FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
Yahoo's tech Tuesday has some interesting stuff and here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/techtuesday/ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...0&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?tmp...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. |
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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?tmp...0&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?tmp...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. |
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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" wrote in message ... : 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?tmp...0&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?tmp...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. : : : |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
" 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" wrote in message ... 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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" wrote in message ... 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...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" wrote in message ... " 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" wrote in message ... 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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?tmp...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" wrote in message ... " 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
"Paul" wrote in message
... 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...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. Great Post Gary! The best computer security is like safe sex, only you can protect yourself and your computer through your own vigilance. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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" wrote in message ... 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
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" wrote in message ... 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 |
Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message ... 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" wrote in message ... 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 :. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters