Norton AV '06 Killed Windows

[Doug Kanter]

No it is not a fairy tail. Many viruse have their own mass mailing
engine which procure the compromised machines addys from the book, which
in turn is then sent to every addy procured. If the virus does not have
it's own engine, then the unknowing user can propogate the virus via
email, internet or disk without ever using an addy from the book.

Right! That's the point. You can say that you only reply to trusted
individuals, but even nice, honest people who *think* they're protected can
still NOT have safe machines. There are people whose address books contain
dozens of names they haven't corresponded with in years.

Oh never mind. You know what I mean.

 

[Brian A.]

Right! That's the point. You can say that you only reply to trusted
individuals, but even nice, honest people who *think* they're protected
can still NOT have safe machines. There are people whose address books
contain dozens of names they haven't corresponded with in years.

Oh never mind. You know what I mean.

Yup, sure do. I understood your point in every response. Their purely
never was or is any reason to keep that sucker checked, it can/does set up
a mine field. My intent was only to point out that leaving it checked does
not set users up to be compromised. Simply another take on the way others
may read into the translation.

I'll 86 from this thread as well.

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

[Plato]

So, we recently downloaded Norton AV '05 and installed in on our comp. It
tells us to restart to complete the install, then when we reboot, it tells us
windows encountered a problem and to restart with the last known good
configuration or in safe mode. No matter what option I choose, it will bring
me to a blue "Windows cannot start" screen and I have to reboot. I can't
start in safe mode, and I can't revert to previous configuration. Any
suggestions?

Get your money back first.

 

[Dave]

Is that the advice he was asking for or just another Norton bashing
opportunity for you?

 

[Doug Kanter]

Yup, sure do. I understood your point in every response. Their purely
never was or is any reason to keep that sucker checked, it can/does set up
a mine field. My intent was only to point out that leaving it checked
does not set users up to be compromised. Simply another take on the way
others may read into the translation.

I'll 86 from this thread as well.

Time out! Don't you know anyone who you love dearly, but who is a complete
dolt when it comes to keeping their computer disease-free? I estimate that
75% of home users are just like that. So, checking that option definitely
does put not only the dolts, but all their acquaintances at risk.

Speaking of being cynical, I think every CPU cabinet should have a huge
day-glo orange bulletin packed with it, saying "Your AV software was up to
date on the day this thing was put in its box. It's not up to date any more.
Read your instructions".

 

[Brian A.]

Time out! Don't you know anyone who you love dearly, but who is a
complete dolt when it comes to keeping their computer disease-free? I
estimate that 75% of home users are just like that. So, checking that
option definitely does put not only the dolts, but all their
acquaintances at risk.

Hey, I 86'd!! Well then, since you ask and mention:
I definitely won't dispute it where Li_ _ gets a headline, um I mean
dolts. A sis in law I love so dearly who is on my blocked list so that I
may continue to keep peace amongst us. She is many times over more
educated on proper security and keeping it up to date now, yet far from
truley grasping the full conceptual meaning. Many times over many years I
have recieved chain, hoax, very few infected, etc. mail from her, and many
times over many years I have sent back a proper response advising her of
each emails intention along with links to help her understand their
contents. It got to a point where I asked her politely time and again to
please not send me any mail relating to these, those and the other things.
Needless to say it fell on deaf ears each time and she stomped on the last
nerve I had left.

I sent an email to every recipient in TO: with the original content
explaining the nature and purpose of it. I also added in with a not so
very pleasant tone that anyone, and I mean anyone who ventures as far as
even thinking about continuing the propogation, then they and everyone else
who follows suit was a (this is where the really nasty dragon shot flames),
you get the picture I'm sure.

The next email recieved from her was mean questions on why she was
getting emails from friends asking who the he_ _ is this Brian, how did he
get their addy, why did he send this to us and the kicker Q from the SIL:
What gives me the right to do what I did and say the things I did?
I wrote back and explained the past/present situation which was
meaningless to a woman scorn. She wrote back with the ever so annoying
I'll do what I yada yada, I hit the foxhole and blocked/bounced her email
right back. The next time I see her I get to hear, so your blocking me now
yada yada. I explained once again why, waited for the atmosphere to cool
some, called a truce and had a pow-wow. Not at any time since to date,
have I at least, recieved another single particle of those email types from
her or any other related family member.

I'll give it to you in a wide spectrum of analysis that leaving it
checked can/does put many at risk. In my on the other side of the rainbow
analysis, it's more of an annoyance than a security threat. What's more of
a security threat is the damned Preview Pane set as default enabled.

Speaking of being cynical, I think every CPU cabinet should have a huge
day-glo orange bulletin packed with it, saying "Your AV software was up
to date on the day this thing was put in its box. It's not up to date any
more. Read your instructions".

Pffffft! That type of reading is dangerous to most everything in my
immediate area. Now I gotta clean up the barley-pop.
--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

[DanS]

It just has to use the existing interfaces reliably - which other
AV-makers manage to do without inflicting the pain that NAV has
managed for years.

I do use NAV but version 2002. My _Guess_ is that Symantec went the stupid
route of (what appears to be) the trend for the larger s/w companies and
jumped right on the .Net bandwagon and started using that for all
development, no matter if it was the best tool for the job or not.

My first instinct....NOT .NET in this case ! Generally, AV is a _desktop_
application, adding another layer of software to go through, let alone, an
un-proven (in my eyes) one at that.

What a waste.