In a world where digital gremlins seem to lurk in almost every shadow, many of us feel safer using an internet security package. But for those using many Norton security products who haven't updated recently, that feeling is a false sense of security. That's because a nasty bug residing in two ActiveX controls used in Norton's …
I'm always amazed when you see articles like this.
An AV vendor saying
"There's a problem with our software, which needs to update daily to remain any use at all; to fix this allow the update. This will also get rid of the little red cross and the security alert that you get when you log in."
FFS. Anyone who doesn't understand that they need to update their AV should have their patch cable pulled from their PC and should be whipped mercilessly with it.
I guess I might be a little more aggressive during a night shift.
is this really news?
"Symantec security products less than secure"
where is the news here? anyone who doesnt realize this by now needs to go visit a proctologist and inquire about having ones head removed from ones ass!
i hear they offer great family rates and group discounts too!
I was wondering why I had dropped Symantec
Few months ago switched to Nod32, great product, unobtrusive and better detection rate than Symantec. As it originates in Slovakia you could imagine it has to be pretty good, in that environment.
Even keeps your surfing safe from bad sites, sorry to say only prevents malware, does not prevent you seeing badly designed web sites.
The only secure thing about Norton...
...is its ability to stop working because it thinks that you don't have a legit copy.
I had a couple of 3-user licenses for Norton Internet Security that I used to use on a few PCs at our small office. It was set up correctly, correct product keys, running Live Updates, etc. In the end, I removed it from all machines and replaced it with alternative products because each installed copy would regularly keep forcing me to run the product activation procedure again (in spite of being activated correctly in the first place).
As if that wasn't bad enough, it eventually reached the point where it would try to re-activate itself, only to come up with the message that all of my licenses were being used. Considering that I had 6 licenses to hand and the stuff was only installed on 5 PCs (and this was ultimately happening on most of the PCs as well), I got so sick and fed up of this bloated piece of badly written crap that I dropped it altogether and now wouldn't touch any of their shiteware with a barge pole.
And if anyone asks me for recommendations for an AV or Internet Security product, my usual first response is now "Steer clear of anything from Symantec/Norton - their software is badly-written, bloated crapola."
No surprise here
I have a rule about any software with Norton as part of it's name that I tell anyone who asks my advice - DON'T BUY IT! They're stuff is buggy as hell and always has been.
I can't understand why any non-business user would buy expensive, poor quality AV from the likes of Norton and McAfee when they can get AVG or Avast for free.
"Security" software using known insecure technology? Oh my!
"two ActiveX controls used in Norton's PC software"
So this so-called security software uses a technology that was tagged as "dangerous" the day it was announced by Microsoft. And, evidently, insists on IE being the vehicle.
Earth to Symantec, Earth to Symantec... anyone with any interest in running a secure system long ago disabled IE as far as possible, including ActiveX.
Somebody at Symantec (or somebodies) does not see the Big Picture.
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook