Leythos said:Nice find, a exploit for an engine that's sooooo old that it is almost
not worth knowing about - not to mention that have to have port 8004
exposed.
And if you look on the site, all the major players have problems with
exploits - it's about how quickly they are fixed and how accessible
the exploit is.
How old is that engine?
Leythos said:The engine on most of our systems is well over 90.x.x.x, the one on
this machine is 103.0.2.7 and I just checked 8 other systems - all in
103.something. The engine you pointed out was a version 4 version,
not a version 10 version.
So it took until 2005 for Symancrap to fix it. And only did because
someone else caught it for them.
ROFL! Some Security Company Symancrap is!
Leythos said:Maybe because it was a very old version? Maybe because they cared
enough to go back and fix something that should not have still been
in use?
Heck, I can only speculate, but it was good of them to fix it.
And pretty funny for a security company to have missed it for so long.
Where, oh where do I sign up to secure my computer with that kind of
expensive incompetence?
ah, I see. So I can introduce anything I like to the thread, ignoringAnd I didn't even reply to the OP of the thread.
Wilf said:kurttrail said ...
ah, I see. So I can introduce anything I like to the thread, ignoring
what its original purpose may have been, without altering its subject.
How useful to know for future reference. Furthermore, does it have to
be about computing? Could I raise how I dislike particular kinds of
music, for example ;-)
And the same issues are present in most of the AV products - i the
use a domain name to pull from it's always going to be possible t
hijack it - this is not specific to Symantec
Wilf said:kurttrail said ...
ah, I see. So I can introduce anything I like to the thread, ignoring
what its original purpose may have been, without altering its subject.
How useful to know for future reference. Furthermore, does it have to
be about computing? Could I raise how I dislike particular kinds of
music, for example ;-)
Leythos said:And it's just like you to Assume that they missed it for any length of
time. I'm unable to determine how long it was an issue from my
reading.
If you look at the exposure, I don't see where it was a real threat to
the majority of customers - did you read how it has to be exploited
The last straw came after a virus alert update - I couldn't even turn
it on and I couldn't even update no matter which files I repaired
even the SymNRT tool would not even remove it - another HDD format.
Oh btw, I only purchased this last Dec/Nov, are there really people
who think I should continue using this product, putting up with the
re-formats repair's and re-installs?
If only people care to look at user opinions, user comments on varios
shopping sites instead of reading all the 'glossy write ups' then I'm
sure a different picture will be painted.
Leythos said:I'm someone that uses Symantec Products with almost no problems on
more than 1500 machines currently. We also have a number of
residential customers running various versions of Symantec/Norton AV
products without any problems.
While I understand that some people do have problems, and I've never
discounted those people's problems with it, the vast majority would
seem to not have any problems with their Anti-Virus products.
I will continue to use Symantec AV products until such time as
something BETTER is available.
well, it would be a reaI shameful waste of money to fly all the way fromI hear a bunch of Symancrapphants are
jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, maybe you'd like to follow them.
I've heard you BS about how many people run Symancrap products without
any problems, and you have come up with one source to back that up
except yourself.
As far as I'm concerned you a just a bold-faced LIAR!
You have no idea about the vast majority! Hell, I've worked on
computers that had hardware problems, only to also find numerous viruses
also, on computers running NAV with Live Update set to Auto! And the
user was totally unaware he had any viruses!
The updates in from Symantec 'I understand' affected all users, anyone
want a review of Symantec only needs to look at user comment's on
various shopping sites, you will see more bad comments than good.
Also you will see comments like AVG found viruses that Symantec had
missed
Leythos said:We cleaned all the computers in a Sorority this year (we do it each
year) and there were machines from Win98 to XP+Sp2 and even 1 MAC this
year. A short summary of the results was that only the machines running
Norton/Symantec AV were clean, 2 machines running NAV/Symantec without
any updates had a couple trojans, all machines running McAfee, CA, and
AVG had at least 1 or more Trojans/viruses.
It was interesting to see that there were many less viruses infections
this year (around 100 total infection files), last year there were over
8000 viruses/trojans on their machines.
My impression of Symantec has been that their non-AV software is total
Crap, if you combine their non-AV software with their AV software you
still have total crap. If you only run their AV software (not NIS or any
suite from them) then you get a stable (mostly for most people) AV
product that is better than any other (except for KAP).
While you do see many posts about Symantec AV and Norton AV, as normal
with Usenet, you only really see the people complaining about real
problems - you almost never see posts stating that a product has worked
great and if you do, it's only from a tiny fraction of people that are
using it.
My experience in the corporate and residential markets has been that
Symantec's AV products are almost perfectly rocksolid, my experience,
with the exception of running Symantec AV on SBS2003 with SBS2003 SP1,
has been that it's fast, easy, and not any problem at all. While you can
discount this experience, it doesn't change the FACT that I'm not
experiencing any problems with Symantec or Norton AV products on
corporate or residential systems. As for the other vendors, I've got
less installs of AVG, McAfee, CA, etc... and I have more problems with
those (and lack of protection) combined than with all of my Symantec AV
/ Norton AV products installed.
We use Symantec AV in my office. The switch was made from McAfee three
years ago and the NETOPS people are very pleased withthe performance. I
have used Norton AV on my personal systems at home and was not very pleased
with them, not for their AV protection but for the perofrmnace drain on the
systems. McAfee was much less of a drain and performs well. Onmy desktop,
my license for McAfee expired and I decided to use Avast Pro and so far I'm
happy with the decision. I won't use Norton AV or any other Symantec
product on my own systems.