Re: FYI: Security Problems Plague XP SP2 via Symantec/McAfee

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: R. McCarty (PcEngWork-NoSpam__at_mindspring.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:50:35 GMT

 Because eTrust & your Firewall are complimentary programs, from
the same company what happened isn't a violation of Firewall rules.
It just simply, automatically added the rules for both it's operation &
maintenance Apps/Services.
 eTrust is lean & efficient. At best it only has 2-3 active processes as
opposed to Symantec/McAfee's 7-9+. It just made those "Rule"
changes to ensure it works and doesn't end up being blocked by a
user's incorrect rule decisions.

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:uhIyyBNHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OPB6OLqGFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
>> I just checked my machine and NAV 2002 has 3 processes running...
>>
>> 00:00:02 C:\Program Files\Common Files\Symantec Shared\Security
>> Center\SymWSC.exe
>> 00:00:01 C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus\navapsvc.exe
>> 00:00:07 C:\PROGRA~1\NORTON~2\navapw32.exe
>
> Your post of processes jog'd my memory of when I last tested it, I went
> back
> and checked and then realized my previous post was inaccurate, but only
> when
> it came to me throwing v2002 into my previous doom assessment of SAV 2003,
> 2004, 2005 - if I could edit my posts I would; but yes v2002 like v2001 is
> much different & less intrusive on every level - unlike the later
> versions.
>
> I also thought I'd give eTrust another quick spin because of the praise it
> has been given in this thread, but it didn't take me long to see and
> remember
> why I felt the way I did before when I tested it, and still do - that if
> you
> gave it to me free I would not use it ..except of course to test it.
>
> Yes I will say it has a nice simple GUI I really liked, but it ends there.
> I didn't even finish the install when I almost fell off my chair to see my
> computer freely engaged connected online downloading & doing whatever
> ..I quickly saw why - it had added itself without asking me to my
> firewalls
> trusted zone with ..8 ..EIGHT processes as it connected online doing
> whatever ...the point is - it should of asked me first! ...just plain
> rude!
> Change the access permissions only to notice at every turn it is
> constantly
> prompting for online connections for this or that.
> To me it violates the very premise of firewall edict and manners.
> ..no thanks, notta.
> ..this screenshot below or attached, of what it did, says it all:
>
>
>
>
>> With my machine running for 13 hours the processes have only uses the
>> above listed amount of CPU time (as seen with TaskInfo 2003 task manager
>> program. This is with me running Outlook and processing about 40 pieces
>> of mail, browsing to 30-40 web sites, using Pocket PC sync software, and
>> running a few games. It doesn't look like a CPU hog to me. By the way,
>> my PC is an AMD Athlon 2500 with 512 Mb of RAM and an WD 80 Gb HD with
>> 8Mb
>> cache (not the fastest machine, but no slouch either).
>>
>> Norton System Security, Norton Utilities, etc. are another thing
>> altogether. These programs eat up CPU, memory, and disk space making any
>> PC sluggish. I do have Norton Utilities 2002 installed but all the
>> automated stuff is turned off (Norton System Doctor, Norton's recycle
>> bin,
>> etc.). I only use a few of the tools like unerase and Speedisk to defrag
>> floppies and memory cards (none of the other defrag tools will do
>> floppies
>> or memory cards and that includes Diskeeper which I have or Perfect Disk
>> which I tried).
>>
>> Please provide some details on what makes NAV 2002 so bad. So far, I've
>> not got any infections in over 10 years of use of various NAV version,
>> and
>> none since NAV 2002 came out. I have to say the older version of the
>> Virus update tool (LiveUpdate) were unreliable at best. They kept
>> failing
>> to update for no apparent reason, but the latest version (2.6) has been
>> perfect.
>>
>> Symantec has definitely lost their reputation in the past 5 years or so.
>> The "innovations" appear more like "bait" and "fluff" instead of useable
>> features. This is the main reason I stopped buying their software since
>> 2002. Norton Utilities stopped improving after they came up with Norton
>> System Doctor and Norton Recycle bin. Both of these "features" caused
>> more problems than they fixed.
>>
>>
>> "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
>> news:%23liTRWWGFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I'm Back!!! You tell them Gary. I personally do not like Avast! because
>> of
>> its constant scanning and annoying interface. I use AntiVir on 98SE and
>> it
>> is made in Germany. AVG is fine and Gary is absolutely correct on Norton
>> (now Symantec) products as well as McAfee products. I only use GoBack
>> for
>> my
>> 98SE and although it is made by Symantec it was created by Roxio and only
>> recently (a few years I think) bought by Symantec. Symantec did a few
>> enhancements to GoBack and some cluttering up of the user's registry
>> which
>> is
>> in all their products. I accept the more clogged registry for the
>> protection
>> of System Restore that GoBack (latest version) provides a user's PC.
>> Also,
>> with my beta-testing of Microsoft products I need to make sure my PC is
>> safe
>> as well as having the burned cd's, jumpdrive with backups (256 mb) on my
>> keychain and assorted 3.5 floppies that I need to consolite to a cd some
>> day
>> I think I am pretty safe. I now have a Plextor DVD burner -- model
>> number
>> PX-708A that I bought a while back and some day I will consolidate but
>> time
>> is too valuable for that now. (I saw Ground Zero and let the death of my
>> brother's friend go and the death of my maintenace man's nephew go and I
>> give
>> all the glory to God who protects me and gives me strength to live
>> another
>> day! GodSpeed Everyone!)
>>
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:uwx$NUdFFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>: 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" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> : news:uJqpSDcFFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> : >
> : > "Charles C. Drew" <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : > news:uMJck6SFFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> : >
> : > 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
>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Symantec Common Client update prevents OE retrieving mail
    ... I turned email scanning back on and tried sending and receiving in OE. ... access them after disabling Norton Personal Firewall. ... I followed the instructions for "To restore the default General and Trojan Horse firewall rules." ... I have version 2005 and downloaded ISRIRstr.exe This is on the Symantec web page. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • Re: Windows Security Center Shows non exisitng Symantec firewall
    ... After several hours of chatroom discussion with Symantec suport people, ... I still see the same info about Norton Internet Security ... being ON in the firewall section if I turn off Windows firewall. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Virus Protection Problem?
    ... Symantec can still be an acceptable choice. ... locking step with Norton, investigate other vendors. ... is that I still cannot use and recommend McAfee. ... That's where Norton Firewall is a better choice. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: How can I stop the two alerts I get when I check email in outlook
    ... Ironically the only alerts I get from ... > Norton Personal firewall 2003 is that Symantec user session is ... > In firewall I have the following. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Norton AV removal before install of XP upgrade
    ... I know that I must remove Norton AV from my ME OS before ... upgrade to XP. ... Computer Associates' eTrust EZ AV & EZ Firewall? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)