If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. : : : |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine.
1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.). 2) BlackICE PC Protection v3.6 (Intrusion detection software. Very easy to install, configure and use. It automatically detects hacker attacks and blocks all traffic from them. Again, no problems and low CPU utilization). 3) AdSubtract Proxy server v3.0 (Special software that can block pop-ups, banner adds, contextual ads, ad-server and profiling cookies, windows messenger pop-ups, animations, background sounds, flash, and external JavaScript. It also seems to thwart some html basked viruses and spyware as a result). 4) A hardware firewall (the more protection the better, I say). There are also some corrections to be made to the comments thus far. Microsoft's SP2 security features are designed for 3rd party applications like anti-virus, firewall, etc. software to be able to turn off and on. That is a Microsoft feature. Unfortunately it also allows viruses and spyware to do the same thing. This is the main reason I wouldn't recommend relying on Microsoft's SP2 security feature to protect you. One other note: I don't personally believe that firewall software that monitors programs running on your machine and prompt you if they should be accessing the internet are very secure or reliable. The problem with them is that they rely on the user to make this decision, "should this program or that be allowed to access the internet?" The problem with this is most users cannot answer that question if they are unfamiliar with the program in question. Worst yet, most users would just answer yes thinking that must be a part of the program I'm currently using. In order for these firewall programs to be reliable, they really need to have a list of programs that should be blocked and that list needs to be constantly updated, just like virus lists for anti-virus programs. "Dan" wrote in message ... 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. : : : |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
"Charles C. Drew" wrote in message ... This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine. 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.). [...] That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea. I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP. [...] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
I've been attending this group since early 1999--and Norton AV has
*always* been problematic during that entire time. So has McAfee. So has PCCillan. Problematic in the sense that they caused problems. Back when Norton 2000, and then 2001, came out, people were saying the same things about those versions compared with past solutions that you guys are saying about newer versions now. Whereas other solutions, like InoculateIt Personal Edition (which became eTrust EZAV), AVG and AVAST may have had problems with automatic updating or other minor issues, but they *never* interfere with the OS. The only reason Norton and McAfee still exist in the "home" versions is that they have long had deals with the major computer vendors such that they come preinstalled. -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message ... "Charles C. Drew" wrote in message ... This is the main reason I use the following products on my machine. 1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.). [...] That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea. I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP. [...] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
Rick Chauvin wrote:
1) Symantec Anti-Virus 2002 (doesn't have any of the described fatware that was added to the newer versions. Works great with low CPU utilization.). === Correct. Same experience here. Also same with 2005. [...] That's just not true, 2002 absolutely is the first version With all the added anti theft extra modules fatware that is and has been included with every version since and including 2002 that has plagued millions of users penalizing them at every turn; just notice all the extra running processes. Consider yourself lucky so far, you have no idea. === Not as many as some other apps; and they're pretty danged small to boot, so the memory footprint isn't that large. I think most problems develop because of inept setups and configs of both Norton and XP. Garbage in, ... I will say that the Norton AV (stand-alone) 2001 version is their greatest accomplishment, however it's too bad it will not work properly with WXP. [...] === Nah, Sysworks 20k5 is their greatest accomplishment. And yes, I am a heavy user, and often even run several system monitors all at once, to keep track of who might be getting in who's way. Pop -- ----- How long did the 100 Year War Last? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee
Dan wrote:
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! Words to live by. Ken |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Further MS Baseline Security Analyzer issues ... | bluddihun | Security and Administration with Windows XP | 2 | May 1st 05 02:55 PM |
Discovered Security Vunerability in WinXP SP2 | Steve H | Windows Service Pack 2 | 9 | January 26th 05 08:17 AM |
WinXP SP2, IE6 SP2 security flaw with password protected web sites | Mark | General XP issues or comments | 0 | December 31st 04 12:53 AM |
XP / NTSF ...security descriptor / MFT error... | RJK | General XP issues or comments | 3 | November 11th 04 07:59 PM |
'spare' SP2 stuff after uninstall | k2lim | Windows Service Pack 2 | 3 | October 7th 04 04:26 PM |