"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 :.