
: >> But Symancrap is one of the worst for hogging system resources
: >> unnecessarily. Plus having to connect to verisign for every little
: >> thing. Right click on a file, and there goes Symancrap checking out
: >> a certificate over at verisign.
: >
: > NIS and Suites do, and with the exception of 1 or two updates that
: > were fixed later, NAV 2003, 2004, and 2005 run quite well on machines
: > that ran well before the install. The Symantec Corp 9 edition has a
: > very small foot-print and also runs quite well.
: >
: > As for checking a cert at Verisign, not seen anything like that on our
: > systems.
:
: LOL! That does say it all!
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[Leythos]

Well, you are adding a great deal of registry entries with Norton (Symantec)
products.

Dan, you add a great deal of registry entries with many products, did you
have a point you were trying to make?

 

[Leythos]

CA EZARMOR is great. I use the full version with antivirus and firewall
abilities as well as the windows firewall with a powerful LinkSys router as
well as other precautions. Computer Associates has a special deal on their
product if you buy it through their website.

We tested CA software, didn't like it and didn't see where it provided any
better protection than Symantec Corp Edition.

 

[Leythos]

Kurt, I completely agree with you on Symantec (Norton) being a system and
resource hog. Leythos you sound like a great person but you need to chill,
lighten up and have some fun in your life.

Funny, I'm not upset or unchilled, I just related that out large
experience with NAV/Symantec Corp edition has not been the same - then
your buddy replied with a troll.

Did you miss this from Kurt:

: >> LOL! A Symancrap lover too!

Maybe you should evaluate his ability to provide anything constructive in
any discussion. I left the rest of the post below so you could see it.

 

[Leythos]

The Corporate editions may be okay but the home user editions of Symantec
(Norton) products suck.

And I'll say it again, the Suites are bad in my opinion, they are very
bloated, but the actual NAV product, if installed alone, is very
reasonable, and with the exception of one update out of thousands that I
can recall, it's a very nice product for almost every Windows based system
out there.

Are you going by what you're read in posts or have you personally
installed Norton Antivirus on test systems and ran performance/reliability
tests against anything else?

 

[Dan]

Have you personally tried EZARMOR by Computer Associates? My dad uses Norton
Antivirus and it is okay but is not as great as EZARMOR. EZARMOR even
removes associated registry entries after uninstalling the product and it
gives you many options and does not have the overhead that Norton Antivirus
has. Gary S. Terhune, MVP does not suggest users to use McAfee or Symantec
(Norton) products because of the amount of system resources that they
consume. Gary was the one responsible for leading me to the full edition of
EZARMOR with their software firewall and antivirus program. EZARMOR uses an
older version of ZA PRO. that does not have the tendrils as deeply into the
os as newer versions of ZA PRO. have. It is really good and you should try
it out, Leythos.

: On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:36:15 -0700, Dan wrote:
:
: > The Corporate editions may be okay but the home user editions of Symantec
: > (Norton) products suck.
:
: And I'll say it again, the Suites are bad in my opinion, they are very
: bloated, but the actual NAV product, if installed alone, is very
: reasonable, and with the exception of one update out of thousands that I
: can recall, it's a very nice product for almost every Windows based system
: out there.
:
: Are you going by what you're read in posts or have you personally
: installed Norton Antivirus on test systems and ran performance/reliability
: tests against anything else?
:
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: remove 999 in order to email me
: