Either Safer Networking Ltd. or Symantec leaving the Anti Spyware Coalition...

[Med365]

Hello, NIS 2005 was given with my laptop when I bought it last christmas (yes its old for a computer sold in 2006).
Don't think it was a gift, just a crap on my system so I downloaded the remover and Bye Bye NIS !
Now I use BitDefender Internet Security 10, it's much better than Norton, I added Spybot. My computer is perfectly clean and if I get infected, I know how to disinfect it :D

I think you should add NIS 2004 to 2007 to the PUPS because it's really hard to remove without the symantec remover, like a spyware, and it decreases the computer security by asking the user to remove almost any another security software for the last version (can't use another firewall, antispy or antispam with 2007 I think).

In conclusion NIS is a sh*t !!

[Lancelot]

"Yes detect NIS completely."


I am not using the Tea Timer, so I hope NIS and Spybot will work peacefully together on my machine.

[nOInfectIOn]

I hope NIS and Spybot will work peacefully together

...good one!
Hmm, first casulty of IT-war would be...? confidence?

[fan of spybot]

Yes Spybot should do that for NIS.Since last 5years Iam using Spybot and its a fanatstic products to say always update with the time.I dont remember how many people I recommended this product and everybody say its nice.Any cybercafe I visit if I found the problem with IE browser I installed this product to browse smoothly though now days I prefer Mozilla Firefox browser than IE still I use Spybot for adware and malware.Every time I tried to use NIS though it came free with my new PC my memory goes to hell and system slows down so I uninstaled it.Please do this to NIS.

[Keith Warner]

Do new DELLs still come with NortonCrap installed? If so, that alone would keep me from ever buying another Dell.



Keith Warner

[tashi]

Dell is leaning more towards giving consumers a choice.

For many machines, one can choose to decline the security packages. Ditto for monitors.

Regards.

[Keith Warner]

That's good to hear. As an absolute noob when I got a Dell 1 1/2 years ago it came with all this "free" stuff. Later, when it had all expired and then un-installed, the only thing that left more baggage behind than Norton was AOL.

KW

[NickFury]

Dell is leaning more towards giving consumers a choice.

For many machines, one can choose to decline the security packages. Ditto for monitors.

Regards.

... and ditto for the OS it seems these days. you may note on many of their application restore cds included with the system, from even fairly old Dells, they have both Norton and McAfee options for anti-virus... I don't know how they came from the factory as one of them must have been originally installed.. perhaps the customer actually had the choice all this time, or maybe they needed to know that ahead of time and specify it when purchasing the computer...

As a technician all I hear from people (aside from pop-ups in the last 4-5 years) is speed speed speed. For that reason I always consider Norton, once a good product before Symantec purchased them like so many others, a PUP.

I make sure to stress the "Potentially" before "Unwanted Program" because it's a case of the cure being almost as bad, AS bad, or occasionally even WORSE than the problem.

It's not uncommon for someone to get their computer back clean from viruses and ad/spy/malware and then go buy Norton retail (usually because I inform them their old A/V was expired for years,) then call me back up wanting to know why their computer is slower than it was when they had the viruses! On occasion someone will bring the system back to me insisting it must still have viruses because it's so slow, and when I see they've bought the latest Norton Internet Security or worse, AND SystemWorks, the newer McAfee, etc. then I have the pleasure of attempting to explain why the "prevention" is often worse than the "problem." I actually had someone once who understood this concept right off, and decided he didn't care if his system only used for checking email and playing solitare was constantly sending DDOS attacks to other sites because it was faster with the virus than having anti-virus on his system.

But in all honesty detecting Norton as a PUP is sinking to their level and not a very good idea.

Now a great idea for Spybot and PUPs especially when their threat level is close to non-existent, is to have a section/popup/report devoted to "beyond malware: how to further speed up your computer and minimize the risk of problems" with recommendations on removing bulky and ineffective A/V such as Norton and replacing with something sleek and unobtrusive like F-Prot (or something more comprehensive yet doesn't slow the system down much, perhaps G-Data.)

It could also detect and recommend removing pointless system monitoring and registry utilities or things that never get used, such as with SystemWorks, or those "registry cleaners" that don't do any good and can sometimes damage a system, or MULTIPLE toolbars and pointless BHO's that aren't a threat but can slow down a browser or someday fail and crash one, or those programs that just add registry "tweaks" that may once have been used in Win2k or NT4 but are no longer relevant.

All of these programs aren't really PUPs because they may fully mean well, unlike your Weather apps and toolbars and the like that really are PUPs thanks to their "alternate" functionality, but regardless they are either a pointless waste, a false sense of security or functionality, or worse they could be pointless realtime apps that slow your system down and for no viable reason. Users should be informed of this, and potential side effects of these apps, and allowed the choice to continue using them or not.

Further, it could do the same for firewalls, perhaps with an advisory on why you can't connect to any internet site may be that the NIS firewall can sometimes go foobar after a malware infestation, despite it being removed and you triple checking the NIS config; (of course I've seen this issue with the bulky and slow McAfee and ZoneAlarm firewalls too) then a recommendation on a more comprehensive firewall that is much lighter on the system resources like Sygate, (doh, recently purchased by Symantec... hmm...) assuming that the client doesn't just want to stick with the XPSP2 outbound only firewall... it could even be suggested that an external firewall be purchased just to have all of the options laid out, informing them of the problems with software firewalls at the system level, putting the information in the hands of the consumer, not keeping blinding them from that information.

Maybe take it one step further and suggest that a 3rd party "Security Center" application may not be the best option, especially if you are no longer going to use that company's AV/Firewall products!

Problem is program installers like NIS bully the customer into using their security center and firewall and all that without really informing the customer of what is being done, and what is being replaced. They are all PUPs if you ask me, but Symantec definitely is the leader of the PUPs.

How about that new start page fix that hijacks your start page to a symantec site, then brags on how your start page must have been hijacked by malware (probably because it's not the one listed in the iesetup.inf or wherever) and asks you if you want to lock it on symantec! there's no "P" in the "UPs" there. that's just wrong! F U Symantec! Yeah, they mean well, but they go about everything all wrong.

Moving on...............

The REAL problem for Spybot is recommending 3rd party software, yet it MUST be done if you plan on telling users of the pitfalls of their current software. I try to avoid that as a technician, because:

A. you never know when you will offend someone because they've used that particular product for many years without issue or noticing how much better something decent is, and

2. the product(s) you do recommend may fail them at some point, as we all know happens across the board and more often than not, it has little to do with the product itself and more to do with a new threat, discovered exploit, or it's usually just user negligence or misinformation.

In either case, you may loose a user and supporter of your product because of it. Then you become a second rate app in the minds of many.

Anything more blatant like just detecting Symantec as a true PUP and you've sunken to Symantec's level, then you become a second rate app in the minds of many.

Perhaps worse, by "detecting" Symantec on a system in a nice way, while at the same time not recommending a good replacement application, you appear to be either careless with your users' systems/privacy/security, or you appear to be just another fraud pretending you know what you're doing; then you become that same second rate app in the minds of many.

Well, that's just my 2 U.S. cents. I'm not an optimist, that's for sure, but I believe reputations are difficult to maintain especially when you are the righteous. so take it for what you will...

EDIT: I forgot to mention I voted for "None of the above" ... really as I see it the only option is to inform the Symantec consumer of the situation (AND of the side effects of running Symantec products.) In this case, the truth shall set you free!

I still like the idea of the separate section for well-meaning PUPs and/or "how to improve your computer's speed and/or security" which could feature Symantec products (AMONGST OTHERS...)

...but detection and removal is out of the question, as is detection of harmless files with any option of removal because you may wake people up to your app being dishonest and second rate; it would only work if you detected Symantec and then gave the information to the consumer. Also legal action since it'll never stand against a company like Symantec on your budget (whatever that may be.)

JUST PLZ make sure to add a /nosymatecwarn parameter or .INI setting so it doesn't interfere with my automated scanning/removal scripts for Spybot!

[James White]

i had norton system works and notorn internet security and i didnt keep either long system works was great but took up to many computer resources and internet security right after i installed it i got a virus infection i had a test done to see if my system was safe and it came up that the firewall didnt have much security i dont know how norton gets such a high raiting it really isnt that great

[pigkeeper]

In 90 minutes I went from positive to very negative feelings towards Norton and Symantec. I've been dealing with a major infection of several pieces of malware. Spybot has been invaluable in dealing with this, but I've been having persistant problems. New malware kept popping up on my system. I wanted to get a two-way firewall so that the junk on my system wouldn't communicate with the outside. I was afraid that it kept ordering new malware and could send personal information to bad people.

A company was recommended to me, but they were acquired by Symantec. What the hell, I thought, I'll just bite the bullet and get it. It has a double firewall.

I had just purchased Norton 360, but hadn't installed it, when I found this thread. Oh. My. God. No way am I giving up Spybot, and it sounds like there are other reasons NOT to use Symantec, not the least of which is that they are acting like big evil corporate pigs towards you guys.

Anyway, I filled out the form to get a return. They sent me a link to a Letter of Destruction, guaranteeing that I would kill the product I received, on pain of up to $100,000 in civil liability. Fine. I'm happy to delete it.

However, I pressed "Accept" and some extra buttons appeared. Weird stuff like "search" or something. It looked like a kindergartener had written the program.

The accept and decline buttons remained. I hit the accept button a second time. It disappeared.

I reloaded the form. Several times. It now ONLY has a DECLINE button. I guess it's possible that my accept went through. There's no evidence that it did.

I hope they answered my email, otherwise I'm gonna have to stop payment with my credit card. I guess.

I don't think I've ever had my opinion of a service provider have such a sharp reversal.